You're forgetting the costs of on-orbit assembly. You need people there (at least one more launch, not counting resupplies), you also have the development cost of the habitat for on-orbit assembly, the space suits, and all related items.
On-orbit assembly turned a $50 billion mars mission into a $450 billion mars mission.
What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.
So, in the long run, we'll be in space. But in the long run, we're all, dead, too.
I see no point in being patient when we waste billions of dollars on launch bricks and wings in circles when we could actually go somewhere if they would stop their idiocy. The time for patience passed with the Saturn V. Now we should be angry.
And I wouldn't pay $20,000 to go to orbit. In the end, I'd be left with some very expensive pictures and an idea of what it would be like if we didn't have gravity. I would pay $200,000 to go somewhere new and leave the Earth permanently. But that's "impossible" or "not feasible." Bullshit. When we spend $4 billion a month on blowing other people up, we can find the money to get people off of this planet.
1) People will not be invigorated by watching three people, two billionaires and a pilot, take a joy ride. They will be invigorated by watching man walk on Mars, or at least having a leader who says we're going to go there.
2) We've had the technology to go to space for forty years. We've had the technology to do suborbital flight for longer. Hell, we could have landed on Mars before I was born, but we didn't have the economic or political balls to do so.
3) I don't think tourism is really helping the economic situation in Africa. I'm sure they would rather have people invest in their infrastructure. Same thing with space: We need an infrastructure to make space more than an alternative to the safari. We can't do that launching ~500 kg at a time.
With computers, jobs can be segmented a la SETI@Home. You're not going to lash a bunch of SpaceShip Ones together and launch a Mars mission or a space station habitat. You need heavy launch vehicles to lift heavy things. Period. You're not going to ship a nuclear reactor in pieces and assemble it in space where the construction costs are very high. Build it on earth and launch it fully assembled.
Mercury and Gemini were developing the concepts necessary to go to the moon. Things like living and flying in space that we had never done before. They were an integral parts of the Apollo program.
I'm just afraid that the X Prize is making the same mistake the Shuttle made. Yes, suborbital flights may be commercially viable, but there's nowhere else to go. The shuttle was developed to go to a space station, and to facilitate its construction. But they scrapped their only heavy lift booster before the space station was built! So once the shuttle was operational, there was nowhere for it to go except up and down, at $1 billion a pop. I seem them making the same mistake; making something to go somewhere that doesn't exist yet.
Once you proven that, companies will start sinking real cash into it - perhaps taking the logical next step and build a 'space hotel' and a shuttle able to ferry more than three people up and down at a time.
And how will we build this "space hotel?" Using a heavy-lift vehicle. But from where? So we sink money into developing it and the hotel. Then the space shuttle gets decommissioned, and we have to spend MORE money developing a shuttle.
There is no logical progression here. Figure out how to create a destination for this craft before you develop something that just goes up and down.
Maybe I'm just too obsessed with getting off of this bug-infested mudball...
But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference? This is akin to the Space Shuttle in the 1970s: It's designed to go somewhere, but there's nothing up there to go to. Are we going to continue launch satellites, or are we going storm heaven?
This would make an excellent crew transfer vehicle, but a poor 'space truck'. What's needed is a commercially produced heavy lift launch vehicle. 100 tons to LEO would provide the ability to send modular lab or manufacturing stations into orbit, with crews sent up by craft like SpaceShip One. It doesn't have to be totally reusable, just cheap enough that it won't cost ~$1 billion plus the cost of the material being launched. Lower this by half, and maybe large companies could use it as research or manufacturing stations, with the benefit of NASA being able to use them to mount high-quality manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and unmanned missions to deep space, powered by nuclear reactors that would increase the amount of data by increasing both bandwidth and mission length.
I really haven't had time to do a lot of research, but several communities have done this. One small town in rural PA (~5,000 people) was able to install this and provide lots of incentive for business to move in when Comcast and Verizon had written them off. Incentive in the form of 10Mb broadband with a static IP for $15/month. If a town that small can do it, I'm pretty sure my relatively affluent and densely populated suburb could afford it, and that there's demand
What I do know is that there are sewer modules that also are made to house fiber optic networks. Since the sewers need replaced, it's a perfect time to wire the township for fiber.
If you want more information, the place to go is the Fiber-to-the-Home Council. Case studies and research material galore.
An 80-20 bio/#2 (not low-sulfur) diesel mix will keep it from geling at low temps. And you only really have to do this in the winter. Any low-sulfur diesel fuel will have this problem, petro or veggie based. But since the sulfur is bad for your injectors, fuel pump, filters, and oil, you're better off running straight bio in the summer and fall, and switching to an 80/20 in the winter. Or parking your car in a garage or using a fuel heater.
It seems foolish Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels and better for the environment than fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is more viable on the large scale than wind, solar, or tidal power, and its environmental effects have been studied better.
1) I'm pretty sure the reason people don't have enough food isn't that there's not enough to go around and 2)it's not foolish if you use waste oil (from, say, a deep fryer at a fast food restaurant) as your starting point. And it smells better, too.
Once I get a few things out of the way (a wedding, for one), I'm going to work with my township to provide fiber-to-the-home service. The electrical and sewer systems need replaced, so this is a perfect time to future-proof our infrastructure while providing incentives for businesses to move here and services for people. Then I can tell Comcast to suck it, like I've been wanting to do for a long, long time.
Cooking is about thermodynamics and chemical reactions and anatomy. Good cooking is about knowing what goes well together. By knowing the science, you're free to experiment and learn what goes well together; what you can substitute; what you have on hand to make things that taste good together; what you can do to make foods healthier. Like substituting yogurt for sour cream in a recipe. Or brining dry meats so you can grill them without turning them into dry hunks of flesh. Or doing pantry raids and creating incredible meals out of leftovers.
Science doesn't make you a good cook, but it helps you become a great one.
Hardware, the actual, physical thing that requires resources and labor to make copies of it, will be free. But software, which only requires a few pennies of electricity to copy and can be communicated over any number of media, will cost something.
I think they have it backwards: Software will be free and hardware will cost money.
Well, maybe not. I'm sure I have all the elements of a computer in my backyard; silicon, germanium, copper, etc. I guess that counts as free. I'm not going to subscribe to software. If I want it, I'll find it. If it doesn't exist, I might code it myself. I'm reliant on hardware, because I can't make my own motherboard. But I can make any application I wanted.
Is it me or do Schwartz and Gates have their inflated heads firmly implanted in their rectums? Here's a clue guys: We don't need your software.
WiFi Security is hard? Bluetooth set up is hard? You must be using a PC...
I've got a Netgear 802.11g WAP hooked up to a Linksys four port router and setting up WPA with a really good password (generated using my own password generator software) set up for my Powerbook within minutes of plugging the thing in. I got a Bluetooth cell phone and paired it with my Mac within minutes of getting it out of the box, and had my contacts and calendars synced. Salling Clicker was installed and working just as fast, and now I can carry my cell phone around and control iTunes (or DVD player, or iPhoto slideshows, or Keynote, or Powerpoint) from anywhere in the room. And when I'm not using it, Bluetooth is off, which is about as secure as you can make it.
Apple has tried to change this, SGI has tried to change this, Enlightenment has tried to change this. Microsoft will succeed.
WHAT?!?
Ahem... sorry. First; we don't know what functionality will be built into Longhorn, and we only have a vague idea about what it's going to look like (which, by any standard, is a lot like OS X, but with less screen space for actual work.) The operating system should only look cool if it helps you to do work. Like the blink tag. When used correctly (to make a blinking warning sign), it saved bandwidth and enhanced the user experience. But when used with abandon (giant blinking paragraphs), it sucked ass and was deprecated.
OS X, for the most part, uses flashy things to let you know what it's doing. Progress bars have little animation in them so you know if the computer has frozen or not. Buttons are highlighted with little bubbles around them. Minimizing windows to the dock is accompanied by an animation that lets you know where they're going.
Also, building functions (like picture slideshows or printing options) into the OS is a waste of code. Make it run well, make it work well with other software, and make it easy to understand. An operating is for operating the computer, kind of like a librarian; it handles requests and management of the system for other software. It should not replace other software. Specialization breeds efficiency.
That being said, I see the OS as a major component in systems going away. Things will be able to share information without drivers and IRQs and configuration. Got a bluetooth GPS receiver? You can pull that information into any device in any program. Transparently. Automagically. Cell phone? Use it to connect to the net, find people, take pictures. Modular, transparent networking using dedicated devices and software: That's the future of computing. One-size-fits all never fits right. Make hardware and software small and modular, and people can choose the features they want without sacrificing performance on things they don't need.
Man, if cavemen thought like you, well, you wouldn't be here to think like you. "We can't control the saber-tooth tigers, so we should just think about our loved ones." No, you kill the fucking tiger or it eats you and your loved ones.
I want a clean environment because my kids deserve it. If it helps little fuzzy animals, good. But I'm looking out for my loved ones; the ones who haven't even been born yet, the ones who can't control what I do right now. This planet is on loan from future generations. You're attitude is what makes rental cars dirty. "Hey, I'm not going to be using this in the future, so I'll just do whatever I want. The rental agency will clean out the car." Wrong. You leave it like you found it. You leave it better than you found it, because it's the fucking nice thing to do.
And why shouldn't we be concerned with our own survival. Every other species on the planet is. Why not us? That's like asking a wildebeest why it runs from lions. "Because I don't want to fucking die." Our difference is that we're able to live outside of the food chain, so we don't have to destroy other species to survive.
I think it's funny how women know what to look for in men, but men just say "wow, she's hot/cute/nice." Must be something with the amount of words we use.
And what if I don't care about being a grown up? (I still wear paint-covered Converse All-Stars when I'm not at work. They're comfy and good for driving.)
I agree that it is the media. They need ratings just like any other program, radio, television, or otherwise. People don't like hearing dull reports about how crime is going down, but when you say 'three people were raped and murdered,' they stop and listen. It's the train-wreck factor; if something is horrible, you watch it.
Watch CNN one evening and you'll see what I mean. No reports on, say, technical issues or reports about decreasing crime (or very short ones), but long, horrible reports on death and sex and health risks that are blown way out of proportion. That's why I listen to NPR and watch BBC America; they're less concerned with sensationalism because of the differences in their funding processes.
Who says it would get higher crop yields? All the reports I heard indicated that summers would get cooler and dryer in the breadbaskets of the world (China, Russia, US), leading to lower crop yields.
In other words: Do you have references other than Rush Limbaugh? Didn't think so.
Um, no. There have been global dust storms on Mars, and we have seen them from Earth. But there aren't any going on now. Evidence
There is a massive storm on Jupiter that's been going for about 400 years.
But Mars and Earth are about as different as astronaut ice cream and Ben & Jerry's. Mars has no water in its meteorological system, whereas Earth's is heavy with water. Mars is also flatter than the Earth, meaning winds can get up to higher speeds, lifting the very, very tiny dust particles into the upper atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
On-orbit assembly turned a $50 billion mars mission into a $450 billion mars mission.
So, in the long run, we'll be in space. But in the long run, we're all, dead, too.
I see no point in being patient when we waste billions of dollars on launch bricks and wings in circles when we could actually go somewhere if they would stop their idiocy. The time for patience passed with the Saturn V. Now we should be angry.
And I wouldn't pay $20,000 to go to orbit. In the end, I'd be left with some very expensive pictures and an idea of what it would be like if we didn't have gravity. I would pay $200,000 to go somewhere new and leave the Earth permanently. But that's "impossible" or "not feasible." Bullshit. When we spend $4 billion a month on blowing other people up, we can find the money to get people off of this planet.
2) We've had the technology to go to space for forty years. We've had the technology to do suborbital flight for longer. Hell, we could have landed on Mars before I was born, but we didn't have the economic or political balls to do so.
3) I don't think tourism is really helping the economic situation in Africa. I'm sure they would rather have people invest in their infrastructure. Same thing with space: We need an infrastructure to make space more than an alternative to the safari. We can't do that launching ~500 kg at a time.
With computers, jobs can be segmented a la SETI@Home. You're not going to lash a bunch of SpaceShip Ones together and launch a Mars mission or a space station habitat. You need heavy launch vehicles to lift heavy things. Period. You're not going to ship a nuclear reactor in pieces and assemble it in space where the construction costs are very high. Build it on earth and launch it fully assembled.
I'm just afraid that the X Prize is making the same mistake the Shuttle made. Yes, suborbital flights may be commercially viable, but there's nowhere else to go. The shuttle was developed to go to a space station, and to facilitate its construction. But they scrapped their only heavy lift booster before the space station was built! So once the shuttle was operational, there was nowhere for it to go except up and down, at $1 billion a pop. I seem them making the same mistake; making something to go somewhere that doesn't exist yet.
Once you proven that, companies will start sinking real cash into it - perhaps taking the logical next step and build a 'space hotel' and a shuttle able to ferry more than three people up and down at a time.
And how will we build this "space hotel?" Using a heavy-lift vehicle. But from where? So we sink money into developing it and the hotel. Then the space shuttle gets decommissioned, and we have to spend MORE money developing a shuttle.
There is no logical progression here. Figure out how to create a destination for this craft before you develop something that just goes up and down.
Maybe I'm just too obsessed with getting off of this bug-infested mudball...
This would make an excellent crew transfer vehicle, but a poor 'space truck'. What's needed is a commercially produced heavy lift launch vehicle. 100 tons to LEO would provide the ability to send modular lab or manufacturing stations into orbit, with crews sent up by craft like SpaceShip One. It doesn't have to be totally reusable, just cheap enough that it won't cost ~$1 billion plus the cost of the material being launched. Lower this by half, and maybe large companies could use it as research or manufacturing stations, with the benefit of NASA being able to use them to mount high-quality manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and unmanned missions to deep space, powered by nuclear reactors that would increase the amount of data by increasing both bandwidth and mission length.
What I do know is that there are sewer modules that also are made to house fiber optic networks. Since the sewers need replaced, it's a perfect time to wire the township for fiber.
If you want more information, the place to go is the Fiber-to-the-Home Council. Case studies and research material galore.
An 80-20 bio/#2 (not low-sulfur) diesel mix will keep it from geling at low temps. And you only really have to do this in the winter. Any low-sulfur diesel fuel will have this problem, petro or veggie based. But since the sulfur is bad for your injectors, fuel pump, filters, and oil, you're better off running straight bio in the summer and fall, and switching to an 80/20 in the winter. Or parking your car in a garage or using a fuel heater.
1) I'm pretty sure the reason people don't have enough food isn't that there's not enough to go around and 2)it's not foolish if you use waste oil (from, say, a deep fryer at a fast food restaurant) as your starting point. And it smells better, too.
Once I get a few things out of the way (a wedding, for one), I'm going to work with my township to provide fiber-to-the-home service. The electrical and sewer systems need replaced, so this is a perfect time to future-proof our infrastructure while providing incentives for businesses to move here and services for people. Then I can tell Comcast to suck it, like I've been wanting to do for a long, long time.
"You can't afford $1 a day?" he said.
"No," she said, "I can't afford $365 per year."
So much for his commission on a $1,300 vacuum.
He's a Mac user. I guess that kinda makes up for Rush using a Mac.
Science doesn't make you a good cook, but it helps you become a great one.
I think they have it backwards: Software will be free and hardware will cost money.
Well, maybe not. I'm sure I have all the elements of a computer in my backyard; silicon, germanium, copper, etc. I guess that counts as free. I'm not going to subscribe to software. If I want it, I'll find it. If it doesn't exist, I might code it myself. I'm reliant on hardware, because I can't make my own motherboard. But I can make any application I wanted.
Is it me or do Schwartz and Gates have their inflated heads firmly implanted in their rectums? Here's a clue guys: We don't need your software.
I've got a Netgear 802.11g WAP hooked up to a Linksys four port router and setting up WPA with a really good password (generated using my own password generator software) set up for my Powerbook within minutes of plugging the thing in. I got a Bluetooth cell phone and paired it with my Mac within minutes of getting it out of the box, and had my contacts and calendars synced. Salling Clicker was installed and working just as fast, and now I can carry my cell phone around and control iTunes (or DVD player, or iPhoto slideshows, or Keynote, or Powerpoint) from anywhere in the room. And when I'm not using it, Bluetooth is off, which is about as secure as you can make it.
WHAT?!?
Ahem... sorry. First; we don't know what functionality will be built into Longhorn, and we only have a vague idea about what it's going to look like (which, by any standard, is a lot like OS X, but with less screen space for actual work.) The operating system should only look cool if it helps you to do work. Like the blink tag. When used correctly (to make a blinking warning sign), it saved bandwidth and enhanced the user experience. But when used with abandon (giant blinking paragraphs), it sucked ass and was deprecated.
OS X, for the most part, uses flashy things to let you know what it's doing. Progress bars have little animation in them so you know if the computer has frozen or not. Buttons are highlighted with little bubbles around them. Minimizing windows to the dock is accompanied by an animation that lets you know where they're going.
Also, building functions (like picture slideshows or printing options) into the OS is a waste of code. Make it run well, make it work well with other software, and make it easy to understand. An operating is for operating the computer, kind of like a librarian; it handles requests and management of the system for other software. It should not replace other software. Specialization breeds efficiency.
That being said, I see the OS as a major component in systems going away. Things will be able to share information without drivers and IRQs and configuration. Got a bluetooth GPS receiver? You can pull that information into any device in any program. Transparently. Automagically. Cell phone? Use it to connect to the net, find people, take pictures. Modular, transparent networking using dedicated devices and software: That's the future of computing. One-size-fits all never fits right. Make hardware and software small and modular, and people can choose the features they want without sacrificing performance on things they don't need.
Sincerely
Monkey # 5124
I want a clean environment because my kids deserve it. If it helps little fuzzy animals, good. But I'm looking out for my loved ones; the ones who haven't even been born yet, the ones who can't control what I do right now. This planet is on loan from future generations. You're attitude is what makes rental cars dirty. "Hey, I'm not going to be using this in the future, so I'll just do whatever I want. The rental agency will clean out the car." Wrong. You leave it like you found it. You leave it better than you found it, because it's the fucking nice thing to do.
And why shouldn't we be concerned with our own survival. Every other species on the planet is. Why not us? That's like asking a wildebeest why it runs from lions. "Because I don't want to fucking die." Our difference is that we're able to live outside of the food chain, so we don't have to destroy other species to survive.
And what if I don't care about being a grown up? (I still wear paint-covered Converse All-Stars when I'm not at work. They're comfy and good for driving.)
Do yaks run GNU?
Watch CNN one evening and you'll see what I mean. No reports on, say, technical issues or reports about decreasing crime (or very short ones), but long, horrible reports on death and sex and health risks that are blown way out of proportion. That's why I listen to NPR and watch BBC America; they're less concerned with sensationalism because of the differences in their funding processes.
In other words: Do you have references other than Rush Limbaugh? Didn't think so.
No chaos, please. The last time people talked about chaos in a movie they got eaten by dinosaurs.
There is a massive storm on Jupiter that's been going for about 400 years.
But Mars and Earth are about as different as astronaut ice cream and Ben & Jerry's. Mars has no water in its meteorological system, whereas Earth's is heavy with water. Mars is also flatter than the Earth, meaning winds can get up to higher speeds, lifting the very, very tiny dust particles into the upper atmosphere.
No, make that millions. We spend more on create rainforests in Iowa than searching for things that could end civilization. Screwed up priorities? Yup.