There seems to be this hypothesis going around that the environment is like a fragile house of cards, and disrupting a single part of it could cause the whole thing to collapse. This is the mentality that "rednecks" are complaining about. People who live and work in nature (rednecks, as you call them) know that the environment is damn near unstoppable (even annoyingly so at times). And they resent being "educated" by urbanites about the "frail" nature of the environment, which they know is actually quite robust.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the state of the environment. Certainly large scale destruction is possible, and would cause hardship to the earth's human populations. But that doesn't justify the outrageously conservative attitude that any environmental destruction at all must be avoided. You can cut the top off a mountain to get at what's underneath and the environment will recover. You can melt the icecaps and the environment will recover. It's all about measured risk, you need to make sure the rewards outpace the risks.
SpaceX rockets burn Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen. The combustion products are less harmfull than your car exhaust, and are dispersed mostly at high altitudes.
What noxious chemicals are they talking about? Somehow I suspect they lack the technical expertise accurately assess the environmental impact if they will make a ridiculous claim like that. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the technologies used in SpaceX rockets.
I think it's harder to cut your hand off with a chainsaw than you realize, since they really require two hands to operate. A circular saw, on the other hand. . .
On the one hand, I hate being told what to do. On the other hand, the "small" drink at the movie theater is about 4 times the size I actually want do drink.
According to the constitution the purpose of patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think it's safe to say that buying up useless patents and using them to harass new entries to the market does the opposite.
It's wrong to think so much of the public vs. private thing. Ultimately corporations and individuals act at the request of the government and have a role in influencing it. And large corporations like Boeing or Lockheed Martin act as administrative units in themselves, establishing rules and regulations for their workforce, holding elections among their shareholders, sending lobbiests to congress and so fourth.
The main difference here is the way NASA and SpaceX are working together. Rather than issuing a cost plus contract and heavily overseeing and micro-managing the development of this rocket, they've issued a fixed price contract and left most of the details up to SpaceX. The reason it works is SpaceX is ultimately responsible for the financial results of the endeavor. If they come in under the bid amount (which is their intention) they make money. The more they save, the more they make. If they come in over budget they either lose money or they have to go back to NASA and ask for more (at which time the whole project would be in question). But you can only do this with well developed technologies, so that you know the costs well enough to bid a reasonable amount. If you try it with cutting edge technology, it would almost certainly fail.
Hopefully someday NASA will be able to simply buy newly developed rockets "off the shelf" where companies and individuals bear the risks of development on their own, but that'll only happen if SpaceX is secessfull in bringing the costs down by another order of magnitude or so (which is their intention).
You may be shocked to learn that cars are not necessary for transportation. Better ban them while you're at it, because only a relatively small fraction of accidents are the result of distracted or drunk driving.
Even if these produce twice much power as the previous generation, as the article claims, that's still probably about $4.00/Watt. If it's 60% efficient, like he claims, that's equivalent to a combined cycle plant, which typically will cost about $0.50/Watt. Why would you pay 8 times more for this? Is there any benefit?
The challenges related to making graphene microelectronics are overwhelming. It may well never come to market. Silicon is great because because it's relatively cheap, and much easier to work with. Plus, all the fabrication techniques we use now work with silicon. So yes, if this technology would work at all it would almost certainly beat graphene to market. It would beat graphene out of the market entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it matter if the trees being planted will be cut? They will just be replanted again.
There seems to be this hypothesis going around that the environment is like a fragile house of cards, and disrupting a single part of it could cause the whole thing to collapse. This is the mentality that "rednecks" are complaining about. People who live and work in nature (rednecks, as you call them) know that the environment is damn near unstoppable (even annoyingly so at times). And they resent being "educated" by urbanites about the "frail" nature of the environment, which they know is actually quite robust.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the state of the environment. Certainly large scale destruction is possible, and would cause hardship to the earth's human populations. But that doesn't justify the outrageously conservative attitude that any environmental destruction at all must be avoided. You can cut the top off a mountain to get at what's underneath and the environment will recover. You can melt the icecaps and the environment will recover. It's all about measured risk, you need to make sure the rewards outpace the risks.
It's a good thing they don't burn hydrazine.
SpaceX rockets burn Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen. The combustion products are less harmfull than your car exhaust, and are dispersed mostly at high altitudes.
This is exactly right.
Do you think a couple launches a year will hurt tourism? If anything, it will bring more tourism.
What noxious chemicals are they talking about? Somehow I suspect they lack the technical expertise accurately assess the environmental impact if they will make a ridiculous claim like that. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the technologies used in SpaceX rockets.
Yeah, that's why Afghanistan was such a cakewalk. What's that? It wasn't? That's funny. . .
But don't you think it's advisable to pay 100% attention at all times when using a chainsaw? I mean, it is a chainsaw after all. . .
Yes, I'm sure the government is no more afraid of an armed citizen than an unarmed one. . .
I think it's harder to cut your hand off with a chainsaw than you realize, since they really require two hands to operate. A circular saw, on the other hand. . .
I know this was meant as a joke, but it's really only a matter of time.
On the one hand, I hate being told what to do. On the other hand, the "small" drink at the movie theater is about 4 times the size I actually want do drink.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know everyone who drinks soda also want's free healthcare?
This is true.
But that doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" does it? It inhibits it.
According to the constitution the purpose of patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think it's safe to say that buying up useless patents and using them to harass new entries to the market does the opposite.
Television was invented by Philo Farnsworth, an American born in Utah.
It's wrong to think so much of the public vs. private thing. Ultimately corporations and individuals act at the request of the government and have a role in influencing it. And large corporations like Boeing or Lockheed Martin act as administrative units in themselves, establishing rules and regulations for their workforce, holding elections among their shareholders, sending lobbiests to congress and so fourth.
The main difference here is the way NASA and SpaceX are working together. Rather than issuing a cost plus contract and heavily overseeing and micro-managing the development of this rocket, they've issued a fixed price contract and left most of the details up to SpaceX. The reason it works is SpaceX is ultimately responsible for the financial results of the endeavor. If they come in under the bid amount (which is their intention) they make money. The more they save, the more they make. If they come in over budget they either lose money or they have to go back to NASA and ask for more (at which time the whole project would be in question). But you can only do this with well developed technologies, so that you know the costs well enough to bid a reasonable amount. If you try it with cutting edge technology, it would almost certainly fail.
Hopefully someday NASA will be able to simply buy newly developed rockets "off the shelf" where companies and individuals bear the risks of development on their own, but that'll only happen if SpaceX is secessfull in bringing the costs down by another order of magnitude or so (which is their intention).
You may be shocked to learn that cars are not necessary for transportation. Better ban them while you're at it, because only a relatively small fraction of accidents are the result of distracted or drunk driving.
Even if these produce twice much power as the previous generation, as the article claims, that's still probably about $4.00/Watt. If it's 60% efficient, like he claims, that's equivalent to a combined cycle plant, which typically will cost about $0.50/Watt. Why would you pay 8 times more for this? Is there any benefit?
Maybe he's a space alien.
The challenges related to making graphene microelectronics are overwhelming. It may well never come to market. Silicon is great because because it's relatively cheap, and much easier to work with. Plus, all the fabrication techniques we use now work with silicon. So yes, if this technology would work at all it would almost certainly beat graphene to market. It would beat graphene out of the market entirely.
It makes me wonder if anything will ever replace silicon.
Las Vegas is a big tech city. It is 100% compatible with the "geek ethic." The reason Apple is in Silicon Valley is that's where Steve Jobs grew up.