There is a process called "man-rating" which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people. The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever.
Aerospace engineer Rand Simberg's post on man-rating is worth a read. I don't think man-rating is what you (or most people) think it is.
Bottom line: you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated. And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy, than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up.
The Ares I currently has a projected cost of $35 billion (and rising). There's absolutely no way it would cost that much to reliably transport humans on a Delta IV. On top of that, the Ares I has needed exemptions on many of the safety requirements which it wasn't able to meet.
According to this presentation made to the Augustine commission, building a new pad and upgrading the Delta IV Heavy to transport Orion would cost around $1.3 billion total with recurring costs of $300 million a launch. Transporting a manned capsule on a Atlas V or SpaceX Falcon 9 would have a fixed cost of around half a billion with recurring costs ~$130 million.
With numbers like that, there's absolutely no reason to go with the Ares I, especially considering how many safety concerns it has. Heck, you could fund -all- of the alternatives, launch several unmanned payloads, and pay for manned trips on whichever one performs most reliably, and it would -still- cost an order of magnitude less than the Ares I. If there's worries that the other launch vehicles might experience cost inflation, just use a fixed-price contract with milestone-based payments, like has been done with COTS.
However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely.
From reading the actual research proposal abstract, yes, the goal of the research is determining what sorts of interventions will help encourage proper condom use:
Grant Number: 1R21HD060447-01
Project Title: Barriers to Correct Condom Use
PI Information: Name Email Title JANSSEN, ERICK (Contact) ejanssen@indiana.edu PROFESSOR SANDERS, STEPHANIE A.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. About half of the new HIV infections in the US are among people under age 25 years with the majority infected through sexual behavior. About one in three new diagnoses with HIV/AIDS are attributed to heterosexual transmission. Men who have sex with women play a major role in HIV transmission to women who can also pass it on to offspring. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs. Yet, studies show that problems with condom use are common and that these problems pose a barrier to consistent and complete condom use. This project aims to advance our understanding of, among other factors, the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men. A multi-method approach - consisting of two studies and involving questionnaires, observational, and psychophysiological methods - will be used in conjunction with a skill-based intervention. The knowledge gained from the proposed research can be used to inform the development of innovative, more effective, and targeted intervention and education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men.
Think of it like DDR, but the way you increase your score is by making your partner look awesome.
Heh, I actually had a couple years experience with DDR under my belt before I started swing dancing, and it actually helped. Besides helping you get the rhythm, you can also represent the basic steps pretty easily as DDR steps. Examples:
Single-step East Coast Swing footwork: left-hold arrow, right-hold, down, right
Triple-step East Coast Swing: left-right-left, right-left-right, down, right
Lindy Hop 8-count basic (including the turning around): left foot on down arrow, right foot on left arrow as you turn around, right-left-right (facing reverse), right foot on up, left foot on left, right-left-right (facing forwards) [ok, maybe that last one actually overcomplicates things...]
I once briefly contemplated learning the Charleston but I'm not sure if I can learn it without accidentally breaking someone's hip. Well, and if I'd ever meet someone who even knows it's a dance outside the dance school.
Charleston is pretty fun, but in my experience it's usually not danced by itself for an entire song. Typically you mix it in with things like Lindy Hop and East Coast Swing.
Peabody was a foxtrot type ballroom dance in the United States of the beginning of the 20th century. It was essentially a fast One-Step danced under lively ragtime music.
It was named after a police lieutenant, a William Frank Peabody, an active dancer. [1] The dance was characteristic of its prevalent use of the Right Outside Partner position. This peculiarity is explained by the fact that Lt. Peabody was a man of considerable girth, so that for the freedom of movement he had to keep the lady to the side, rather than in front.
The dance used to be included into the American Smooth competitive dance category.
If you can't talk to chick drunk in a bar, no way you're going to strike up a conversation during dance lessons that will work out for you.
Huh? I'm the sort of guy that would never dream of chatting up a random girl in a bar, but whenever I go swing dancing I'm meeting and happily chatting with several women every half-hour. The atmosphere is just totally different from the bar scene and the women in the dance scene tend to be much more intelligent than your typical bar ladies.
Here's what worked for me: find a cause, and volunteer.
This is actually quite a good suggestion. I generally think it's a good idea to just try several different things and find what appeals to you.
It looks like it wasn't carried over, so I'll repost my comment from the dancing thread over on the firehose submission:
I'm not sure if you included this in "ballroom dancing," but I'd also specifically add swing dancing (e.g. Lindy Hop, East Coast Swing). It's the only thing I've ever found that has a disproportionately high number of geeks -and- women. Seriously, quite a few swing dancers are of the geek persuasion, and there's almost always more women than men. Plus, you basically get to meet a new person of the opposite gender every time there's a new song, and people generally don't care how good of a dancer you are as long as you're friendly and eager to learn.
As for myself, I first started swing dancing ~6 years ago, when a friend of mine brought me along to a local club. Being the dork that I am, I got kind of excited when I realized that the handhold and moves in swing dancing could be easily reduced to the states and transitions of a nondeterministic finite state machine. I stuck with it, got somewhat better, made lots of friends, and dated a number of amazing women (both geeky and non-geeky) through dancing. It's also resulted in me becoming much more sociable -- previously I was quite shy, and now I'm -much- more comfortable with interacting with other people and enjoy it quite a bit.
As for the earlier suggestion of ballroom dancing (waltz, foxtrot, tango, etc.) I honestly think it depends on the particular scene -- some scenes have a reputation for being somewhat unfriendly, while others are quite pleasant. The gender ratios tend to be -insanely- in favor of guys though, and any half-decent competitive male ballroom dancer will likely have several women competing to become his practice/competition partner.
Some tips:
if there's multiple dance clubs/studios nearby, be sure to try as many out as you can. Different places have different scenes, with varying groups of people, age ranges, etc.
Don't fall into the trap of trying to just watch DVDs to learn it on your own before going out dancing. Just go out there and take some group lessons, and have fun on the dance floor.
Don't worry about dressing up in vintage gear -- the first time I went I tried to put on suspenders and such, and it was terribly annoying.
Just wear something comfortable and nice-looking, like a dress shirt.
Dance sneakers make dancing -much- easier, although you'll probably want to wait until a couple lessons before you take that particular leap.
If you sweat a lot, be sure to bring an extra shirt that you can change into in the dancefloor restroom. Also, showering, deodorant, and toothbrushing is key!
Smile at your partner! A lot of people tend to frown when they're thinking/concentrating, but that'll just put off your partner.
It also assumes that the kind of people who go to dance clubs and the environment there don't make you cringe at the very thought.
I don't know if you've ever tried it yourself, but the swing dancing scene is pretty much the polar opposite of what a typical "dance club" scene is like. In fact, I can't find the link, but I think swing dancer Ben Yau once described it as "clubbing for people who don't do clubbing." Coincidentally, Ben also runs the geekswing.com website.;)
You' be surprised how many "fellow geeks" actually do some of these things that are being suggested. Ballroom dancing for example.
Cool bit of trivia: Bill Nye the Science Guy often dances Lindy Hop (a type of swing dancing) in the Los Angeles area, and is a damn good dancer. I regularly see him dancing at Lindy Groove in Pasadena, and my female geek friends always freak out and ask him for a dance when they realize who he is.
It seems to me that Direct really is the better START PATH to the moon.
I like the DIRECT design and think it's the most straightforward way to get a heavy lift rocket if it's truly needed, but I'm still not convinced that a heavy lift vehicle is really needed for a lunar architecture. What are your thoughts on using things like orbital fuel depots to enable a lunar architecture using only vehicles in the class of the Delta IV Heavy and SpaceX Falcon 9?
If you can send two rovers to mars for less than 500 millions, then please do.
PS: I'm sure some moron will try to explain us how the supremely intelligent Ayn Rand (cough cough cough) would have been able to do it for less than 1 million.
Nobody is proposing that strawman argument, however the two Mars rovers you mentioned were launched on commercial Delta II rockets, a predecessor to one of the commercial Delta IV rockets the White House panel is considering as an alternative to Ares.
The pols that are fighting against SpaceX and even ULA, are the ones that pushing for Russian launches. Why? Because EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM ARE WORRIED ABOUT JOBS IN THEIR AREA. They would rather ignore what is happening to America, ignore the issues of depending on a country that is NOT our best friend, to protect a few measly jobs.
Yup, this pretty much sums up the problem. Even if having a vibrant commercial space transportation industry would benefit their congressional district in the long term, if it means fewer NASA jobs in their district in the short term they fight against it tooth and nail.
For those unfamiliar, the White House panel (the "Augustine Commission" on human spaceflight plans) was given the following objectives in their charter:
The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight â" one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:
a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);
b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO);
c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and
d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.
Unfortunately, as the "Restore the Vision" blog notes, while the presentations by SpaceX and ULA (maker of the EELVs) addressed these issues, NASA's Constellation presentation largely ignoring these objectives:
On "expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)", the Constellation presentation was silent. It mentioned having ISS crew transport by 2015, the current goal, and how they'd made changes to improve confidence they'd meet that date (eg: reducing initial crew size to 4 on ISS missions). However, "expedite" doesn't mean "increase confidence you'll make the current late date". It means "accelerate the process or progress of : speed up". The presentation doesn't suggest any ways to have Ares/Orion ready for ISS transport by, say, 2013, nor does it suggest any ways to have any other U.S. system ready by that time.
Even former NASA Administrator Griffin always claimed that Ares/Orion was only meant as a backup for ISS support, and commercial transportation services were the intended route. Thus the natural inclination should be for NASA management to encourage commercial services to take on that role. The Constellation presentation could have suggested a COTS-D or similar competition for human transportation services, or some other means to get commercial vendors working on basic ISS transportation. Then Constellation could concentrate on the Moon and Beyond. Alternately, the presentation could have suggested ways to alter Ares/Orion to be ready by 2013. It did neither.
On "stimulating commercial space flight capability", again the Constellation presentation was silent. It has a line about "promoting international and commercial participation in exploration", but no details on what that participation is. Where is this participation in the plan? The original goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was for launch support to be done commercially, except perhaps for heavy lift, if needed. Where is that in the plan? The presentation didn't suggest that any of the components of the Constellation architecture be implemented commercially. There's a picture on "Future Exploration Capabilities" with an Ares V linked to some "Commercial and Civil LEO" spacecraft, but what commercial activity is going to be launched by Ares V? There's a slide on "Economic Impact: Contractor" and others on billions of dollars of prime contract value (as if high cost is a virtue), but that's not commercial, it's government contracts. If a contractor is going to sell commercial services enabled by its government contracts, I'm willing to call that commercial, but how much of
The system rewards and promotes a certain type of manager, right now NASA's system promotes and rewards bureaucrats (like most gov orgs, I'm not just picking on NASA) rather than technically competent leaders.
I don't think anyone would question that former NASA administrator Michael Griffin is technically competent -- he has multiple engineers master's degrees and a PhD in aerospace engineering. However, the reason NASA suffered under him is because he sucked as a bureaucrat, pushing NASA towards his own pet ideas and suppressing contrary opinions within NASA.
I disagree with the idea that a lack of funding is NASA's big problem. At least focusing specifically on the Ares I, the problem is that the former NASA administrator Michael Griffin decided to push his pet project onto NASA and silence engineers who protested about its inherent design flaws.
If NASA had instead used commercial rockets (two of which already existed and only needed relatively minor modifications, and another which was being built at the time and now exists), the rockets would likely be doing initial flight tests today or in the near future. It would also cost dramatically less, even if multiple competing rocket designs were contracted, freeing up NASA funding to focus on what to do in space, instead of how to get there. In contrast, giving the Ares I additional funding would just deepen the hole NASA is currently in.
What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work?
Are you asking what's more attractive to and better for America in general, or what's more attractive to senators from congressional districts where the Ares/Orion will be built?
But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago,
Actually, it's not just technology that NASA had forty years ago, but it's also technology that a number of commercial companies possess today. For some bizarre reason though NASA (or at least certain parts of NASA's management) has a not-invented-here syndrome when it comes to manned spaceflight, and feels the need to spend a few dozen billion dollars to try to duplicate and compete with what the commercial sector can already provide.
USA has great cancer research facilities, like National Cancer Institute. Which sponsors trials of about two-thirds of all approved drugs. Oh, and it is funded by the government, not private industry.
You're talking about medical research, which (with the exception of patients who are participating in a research study) is largely orthogonal to the question of actual end-user health care plans. The existence of stellar cancer research facilities in the US doesn't explain the disparity in cancer survival rates between the US and Europe -- it isn't like cancer treatments discovered in the US are banned from being marketed to Europe.
On a related note, earlier today I was wondering if it would be useful if it would be useful to send old digital cameras to places like Iran and other regions where oppression is occurring (perhaps distributed by international media offices?). Just counting myself, I have 3-4 pocket-size digital cameras which are sitting around collecting dust. As a result, many more of the protesters and bystanders would have cameras, and would be able to capture evidence of violence and oppression. Even if they don't have internet proxy access (or a computer), they could give their memory card to someone who does have one. Of course, there's already some videos being leaked out (NOTE: videos are quite graphic) in defiance of the regime, but increasing the number of available photos and videos by an order of magnitude or two would be a game-changer.
Of course, I have no idea how you'd go about starting to organize something like that, but I wanted to seed the idea in case it's worthwhile.
It's getting there economically that's the problem, and one that isn't going to go away because even as the FAA changes and starts licensing various privately funded space companies, the PE + KE needed to orbit the earth aren't going to change barring big chunks of the earth going missing.
As I've mentioned in another comment, that PE+KE cost is just about 1% of the total cost of getting to orbit on a contemporary rocket.
You got some stats on that? All the different fuels in the Shuttle ain't cheap...
They're pretty darned cheap compared to the overall cost of the shuttle. According to this NASA publication, the Space Shuttle main external tank uses 141,750 gallons of liquid oxygen ("LOX") and 384,071 gallons of liquid hydrogen ("LH2") as propellant. The price of LOX is $0.67/gallon, and the price of LH2 is $0.98/gallon (at least in 2001). Putting the numbers together gives a LOX+LH2 cost of $471,362.08 per launch.
That's half a million dollars for the liquid fuels, compared to (depending on how you calculate it) the 0.5-2 billion dollars required for each shuttle launch.
Mr Mousavi's wife and co-campaigner, Zahra Ranavard, was reported as warning that riot squads would be equipped with live ammunition, raising the prospect of serious bloodshed.
Iran's Interior Ministry said Mr Mousavi would be responsible for any consequences if he went ahead with the protest.
Mr Mousavi's cancellation of the protest came as sporadic disturbances continued around the Iranian capital, and reports circulated of leaked interior ministry statistics showing him as the clear victor in last Friday's polls.
The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.
The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed.
So your argument is because two results of aerospace regulations are bad, all aerospace regulations are bad?
No. The point is that many (not all) aerospace regulations, particularly things like International Traffic in Arms Regulations, are overburdensome and contribute to the high cost of spaceflight.
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
This was incredibly handy recently when I was moving and made the mistake of using one of those services which automatically requests quotes from several different moving companies at once. Several of these companies were calling me daily to try to get me to use their service. Fortunately, I had just given my Google Voice number instead of my cell (I don't have a landline), so all the calls from unknown callers went straight to voicemail. On top of that, Google Voice automatically transcribed all the voicemails, so I didn't even need to listen to them, I could just skim the text of all my voicemails quickly and determine whether or not it was something worth responding to.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a process called "man-rating" which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people. The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever.
Aerospace engineer Rand Simberg's post on man-rating is worth a read. I don't think man-rating is what you (or most people) think it is.
Bottom line: you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated. And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy, than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up.
The Ares I currently has a projected cost of $35 billion (and rising). There's absolutely no way it would cost that much to reliably transport humans on a Delta IV. On top of that, the Ares I has needed exemptions on many of the safety requirements which it wasn't able to meet.
According to this presentation made to the Augustine commission, building a new pad and upgrading the Delta IV Heavy to transport Orion would cost around $1.3 billion total with recurring costs of $300 million a launch. Transporting a manned capsule on a Atlas V or SpaceX Falcon 9 would have a fixed cost of around half a billion with recurring costs ~$130 million.
With numbers like that, there's absolutely no reason to go with the Ares I, especially considering how many safety concerns it has. Heck, you could fund -all- of the alternatives, launch several unmanned payloads, and pay for manned trips on whichever one performs most reliably, and it would -still- cost an order of magnitude less than the Ares I. If there's worries that the other launch vehicles might experience cost inflation, just use a fixed-price contract with milestone-based payments, like has been done with COTS.
However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely.
From reading the actual research proposal abstract, yes, the goal of the research is determining what sorts of interventions will help encourage proper condom use:
Grant Number: 1R21HD060447-01
Project Title: Barriers to Correct Condom Use
PI Information: Name Email Title
JANSSEN, ERICK (Contact) ejanssen@indiana.edu PROFESSOR
SANDERS, STEPHANIE A.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. About half of the new HIV infections in the US are among people under age 25 years with the majority infected through sexual behavior. About one in three new diagnoses with HIV/AIDS are attributed to heterosexual transmission. Men who have sex with women play a major role in HIV transmission to women who can also pass it on to offspring. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs. Yet, studies show that problems with condom use are common and that these problems pose a barrier to consistent and complete condom use. This project aims to advance our understanding of, among other factors, the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men. A multi-method approach - consisting of two studies and involving questionnaires, observational, and psychophysiological methods - will be used in conjunction with a skill-based intervention. The knowledge gained from the proposed research can be used to inform the development of innovative, more effective, and targeted intervention and education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men.
Think of it like DDR, but the way you increase your score is by making your partner look awesome.
Heh, I actually had a couple years experience with DDR under my belt before I started swing dancing, and it actually helped. Besides helping you get the rhythm, you can also represent the basic steps pretty easily as DDR steps. Examples:
Single-step East Coast Swing footwork: left-hold arrow, right-hold, down, right
Triple-step East Coast Swing: left-right-left, right-left-right, down, right
Lindy Hop 8-count basic (including the turning around): left foot on down arrow, right foot on left arrow as you turn around, right-left-right (facing reverse), right foot on up, left foot on left, right-left-right (facing forwards) [ok, maybe that last one actually overcomplicates things...]
I once briefly contemplated learning the Charleston but I'm not sure if I can learn it without accidentally breaking someone's hip. Well, and if I'd ever meet someone who even knows it's a dance outside the dance school.
Charleston is pretty fun, but in my experience it's usually not danced by itself for an entire song. Typically you mix it in with things like Lindy Hop and East Coast Swing.
I've seen some overweight guys do quite well on the ballroom floor,
I've never seen it danced, but there's actually a foxtrot-like dance called the "peabody" which was created by an overweight police lieutenant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_(dance)
Peabody was a foxtrot type ballroom dance in the United States of the beginning of the 20th century. It was essentially a fast One-Step danced under lively ragtime music.
It was named after a police lieutenant, a William Frank Peabody, an active dancer. [1] The dance was characteristic of its prevalent use of the Right Outside Partner position. This peculiarity is explained by the fact that Lt. Peabody was a man of considerable girth, so that for the freedom of movement he had to keep the lady to the side, rather than in front.
The dance used to be included into the American Smooth competitive dance category.
If you can't talk to chick drunk in a bar, no way you're going to strike up a conversation during dance lessons that will work out for you.
Huh? I'm the sort of guy that would never dream of chatting up a random girl in a bar, but whenever I go swing dancing I'm meeting and happily chatting with several women every half-hour. The atmosphere is just totally different from the bar scene and the women in the dance scene tend to be much more intelligent than your typical bar ladies.
Here's what worked for me: find a cause, and volunteer.
This is actually quite a good suggestion. I generally think it's a good idea to just try several different things and find what appeals to you.
It looks like it wasn't carried over, so I'll repost my comment from the dancing thread over on the firehose submission:
I'm not sure if you included this in "ballroom dancing," but I'd also specifically add swing dancing (e.g. Lindy Hop, East Coast Swing). It's the only thing I've ever found that has a disproportionately high number of geeks -and- women. Seriously, quite a few swing dancers are of the geek persuasion, and there's almost always more women than men. Plus, you basically get to meet a new person of the opposite gender every time there's a new song, and people generally don't care how good of a dancer you are as long as you're friendly and eager to learn.
As for myself, I first started swing dancing ~6 years ago, when a friend of mine brought me along to a local club. Being the dork that I am, I got kind of excited when I realized that the handhold and moves in swing dancing could be easily reduced to the states and transitions of a nondeterministic finite state machine. I stuck with it, got somewhat better, made lots of friends, and dated a number of amazing women (both geeky and non-geeky) through dancing. It's also resulted in me becoming much more sociable -- previously I was quite shy, and now I'm -much- more comfortable with interacting with other people and enjoy it quite a bit.
As for the earlier suggestion of ballroom dancing (waltz, foxtrot, tango, etc.) I honestly think it depends on the particular scene -- some scenes have a reputation for being somewhat unfriendly, while others are quite pleasant. The gender ratios tend to be -insanely- in favor of guys though, and any half-decent competitive male ballroom dancer will likely have several women competing to become his practice/competition partner.
Some tips:
It also assumes that the kind of people who go to dance clubs and the environment there don't make you cringe at the very thought.
I don't know if you've ever tried it yourself, but the swing dancing scene is pretty much the polar opposite of what a typical "dance club" scene is like. In fact, I can't find the link, but I think swing dancer Ben Yau once described it as "clubbing for people who don't do clubbing." Coincidentally, Ben also runs the geekswing.com website. ;)
You' be surprised how many "fellow geeks" actually do some of these things that are being suggested. Ballroom dancing for example.
Cool bit of trivia: Bill Nye the Science Guy often dances Lindy Hop (a type of swing dancing) in the Los Angeles area, and is a damn good dancer. I regularly see him dancing at Lindy Groove in Pasadena, and my female geek friends always freak out and ask him for a dance when they realize who he is.
It seems to me that Direct really is the better START PATH to the moon.
I like the DIRECT design and think it's the most straightforward way to get a heavy lift rocket if it's truly needed, but I'm still not convinced that a heavy lift vehicle is really needed for a lunar architecture. What are your thoughts on using things like orbital fuel depots to enable a lunar architecture using only vehicles in the class of the Delta IV Heavy and SpaceX Falcon 9?
If you can send two rovers to mars for less than 500 millions, then please do.
PS: I'm sure some moron will try to explain us how the supremely intelligent Ayn Rand (cough cough cough) would have been able to do it for less than 1 million.
Nobody is proposing that strawman argument, however the two Mars rovers you mentioned were launched on commercial Delta II rockets, a predecessor to one of the commercial Delta IV rockets the White House panel is considering as an alternative to Ares.
The pols that are fighting against SpaceX and even ULA, are the ones that pushing for Russian launches. Why? Because EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM ARE WORRIED ABOUT JOBS IN THEIR AREA. They would rather ignore what is happening to America, ignore the issues of depending on a country that is NOT our best friend, to protect a few measly jobs.
Yup, this pretty much sums up the problem. Even if having a vibrant commercial space transportation industry would benefit their congressional district in the long term, if it means fewer NASA jobs in their district in the short term they fight against it tooth and nail.
For those unfamiliar, the White House panel (the "Augustine Commission" on human spaceflight plans) was given the following objectives in their charter:
The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight â" one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:
a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);
b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO);
c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and
d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.
Unfortunately, as the "Restore the Vision" blog notes, while the presentations by SpaceX and ULA (maker of the EELVs) addressed these issues, NASA's Constellation presentation largely ignoring these objectives:
http://restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughts-on-june-17-human-space-flight.html
On "expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)", the Constellation presentation was silent. It mentioned having ISS crew transport by 2015, the current goal, and how they'd made changes to improve confidence they'd meet that date (eg: reducing initial crew size to 4 on ISS missions). However, "expedite" doesn't mean "increase confidence you'll make the current late date". It means "accelerate the process or progress of : speed up". The presentation doesn't suggest any ways to have Ares/Orion ready for ISS transport by, say, 2013, nor does it suggest any ways to have any other U.S. system ready by that time.
Even former NASA Administrator Griffin always claimed that Ares/Orion was only meant as a backup for ISS support, and commercial transportation services were the intended route. Thus the natural inclination should be for NASA management to encourage commercial services to take on that role. The Constellation presentation could have suggested a COTS-D or similar competition for human transportation services, or some other means to get commercial vendors working on basic ISS transportation. Then Constellation could concentrate on the Moon and Beyond. Alternately, the presentation could have suggested ways to alter Ares/Orion to be ready by 2013. It did neither.
On "stimulating commercial space flight capability", again the Constellation presentation was silent. It has a line about "promoting international and commercial participation in exploration", but no details on what that participation is. Where is this participation in the plan? The original goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was for launch support to be done commercially, except perhaps for heavy lift, if needed. Where is that in the plan? The presentation didn't suggest that any of the components of the Constellation architecture be implemented commercially. There's a picture on "Future Exploration Capabilities" with an Ares V linked to some "Commercial and Civil LEO" spacecraft, but what commercial activity is going to be launched by Ares V? There's a slide on "Economic Impact: Contractor" and others on billions of dollars of prime contract value (as if high cost is a virtue), but that's not commercial, it's government contracts. If a contractor is going to sell commercial services enabled by its government contracts, I'm willing to call that commercial, but how much of
The system rewards and promotes a certain type of manager, right now NASA's system promotes and rewards bureaucrats (like most gov orgs, I'm not just picking on NASA) rather than technically competent leaders.
I don't think anyone would question that former NASA administrator Michael Griffin is technically competent -- he has multiple engineers master's degrees and a PhD in aerospace engineering. However, the reason NASA suffered under him is because he sucked as a bureaucrat, pushing NASA towards his own pet ideas and suppressing contrary opinions within NASA.
I disagree with the idea that a lack of funding is NASA's big problem. At least focusing specifically on the Ares I, the problem is that the former NASA administrator Michael Griffin decided to push his pet project onto NASA and silence engineers who protested about its inherent design flaws.
If NASA had instead used commercial rockets (two of which already existed and only needed relatively minor modifications, and another which was being built at the time and now exists), the rockets would likely be doing initial flight tests today or in the near future. It would also cost dramatically less, even if multiple competing rocket designs were contracted, freeing up NASA funding to focus on what to do in space, instead of how to get there. In contrast, giving the Ares I additional funding would just deepen the hole NASA is currently in.
What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work?
Are you asking what's more attractive to and better for America in general, or what's more attractive to senators from congressional districts where the Ares/Orion will be built?
But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago,
Actually, it's not just technology that NASA had forty years ago, but it's also technology that a number of commercial companies possess today. For some bizarre reason though NASA (or at least certain parts of NASA's management) has a not-invented-here syndrome when it comes to manned spaceflight, and feels the need to spend a few dozen billion dollars to try to duplicate and compete with what the commercial sector can already provide.
The food quality nor life style is particular different in Canada.
In case anyone's curious, some stats showing food/lifestyle/crime differences between the US and Canada which have an impact on life expectancy:
* % Obesity: 30.6% in US, 14.3% in Canada
* traffic deaths per capita: 17.5 deaths per million in US, 6.4 deaths per million in Canada
* Murders per capita: 0.043 per 1000 people in US, 0.015 per 1000 people in Canada
USA has great cancer research facilities, like National Cancer Institute. Which sponsors trials of about two-thirds of all approved drugs. Oh, and it is funded by the government, not private industry.
You're talking about medical research, which (with the exception of patients who are participating in a research study) is largely orthogonal to the question of actual end-user health care plans. The existence of stellar cancer research facilities in the US doesn't explain the disparity in cancer survival rates between the US and Europe -- it isn't like cancer treatments discovered in the US are banned from being marketed to Europe.
On a related note, earlier today I was wondering if it would be useful if it would be useful to send old digital cameras to places like Iran and other regions where oppression is occurring (perhaps distributed by international media offices?). Just counting myself, I have 3-4 pocket-size digital cameras which are sitting around collecting dust. As a result, many more of the protesters and bystanders would have cameras, and would be able to capture evidence of violence and oppression. Even if they don't have internet proxy access (or a computer), they could give their memory card to someone who does have one. Of course, there's already some videos being leaked out (NOTE: videos are quite graphic) in defiance of the regime, but increasing the number of available photos and videos by an order of magnitude or two would be a game-changer.
Of course, I have no idea how you'd go about starting to organize something like that, but I wanted to seed the idea in case it's worthwhile.
It's getting there economically that's the problem, and one that isn't going to go away because even as the FAA changes and starts licensing various privately funded space companies, the PE + KE needed to orbit the earth aren't going to change barring big chunks of the earth going missing.
As I've mentioned in another comment, that PE+KE cost is just about 1% of the total cost of getting to orbit on a contemporary rocket.
You got some stats on that? All the different fuels in the Shuttle ain't cheap...
They're pretty darned cheap compared to the overall cost of the shuttle. According to this NASA publication, the Space Shuttle main external tank uses 141,750 gallons of liquid oxygen ("LOX") and 384,071 gallons of liquid hydrogen ("LH2") as propellant. The price of LOX is $0.67/gallon, and the price of LH2 is $0.98/gallon (at least in 2001). Putting the numbers together gives a LOX+LH2 cost of $471,362.08 per launch.
That's half a million dollars for the liquid fuels, compared to (depending on how you calculate it) the 0.5-2 billion dollars required for each shuttle launch.
Leaked it to where? Poor bastard.
I believe it's referring to these leaked election results, although I'm personally still waiting for some sort of validation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5540211/Iran-protest-cancelled-as-leaked-election-results-show-Mahmoud-Amadinejad-came-third.html
Mr Mousavi's wife and co-campaigner, Zahra Ranavard, was reported as warning that riot squads would be equipped with live ammunition, raising the prospect of serious bloodshed.
Iran's Interior Ministry said Mr Mousavi would be responsible for any consequences if he went ahead with the protest.
Mr Mousavi's cancellation of the protest came as sporadic disturbances continued around the Iranian capital, and reports circulated of leaked interior ministry statistics showing him as the clear victor in last Friday's polls.
The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.
The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed.
So your argument is because two results of aerospace regulations are bad, all aerospace regulations are bad?
No. The point is that many (not all) aerospace regulations, particularly things like International Traffic in Arms Regulations, are overburdensome and contribute to the high cost of spaceflight.
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
This was incredibly handy recently when I was moving and made the mistake of using one of those services which automatically requests quotes from several different moving companies at once. Several of these companies were calling me daily to try to get me to use their service. Fortunately, I had just given my Google Voice number instead of my cell (I don't have a landline), so all the calls from unknown callers went straight to voicemail. On top of that, Google Voice automatically transcribed all the voicemails, so I didn't even need to listen to them, I could just skim the text of all my voicemails quickly and determine whether or not it was something worth responding to.