I've tried every open source alternative I can find, and they're all slower by a lot. I'm using Mozilla FireWhatever now, but I had to turn it off as it took seconds to load. Whereas IE, part of the OS itself (providing many HTML-based services), loads instantly.
I'm going to assume you refer to the time it takes to load up a webpage and not the time the browser itself takes to load... I've found, on my computers, that Opera displays the pages way faster than IE or Netscape. Loads the executable faster too, but as I said, it's on my machines, YMMV.
Granted, it's not open source, but it's fast, it's free and it has a minimum footprint. Oh, and you can get it for Mac, Linux and other operating systems too.
Give it a spin - I would say it's close to the perfect browser, at least for me.
MPAA == US organisation. Quite a lot of carmakers != US firms.
See the difference? One one hand the US congress wants to protect the "intelectuall property" of americans, on the other hand it wants to open the "intelectual property" of other people (non US) to the carmechanics in the US... and possible to carmanufacturers in the US as well, but I think that might be an unintended sideeffect.
While I see how this bill might benefit the small autoshops in the US (and possible elsewhere if this catches on), I feel that a more ideal solution would be if the carmanufacturers could agree on one common interface to use. Won't happen off course.
...get this urge to build a large electromagnet and aim at the head of someone with this implant? Just for the 'scientific value' off course *evil smile*
..that 'art' was whatever an 'artist' managed to sell for money to someone with even less insight into what art is than myself...
I may know little about art in a formal manner, but I know what I like. To me, a piece of art should in some way speak to the beholder on an emotional level. By that definition, hacking is not an artform - at least not in my eyes. YMMV off course, but I would define it rather more as a skill or a knack than as an (artistic) ability.
Microsoft has never been interested in helping the community but rather wants only to further its own dominance of the market. When did they start being philanthropic?
Considering that Microsoft is a business, it makes sence they are in it to make money. Otherwise it would been a failed business - much like a lot of the early softwarehouses are today. Still, they make some software they give away for free, if only to tie their customers closer to their OS (like Internet Explorer, which despite the fact that there are other browsers out there are one of the most widely used there is). I think this will be the same; "If you use this software, which we give you free of charge, you'll have less problems with spam. However, to use it you must use our e-mailclient and our OS..."
Whats to stop a spammer from signing up for a free email account with a false name, blast out a few thousand messages, drop the account (it'll be closed anyway by abuse), wipe hands and repeat?
True, I see how this may help stop some spam, but it also means (if I understood the article correctly) that everyone can find out where I mail from... and in some instances that could be a problem too.
Which is why, off course, almost every ATM in norway has a sign saying "Make sure no one see you entering the code - cover the kaypad with your free hand".
...or even a luddite, but: one creates a virtual keyboard?I happen to like the idea of having some sort of tactile feedback when I write. If I'm going to write so much on this sort of future PDA so much I need a keyboard to do it, I would much prefer either a keyboar like the Psion Series5 or a good system for transforming handwritting into input (hey, if they are going to add a camera anyway, why not put it to good use?)
Sorry NEC, but 'hammering' my fingers into the desk isn't high on my list of things to do... which isn't the same as to say that it is a stupid idea for everyone.
AFAIR, they converted each glyph to a number, and then sendt the nunmbers. I seem to recall hearing that it was a four digit number, but I'm not certain.
Particulary if you, like me, are just poking into this Linux thing and want to test several different versions without having to invest in a sexond harddisk or get rid of my still fully working Windowns installation. I'll definitly be spending using a lot of my bandwidth to download some distros this weekend *smiles*
What I miss, however, is beeing able to see what minimum hardware requirement the various LiveCDs need without having to look at each one that looks interesting. Can't have everything I guess.
According to this article in Wikipedia, the official deathtoll for the spaceprogmans are 18 astronauts in flight, 11 astronauts in training and at least 70 groundcrew in launch pad accidents.
we know that NASA has lost 14 astronauts in flights and 3 in training - so logic dictates that the USSR lost 4 kosmonauts in flight and another 8 in training. One life was lost on Soyuz 1, and a further three on Soyuz 11.
What might be more interesting is that no kosmonauts has died in space since 1971, despite the fact that the russians have way more actuall hours spendt in space than the americans. This suggests that the design of the Soyuz is either safer in it self or that the russian spaceprogram is willing to learn from it's mistakes...
You might also be interested in reasing baout the Soviet Lunar Lander and the launchsystem they hoped to use. Had everythng gone as planned they could have reached the moon around the same time as the americans... but since their booster just wouldn't work right they lagged behind until they decided to cancell the whole program.
The site I've pulled those links from also has a number of interesting articles on the N1 program, the various soviet manned lunar programs and wether the design of the Soyuz was stolen from the US.
Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?
The point of the C&D letter, as I read it, is that Google's lawyers don't believe that Booble is a parody - but rahter that they use the "look and feel" of Google on their searchengine. To qoute: "We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark. Your web site is a pornographic web site. Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website, including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo." and "We note that you have given interviews to the press in which you state that you intended booble.com to be a parody. We dispute your assertion that your website is a parody. For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.". So, if the Booble site _isn't_ a parody, it's perfecly allright to send them a C&D-letter. If it _is_ a parody, they are protected under free speach.
Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?
No, he wasn't. He was charged once, the lower court said he hadn't done any wrong and the Oekokrim (echonomic crime unit) appeled. It may not be the way things work in the US, but it's the way thigns work here - and work pretty damn good I might add. Both the defendant and the plaintiff may appeal if certain conditions are present.
There is a number of important differencies between the norwegian and the US system of justice. One of the most important ones to recall is that they are different; so don't scream up at the instance you hear something that's different from what you're used too - like the fact that lawyers paid by the state are pretty damn good.
...then both share a common flaw: you have to unpack the container to work on the files within, and that leaves the unpackaged files open to interception.
I've been using ScramDisk to store my critical data. For those using a newer OS than I do, there is an updated version called DriveCrypt. Both gves you the choice of what sort of encryption to use and you can use up to four passwords on any given file. It also supports stegnography.
In short, I don't give a rats ass about what sort of encryption PKZIP or WinZip supports - if the file contains things I want protected, I'll zip it as normal and then drop it into a ScramDisk container.
Off course the 'Hydrogen Tanker' will be well protected, but I'm an airforce guy. We're more conserned with how to take targets out than how to defend them. One of my favorite stunt when a naval officers points out that his ship has the capability to engave X number of targets at once is to ask what will happen if someone attacks with X+1 missiles... it's called 'swamping the defence' and has been a good tactic since man first started doing war.
I'm not saying a 'Hydrogen Tanker' is a bad idea - it will allow an armed force dependant on hydrogen for fuel to make their own (provided their relatively close to water off course) and can also be employed to make drinkingwater. BUT it will be a _juicy_ target for an enemy to hit, so a determined attemt to take it out is bound to happen.
There are in fact different grades of jetfuel. JP-4 is a relatively volatile, 'light' fuel, while JP-8 - which is very close to the civilian Jet-A1 - are basicly ordinary dieselfuel with a few additives. Then you got the more excotic types like JP-5 (used AFAIK by the SR-71) and RP-1 (basicly a superrefined JP-4 for use in rocketengines). So yes, jetfuel is quite close to diesel and also a long way from diesel - it all depends on what sort of jetfuel you're talking about.
Going ona tangent, here in Norway the armed forces are using 'unified fuel F-34' for cars, tanks, helicopters, fighterjets, you name it... it's very close to JP-8 (we only have to add some water-suspension addetives to make it into JP-8) and it works very well in engines buildt to burn diesel.
Off course, the other name for such a ship will be "target". Not only would an enemy dry up the fuelsupply for your landbased forces, but he would also be able to spread radiactive waste (if he gets a good hit) among your fleet.
Uhm, maybe because a very large part of those US citizens abroad are soldiers, and would like to be able to vote? After all, it's the politicans who decided to put their asses on the line, so it makes sence if they (ie; the soldiers) want to have a say in which politicans that run the show...
A simple secure online system is anything but simple to develop. Now, I don't know how the US has arranged for citizents living or working arbroad in previous elections, but I know that we (ie Norway) has usually asked people to go a central location to register their votes (embasy, consulate, military barracs*). It should be relatively simple to set up a secure** server at each such location which collects the votes casted and contacts the central server once every day or so. The collected votes, complete with a papertrail, chould then be sendt in an encrypted form, possible utilizing a one time pad to prevent tampering.
However, if the system should include a 'log on anywhere' capability, not be reliant on installing a client on the users PC, and be reliant on sending the information over the internet... good luck making it secure. I seriously don't think it will ever be secure enought for this application.
__*) if you look at the number of soldiers on either NATO, UN or other mission*** abroad compared to the number of people living in Norway, we have more soldiers out there than the US have... but then, there are less people living in Norway
_**) Secure in this meaning could include a squad of soldiers making sure no one tampers with the server, if you're so inclined.
***) Like the people we have in Iraq right now, helping secure and rebuild that nation.
By that logic virtually all the major ISP should be blacklisted and all real users should find little mom and pop operated providers.
Think your logic all the way thru. If I sign up with what appears to be the best provider for me (or even the only one avilable), am I to blame because some stupid git sign up for a free trial and sends out spam? Should the postoffice refuse to deliver mail sendt from your city becuse there is a company there that sends out junkmail?
Blocking off entire subnets may be a "solution" to stopping spam, but so is taking a pair of pliers and cut your networkcable...
...to crack it, but as of how long it will take them. Information that is worth a lot today may be worthless tomorrow, and by next week it'll be history. So the question isn't about making a perfect encoding (we allready have one, namely 'one time pads'), but finding the best encoding for the application. Also bear in mind the rule of thumb that states that the thoughter the code, the more difficult (think CPU-cycles and batterydrain) it is to encode it in the first place. Off course, just how strong thats strong enought will change as the tools for encryption, decryption and codebreeaking gets stronger.
Remember folks, an encrypted message don't have to be unbreakable, it just has to be hard enought to break. One rule of thumb is that it should cost more to break than the one breaking it will earn on doing so.
Besides, one can learn a lot about whats going on even if you can break the code. Where does the signal originates? Where is it heading. Does it occour on a frequent basis? What is the matter of transmitting? The more you learn about the message, the more you learn about the reason it's beeing sendt - even if you don't know what it says. THEN you can often start using social enginering to gain access to the key, or better yet, to the unencrypted message.
Apart from the fact that you will have to modify the ATV pretty heavily to make it work... for starter, even I can see that you must:
- Provide a larger engine for orbital manuvers. The old Apollo system had a trust of 97860 N (roughtly ren (metric) tons), while the ATV has an enginetrust of a paltry 1960N (or about 1/50 of the Apollo).
- Provide some form of manrated capability. The ATV is launced unmanned, and as far as I can see from the article carries no life support system on it's own.
- Some form of reentry capability must be provided, unless you plan to dock at the ISS on the way home. If you do plan to dock at the ISS, you need to carry enought fuel to brake down and enter earth orbit.
I fear that modefying a ATV can turn out to cost more and provide a less optimum vessel for going to the moon than a new design based on the Apollo. Despite the fact that the design of the Apollo is close to 40 years, they got a lot of things right, and a few wrong. Possible (cheap) ways to optimise the Apollo design might include:
- Use of a Soyuz-shaped return vehicle (better volume-weight ratio than the coneshaped Apollo).
- Modern electrics (lighter, less bulky, uses less power).
- Solar panels instead of fuelcells (solar panels have come a long way since the early sixties, and you don't have to carry along oxygen and hydrogen to make them work).
- An ion engine for long duration, low trust burns to optimise trajectory (?).
I am not a rocketscientist, but I don't see how the ATV cam be a good choice to go to the moon. It's designed to be a cargotruck, not a manned vessel for going far into space.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried every open source alternative I can find, and they're all slower by a lot. I'm using Mozilla FireWhatever now, but I had to turn it off as it took seconds to load. Whereas IE, part of the OS itself (providing many HTML-based services), loads instantly.
I'm going to assume you refer to the time it takes to load up a webpage and not the time the browser itself takes to load... I've found, on my computers, that Opera displays the pages way faster than IE or Netscape. Loads the executable faster too, but as I said, it's on my machines, YMMV.
Granted, it's not open source, but it's fast, it's free and it has a minimum footprint. Oh, and you can get it for Mac, Linux and other operating systems too.
Give it a spin - I would say it's close to the perfect browser, at least for me.
MPAA == US organisation. Quite a lot of carmakers != US firms.
See the difference? One one hand the US congress wants to protect the "intelectuall property" of americans, on the other hand it wants to open the "intelectual property" of other people (non US) to the carmechanics in the US... and possible to carmanufacturers in the US as well, but I think that might be an unintended sideeffect.
While I see how this bill might benefit the small autoshops in the US (and possible elsewhere if this catches on), I feel that a more ideal solution would be if the carmanufacturers could agree on one common interface to use. Won't happen off course.
...get this urge to build a large electromagnet and aim at the head of someone with this implant? Just for the 'scientific value' off course *evil smile*
..that 'art' was whatever an 'artist' managed to sell for money to someone with even less insight into what art is than myself...
I may know little about art in a formal manner, but I know what I like. To me, a piece of art should in some way speak to the beholder on an emotional level. By that definition, hacking is not an artform - at least not in my eyes. YMMV off course, but I would define it rather more as a skill or a knack than as an (artistic) ability.
Microsoft has never been interested in helping the community but rather wants only to further its own dominance of the market. When did they start being philanthropic?
Considering that Microsoft is a business, it makes sence they are in it to make money. Otherwise it would been a failed business - much like a lot of the early softwarehouses are today. Still, they make some software they give away for free, if only to tie their customers closer to their OS (like Internet Explorer, which despite the fact that there are other browsers out there are one of the most widely used there is). I think this will be the same; "If you use this software, which we give you free of charge, you'll have less problems with spam. However, to use it you must use our e-mailclient and our OS..."
Whats to stop a spammer from signing up for a free email account with a false name, blast out a few thousand messages, drop the account (it'll be closed anyway by abuse), wipe hands and repeat?
True, I see how this may help stop some spam, but it also means (if I understood the article correctly) that everyone can find out where I mail from... and in some instances that could be a problem too.
Which is why, off course, almost every ATM in norway has a sign saying "Make sure no one see you entering the code - cover the kaypad with your free hand".
...or even a luddite, but: one creates a virtual keyboard?I happen to like the idea of having some sort of tactile feedback when I write. If I'm going to write so much on this sort of future PDA so much I need a keyboard to do it, I would much prefer either a keyboar like the Psion Series5 or a good system for transforming handwritting into input (hey, if they are going to add a camera anyway, why not put it to good use?)
Sorry NEC, but 'hammering' my fingers into the desk isn't high on my list of things to do... which isn't the same as to say that it is a stupid idea for everyone.
AFAIR, they converted each glyph to a number, and then sendt the nunmbers. I seem to recall hearing that it was a four digit number, but I'm not certain.
Particulary if you, like me, are just poking into this Linux thing and want to test several different versions without having to invest in a sexond harddisk or get rid of my still fully working Windowns installation. I'll definitly be spending using a lot of my bandwidth to download some distros this weekend *smiles*
What I miss, however, is beeing able to see what minimum hardware requirement the various LiveCDs need without having to look at each one that looks interesting. Can't have everything I guess.
How many people have died in the Soyuz? None!
According to this article in Wikipedia, the official deathtoll for the spaceprogmans are 18 astronauts in flight, 11 astronauts in training and at least 70 groundcrew in launch pad accidents.
we know that NASA has lost 14 astronauts in flights and 3 in training - so logic dictates that the USSR lost 4 kosmonauts in flight and another 8 in training. One life was lost on Soyuz 1, and a further three on Soyuz 11.
What might be more interesting is that no kosmonauts has died in space since 1971, despite the fact that the russians have way more actuall hours spendt in space than the americans. This suggests that the design of the Soyuz is either safer in it self or that the russian spaceprogram is willing to learn from it's mistakes...
..for those curious about such things *smiles*:
Soyuz 7K-L1A circumlunar
Soyuz 7K-L1A test article
Soyuz 7K-L1E circumlunar test article
Soyuz 7K-L1P prototype, boilerplate capsule
Soyuz 7K-LOK planned lunar orbiter
You might also be interested in reasing baout the Soviet Lunar Lander and the launchsystem they hoped to use. Had everythng gone as planned they could have reached the moon around the same time as the americans... but since their booster just wouldn't work right they lagged behind until they decided to cancell the whole program.
The site I've pulled those links from also has a number of interesting articles on the N1 program, the various soviet manned lunar programs and wether the design of the Soyuz was stolen from the US.
Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?
The point of the C&D letter, as I read it, is that Google's lawyers don't believe that Booble is a parody - but rahter that they use the "look and feel" of Google on their searchengine. To qoute: "We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark. Your web site is a pornographic web site. Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website, including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo." and "We note that you have given interviews to the press in which you state that you intended booble.com to be a parody. We dispute your assertion that your website is a parody. For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.". So, if the Booble site _isn't_ a parody, it's perfecly allright to send them a C&D-letter. If it _is_ a parody, they are protected under free speach.
Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?
that spehling is a lossed art ;P
No, he wasn't. He was charged once, the lower court said he hadn't done any wrong and the Oekokrim (echonomic crime unit) appeled. It may not be the way things work in the US, but it's the way thigns work here - and work pretty damn good I might add. Both the defendant and the plaintiff may appeal if certain conditions are present.
There is a number of important differencies between the norwegian and the US system of justice. One of the most important ones to recall is that they are different; so don't scream up at the instance you hear something that's different from what you're used too - like the fact that lawyers paid by the state are pretty damn good.
...then both share a common flaw: you have to unpack the container to work on the files within, and that leaves the unpackaged files open to interception.
I've been using ScramDisk to store my critical data. For those using a newer OS than I do, there is an updated version called DriveCrypt. Both gves you the choice of what sort of encryption to use and you can use up to four passwords on any given file. It also supports stegnography.
In short, I don't give a rats ass about what sort of encryption PKZIP or WinZip supports - if the file contains things I want protected, I'll zip it as normal and then drop it into a ScramDisk container.
Off course the 'Hydrogen Tanker' will be well protected, but I'm an airforce guy. We're more conserned with how to take targets out than how to defend them. One of my favorite stunt when a naval officers points out that his ship has the capability to engave X number of targets at once is to ask what will happen if someone attacks with X+1 missiles... it's called 'swamping the defence' and has been a good tactic since man first started doing war.
I'm not saying a 'Hydrogen Tanker' is a bad idea - it will allow an armed force dependant on hydrogen for fuel to make their own (provided their relatively close to water off course) and can also be employed to make drinkingwater. BUT it will be a _juicy_ target for an enemy to hit, so a determined attemt to take it out is bound to happen.
There are in fact different grades of jetfuel. JP-4 is a relatively volatile, 'light' fuel, while JP-8 - which is very close to the civilian Jet-A1 - are basicly ordinary dieselfuel with a few additives. Then you got the more excotic types like JP-5 (used AFAIK by the SR-71) and RP-1 (basicly a superrefined JP-4 for use in rocketengines). So yes, jetfuel is quite close to diesel and also a long way from diesel - it all depends on what sort of jetfuel you're talking about.
Going ona tangent, here in Norway the armed forces are using 'unified fuel F-34' for cars, tanks, helicopters, fighterjets, you name it... it's very close to JP-8 (we only have to add some water-suspension addetives to make it into JP-8) and it works very well in engines buildt to burn diesel.
Off course, the other name for such a ship will be "target". Not only would an enemy dry up the fuelsupply for your landbased forces, but he would also be able to spread radiactive waste (if he gets a good hit) among your fleet.
Uhm, maybe because a very large part of those US citizens abroad are soldiers, and would like to be able to vote? After all, it's the politicans who decided to put their asses on the line, so it makes sence if they (ie; the soldiers) want to have a say in which politicans that run the show...
A simple secure online system is anything but simple to develop. Now, I don't know how the US has arranged for citizents living or working arbroad in previous elections, but I know that we (ie Norway) has usually asked people to go a central location to register their votes (embasy, consulate, military barracs*). It should be relatively simple to set up a secure** server at each such location which collects the votes casted and contacts the central server once every day or so. The collected votes, complete with a papertrail, chould then be sendt in an encrypted form, possible utilizing a one time pad to prevent tampering.
However, if the system should include a 'log on anywhere' capability, not be reliant on installing a client on the users PC, and be reliant on sending the information over the internet... good luck making it secure. I seriously don't think it will ever be secure enought for this application.
__*) if you look at the number of soldiers on either NATO, UN or other mission*** abroad compared to the number of people living in Norway, we have more soldiers out there than the US have... but then, there are less people living in Norway
_**) Secure in this meaning could include a squad of soldiers making sure no one tampers with the server, if you're so inclined.
***) Like the people we have in Iraq right now, helping secure and rebuild that nation.
By that logic virtually all the major ISP should be blacklisted and all real users should find little mom and pop operated providers.
Think your logic all the way thru. If I sign up with what appears to be the best provider for me (or even the only one avilable), am I to blame because some stupid git sign up for a free trial and sends out spam? Should the postoffice refuse to deliver mail sendt from your city becuse there is a company there that sends out junkmail?
Blocking off entire subnets may be a "solution" to stopping spam, but so is taking a pair of pliers and cut your networkcable...
What if it was only used to certain walls where leakage was most common?
Or perhaps to insulate between windowpanes? Since it's more or less transparent, it'll let the light in, but not heat out...
...to crack it, but as of how long it will take them. Information that is worth a lot today may be worthless tomorrow, and by next week it'll be history. So the question isn't about making a perfect encoding (we allready have one, namely 'one time pads'), but finding the best encoding for the application. Also bear in mind the rule of thumb that states that the thoughter the code, the more difficult (think CPU-cycles and batterydrain) it is to encode it in the first place. Off course, just how strong thats strong enought will change as the tools for encryption, decryption and codebreeaking gets stronger.
Remember folks, an encrypted message don't have to be unbreakable, it just has to be hard enought to break. One rule of thumb is that it should cost more to break than the one breaking it will earn on doing so.
Besides, one can learn a lot about whats going on even if you can break the code. Where does the signal originates? Where is it heading. Does it occour on a frequent basis? What is the matter of transmitting? The more you learn about the message, the more you learn about the reason it's beeing sendt - even if you don't know what it says. THEN you can often start using social enginering to gain access to the key, or better yet, to the unencrypted message.
Apart from the fact that you will have to modify the ATV pretty heavily to make it work... for starter, even I can see that you must:
- Provide a larger engine for orbital manuvers. The old Apollo system had a trust of 97860 N (roughtly ren (metric) tons), while the ATV has an enginetrust of a paltry 1960N (or about 1/50 of the Apollo).
- Provide some form of manrated capability. The ATV is launced unmanned, and as far as I can see from the article carries no life support system on it's own.
- Some form of reentry capability must be provided, unless you plan to dock at the ISS on the way home. If you do plan to dock at the ISS, you need to carry enought fuel to brake down and enter earth orbit.
I fear that modefying a ATV can turn out to cost more and provide a less optimum vessel for going to the moon than a new design based on the Apollo. Despite the fact that the design of the Apollo is close to 40 years, they got a lot of things right, and a few wrong. Possible (cheap) ways to optimise the Apollo design might include:
- Use of a Soyuz-shaped return vehicle (better volume-weight ratio than the coneshaped Apollo).
- Modern electrics (lighter, less bulky, uses less power).
- Solar panels instead of fuelcells (solar panels have come a long way since the early sixties, and you don't have to carry along oxygen and hydrogen to make them work).
- An ion engine for long duration, low trust burns to optimise trajectory (?).
I am not a rocketscientist, but I don't see how the ATV cam be a good choice to go to the moon. It's designed to be a cargotruck, not a manned vessel for going far into space.