I'm not forgetting China. In fact, I believe China and Russia are negotiating an agreement to cooperate on future space ventures. This should put the U.S. on notice that it's about to be outdone; but, I fear Congress is not capable of looking more than 2 to 4 years into the future and is concentrating too much on local politics.
I'm sure the Russians will take your suggestion under advisement. As it stands now, they're more likely to be building a next generation space station than the U.S. is. Look at recent analysis of the U.S. Space Program. Insufficient funding and no realistic goals, I believe was the short summary. If the U.S. manages to build a space station with a rotating hab, it will be a commercial venture, like Bigelow's proposed "hotel" in space.
No.... Won't have an appreciable effect. Now, if you're looking for something useful to do with that bunch of asteroids you've got, if you're really clever you could use them to impact Venus and blow the atmosphere off. without the thick atmosphere, it might cool off in a few hundred thousand years to something approaching desert in the summer temperatures.
the stock has potential to be profitable. Wait for the IPO excitement to wane and the stock to crash. Then, and the timing is critical here, buy a big chunk when the price is really low. When the inevitable occurs, and the new management team comes on board, the stock will begin to rise and... Profit!
I'm glad the National Research Council has published this... maybe now it will get some traction. Having said that, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the program is underfunded and will not be able to meet any of its goals. Frankly, this is true of not just NASA, but science in general. Too many in Congress talk about the importance of STEM; but, when push comes to shove are unwilling to fund R&D and large scale engineering programs.
Sure, it would be cheaper to build a new planet than to travel 100 light years. Only take a couple million years for it to cool down and become stable. But why go to all the trouble? There's a perfectly good one right here they can have for a slight premium, right now.
No... If they come, it won't be for resources, unless that resource is slaves. Really, if they come, it will be for the planet itself -- because it's here and they want it.
Maybe they just want our planet. period. Maybe they need a new vacation spot. Maybe they just like salty oceans and sandy beaches. Those darn apes are in the way, so they'll have to remove them first. They're funny. The apes think they're intelligent (they have built a few small structures); so, we'll have some fun with them first.....
Nope. I would like an e-book reader with a large display (10") and a decent pen input so I can scribble notes. I would like said display to be color, please (when I'm reading documents with charts, I would prefer not to have to distinguish between close shades of grey, if you don't mind). And on that note, it has to have a good PDF engine --- one that works, allows resizing, and correctly displays documents with embedded images and charts.
This. And I'd like said Kindle replacement to have a large color e-ink display. There's plenty of demand for a reader with a static display and a week long battery life. Apple, if you're listening, 8-12 hours is not good enough.
ok, no one wants to store the stuff. No one seems to want molten salt reactors. No one seems to want sodium cooled (or lead cooled). IFR was canned (it's a sodium cooled reactor, if I recall correctly). Hi temp gas cooled fast-neutron breeder reactors are not on the shopping list either. Can we consider something like CANDU heavy-water reactors, which at least can burn up more of the fissionable stuff than a standard PWR or BWR?
I'm not particularly a CANDU fan, the design isn't perfect... They've had some issues with up-time. They have a high-ish up front capital cost (heavy water is expensive). but if we're not willing to jump to Gen IV designs, CANDU seems like a better stop gap than building more BWRs and storing the used fuel for a century in, what is in essence, a parking lot.
cold enough to shut everything off, but not cold enough to damage cells. Basic principle originates in all those "miraculous" drowning victims who fall through winter ice and are resuscitated 20 or 30 minutes later. Using an infusion of cold saline probably has the advantage of getting the whole body cold as quickly as possible.
To add to this... US EPA has changed the testing cycle twice in recent memory. Once to improve the numbers in general -- making the result more closely match real-world city driving conditions. Once to better accommodate hybrid models which were returning unrealistically high numbers in the standard test(s).
No, point was that their IPV4 stack is currently meeting the needs of their customer base on the home service side of the business. They're not in a hurry because they have a working solution. On the customer side, there's no need to upgrade the "crippled" hardware unless you move to the highest consumer tier or move to a business account.
I seem to recall there was a problem with squirrels eating telephone wiring. They tried to fix it by adding capsicum. Turns out the squirrels like capsicum...
The old seals and hoses weren't designed for ethanol -- wrong rubber compound(s). You're having to tinker with the carb more because the alcohol blend may vary a few percent. This changes the energy content of the fuel and makes it seem rich one time and lean another. It's all handled automatically in a fuel injection system. I'm going down the same road with my 1971 restoration. I'm putting a new carburetor on it and I'm going to add an A/F gauge to keep tabs on the engine. I expect to have to have summer and winter jet configurations. If it gets to be too much trouble, if I find I'm constantly tweaking it to keep it in range, I'll pull it off and put on a fuel injection system.
Model T engine was an interesting beast. It wasn't very efficient (none were at the time) but it was designed to run on alcohol, gasoline, kerosene or anything in between. Yes, you could pour kerosene in the tank tweak the tuning, and it would run.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not forgetting China. In fact, I believe China and Russia are negotiating an agreement to cooperate on future space ventures. This should put the U.S. on notice that it's about to be outdone; but, I fear Congress is not capable of looking more than 2 to 4 years into the future and is concentrating too much on local politics.
I'm sure the Russians will take your suggestion under advisement. As it stands now, they're more likely to be building a next generation space station than the U.S. is. Look at recent analysis of the U.S. Space Program. Insufficient funding and no realistic goals, I believe was the short summary. If the U.S. manages to build a space station with a rotating hab, it will be a commercial venture, like Bigelow's proposed "hotel" in space.
No.... Won't have an appreciable effect. Now, if you're looking for something useful to do with that bunch of asteroids you've got, if you're really clever you could use them to impact Venus and blow the atmosphere off. without the thick atmosphere, it might cool off in a few hundred thousand years to something approaching desert in the summer temperatures.
the stock has potential to be profitable. Wait for the IPO excitement to wane and the stock to crash. Then, and the timing is critical here, buy a big chunk when the price is really low. When the inevitable occurs, and the new management team comes on board, the stock will begin to rise and ... Profit!
I'm glad the National Research Council has published this... maybe now it will get some traction. Having said that, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the program is underfunded and will not be able to meet any of its goals. Frankly, this is true of not just NASA, but science in general. Too many in Congress talk about the importance of STEM; but, when push comes to shove are unwilling to fund R&D and large scale engineering programs.
We're Doomed. Dooooomed.
my yacht is bigger than your yacht...
Sure, it would be cheaper to build a new planet than to travel 100 light years. Only take a couple million years for it to cool down and become stable. But why go to all the trouble? There's a perfectly good one right here they can have for a slight premium, right now.
No... If they come, it won't be for resources, unless that resource is slaves. Really, if they come, it will be for the planet itself -- because it's here and they want it.
"Sir, we have incoming fire."
"Shield Up!"
"???"
"Ensign, what are they firing at us?"
"Lasers sir"
"Lasers? But that won't even penetrate our navigation shields."
"No sir."
"Looks like they're hailing us sir"
"OK, let's humor them and see what they want..."
Neither. NSA and NASA, as U.S. government agencies, do not fund SETI research.
Maybe they just want our planet. period. Maybe they need a new vacation spot. Maybe they just like salty oceans and sandy beaches. Those darn apes are in the way, so they'll have to remove them first. They're funny. The apes think they're intelligent (they have built a few small structures); so, we'll have some fun with them first.....
But, in that case, why interact with the real world. You can just stay in the virtual world and do whatever makes your brain happy.
Nope. I would like an e-book reader with a large display (10") and a decent pen input so I can scribble notes. I would like said display to be color, please (when I'm reading documents with charts, I would prefer not to have to distinguish between close shades of grey, if you don't mind). And on that note, it has to have a good PDF engine --- one that works, allows resizing, and correctly displays documents with embedded images and charts.
This. And I'd like said Kindle replacement to have a large color e-ink display. There's plenty of demand for a reader with a static display and a week long battery life. Apple, if you're listening, 8-12 hours is not good enough.
technically a nearby gamma ray burst would fry just half the planet. with any luck it would be antarctica or somewhere similar.
and therefor it would kill my family members in Australia and NZ. Thanks, you unbelievably insensitive idiot
ok, no one wants to store the stuff. No one seems to want molten salt reactors. No one seems to want sodium cooled (or lead cooled). IFR was canned (it's a sodium cooled reactor, if I recall correctly). Hi temp gas cooled fast-neutron breeder reactors are not on the shopping list either. Can we consider something like CANDU heavy-water reactors, which at least can burn up more of the fissionable stuff than a standard PWR or BWR?
I'm not particularly a CANDU fan, the design isn't perfect... They've had some issues with up-time. They have a high-ish up front capital cost (heavy water is expensive). but if we're not willing to jump to Gen IV designs, CANDU seems like a better stop gap than building more BWRs and storing the used fuel for a century in, what is in essence, a parking lot.
cold enough to shut everything off, but not cold enough to damage cells. Basic principle originates in all those "miraculous" drowning victims who fall through winter ice and are resuscitated 20 or 30 minutes later. Using an infusion of cold saline probably has the advantage of getting the whole body cold as quickly as possible.
By raw count, yes. By person miles, no. Speaking from personal experience... People just don't pay attention to bicycles.
To add to this... US EPA has changed the testing cycle twice in recent memory. Once to improve the numbers in general -- making the result more closely match real-world city driving conditions. Once to better accommodate hybrid models which were returning unrealistically high numbers in the standard test(s).
No, point was that their IPV4 stack is currently meeting the needs of their customer base on the home service side of the business. They're not in a hurry because they have a working solution. On the customer side, there's no need to upgrade the "crippled" hardware unless you move to the highest consumer tier or move to a business account.
point was that they're not in a hurry... A large fraction of their current customer base does not have ipv6 compatible equipment.
I seem to recall there was a problem with squirrels eating telephone wiring. They tried to fix it by adding capsicum. Turns out the squirrels like capsicum...
The old seals and hoses weren't designed for ethanol -- wrong rubber compound(s). You're having to tinker with the carb more because the alcohol blend may vary a few percent. This changes the energy content of the fuel and makes it seem rich one time and lean another. It's all handled automatically in a fuel injection system. I'm going down the same road with my 1971 restoration. I'm putting a new carburetor on it and I'm going to add an A/F gauge to keep tabs on the engine. I expect to have to have summer and winter jet configurations. If it gets to be too much trouble, if I find I'm constantly tweaking it to keep it in range, I'll pull it off and put on a fuel injection system.
Model T engine was an interesting beast. It wasn't very efficient (none were at the time) but it was designed to run on alcohol, gasoline, kerosene or anything in between. Yes, you could pour kerosene in the tank tweak the tuning, and it would run.