I don't. We know the Earth's climate has changed many times before human beings even existed. However, it is true you may be able to point to scientists who are not convinced the current Client Change we are experiencing is caused by human activity. Well, that's how science works. Some physicists dispute that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. The important point here is the vast majority of scientists believe Global Warming is happening right now. Only a fool would not act on this because a minority of scientists (some with very dubious political/business connections) take a different view.
Most "serious scientists" don't like the idea of manned spaceflight because money is tight, and obviously unmanned exploration is cheaper. That would change if funds were increased across the board.
I noticed your said: We have more data than we know what to do with. Have you considered a distributed client? That would be cheap.
Well, in that case, if the goal is desirable, but the funding proposed is a joke, why not come up with some serious proposals and call their bluff? You know, you could really spark young kids' imagination with these timescales.
Re:Only fools don't learn from failure
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anything like the Apollo tech would make Mars impossible
That's why we should build a Mars vehicle in LEO, ferrying components/crew using Apollo tech. Ambition is key here - build a craft as large as we can, so it can take the large payload required and allow the crew enough room to prevent them going insane. Oh, and it would rotate to produce artificial gravity. And it would be nuclear powered too. With a ship's cat.
Infact, why not build two Mars ships then have then commute back and forth. Send more payload to Mars than you bring back and gradually, trip by trip we could have permanent, viable, human habitation of Mars.
As I am sure you must know, the UK constitution (btw, there isn't one) is extremely flexible. If I say Michael Meacher was in the Cabinet it might possibly be true.
Microsoft are either off their heads, or someone at the State Dpt has given them a wink and they know they can get away with acting like two-year olds.
You don't get this capitalism thing, do you? Why sell a $0.50 CD-R when you can sell an $x00 gadget?
Ok, what if they make it waterproof and dirt proof by wrapping it in goofy, multi-coloured plastic? Might add $1 to the manufacturing cost but it would certainly last a lot longer than a flimsy memory stick. You could also sell accessories such as goofy, multi-coloured snap around cases with dumb pictures of Dalmation spots or sexy Roger Rabit-type babes...
If Apple added wireless & http to the next iPod and marketed it as a must have because of the free, built in iServe software, it would be massive! On launch, ensure it works with Macs and Windows then watch them fly off the shelves!
Doh! It's too late and I type too quickly at the best of times! Ok, let's call him a Great Statesman and FF. Tell you what, he was a good Ambassador to France.
...if those people were still alive today, we might not be IN the mess we're in today
Presumptuous of me, it's true, but I assumed this was a given. In which case, pushing forward science, whether it is cancer research, atmospheric studies or space exploration would be a few of the many (and practical) avenues worth persuing at this point.
The real problem is convincing those with the purse strings
Yeah, none of this will happen without money and there has to be a practical argument to convince investors (the government - whoa! there's something wrong there!) that the returns (re-election!) are justified.
There was once a president called Benjamin Franklin. He was into science and invention. I wonder what he would think about visiting Mars? Too expensive? Mind you, he probably wouldn't have supported all the wars the US has started over the last 50 years.
I agree 100%. But LaGrange will be expensive to get to. Send folk to LEO and tell them there's no coming back... you go forward or fry.
Seriously, though (and I am) if NASA, ESA, NASDA etc could start thinking out of the box they would be sending up impressively large quantities of cargo. Don't tell me it is too expensive or too impracticle. I don't believe you can say that and still be serious about space exploration.
People can run experiments too complex to do remotely
Listen, if people can be sent into orbit (at great expensive to escape the gravity well), they can sure as hell stay there as far as I am concerned. This whole 'return a man safely' nonsense has totally distorted what space exploration is about.
Let's send lots of people and millions of tones of cargo into LEO to see what they come up with. I like the nice green trees and soft sandy beaches on Earth, but I think I could live a reasonable life without them in a huge hulk of a spacecraft the size of an aircraft carrier.
Black Projects payloads can be irreplaceable if there is a strict launch window. Camera-X must be in orbit in 2 weeks, has a 3 day opportunity to observe its target. You get the idea...
Slashdot Mirror
millstone around America's neck
Wow, that's almost funny. Don't you get it? This is not a zero-sum game. If Global Warming destroys China, Brazil etc it will also destroy the US.
when the pretentious Europeans actually meet those standards
You are propagating nonsense. Go and study the subject and you will discover the Europeans are taking serious steps to cut back on CO2 emissions.
Don't confuse Climate Change with Global Warming
I don't. We know the Earth's climate has changed many times before human beings even existed. However, it is true you may be able to point to scientists who are not convinced the current Client Change we are experiencing is caused by human activity. Well, that's how science works. Some physicists dispute that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. The important point here is the vast majority of scientists believe Global Warming is happening right now. Only a fool would not act on this because a minority of scientists (some with very dubious political/business connections) take a different view.
Offtopic, eh? Don't you just love Moderators who set their Threshold to +1? Try reading the Parent post smarty-pants...
they allready have come to the conclusion that there is a climate change
Maybe that is because Climate Change is real. You are either ignorant or ill informed. I suggest you address this.
a 5x5 mile field could literally power the entire nation
I haven't done the maths, but I seriously doubt this...
Eh, I just checked out the link to Spaceset and it says everything is cancelled because of:
heightened security at JPL during this time of war
What the? This GW meme for perpetual war is really working, isn't it? Man, this is like a bad sci-fi movie.
Most "serious scientists" don't like the idea of manned spaceflight because money is tight, and obviously unmanned exploration is cheaper. That would change if funds were increased across the board.
I noticed your said: We have more data than we know what to do with. Have you considered a distributed client? That would be cheap.
Well, in that case, if the goal is desirable, but the funding proposed is a joke, why not come up with some serious proposals and call their bluff? You know, you could really spark young kids' imagination with these timescales.
And the first things my coworkers and I did when we found this out was laugh our asses off.
And I bet they laughed their arses off when Columbus decided he could sail West to India, right?
Just under half
Anything like the Apollo tech would make Mars impossible
That's why we should build a Mars vehicle in LEO, ferrying components/crew using Apollo tech. Ambition is key here - build a craft as large as we can, so it can take the large payload required and allow the crew enough room to prevent them going insane. Oh, and it would rotate to produce artificial gravity. And it would be nuclear powered too. With a ship's cat.
Infact, why not build two Mars ships then have then commute back and forth. Send more payload to Mars than you bring back and gradually, trip by trip we could have permanent, viable, human habitation of Mars.
Bring back Nixon and we're all set.
Which is why there are sub-sonic bullets in the black ops arsenal.
As I am sure you must know, the UK constitution (btw, there isn't one) is extremely flexible. If I say Michael Meacher was in the Cabinet it might possibly be true.
Over to you.
The US is not imperialist
Well, some would argue otherwise... this article by a recent UK cabinet minister is quite interesting.
Microsoft are either off their heads, or someone at the State Dpt has given them a wink and they know they can get away with acting like two-year olds.
You don't get this capitalism thing, do you? Why sell a $0.50 CD-R when you can sell an $x00 gadget?
Ok, what if they make it waterproof and dirt proof by wrapping it in goofy, multi-coloured plastic? Might add $1 to the manufacturing cost but it would certainly last a lot longer than a flimsy memory stick. You could also sell accessories such as goofy, multi-coloured snap around cases with dumb pictures of Dalmation spots or sexy Roger Rabit-type babes...
If Apple added wireless & http to the next iPod and marketed it as a must have because of the free, built in iServe software, it would be massive! On launch, ensure it works with Macs and Windows then watch them fly off the shelves!
If this thing is marketed successfully, it will become as desirable as an iPod
Franklin was never a President
...if those people were still alive today, we might not be IN the mess we're in today
Doh! It's too late and I type too quickly at the best of times! Ok, let's call him a Great Statesman and FF. Tell you what, he was a good Ambassador to France.
Presumptuous of me, it's true, but I assumed this was a given. In which case, pushing forward science, whether it is cancer research, atmospheric studies or space exploration would be a few of the many (and practical) avenues worth persuing at this point.
The real problem is convincing those with the purse strings
Yeah, none of this will happen without money and there has to be a practical argument to convince investors (the government - whoa! there's something wrong there!) that the returns (re-election!) are justified.
There was once a president called Benjamin Franklin. He was into science and invention. I wonder what he would think about visiting Mars? Too expensive? Mind you, he probably wouldn't have supported all the wars the US has started over the last 50 years.
populate the LaGrange points
I agree 100%. But LaGrange will be expensive to get to. Send folk to LEO and tell them there's no coming back... you go forward or fry.
Seriously, though (and I am) if NASA, ESA, NASDA etc could start thinking out of the box they would be sending up impressively large quantities of cargo. Don't tell me it is too expensive or too impracticle. I don't believe you can say that and still be serious about space exploration.
People can fix things in orbit, like the Hubble.
People can build things in orbit. Like the ISS.
People can run experiments too complex to do remotely
Listen, if people can be sent into orbit (at great expensive to escape the gravity well), they can sure as hell stay there as far as I am concerned. This whole 'return a man safely' nonsense has totally distorted what space exploration is about. Let's send lots of people and millions of tones of cargo into LEO to see what they come up with. I like the nice green trees and soft sandy beaches on Earth, but I think I could live a reasonable life without them in a huge hulk of a spacecraft the size of an aircraft carrier.
Black Projects payloads can be irreplaceable if there is a strict launch window. Camera-X must be in orbit in 2 weeks, has a 3 day opportunity to observe its target. You get the idea...