...of getting to space by making incremental improvements in technology (and substantial cost reductions through cutting bureaucracy).
Let NASA do the high risk/high return investments in fundamentally new technologies (aerospike engines, composite fuel tanks, hypersonic ramjets hell even laser beamed launchers or space elevators!). That, in a nutshell, is Obama's plan isn't it? To me, just a space enthusiast, it sounds good if not ideal. ("ideal" would have been to not have invaded Iraq and instead, COLONIZED Mars. They cost about the same.).
I just don't want to someday have American astronauts make their first landing on Mars and have to order Chinese food from the restaurant there. (It's okay, they can have the Moon).
I seem to remember (Mr. Google wasn't much help) an Arthur C. Clarke story where a future world government, scarred by a devastating asteroid impact, detonates a very powerful (Gigaton?) nuclear explosive on the other side of earth's orbit (so that the sun blocks it). This is so that an extremely bright "pulse" is created that very briefly illuminates every single object in the Solar System (except the earth) which makes their detection easy by prepared astronomers.
A few decades later, a signal is detected from aliens. When their position is calculated, it turns out it is precisely twice the distance in light years as the time since the explosion. The implication of course is that the aliens were alerted to our presence from the blast, realized it wasn't natural, and sent a greeting to us. Sorry don't remember what happened in the book after that.
By the way, you might be interested in my earlier post (just a few posts above; "Look for a short lived temporal phenomenon"). Here, since even atom bombs are pretty weak at interstellar distances, I suggest tagging along rare, super powerful COSMIC events (supernovae in your own galaxy, colliding black holes, etc.). If during or right after the detection of one of these events, you immediately transmit a signal in the opposite direction you will be likely to be "seen" by any astronomers downstream of you (provided you use a part of the spectrum that isn't overwhelmed by the event). Likewise when WE see an event, we should be paying attention not only to the event but the region of the sky immediately adjacent as someone might be trying to tag along with it!
Sorry, at $20 million (more now I think) per passenger to orbit, I don't think Soyuz capsules are THAT cheap. We really need one of the technologies discussed before to lower costs a factor of ten (ideally a factor of a hundred).
I still think just getting to orbit cheaply is THE main hurdle. Once you're there (and again, if getting there is cheap enough so you don't have to sweat every last ounce/gram), there are lots of things you can try. Like VASIMIR or magnetic "bubbles" being pushed by the solar wind (not the same thing as a solar sail) or nuclear thermal. If getting to orbit was cheap enough so you could build life support with 2x (or more) redundancy or just bring up SCUBA tanks maybe it would make designing/building space craft easier. Cheap orbital access? Okay then we can protect ourselves against cosmic rays by shielding our spaceships with WATER (and give the astronauts a really fun zero-g pool to use on the trip).
Think how much easier space travel would be if the costs were something like that to resupply our base in Antarctica. I mean they have ATMs and (I think) a McDonalds! (Okay I'm dreaming now, maybe that won't come about until we had a space elevator).
A friend of mine who is much smarter than me (I know, I know, that doesn't mean much) INSISTS that they are here now. However since he works at a very high level in a field which requires him to tell the state department 3 months in advance before he is allowed to leave the country, I pay attention to what he says in technical matters at least.
Like the dog in "Men In Black" said: "Silly Humans, why do you always think something powerful has to be big?" (or something like that, no thanks to you Mr. Google!); perhaps Aliens or rather their NANO sized machine emissaries reached Earth a long long time ago (in keeping with the Fermi Paradox) and have basically infested the entire solar system, waiting...
Now as we start dabbling with nano-technologies and begin to have the capability of actually seeing them with our new atomic-force microscopes, they have to make a decision. Do they allow themselves to be discovered? I assume they could either do this passively like letting us see some of their machinery scuttle about amongst the atoms or they might as well come out and say "We're Here!". (Kinda like "Horton hears a Who")
Or, will they 1) leave the planet and keep withdrawing just beyond the range of our increasingly sophisticated probes? 2) maybe they will actively try to remain hidden, should be easy (for awhile) to cause subtle "problems" in our equipment from finding them. Experiments will mysteriously (or not depending on how clever they are) not work and our own attempts to create nano-machines will forever be thwarted.
Or maybe they'll decide, time's up, this species is not worth keeping; let's clean the planet and start over with another (bears?).
Next time there is a REALLY unusual cosmic event (supernova within one's own galaxy, collision of two black holes), cast your net a little wider and train your telescopes on a region of the sky surrounding the event. Any advanced civilization will know that lots of other astronomers will be pointing their telescopes in their general direction and, if they choose to make their presence known, will send signals in a direction opposite (to them) of the event. There should be a better chance for them to be noticed.
As for the Fermi paradox, another solution is that THEY ARE ALREADY HERE, ALL AROUND US, in the form of nano-machines. Very soon, as our technology and becomes capable of discovering them, they will have to leave or announce themselves. Or they will decide that we did not pass the test and clear off the planet for the next candidate.
Thanks for that great explanation. Do you think that this is the reason why military subs don't go deep, because otherwise they would have to use an unwieldy oil bladder based bouyancy control system? I assume that if they did use such a system, when they flooded the ballast tanks in a crash dive a lot of oil would have to be "dumped" overboard; expensive, not easily replenished and leaves a big oil slick that would reveal your location (as opposed to a lot of quickly dispersing bubbles like in the movies).
So because of that, even though they can have titanium hulls and whatnot, military subs can't go below a couple of thousand meters. Regardless of their "crush depth" there must be a point of no return. What do you think?
Of course it's most likely there was a (natural) accident. But if another is sent down and it mysteriously "disappears" in the same spot... let the conspiracy theories fly!
I didn't say that the powers that be would try to recover their plutonium, just that they would want to prevent some other party from picking it and other items of interest from the sea floor. Like (in the case of a sunken nuclear sub) fully intact nuclear warheads/missiles with guidance mechanisms, code books, various nuclear attack plans. I would think that these items could be of enormous strategic utility.
While it is nice that this will give the Air Force a means of getting an expensive payload up into orbit and back down again quickly and safely (like onto a runway as opposed to a parachute landing on the ground or at sea) it really doesn't help the overall problem of making access to LEO significantly cheaper. Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).
Now that the Obama administration has (hopefully) set us on the right course by FIRST developing the technologies to get us into space, THEN trying to get somewhere, now maybe would be a time to revisit some abandoned ideas. Like the X-34 (I think it was called "Venture Star") using a deltoid lifting body with an aerospike engine it promised to make SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) possible. Or the "Delta Clipper" a vertical takeoff and vertical landing rocket, I think they got to 1/4 scale.
While I don't know if the "Delta Clipper" was fatally flawed (I think one of its landing struts collapsed), I heard that the problem with the "Venture Star" was they simply couldn't make the (then) state of the art composite fuel tanks work. So has material science improved enough to make it feasible? Or do we have to wait until "magic" carbon nano-tubes can make eggshells seem like horribly efficient containers?
An Air Force General once said: "A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible." That's why the aerospike engine had such promise because it automatically adapted to the changing surrounding air pressure to keep the "nozzle" shape efficient. That (with new and improved) fuel tanks, just might make SSTO possible which, aside from space elevators or air breathing hypersonic space planes, is the only way we'll REALLY bring down the cost of getting into orbit.
I understand that in the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, when the scientists meets the aliens he asks them a question:
Scientist: Do you believe in God?
Aliens: Yes.
(Astonished) Scientist: Really?! Why?
Aliens: We have proof.
Scientist: Proof?!!!
Alien: Yes, when we decoded Pi to (a very large number) we found a Message...
Of course this idea was exploited in a different way by the movie "Pi". (Sorry didn't see it either.). In any case, if Pi is truly Random (it is isn't it?) won't every possible message occur? Just like those monkeys with their typewriters (if you don't know what a typewriter is look it up).
With the increasing capability of these things being able to explore more and more of the ocean's depths, they might be stumbling upon things certain people/governments don't want them too.
How 'bout the wreck of the Thresher (U.S. Nuclear powered submarine), or the Soviet nuclear sub that the Glomar Challenger tried to bring up (under cover as a geo-physics expedition run by Howard Hughes). I believe the Soviet sub had nuclear weapons on board (either as torpedos or missiles, maybe mines).
I think there may be a few nukes that were accidentally lost (there was a B-52 that dropped four of them off of the coast of Spain I think). The respective governments "claimed" to have recovered them. There's also tons of wadiowactive waste (sorry just saw Chekov in Star Trek) that Russia has dumped into the oceans; might make for a good "dirty" bomb.
My favorite is the jettisoned lunar module that the Apollo 13 crew used as a lifeboat to get them back to earth. One of its science experiments used plutonium. Shortly before re-entry it was released so that it would crash into the ocean in the Mariana's Trench. (I suppose the plutonium container was designed to survive re-entry amongst other things in case of a catastrophic accident during launch). Well now the Japanese have a R.O.V. capable of diving even there, the deepest place on the planet.
So these are just the things we know about. Maybe there was something poor ABE ran into that was someone didn't want uncovered. To keep their secrets safe would it be easy to put a mine that would be triggered by the rover's bright lights or sonar pings? Might be a lot cheaper than trying to haul up say an entire nuclear sub.
As the poster of the parent I must ask: What happens if they win? Are they sure they will lose? (It is obvious IANAL). Can attorneys put up a vigorous defense but still count on losing?
The previous poster has a point that need responding to: I am (very) surprised that my (beloved) Obama administration would pursue this and don't understand the doublethink behind this strategy. Or is there some sort of compelling reason (for national security?). But I don't think that doing this for say bureaucratic efficiency would justify the loss of talent such a move would threaten.
Just for your reading enjoyment, here's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08, @11:44AM (http://slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad?art_pos=7).
Guess the slashdot editors don't like my writing style.;)
Okay, if there was ever a reason to shut down, dismantle and start NASA over it is this. The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive (to me at least) personal background checks (sex lives, medical records) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors. No top secret work is done there and (I suppose) nothing military or even directly industry related. (In fact I thought the work of NASA was "For All Mankind".) Anyway, 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.
While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check, I don't think these guys fit into the "all" category. It IS rocket science and I'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare. I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before, what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.
So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers? More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war). As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.
Look, if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace, let the police deal with it. Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms! (drug dens?).
Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "rescue". I'm not sure that the U.S. motives for freeing SOUTH Korea (remember they gave up half the country to appease the Soviets) were done with the purest of intentions. Maybe it was a bit of (unintended?) racism/ethnocentrism but for a long time American actions in Asia were more for stopping communism than promoting freedom and democracy.
On the other hand, I DO think that, at times, American motives were pretty pure. The Marshall plan quickly comes to mind and I'm sure a historian can make a case for many smaller actions (I'm not one). Of course, a cynic could say that these were done ONLY because of American long-term self-interest but, in that case, isn't that the case for all altruistic acts?
Now, in the 21st century, I EXPECT America to act in a fashion more befitting if not reaching its lofty ideals. (I'm hoping the Bush administration was an aberration; a throwback to more primitive times).
Yeah, but remember 1) the absolutely gigantic amounts of MONEY the chinese will have at that point 2) the impressive military they will have accumulated (which will make everyone take them seriously) 3) their 1.5 Billion people who will each want to have a nice house with a white picket fence 4) their 100+ Million surplus of males in the prime of their lives (which will make them want to start wars, tame wilderness or maybe conquer space!).
Match that with 1) declining Russian populations 2) declining Russian male lifespans (because of Vodka!) 3) increasing ratio of women to men (makes them less militaristic). Add to that --- Siberia is just next door! (Canada should be happy that the American population won't explode).
So they have a few extra million square miles of unused wilderness. The chinese could buy every one of them a nice Dacha or keep them flooded with cheap consumer goods forever in exchange for what they aren't using. Otherwise they could be looking nervously over their shoulder for the entire 21st century. While nobody should invade Russia during the winter (except the Finns), it is equally true that you should never fight a land war in Asia.
Anyway, of course I'm guessing, by this same reasoning, Japan (after losing a war and bound by a pacifist constitution) should have used its billions it made selling us Sonys and Toyotas (remember then?) and peacefully (since it couldn't fight) bought lots of real-estate in Australia and Hawaii... oh wait a second.
I didn't say I WANTED it to happen rather that it MIGHT/would. I believe in the power of numbers and demographics (people turned into numbers) and I see these huge trends happening in the world and think wow, there's a lot of socio-economic pressure there that might "fester like a sore and then run" or "does it explode?".
On the other hand, making these kinds of predictions is fun, and might lead to some good investment choices.
To answer the parent post: Yes, China's population WILL decline but it is still coasting upwards (all the people who were born before the "1 child" policy have yet to die). It is going to peak at about 1.5 billion around 2020 (and India's population will go soaring by it. Poor India). I did a little population research using (our friend) Mr. Google, if you doubt me it's your turn.
Next, you are right, China will *then* rapidly age unless they remove/have removed the "1 child" policy. Of course the technocrats who run China seem very competent for these kind of social planning issues (I think Time called them "the Harvard Alumni Association with an Army"), will have done so or figured out a way of keeping the population from a catastrophic decline (how about cloning? how about cloning women to make up for the gender imbalance?). Of course, even if the ethnic Chinese population did "crash", it would probably be a long long time before they become a "minority within their own country" like whites will be become in the U.S. (2050?).
Finally, please Google "chinese Tibet incentives" and you will see many articles (of unknown quality) describing the various incentives offered to ethnic Chinese who migrate to Tibet. From the gist of them it appears as if many millions (tens of millions?) have taken the government up on the offer(s). Also there are the "development" projects that, while presumably raising the Tibetan standard of (material) living, have made it much easier for ethnic Chinese to move into and about Tibet (airports/highways/railroads). I'm thinking of taking the China-Tibet railway myself!
Anyway, if you want to hear just one person's view on what has happened, just read the comment below by Apparition-X (617975).
To recap: 1) China's population will increase and peak about 1.5B around 2020 before declining. (So by your argument there is near-term large population GROWTH in addition to the already high population density). 2) In addition, the Chinese government has been actively promoting the large scale emigration of ethnic Chinese into Tibet. 3) It has been quite "successful" 4) Some people think it has been very devastating to the Tibetan people and culture.
People who follow my many rantings, I mean posts on Slashdot will not be surprised to know I am very happy that this seems to be a win-win scenario for reducing the amount of methane getting into the atmosphere, something I've been VERY concerned about (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1572576&cid=31371302&art_pos=7).
Unfortunately I am afraid that this may be another excuse for China to subjugate the Tibetan people. While Chinese apologists may claim they are lifting them out of feudal poverty, I would think that is a choice that the Tibetan people should make for themselves. (Even though Americans and Europeans used "the White Man's burden" as an excuse for their colonial actions, that didn't make them right). The Dalai Lama has claimed many times that he only wants CULTURAL autonomy for Tibet, unfortunately it appears as if this is one thing the Chinese don't want; they want to make it another "Han" province. So they claim, the Dalai Lama really wants full independence despite the fact he has never advocated that and has, in fact, welcomed Chinese control over and development of Tibet.
Being from Korea, a country that narrowly escaped having it's own cultural identity from being stamped out by colonial Japan makes me sensitive to Tibet's plight. My parent's were forced to learn Japanese, have Japanese names and were forbidden to learn Korean or Korean customs. (This is in addition to many documented atrocities like "sex slaves".). For almost fifty years the Japanese occupied Korea, only their defeat in WWII prevented them from succeeding in this cultural genocide. (I'm sure the Japanese said they were "civilizing" Korea). Unfortunately I doubt the U.S. or anyone else is going to come to Tibet's rescue; well at least if the Chinese are going to ravage Tibet, they might help save the environment. So let us acknowledge and shed a tear for Tibet's sacrifice for all mankind.
While we're on the subject of China, here's an (outlandish) prediction. In twenty years they will have become the most powerful country in the world; they should just be passing the GDP of the U.S. and will have a population of about 1.5 billion (India will be the same size but much poorer). In the meantime, Russia's population should have FALLEN to less than a tenth of China's or about 125 million (or about the same number of excess males in China!). So, what about the Chinese making Russia a "deal", we'll buy eastern Siberia from you or, if you refuse our entirely reasonable price we'll just take it with our vastly more powerful military. Sure we might have a little nasty nuclear war but we'll survive (especially if we've developed effective missile defenses) and believe me you won't survive OUR attack. Remember, we have lots of cannon fodder, I mean conscripts who we can make die, I mean are willing to die for our country!
Now eastern Siberia might not sound like much but, in twenty years with global warming, it could be a pretty "hot" property (sorry). With it's vast land area right next door to China proper and huge amounts of untapped natural resources it'll be just the thing they want. If they've figured out how to harvest methane from the thawing tundra for energy generation well, more "power" to them (sorry!).
[On the other hand, if China and Russia went to war, (or were "tricked" into it by some other meddling superpower) it would QUICKLY solve the population problem as well as probably rid the earth of some excess heat due to Nuclear Winter!]
Would there be a (very) thin layer of air between the boat and the water? Would there be a reduction in friction akin to the thin layer of water created when a skater's skates press down on the ice?
Or would boats go faster because no barnacles or mussels could become fastened on the hull of a boat? (I've heard that this used to be combatted with very toxic copper based compounds, no idea what they use now). If these microscopic hairs that were lifted from spiders work really well in preventing "fouling", why haven't whales evolved the same?
Despite the degrading tone in your message (morals?) you do have a point regarding pay scales. That brings me to another part of my life.
My parents were immigrants who came to America with literally "a suitcase and $400" (my father's words). So you know the typical immigrant story, work hard, save moneyl and, above all, MOVE TO THE BEST SCHOOL district you can possibly afford. (What, you think I went to private school all my life?). Then, just before college send your kid to a good prep school.
This entailed so much hardship and sacrifice that I can't see myself (or the typical American) doing it. So instead of moving to send our kids to a better school, we've got to improve the ones we've got. While more money would help I don't think that's the whole answer; consider the Asian countries: they pay their teachers a tiny fraction of what we do but their kids blow away ours on many important measures.
Some of my greatest teachers I had were at a private school I attended (I know, I know "liberal elite" and so on).
One of them changed my life by getting me interested in computers, another nourished my creative side in architecture.
Did these teachers have to go through a huge bureaucracy? Did they have to get endless "certifications"? No, they merely had to demonstrate that they were GREAT (probably to a small board of their peers or parents).
I can draw a direct line from the interest those teachers sparked in me to the computer graphics company I founded (and later ended up employing quite a few people at). I can't imagine what would have happened if I had gone to a "regular" school.
Get rid of the bureaucracy, cut the unions' power to the bare minimum needed to protect teachers' rights and give parents the right to choose their school. Ultimately there is no greater issue that will determine the success or failure of the "American Experiment". Oh, and teach real science not this creationist/climate change denialist crap.
Or how about using the subtitle tracks that are in a different language and reverse translating them to provide additional clues as to what the speaker might have been saying? It might help a little.
I'm sure they've thought about this, but is the atmosphere really dense enough to push something carrying any sort of payload around? I think atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of earth's whereas gravity is still 1/2 that of earth's. Will it have a "pump" for slow leaks? Self sealing against punctures?
On the other hand, if it really is light enough and the "fabric" is tough and heat resistant, maybe it can deorbit WITHOUT using a heat shield. Now that would really save a LOT of weight and might make the whole idea worthwhile. I seem to remember there were once emergency escape plans for astronauts that essentially had them envelope themselves in a (very) large foam shield. If you make it light and fluffy enough it might "float" down from space. (Or glide down in the case of the paper(!) airplane that a japanese astronaut at the ISS flew back to earth).
Slashdot Mirror
...of getting to space by making incremental improvements in technology (and substantial cost reductions through cutting bureaucracy).
Let NASA do the high risk/high return investments in fundamentally new technologies (aerospike engines, composite fuel tanks, hypersonic ramjets hell even laser beamed launchers or space elevators!). That, in a nutshell, is Obama's plan isn't it? To me, just a space enthusiast, it sounds good if not ideal. ("ideal" would have been to not have invaded Iraq and instead, COLONIZED Mars. They cost about the same.).
I just don't want to someday have American astronauts make their first landing on Mars and have to order Chinese food from the restaurant there. (It's okay, they can have the Moon).
I seem to remember (Mr. Google wasn't much help) an Arthur C. Clarke story where a future world government, scarred by a devastating asteroid impact, detonates a very powerful (Gigaton?) nuclear explosive on the other side of earth's orbit (so that the sun blocks it). This is so that an extremely bright "pulse" is created that very briefly illuminates every single object in the Solar System (except the earth) which makes their detection easy by prepared astronomers.
A few decades later, a signal is detected from aliens. When their position is calculated, it turns out it is precisely twice the distance in light years as the time since the explosion. The implication of course is that the aliens were alerted to our presence from the blast, realized it wasn't natural, and sent a greeting to us. Sorry don't remember what happened in the book after that.
By the way, you might be interested in my earlier post (just a few posts above; "Look for a short lived temporal phenomenon"). Here, since even atom bombs are pretty weak at interstellar distances, I suggest tagging along rare, super powerful COSMIC events (supernovae in your own galaxy, colliding black holes, etc.). If during or right after the detection of one of these events, you immediately transmit a signal in the opposite direction you will be likely to be "seen" by any astronomers downstream of you (provided you use a part of the spectrum that isn't overwhelmed by the event). Likewise when WE see an event, we should be paying attention not only to the event but the region of the sky immediately adjacent as someone might be trying to tag along with it!
Sorry, at $20 million (more now I think) per passenger to orbit, I don't think Soyuz capsules are THAT cheap. We really need one of the technologies discussed before to lower costs a factor of ten (ideally a factor of a hundred).
I still think just getting to orbit cheaply is THE main hurdle. Once you're there (and again, if getting there is cheap enough so you don't have to sweat every last ounce/gram), there are lots of things you can try. Like VASIMIR or magnetic "bubbles" being pushed by the solar wind (not the same thing as a solar sail) or nuclear thermal. If getting to orbit was cheap enough so you could build life support with 2x (or more) redundancy or just bring up SCUBA tanks maybe it would make designing/building space craft easier. Cheap orbital access? Okay then we can protect ourselves against cosmic rays by shielding our spaceships with WATER (and give the astronauts a really fun zero-g pool to use on the trip).
Think how much easier space travel would be if the costs were something like that to resupply our base in Antarctica. I mean they have ATMs and (I think) a McDonalds! (Okay I'm dreaming now, maybe that won't come about until we had a space elevator).
A friend of mine who is much smarter than me (I know, I know, that doesn't mean much) INSISTS that they are here now. However since he works at a very high level in a field which requires him to tell the state department 3 months in advance before he is allowed to leave the country, I pay attention to what he says in technical matters at least.
Like the dog in "Men In Black" said: "Silly Humans, why do you always think something powerful has to be big?" (or something like that, no thanks to you Mr. Google!); perhaps Aliens or rather their NANO sized machine emissaries reached Earth a long long time ago (in keeping with the Fermi Paradox) and have basically infested the entire solar system, waiting...
Now as we start dabbling with nano-technologies and begin to have the capability of actually seeing them with our new atomic-force microscopes, they have to make a decision. Do they allow themselves to be discovered? I assume they could either do this passively like letting us see some of their machinery scuttle about amongst the atoms or they might as well come out and say "We're Here!". (Kinda like "Horton hears a Who")
Or, will they 1) leave the planet and keep withdrawing just beyond the range of our increasingly sophisticated probes? 2) maybe they will actively try to remain hidden, should be easy (for awhile) to cause subtle "problems" in our equipment from finding them. Experiments will mysteriously (or not depending on how clever they are) not work and our own attempts to create nano-machines will forever be thwarted.
Or maybe they'll decide, time's up, this species is not worth keeping; let's clean the planet and start over with another (bears?).
One way or another maybe we'll find out soon!
Next time there is a REALLY unusual cosmic event (supernova within one's own galaxy, collision of two black holes), cast your net a little wider and train your telescopes on a region of the sky surrounding the event. Any advanced civilization will know that lots of other astronomers will be pointing their telescopes in their general direction and, if they choose to make their presence known, will send signals in a direction opposite (to them) of the event. There should be a better chance for them to be noticed.
As for the Fermi paradox, another solution is that THEY ARE ALREADY HERE, ALL AROUND US, in the form of nano-machines. Very soon, as our technology and becomes capable of discovering them, they will have to leave or announce themselves. Or they will decide that we did not pass the test and clear off the planet for the next candidate.
Thanks for that great explanation. Do you think that this is the reason why military subs don't go deep, because otherwise they would have to use an unwieldy oil bladder based bouyancy control system? I assume that if they did use such a system, when they flooded the ballast tanks in a crash dive a lot of oil would have to be "dumped" overboard; expensive, not easily replenished and leaves a big oil slick that would reveal your location (as opposed to a lot of quickly dispersing bubbles like in the movies).
So because of that, even though they can have titanium hulls and whatnot, military subs can't go below a couple of thousand meters. Regardless of their "crush depth" there must be a point of no return. What do you think?
Of course it's most likely there was a (natural) accident. But if another is sent down and it mysteriously "disappears" in the same spot... let the conspiracy theories fly!
I didn't say that the powers that be would try to recover their plutonium, just that they would want to prevent some other party from picking it and other items of interest from the sea floor. Like (in the case of a sunken nuclear sub) fully intact nuclear warheads/missiles with guidance mechanisms, code books, various nuclear attack plans. I would think that these items could be of enormous strategic utility.
Ok, you're right, I wasn't using the right definition of random. Thanks for telling me about "normal" numbers!
While it is nice that this will give the Air Force a means of getting an expensive payload up into orbit and back down again quickly and safely (like onto a runway as opposed to a parachute landing on the ground or at sea) it really doesn't help the overall problem of making access to LEO significantly cheaper. Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).
Now that the Obama administration has (hopefully) set us on the right course by FIRST developing the technologies to get us into space, THEN trying to get somewhere, now maybe would be a time to revisit some abandoned ideas. Like the X-34 (I think it was called "Venture Star") using a deltoid lifting body with an aerospike engine it promised to make SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) possible. Or the "Delta Clipper" a vertical takeoff and vertical landing rocket, I think they got to 1/4 scale.
While I don't know if the "Delta Clipper" was fatally flawed (I think one of its landing struts collapsed), I heard that the problem with the "Venture Star" was they simply couldn't make the (then) state of the art composite fuel tanks work. So has material science improved enough to make it feasible? Or do we have to wait until "magic" carbon nano-tubes can make eggshells seem like horribly efficient containers?
An Air Force General once said: "A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible." That's why the aerospike engine had such promise because it automatically adapted to the changing surrounding air pressure to keep the "nozzle" shape efficient. That (with new and improved) fuel tanks, just might make SSTO possible which, aside from space elevators or air breathing hypersonic space planes, is the only way we'll REALLY bring down the cost of getting into orbit.
I understand that in the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, when the scientists meets the aliens he asks them a question:
Scientist: Do you believe in God?
Aliens: Yes.
(Astonished) Scientist: Really?! Why?
Aliens: We have proof.
Scientist: Proof?!!!
Alien: Yes, when we decoded Pi to (a very large number) we found a Message...
Of course this idea was exploited in a different way by the movie "Pi". (Sorry didn't see it either.). In any case, if Pi is truly Random (it is isn't it?) won't every possible message occur? Just like those monkeys with their typewriters (if you don't know what a typewriter is look it up).
With the increasing capability of these things being able to explore more and more of the ocean's depths, they might be stumbling upon things certain people/governments don't want them too.
How 'bout the wreck of the Thresher (U.S. Nuclear powered submarine), or the Soviet nuclear sub that the Glomar Challenger tried to bring up (under cover as a geo-physics expedition run by Howard Hughes). I believe the Soviet sub had nuclear weapons on board (either as torpedos or missiles, maybe mines).
I think there may be a few nukes that were accidentally lost (there was a B-52 that dropped four of them off of the coast of Spain I think). The respective governments "claimed" to have recovered them. There's also tons of wadiowactive waste (sorry just saw Chekov in Star Trek) that Russia has dumped into the oceans; might make for a good "dirty" bomb.
My favorite is the jettisoned lunar module that the Apollo 13 crew used as a lifeboat to get them back to earth. One of its science experiments used plutonium. Shortly before re-entry it was released so that it would crash into the ocean in the Mariana's Trench. (I suppose the plutonium container was designed to survive re-entry amongst other things in case of a catastrophic accident during launch). Well now the Japanese have a R.O.V. capable of diving even there, the deepest place on the planet.
So these are just the things we know about. Maybe there was something poor ABE ran into that was someone didn't want uncovered. To keep their secrets safe would it be easy to put a mine that would be triggered by the rover's bright lights or sonar pings? Might be a lot cheaper than trying to haul up say an entire nuclear sub.
As the poster of the parent I must ask: What happens if they win? Are they sure they will lose? (It is obvious IANAL). Can attorneys put up a vigorous defense but still count on losing?
The previous poster has a point that need responding to: I am (very) surprised that my (beloved) Obama administration would pursue this and don't understand the doublethink behind this strategy. Or is there some sort of compelling reason (for national security?). But I don't think that doing this for say bureaucratic efficiency would justify the loss of talent such a move would threaten.
Just for your reading enjoyment, here's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08, @11:44AM (http://slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad?art_pos=7).
Guess the slashdot editors don't like my writing style. ;)
Okay, if there was ever a reason to shut down, dismantle and start NASA over it is this. The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive (to me at least) personal background checks (sex lives, medical records) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors. No top secret work is done there and (I suppose) nothing military or even directly industry related. (In fact I thought the work of NASA was "For All Mankind".) Anyway, 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.
While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check, I don't think these guys fit into the "all" category. It IS rocket science and I'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare. I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before, what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.
So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers? More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war). As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.
Look, if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace, let the police deal with it. Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms! (drug dens?).
Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "rescue". I'm not sure that the U.S. motives for freeing SOUTH Korea (remember they gave up half the country to appease the Soviets) were done with the purest of intentions. Maybe it was a bit of (unintended?) racism/ethnocentrism but for a long time American actions in Asia were more for stopping communism than promoting freedom and democracy.
On the other hand, I DO think that, at times, American motives were pretty pure. The Marshall plan quickly comes to mind and I'm sure a historian can make a case for many smaller actions (I'm not one). Of course, a cynic could say that these were done ONLY because of American long-term self-interest but, in that case, isn't that the case for all altruistic acts?
Now, in the 21st century, I EXPECT America to act in a fashion more befitting if not reaching its lofty ideals. (I'm hoping the Bush administration was an aberration; a throwback to more primitive times).
Yeah, but remember 1) the absolutely gigantic amounts of MONEY the chinese will have at that point 2) the impressive military they will have accumulated (which will make everyone take them seriously) 3) their 1.5 Billion people who will each want to have a nice house with a white picket fence 4) their 100+ Million surplus of males in the prime of their lives (which will make them want to start wars, tame wilderness or maybe conquer space!).
Match that with 1) declining Russian populations 2) declining Russian male lifespans (because of Vodka!) 3) increasing ratio of women to men (makes them less militaristic). Add to that --- Siberia is just next door! (Canada should be happy that the American population won't explode).
So they have a few extra million square miles of unused wilderness. The chinese could buy every one of them a nice Dacha or keep them flooded with cheap consumer goods forever in exchange for what they aren't using. Otherwise they could be looking nervously over their shoulder for the entire 21st century. While nobody should invade Russia during the winter (except the Finns), it is equally true that you should never fight a land war in Asia.
Anyway, of course I'm guessing, by this same reasoning, Japan (after losing a war and bound by a pacifist constitution) should have used its billions it made selling us Sonys and Toyotas (remember then?) and peacefully (since it couldn't fight) bought lots of real-estate in Australia and Hawaii... oh wait a second.
I aim to please.
I didn't say I WANTED it to happen rather that it MIGHT/would. I believe in the power of numbers and demographics (people turned into numbers) and I see these huge trends happening in the world and think wow, there's a lot of socio-economic pressure there that might "fester like a sore and then run" or "does it explode?".
On the other hand, making these kinds of predictions is fun, and might lead to some good investment choices.
To answer the parent post: Yes, China's population WILL decline but it is still coasting upwards (all the people who were born before the "1 child" policy have yet to die). It is going to peak at about 1.5 billion around 2020 (and India's population will go soaring by it. Poor India). I did a little population research using (our friend) Mr. Google, if you doubt me it's your turn.
Next, you are right, China will *then* rapidly age unless they remove/have removed the "1 child" policy. Of course the technocrats who run China seem very competent for these kind of social planning issues (I think Time called them "the Harvard Alumni Association with an Army"), will have done so or figured out a way of keeping the population from a catastrophic decline (how about cloning? how about cloning women to make up for the gender imbalance?). Of course, even if the ethnic Chinese population did "crash", it would probably be a long long time before they become a "minority within their own country" like whites will be become in the U.S. (2050?).
Finally, please Google "chinese Tibet incentives" and you will see many articles (of unknown quality) describing the various incentives offered to ethnic Chinese who migrate to Tibet. From the gist of them it appears as if many millions (tens of millions?) have taken the government up on the offer(s). Also there are the "development" projects that, while presumably raising the Tibetan standard of (material) living, have made it much easier for ethnic Chinese to move into and about Tibet (airports/highways/railroads). I'm thinking of taking the China-Tibet railway myself!
Anyway, if you want to hear just one person's view on what has happened, just read the comment below by Apparition-X (617975).
To recap: 1) China's population will increase and peak about 1.5B around 2020 before declining. (So by your argument there is near-term large population GROWTH in addition to the already high population density). 2) In addition, the Chinese government has been actively promoting the large scale emigration of ethnic Chinese into Tibet. 3) It has been quite "successful" 4) Some people think it has been very devastating to the Tibetan people and culture.
People who follow my many rantings, I mean posts on Slashdot will not be surprised to know I am very happy that this seems to be a win-win scenario for reducing the amount of methane getting into the atmosphere, something I've been VERY concerned about (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1572576&cid=31371302&art_pos=7).
Unfortunately I am afraid that this may be another excuse for China to subjugate the Tibetan people. While Chinese apologists may claim they are lifting them out of feudal poverty, I would think that is a choice that the Tibetan people should make for themselves. (Even though Americans and Europeans used "the White Man's burden" as an excuse for their colonial actions, that didn't make them right). The Dalai Lama has claimed many times that he only wants CULTURAL autonomy for Tibet, unfortunately it appears as if this is one thing the Chinese don't want; they want to make it another "Han" province. So they claim, the Dalai Lama really wants full independence despite the fact he has never advocated that and has, in fact, welcomed Chinese control over and development of Tibet.
Being from Korea, a country that narrowly escaped having it's own cultural identity from being stamped out by colonial Japan makes me sensitive to Tibet's plight. My parent's were forced to learn Japanese, have Japanese names and were forbidden to learn Korean or Korean customs. (This is in addition to many documented atrocities like "sex slaves".). For almost fifty years the Japanese occupied Korea, only their defeat in WWII prevented them from succeeding in this cultural genocide. (I'm sure the Japanese said they were "civilizing" Korea). Unfortunately I doubt the U.S. or anyone else is going to come to Tibet's rescue; well at least if the Chinese are going to ravage Tibet, they might help save the environment. So let us acknowledge and shed a tear for Tibet's sacrifice for all mankind.
While we're on the subject of China, here's an (outlandish) prediction. In twenty years they will have become the most powerful country in the world; they should just be passing the GDP of the U.S. and will have a population of about 1.5 billion (India will be the same size but much poorer). In the meantime, Russia's population should have FALLEN to less than a tenth of China's or about 125 million (or about the same number of excess males in China!). So, what about the Chinese making Russia a "deal", we'll buy eastern Siberia from you or, if you refuse our entirely reasonable price we'll just take it with our vastly more powerful military. Sure we might have a little nasty nuclear war but we'll survive (especially if we've developed effective missile defenses) and believe me you won't survive OUR attack. Remember, we have lots of cannon fodder, I mean conscripts who we can make die, I mean are willing to die for our country!
Now eastern Siberia might not sound like much but, in twenty years with global warming, it could be a pretty "hot" property (sorry). With it's vast land area right next door to China proper and huge amounts of untapped natural resources it'll be just the thing they want. If they've figured out how to harvest methane from the thawing tundra for energy generation well, more "power" to them (sorry!).
[On the other hand, if China and Russia went to war, (or were "tricked" into it by some other meddling superpower) it would QUICKLY solve the population problem as well as probably rid the earth of some excess heat due to Nuclear Winter!]
Would there be a (very) thin layer of air between the boat and the water? Would there be a reduction in friction akin to the thin layer of water created when a skater's skates press down on the ice?
Or would boats go faster because no barnacles or mussels could become fastened on the hull of a boat? (I've heard that this used to be combatted with very toxic copper based compounds, no idea what they use now). If these microscopic hairs that were lifted from spiders work really well in preventing "fouling", why haven't whales evolved the same?
Just askin'.
Despite the degrading tone in your message (morals?) you do have a point regarding pay scales. That brings me to another part of my life.
My parents were immigrants who came to America with literally "a suitcase and $400" (my father's words). So you know the typical immigrant story, work hard, save moneyl and, above all, MOVE TO THE BEST SCHOOL district you can possibly afford. (What, you think I went to private school all my life?). Then, just before college send your kid to a good prep school.
This entailed so much hardship and sacrifice that I can't see myself (or the typical American) doing it. So instead of moving to send our kids to a better school, we've got to improve the ones we've got. While more money would help I don't think that's the whole answer; consider the Asian countries: they pay their teachers a tiny fraction of what we do but their kids blow away ours on many important measures.
Some of my greatest teachers I had were at a private school I attended (I know, I know "liberal elite" and so on).
One of them changed my life by getting me interested in computers, another nourished my creative side in architecture.
Did these teachers have to go through a huge bureaucracy? Did they have to get endless "certifications"? No, they merely had to demonstrate that they were GREAT (probably to a small board of their peers or parents).
I can draw a direct line from the interest those teachers sparked in me to the computer graphics company I founded (and later ended up employing quite a few people at). I can't imagine what would have happened if I had gone to a "regular" school.
Get rid of the bureaucracy, cut the unions' power to the bare minimum needed to protect teachers' rights and give parents the right to choose their school. Ultimately there is no greater issue that will determine the success or failure of the "American Experiment". Oh, and teach real science not this creationist/climate change denialist crap.
Could you combine this with the lip reading technology that was introduce to allow "voiceless" cell phone calls? http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2010/03/lip_reading_technology_unveiled.html Wouldn't that improve the accuracy for those scenes where the speakers mouth is visible?
Or how about using the subtitle tracks that are in a different language and reverse translating them to provide additional clues as to what the speaker might have been saying? It might help a little.
I'm sure they've thought about this, but is the atmosphere really dense enough to push something carrying any sort of payload around? I think atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of earth's whereas gravity is still 1/2 that of earth's. Will it have a "pump" for slow leaks? Self sealing against punctures?
On the other hand, if it really is light enough and the "fabric" is tough and heat resistant, maybe it can deorbit WITHOUT using a heat shield. Now that would really save a LOT of weight and might make the whole idea worthwhile. I seem to remember there were once emergency escape plans for astronauts that essentially had them envelope themselves in a (very) large foam shield. If you make it light and fluffy enough it might "float" down from space. (Or glide down in the case of the paper(!) airplane that a japanese astronaut at the ISS flew back to earth).
Just curious.