No argument here. However, even though "the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down", I'm pretty sure the Universe itself would scarcely notice, and would likely go on as it has. In fact, I suspect that, if we could get a peek at the Universe's "coat of arms", the motto would be "I Plod...." (in Latin, of course).
I apologize for misreading your comment. I had looked at another thread and then went on to another and returned to yours, but clearly mistook a comment made in the other thread for yours. I certainly meant no harm or disrespect....
OK, could we get this straight? The tiles on the shuttles aren't styrofoam. They're a foam-like ceramic material. And we already have something better, but it was neither sexy nor sufficiently expensive for NASA. It wasn't developed with NASA funding, but rather got its funding from the Space Defense Initiative. It was called the "DC-X", and you can read all about it at:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
This test/demo vehicle could take off under rocket power from a very modest pad, translate itself horizontally a few hundred metres, and then land on another pad. So, it demonstrated the hardest task that a single-stage-to-orbit would need to perform. A full-scale vehicle of this type would need no aerodynamic surfaces at all, because it would use its restartable rocket engine to both achieve orbit and to reenter under power. This concept was Boeing/McDonnel-Douglas' entry in the competition for a demo of a successor to the shuttles. It lost out to Lockheed-Martin's entry, apparently because Bill Clinton needed to carry GA in the '96 election. (Lest you think that I'm some foaming-at-the-mouth Republican, please note that I'm a registered Democrat....)
I'm not a "rocket scientist", just a garden-variety engineer/astronomer who worked for NASA and the Navy for a lotta years. It wouldn't surprise me if we could get a full-scale version of the DC-X operational as early as 2008-2009. It's just that simple. All the really hard work is done....
Uh, does this mean that, if I send you my old Commodore PET, that you'll pay the COD charges and give it a good home? Seriously, I wish I had the two that I bought in '77 for the tracking station where I worked. They might be quite valuable. (And, I had the one with the 8K memory card! Whoop de doo!)
I guess I wish that I had the old original Mac I bought (SN 28!) in the Winter of '84. But, I gave it to a homeless shelter, so, I guess it wasn't homeless, at least for a while.
What's really amazing is that I still have a stack of old floppies with some original Mac software on it. (I beta-tested some software for Apple.) Anyone have any use for MacDraw V0.95?
I worked for NASA/JPL in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, specifically on the Venus Balloon (NASA/CNES/IKI) and Halley Pathfinder (NASA/ESA/IKI) missions, where ESA is the European Space Agency, CNES is the acronym for the French space agency, and IKI is the acronym for the USSR's civilian space agency, InterCosmos. These missions were the first that involved true long-term cooperation that involved both NASA and IKI. (The Apollo-Soyuz Mission in the 70s was just a publicity stunt.) The most important thing I learned from the Soviets was how much they got done with so little resources compared to either NASA or ESA (and ESA was much more efficient than NASA.). The most vivid example of this is the fact that, when the French scientists arrived in Russia to support the Venus Balloons' arrival in the atmosphere of Venus, the IBM PC/ATs they brought with them TRIPLED the number of general purpose digital computers that were available in the InterCosmos HQ, and enormous building! The only other machine available was an ancient 16-bit minicomputer in the basement. Needless to say, the ATs were extremely popular! But the really important point is that, somehow, the Soviet scientists and engineers were "doing space" with the level of resources we had in the 40s or early 50s!
That said, I'm not sure that I can convince myself that Russia, in its present fractured, economically emaciated condition, could mount a Mars mission that had any real probability of success. (And, Russia isn't the monolith that the USSR was, so I can't agree that they necessarily have a strategy of trying to hoodwink us. That doesn't mean that there won't be a surprise or two along the way....)
I'm having a bit of a problem with the contention that "trains consume vast quantities of land". Have you ever driven down an interstate highway next to a train track. The whole right-of-way for the track is maybe 25-feet wide, while that for the highway is between 175 and 250 feet wide. Which uses more area per passenger mile?
On a different note, the idea to do all the preflight security checks on the train has some promise.
Aside from the above quibble, I'm forced to agree that air travel makes the most sense for long-haul travel. In an effort to promote easier security, I note that the only widebody ever made in the former Soviet Union had two decks. On the lower deck, there were simple bins for passengers' baggage. The proletariet drones just filed into the lower level, deposited their baggage in the bins, and then went up internal stairs to the passenger cabin! There would certainly be some things to iron out in this concept, but it might be just the thing for true "mass transit" via air.
While everyone else was on topic, I was checking the President's Year-End Honors. One of the first was the "Metal of Freedom" presented to "Linux" for his "many years of service to the funny-paper readers of this geat country as a member of the 'Peanuts Gang'". The President also congratulated "Linux" on his "second career developing software" for the computer users of this great land."....
Slashdot Mirror
No argument here. However, even though "the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down", I'm pretty sure the Universe itself would scarcely notice, and would likely go on as it has. In fact, I suspect that, if we could get a peek at the Universe's "coat of arms", the motto would be "I Plod...." (in Latin, of course).
I apologize for misreading your comment. I had looked at another thread and then went on to another and returned to yours, but clearly mistook a comment made in the other thread for yours. I certainly meant no harm or disrespect....
OK, could we get this straight? The tiles on the shuttles aren't styrofoam. They're a foam-like ceramic material. And we already have something better, but it was neither sexy nor sufficiently expensive for NASA. It wasn't developed with NASA funding, but rather got its funding from the Space Defense Initiative. It was called the "DC-X", and you can read all about it at: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm This test/demo vehicle could take off under rocket power from a very modest pad, translate itself horizontally a few hundred metres, and then land on another pad. So, it demonstrated the hardest task that a single-stage-to-orbit would need to perform. A full-scale vehicle of this type would need no aerodynamic surfaces at all, because it would use its restartable rocket engine to both achieve orbit and to reenter under power. This concept was Boeing/McDonnel-Douglas' entry in the competition for a demo of a successor to the shuttles. It lost out to Lockheed-Martin's entry, apparently because Bill Clinton needed to carry GA in the '96 election. (Lest you think that I'm some foaming-at-the-mouth Republican, please note that I'm a registered Democrat....) I'm not a "rocket scientist", just a garden-variety engineer/astronomer who worked for NASA and the Navy for a lotta years. It wouldn't surprise me if we could get a full-scale version of the DC-X operational as early as 2008-2009. It's just that simple. All the really hard work is done....
Uh, does this mean that, if I send you my old Commodore PET, that you'll pay the COD charges and give it a good home? Seriously, I wish I had the two that I bought in '77 for the tracking station where I worked. They might be quite valuable. (And, I had the one with the 8K memory card! Whoop de doo!) I guess I wish that I had the old original Mac I bought (SN 28!) in the Winter of '84. But, I gave it to a homeless shelter, so, I guess it wasn't homeless, at least for a while. What's really amazing is that I still have a stack of old floppies with some original Mac software on it. (I beta-tested some software for Apple.) Anyone have any use for MacDraw V0.95?
I worked for NASA/JPL in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, specifically on the Venus Balloon (NASA/CNES/IKI) and Halley Pathfinder (NASA/ESA/IKI) missions, where ESA is the European Space Agency, CNES is the acronym for the French space agency, and IKI is the acronym for the USSR's civilian space agency, InterCosmos. These missions were the first that involved true long-term cooperation that involved both NASA and IKI. (The Apollo-Soyuz Mission in the 70s was just a publicity stunt.) The most important thing I learned from the Soviets was how much they got done with so little resources compared to either NASA or ESA (and ESA was much more efficient than NASA.). The most vivid example of this is the fact that, when the French scientists arrived in Russia to support the Venus Balloons' arrival in the atmosphere of Venus, the IBM PC/ATs they brought with them TRIPLED the number of general purpose digital computers that were available in the InterCosmos HQ, and enormous building! The only other machine available was an ancient 16-bit minicomputer in the basement. Needless to say, the ATs were extremely popular! But the really important point is that, somehow, the Soviet scientists and engineers were "doing space" with the level of resources we had in the 40s or early 50s! That said, I'm not sure that I can convince myself that Russia, in its present fractured, economically emaciated condition, could mount a Mars mission that had any real probability of success. (And, Russia isn't the monolith that the USSR was, so I can't agree that they necessarily have a strategy of trying to hoodwink us. That doesn't mean that there won't be a surprise or two along the way....)
I'm having a bit of a problem with the contention that "trains consume vast quantities of land". Have you ever driven down an interstate highway next to a train track. The whole right-of-way for the track is maybe 25-feet wide, while that for the highway is between 175 and 250 feet wide. Which uses more area per passenger mile? On a different note, the idea to do all the preflight security checks on the train has some promise. Aside from the above quibble, I'm forced to agree that air travel makes the most sense for long-haul travel. In an effort to promote easier security, I note that the only widebody ever made in the former Soviet Union had two decks. On the lower deck, there were simple bins for passengers' baggage. The proletariet drones just filed into the lower level, deposited their baggage in the bins, and then went up internal stairs to the passenger cabin! There would certainly be some things to iron out in this concept, but it might be just the thing for true "mass transit" via air.
What do you get for the man who has everything? Why, a microTeslaMeter he can wear in a leather sheath on his belt, of course!
While everyone else was on topic, I was checking the President's Year-End Honors. One of the first was the "Metal of Freedom" presented to "Linux" for his "many years of service to the funny-paper readers of this geat country as a member of the 'Peanuts Gang'". The President also congratulated "Linux" on his "second career developing software" for the computer users of this great land."....