Part of it is the redundancy of Americanized English (IE ATM Machine, PIN Number etc). Another part is the sensationalizing of news in the US (personally I think we are getting very close to returning to the days of Yello Journalisom). Illegal and other buzzwords are used to grab the attention of the sheeples that consume most news here in the US. The third part of this is the more insidious nature of business in the US. Because of the very close ties that bind many business ventures together they are able to place pressure on the news media to spin things in the direction of certain interest groups. Here we have the news and entertainment divisions of larger corporate interests using their shared influence to reinforce the idea that activity X is illegal by forcing the word down consumers throats. The sad thing is most people are to asleep to realize whats happening.
You have actually hit on one of the open secrets of technology, porn is A. an early adopter and B. a driving force behind large amounts of technology and marketing strategems. I often baffle my friends when I tell them that, besides the obvious reasons, when I go to a gentlemans club or adult boutique (yes yes I am a dirty old man, I admit it) its to see what new tech there is or get ideas for various marketing plans I am involved in. For the doubters I invite them along on my next trip and point out certain things then tell them to watch for it over the next 6 to 12 months. They are amazed when those ideas filter to the mainstream.
If Hollywood would adopt some of the business model of the porn industry they would see a marked improvement in profits. And its not like the quality of acting or writing is all that high above porn anyway...
The reason that we don't have smaller satellites up there is because many of the miniaturized electronic components that are availble for use down here are not robust enough to survive the rigors of launch and space flight. We are just now starting to really experiment with micro, pico and nano sats as the first generations of mini-tech designed to survive launch and orbit are becoming available.
The advantage of constellations of small satellites are numerous. Take weather observation for example. A single satellite is only able to observe 500 miles of a given weather event... for kicks lets say a hurricane. As it zooms in to get more detailed data X decreases exponentially. Well now we have say 5 smaller satellites flying in a longitudenal line and each has the ability to observe 375 miles of that same weather event with a 25 mile over lap at the edge of each observation circle. You now have an observation line 1725 miles long and the ability to zoom in selectively to collect information while still keeping a bigger picture view on the majority of the storm.
This of course does not mean that larger satellites don't have their place but in the space business smaller is also far cheaper. at a launch cost of approx $10K (or atleast thats what its coming to for my missions lately) if I can create a 100 lb satellite that can do the same mission of a 500 lb satellite I will take it. First it means I can ride share and that means someone else is helping with launch costs. Secondly given that there is a ride share that means more payloads are flying which eventually could lead to economies of scale type cost reductions both in satellite and launch vehicle manufacturing/launch services. Third with the more payloads that fly it means that we may actually start making ngrand new discoveries about space again, improve earth observation capability (for things like weather, put away your tinfoil hats), and finally start putting some slack into global satellite communications capability... most people don't realize how tight that pipeline is, but thats a topic for another post.
That's how you do it. AOL only lets you go if you have a terminal condition.
Not entirely true. I have a friend that works in one of the gulags... ahh call centers... and she got a call from a mother pleading that AOL stop harrassing her family over dead sons account. The son had died 3 months previously and AOL would not cancel the account. They continued to charge even after being notified of the clients demise and then turn his account over to collections for failure to pay when his CC was closed. So even in death AOL will still try and keep you as a customer.
So how much would it cost to run these "unproven genetic tests," I'd imagine it's quite expensive.
The more tests there are the cheaper and the better our business practices/tech need to be which in turn decreases cost and causes more tests so we need to improve again. Its simple economies of scale and the cycle of improved business practices and tech being driven by and driving increased demand.
Besides how much of it genetics and how much is just plain wear and tear, if I spent most of my life hunched over a keyboard typing or "playing racket ball"... oh dammit. No genetic discrimination!
Is this statement supposed to be an arguement of some sort? This is exactly the issue that is being discussed. That since a gene test ignores wear and tear and looks solely at the genetic predisposition then that is wear you have issues arise of discrimination. I can look at your genes and say this person was going to get condition X no matter what they did so its not my fault or I shouldn't hire them. Once that info is available there is no saying that condition X was caused ONLY by wear and tear.
IAA Rocket Scientist... What makes this revolutionary is actually the engineering and physics implications not the manufacturing (though that will now be easier). An important part of the thrust generated by a rocket engine is the amount of pressure built up by pushing X amount of fuel through a hole (the throat) of Y size. If the hole is to big you won't get enough thrust to take off and if it is to small you get to much pressure and blow up your rocket. Why this is revolutionary is because it now eliminates the need for the complex combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly. What he has managed to do then is find a fuel mixture and engine design with a high enough ISP that he no longer needs the "old-fashioned" engine design. Think of it in terms of finding a new fuel for your car that would mean a four banger has all the power of a V-8. You can have a simpler, smaller, cheaper engine and still move large quantities of stuff.
This A. (as already mentioned) makes things easier and cheaper to manufacture, B. eliminates one of the greatest fail points in rocket design, C. You lose a good amount of weigh because you can dump portions of the structure that are used to reinforce the entire assembly.
Yes, I relaize this post is a little bit scatter brained but that happens when you are posting while dodging the boss.;)
Fuedal huh? Given that most slashdotters have no gfs what does that do to prima nocta? First night with any new hard-drive your PHB gets to take it home?
Well speaking as a current member of the US military lets see how I fit your mold:
"devoutly and unquestioningly religious"
I have been to church once in the past three months and recently decided to leave said church bucause when it came to doctrine no one could answer my questions.
"member of Future Business Leaders of America"
While I did study Marketing (boo, hiss... kill the marketing bastards!) in college I never had anything to do with any of the business clubs. I was to busy studying history and wooing my future exwife. (Chalk that up to being not particularly religious)
"and also boy/girl scouts"
Yes, I am registered as a boy scout but that was more for insurance reasons after I broke my hand at my first and last boy scout event ever.
"They won't ask too many questions"
Well I think I established that I am a rather inquisitive person in the first issue I addressed. Normally though I am one of the people that stays after any particular class because I want further clarification (but am wise/polite enough) not to hold the entire class there late with my inquiries.
"and will do as they're told because it's the government asking"
I generally get in trouble here at work because I won't do the incredibly stupid things that are asked of me... until its an order anyway because dumb as somethings may be I really rather not go to prison.
It would appear that I am 0 for 5 and I am not an atypical cross section of the people I work with. Speaking as someone who can actually see those who choose to serve close up rather than going off preconcieved notions born from going through life with my eyes squeezed shut and fingers in my ears I would have to say your dead wrong.
"This is a good thing folks. Darwin at work."
Whether you agree that that time is now or not there will come a day, as history has constantly shown, that the barbians will be at the gate and you had best hope someone is willing to stand behind that gate to defend you and yours. Those of you who hate the military, not just the current conflict but the institution of the military, are ingrates. Jefferson was right when he said that the tree of liberty must occassionally be refreshed with blood and it is those of us that are willing to go and bleed and die who keep that tree, that you sit and rest under, alive. What have you done to help tend that tree? Have tended it with tools of civil service or community volunteering? Are you willing to water it? Have you even bothered to take the smallest of civil obligations by voting? If your not contributing to the health of the system then how can you presume to look down on those who have stood up to do so? Your right, it is Darwin at work and as Darwin said it is the strong who survive and those of us who are willing to serve our country either with military, civil or community service are the ones who are keeping this nation strong... it seems people like you are only able to be parasites weakening the system that you depend on to exisist.
Yeah yeah, mod me down as flamebait or anything else. +4 interesting my ass.
Remeber though that this new database covers down to 16, covers males and females and is an opt-out while selective service starts at 18, is males only and is an opt-in. Yes, I realize it is the law and that you will be denied certain financial aid/loans/jobs if you don't but there are people that do not register and still live productive lives.
No, I don't agree with the new database and yes I think it is a waste... just for different reasons than you do.
There was no direct public money spent on the development of the Pegasus (or the SeaLaunch Zenit for that matter) but that doesn't mean there was no public money spent on the rocket. I assure you that Aerospace support is not free and while it is technically an independant corporation the public money that supports it does mean that public money did support development. At any rate its getting into splitting hairs now so lets agree to disagree.
Actually, I was involved in going over the technical details of Falcon for the RSS contract and yes I realize that they have redundant systems. My point is that it is not the super redundancy of rockets like Delta IV/Atlas V or the shuttle. I was not contending that SpaceX cuts corners just that they have realized that there is diminishing returns after a certain point of redundancy. Also considering their internal manufacturing and QA program if you build the primary and first back up well (and they do!) you can do without a second, third, fourth, etc. backup. As far as the Falcon V goes it is still heavily dependant on technology still under development for Falcon I and the success of those technologies so not to poop on their efforts but I will put stock in that design after Falcon I has flown.
Perhaps my choice of "safer" vehicle was poorly choosen as I was not saying that SpaceX or anyone else for that matter has an unsafe vehicle. Specifically in the case of SpaceX they have gone to tremendous lengths to ensure that they have the safest possible vehicle, for which I applaud them. And yes, throughout I was refering to companies that can actually put payloads into a LEO orbit.
The mass production of Soyuz, Proton (or any fielded ICBM for that matter) is still very much a custom process as far as I am aware(and I could easily be wrong) where each rocket is built either in a specialist workshop the same way cars pre-assembly line were or in a quasi assembly line still requiring super-specialists where you do not get the cost benefits of mass production costs. Like I said though I could be wrong and would much appreciate an education on the topic.
Finally, the 90s satellite boom was not as boom as you might think. There were only 2 periods where there were yrs of back to back growth and between them there were 3 yrs of shrinkage. The market over the next 10 yrs looks to do much the same thing. As I said though with the increasing ability of micro, nano and pico sats we may start getting more launches and satellites/launch to the point where the smaller rocket companies can really make their mark.
Rockets have hardly dropped in price since the 1960s, *despite* the increased amount of private industry development.
What are these privately funded rockets of which you speak? I work with OSC on a regular basis and have evaluated SeaLaunch capabilities in an AF source selection and neither have "privately funded" development on their rockets. Perhaps you allude to Pegasus who's motors are derivative of the Minuteman upperstage motors. SeaLaunch uses derivatives of the Russian Zenit rocket. This of course means that a lot of the major development costs were shouldered by the Gov't... albeit about 20-30 years ago. There is also the fact that most companies take a huge amount of oversight "help" from the Aerospace Corporation (a Govt funded research/design house) as they are designing rockets.
The problem right now is not the tech its the money. Most of the costs that go into the $10K/lb is not materials its triple redundant oversight and required tolerances of 99.999999%. Any established rocketry firm right now has lost its ability to be agile (though OSC is getting back to that with the Minotaur IV). Its up to the new up and comers (SpaceX, Space Vector, Microcosm) to take on the high risk, low cost mantle and prove that you don't need quadruple redundant systems to have consistant success. They also have to grow a market for this new fly by the seat of your pants rocketry and they will have a hard time finding it in the govt.
Yes, with the award of the RSS (Responsive Small Space) contract from the AF a few months ago we are aiming to drop the launch time from 18 to 12 months and get costs under $10M its a small percent of the govt that will use this capability as everyone is terrified to lose their satellite. It will be up to universities and small companies that are willing to take the risk (because they can't afford a "safer" vehicle!) to go to these start ups and give them their early early chances. Luckily, with the increase in micro, nano and, pico sats that only cost a few 10s of thousands rather than the multimillion dollar projects of established space firms these small companies will find a market.
The bottom line is that the tech right now is not all that bad. If we actually get into true economies of scale which rocketry has never had before the costs will go down. At the sametime space tourism is not a viable thing for atleast a decade because its going to take those economies of scale and increased launches to build the infrastructure to support such an industry. We are getting there and I think you are going to see some dramatic changes in the next few years (especially when SpaceX finally launches TacSat I) but most of them will be business changes first and then there will be a tech revolution driven by the influx of cash. (Yes, I realize here on/. thats a dirty concept since technology is king and MBAs are the devil but in this case the ball is luckily in the hands of some very skilled and tech savvy MBAs, like me!)
Yes, lets blame the evil republicans for being the sole users of political dirty tricks, those bastards!
How about dumping the partisan rhetoric and getting some of your facts straight. First with the rhetoric, you make it sound like the democrats have never used a rider on a bill for whatever hot potato pet project they have going at the moment. If you do believe them to be pure as the undriven snow when it comes to politcal dirty tricks you are just naive. Both sides of the aisle are equally dirty and to blame for abuse of the legislative process to the detriment of society as a whole.
As a short aside I get really pissed at both sides of the aisle for using me and my fellow military members (read my name as United States Air Force LT) as a means to an end in this kinda political shit. Military spending for troops in the field is not a rug to sweep bad laws under. One of these days someone is going to put some truly egregious rider on a spending bill that cannot be ignored and the whole spending bill will get voted down and some troops are going to die. Its sad but that probably what it will take to end this crap practice. (sorry, just had to vent about that for a minute)
As far as the facts, you have wrong the propsed end of the filibuster. It is for judicial nominees only, not legislation. Though, hey, it feeds in to your bombast and rhetoric to over state the issue so thats all that matters right? Thats not to say that the end of the judicial filibuster is a good thing but please if your going to rail against injustice keep it accurate, exaggeration just makes you look silly and hurts the over all cause to fight said injustice.
1. Don't use public access terminals for your important transactions.
2. Don't let you home computer become infected with tons of malware.
3. Go back to snailmail and telephones for those transactions... ok not a great solution but a logger can't get your bank password if your sending checks to pay your bills, reading paper statements and calling the bank for your balance.
Yu are correct you can not get a particular rocket motor that has flown more than one mission, that is not how everwhat I was refering to. It is a matter of the type of rocket. Take for example the Minuteman II 1st stage. With RSLP for example we have had 144 consecutive successful launches with that motor type. People are comfortable using it because they know everyone that is involved with the launch are intimately familiar with it, each part has gone through the strictest quality checks etc. This is not and will not be the case with SpaceX as they have zero flight record and more importantly the design process has had 0 oversight.
Like the government or not we do oversight on all rocket design done by the major aerospace companies because when it comes down to it we know what we are doing. Most of those companies actual beg for the oversight because it is so effective. This means that everyone knows that someone has looked over all the design models and said yes these are good, go forth and profit. SpaceX has recieved none of this (inpart because they severly lack documentation) and so know one knows what went into their process. So there is no way to tell how reliable it is likely to be. Yes, there are preflight tests but tests and performance are still different things. The other thing you are missing is that even with a full refurb and structural check those 1st stages are going to take a beating and eventually may fail because of missed damage. That isn't going to happen with a motor that only flies once.
I have worked with SpaceX on the TacSat project and there is something everyone should know about their cost figures, they only cover the rocket! $16M only gets you a rocket, it does not get you a launch. You are going to have to pay the cost of range integration, transportation, and all applicable gov't fees and insurance. Right now all those thing minus insurance can add up to about $6-$10M for a rocket the size of the Falcon V. The insurance though is insane, especially with people on board, guess $20M on the low end. The insurance is to cover all concievable damage to facilities in the over flight path and when you are flying over somewhere like Vandenberg there is lots of valuable stuff out there.
The Falcon V will be great when it has flown and proven itself but even that is going to take awhile. Right now all of SpaceX efforts are on getting the Falcon I launch off the ground as they are over 2 years late (TacSat was scheduled to launch Jan 03). There is very little work done on the Falcon V and you can bet if Falcon I goes down on launch it is going to delay the V even longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of it is the redundancy of Americanized English (IE ATM Machine, PIN Number etc). Another part is the sensationalizing of news in the US (personally I think we are getting very close to returning to the days of Yello Journalisom). Illegal and other buzzwords are used to grab the attention of the sheeples that consume most news here in the US. The third part of this is the more insidious nature of business in the US. Because of the very close ties that bind many business ventures together they are able to place pressure on the news media to spin things in the direction of certain interest groups. Here we have the news and entertainment divisions of larger corporate interests using their shared influence to reinforce the idea that activity X is illegal by forcing the word down consumers throats. The sad thing is most people are to asleep to realize whats happening.
You have actually hit on one of the open secrets of technology, porn is A. an early adopter and B. a driving force behind large amounts of technology and marketing strategems. I often baffle my friends when I tell them that, besides the obvious reasons, when I go to a gentlemans club or adult boutique (yes yes I am a dirty old man, I admit it) its to see what new tech there is or get ideas for various marketing plans I am involved in. For the doubters I invite them along on my next trip and point out certain things then tell them to watch for it over the next 6 to 12 months. They are amazed when those ideas filter to the mainstream.
If Hollywood would adopt some of the business model of the porn industry they would see a marked improvement in profits. And its not like the quality of acting or writing is all that high above porn anyway...
They already have those, there called still suits. Just remember to only buy them from the deep desert fremen.
The reason that we don't have smaller satellites up there is because many of the miniaturized electronic components that are availble for use down here are not robust enough to survive the rigors of launch and space flight. We are just now starting to really experiment with micro, pico and nano sats as the first generations of mini-tech designed to survive launch and orbit are becoming available.
The advantage of constellations of small satellites are numerous. Take weather observation for example. A single satellite is only able to observe 500 miles of a given weather event... for kicks lets say a hurricane. As it zooms in to get more detailed data X decreases exponentially. Well now we have say 5 smaller satellites flying in a longitudenal line and each has the ability to observe 375 miles of that same weather event with a 25 mile over lap at the edge of each observation circle. You now have an observation line 1725 miles long and the ability to zoom in selectively to collect information while still keeping a bigger picture view on the majority of the storm.
This of course does not mean that larger satellites don't have their place but in the space business smaller is also far cheaper. at a launch cost of approx $10K (or atleast thats what its coming to for my missions lately) if I can create a 100 lb satellite that can do the same mission of a 500 lb satellite I will take it. First it means I can ride share and that means someone else is helping with launch costs. Secondly given that there is a ride share that means more payloads are flying which eventually could lead to economies of scale type cost reductions both in satellite and launch vehicle manufacturing/launch services. Third with the more payloads that fly it means that we may actually start making ngrand new discoveries about space again, improve earth observation capability (for things like weather, put away your tinfoil hats), and finally start putting some slack into global satellite communications capability... most people don't realize how tight that pipeline is, but thats a topic for another post.
That's how you do it. AOL only lets you go if you have a terminal condition.
Not entirely true. I have a friend that works in one of the gulags... ahh call centers... and she got a call from a mother pleading that AOL stop harrassing her family over dead sons account. The son had died 3 months previously and AOL would not cancel the account. They continued to charge even after being notified of the clients demise and then turn his account over to collections for failure to pay when his CC was closed. So even in death AOL will still try and keep you as a customer.
The more tests there are the cheaper and the better our business practices/tech need to be which in turn decreases cost and causes more tests so we need to improve again. Its simple economies of scale and the cycle of improved business practices and tech being driven by and driving increased demand.
Besides how much of it genetics and how much is just plain wear and tear, if I spent most of my life hunched over a keyboard typing or "playing racket ball"
Is this statement supposed to be an arguement of some sort? This is exactly the issue that is being discussed. That since a gene test ignores wear and tear and looks solely at the genetic predisposition then that is wear you have issues arise of discrimination. I can look at your genes and say this person was going to get condition X no matter what they did so its not my fault or I shouldn't hire them. Once that info is available there is no saying that condition X was caused ONLY by wear and tear.
Being a marketer myself I have to say there really isn't even the need to make that substitution. On that note here comes the boss!
IAA Rocket Scientist... What makes this revolutionary is actually the engineering and physics implications not the manufacturing (though that will now be easier). An important part of the thrust generated by a rocket engine is the amount of pressure built up by pushing X amount of fuel through a hole (the throat) of Y size. If the hole is to big you won't get enough thrust to take off and if it is to small you get to much pressure and blow up your rocket.
;)
Why this is revolutionary is because it now eliminates the need for the complex combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly. What he has managed to do then is find a fuel mixture and engine design with a high enough ISP that he no longer needs the "old-fashioned" engine design. Think of it in terms of finding a new fuel for your car that would mean a four banger has all the power of a V-8. You can have a simpler, smaller, cheaper engine and still move large quantities of stuff.
This A. (as already mentioned) makes things easier and cheaper to manufacture, B. eliminates one of the greatest fail points in rocket design, C. You lose a good amount of weigh because you can dump portions of the structure that are used to reinforce the entire assembly.
Yes, I relaize this post is a little bit scatter brained but that happens when you are posting while dodging the boss.
Fuedal huh? Given that most slashdotters have no gfs what does that do to prima nocta? First night with any new hard-drive your PHB gets to take it home?
Nope, more of a dramatic piece. My Little Pony in the Death of Catherine the Great.
"How can sex be more offensive than violence?"
Well for example (and remember you asked!):
Micheal Moore in gimp outfit being beaten with a whip and sodomized by Sandra Day O'connor.
Or for my cousins across the pond perhaps a more apt example:
Anything involving Rowan Atkinson and a German Scheiße film.
I find both of those images far more offensive than MOST violence. And now I need a drink and a bath cause I feel icky for thinking of them.
You forget how many slashdotters never RTFA... so it can't be helping that much.
Well speaking as a current member of the US military lets see how I fit your mold:
"devoutly and unquestioningly religious"
I have been to church once in the past three months and recently decided to leave said church bucause when it came to doctrine no one could answer my questions.
"member of Future Business Leaders of America"
While I did study Marketing (boo, hiss... kill the marketing bastards!) in college I never had anything to do with any of the business clubs. I was to busy studying history and wooing my future exwife. (Chalk that up to being not particularly religious)
"and also boy/girl scouts"
Yes, I am registered as a boy scout but that was more for insurance reasons after I broke my hand at my first and last boy scout event ever.
"They won't ask too many questions"
Well I think I established that I am a rather inquisitive person in the first issue I addressed. Normally though I am one of the people that stays after any particular class because I want further clarification (but am wise/polite enough) not to hold the entire class there late with my inquiries.
"and will do as they're told because it's the government asking"
I generally get in trouble here at work because I won't do the incredibly stupid things that are asked of me... until its an order anyway because dumb as somethings may be I really rather not go to prison.
It would appear that I am 0 for 5 and I am not an atypical cross section of the people I work with. Speaking as someone who can actually see those who choose to serve close up rather than going off preconcieved notions born from going through life with my eyes squeezed shut and fingers in my ears I would have to say your dead wrong.
"This is a good thing folks. Darwin at work."
Whether you agree that that time is now or not there will come a day, as history has constantly shown, that the barbians will be at the gate and you had best hope someone is willing to stand behind that gate to defend you and yours. Those of you who hate the military, not just the current conflict but the institution of the military, are ingrates. Jefferson was right when he said that the tree of liberty must occassionally be refreshed with blood and it is those of us that are willing to go and bleed and die who keep that tree, that you sit and rest under, alive. What have you done to help tend that tree? Have tended it with tools of civil service or community volunteering? Are you willing to water it? Have you even bothered to take the smallest of civil obligations by voting? If your not contributing to the health of the system then how can you presume to look down on those who have stood up to do so? Your right, it is Darwin at work and as Darwin said it is the strong who survive and those of us who are willing to serve our country either with military, civil or community service are the ones who are keeping this nation strong... it seems people like you are only able to be parasites weakening the system that you depend on to exisist.
Yeah yeah, mod me down as flamebait or anything else. +4 interesting my ass.
Remeber though that this new database covers down to 16, covers males and females and is an opt-out while selective service starts at 18, is males only and is an opt-in. Yes, I realize it is the law and that you will be denied certain financial aid/loans/jobs if you don't but there are people that do not register and still live productive lives.
No, I don't agree with the new database and yes I think it is a waste... just for different reasons than you do.
I was trying to be clever, sorry. I can be found at usaflt2003@yahoo.com. Get it? You might be a yahoo... :)
Now why would I want to talk with you? You could be some yahoo wanting to send me odd emails?
There was no direct public money spent on the development of the Pegasus (or the SeaLaunch Zenit for that matter) but that doesn't mean there was no public money spent on the rocket. I assure you that Aerospace support is not free and while it is technically an independant corporation the public money that supports it does mean that public money did support development. At any rate its getting into splitting hairs now so lets agree to disagree. Actually, I was involved in going over the technical details of Falcon for the RSS contract and yes I realize that they have redundant systems. My point is that it is not the super redundancy of rockets like Delta IV/Atlas V or the shuttle. I was not contending that SpaceX cuts corners just that they have realized that there is diminishing returns after a certain point of redundancy. Also considering their internal manufacturing and QA program if you build the primary and first back up well (and they do!) you can do without a second, third, fourth, etc. backup. As far as the Falcon V goes it is still heavily dependant on technology still under development for Falcon I and the success of those technologies so not to poop on their efforts but I will put stock in that design after Falcon I has flown. Perhaps my choice of "safer" vehicle was poorly choosen as I was not saying that SpaceX or anyone else for that matter has an unsafe vehicle. Specifically in the case of SpaceX they have gone to tremendous lengths to ensure that they have the safest possible vehicle, for which I applaud them. And yes, throughout I was refering to companies that can actually put payloads into a LEO orbit. The mass production of Soyuz, Proton (or any fielded ICBM for that matter) is still very much a custom process as far as I am aware(and I could easily be wrong) where each rocket is built either in a specialist workshop the same way cars pre-assembly line were or in a quasi assembly line still requiring super-specialists where you do not get the cost benefits of mass production costs. Like I said though I could be wrong and would much appreciate an education on the topic. Finally, the 90s satellite boom was not as boom as you might think. There were only 2 periods where there were yrs of back to back growth and between them there were 3 yrs of shrinkage. The market over the next 10 yrs looks to do much the same thing. As I said though with the increasing ability of micro, nano and pico sats we may start getting more launches and satellites/launch to the point where the smaller rocket companies can really make their mark.
Rockets have hardly dropped in price since the 1960s, *despite* the increased amount of private industry development.
/. thats a dirty concept since technology is king and MBAs are the devil but in this case the ball is luckily in the hands of some very skilled and tech savvy MBAs, like me!)
What are these privately funded rockets of which you speak? I work with OSC on a regular basis and have evaluated SeaLaunch capabilities in an AF source selection and neither have "privately funded" development on their rockets. Perhaps you allude to Pegasus who's motors are derivative of the Minuteman upperstage motors. SeaLaunch uses derivatives of the Russian Zenit rocket. This of course means that a lot of the major development costs were shouldered by the Gov't... albeit about 20-30 years ago. There is also the fact that most companies take a huge amount of oversight "help" from the Aerospace Corporation (a Govt funded research/design house) as they are designing rockets.
The problem right now is not the tech its the money. Most of the costs that go into the $10K/lb is not materials its triple redundant oversight and required tolerances of 99.999999%. Any established rocketry firm right now has lost its ability to be agile (though OSC is getting back to that with the Minotaur IV). Its up to the new up and comers (SpaceX, Space Vector, Microcosm) to take on the high risk, low cost mantle and prove that you don't need quadruple redundant systems to have consistant success. They also have to grow a market for this new fly by the seat of your pants rocketry and they will have a hard time finding it in the govt.
Yes, with the award of the RSS (Responsive Small Space) contract from the AF a few months ago we are aiming to drop the launch time from 18 to 12 months and get costs under $10M its a small percent of the govt that will use this capability as everyone is terrified to lose their satellite. It will be up to universities and small companies that are willing to take the risk (because they can't afford a "safer" vehicle!) to go to these start ups and give them their early early chances. Luckily, with the increase in micro, nano and, pico sats that only cost a few 10s of thousands rather than the multimillion dollar projects of established space firms these small companies will find a market.
The bottom line is that the tech right now is not all that bad. If we actually get into true economies of scale which rocketry has never had before the costs will go down. At the sametime space tourism is not a viable thing for atleast a decade because its going to take those economies of scale and increased launches to build the infrastructure to support such an industry. We are getting there and I think you are going to see some dramatic changes in the next few years (especially when SpaceX finally launches TacSat I) but most of them will be business changes first and then there will be a tech revolution driven by the influx of cash. (Yes, I realize here on
Excellent!
"Of course nerds are better lovers than jocks. Jocks think about sports all day while nerds think about sex all day"
Ok ok, its not an exact quote but I am at work and can't excatly go googling for the line!
Yeah but where are you going to get the money to buy or atleast rent a congressman to help you with that?
Yes, lets blame the evil republicans for being the sole users of political dirty tricks, those bastards!
How about dumping the partisan rhetoric and getting some of your facts straight. First with the rhetoric, you make it sound like the democrats have never used a rider on a bill for whatever hot potato pet project they have going at the moment. If you do believe them to be pure as the undriven snow when it comes to politcal dirty tricks you are just naive. Both sides of the aisle are equally dirty and to blame for abuse of the legislative process to the detriment of society as a whole.
As a short aside I get really pissed at both sides of the aisle for using me and my fellow military members (read my name as United States Air Force LT) as a means to an end in this kinda political shit. Military spending for troops in the field is not a rug to sweep bad laws under. One of these days someone is going to put some truly egregious rider on a spending bill that cannot be ignored and the whole spending bill will get voted down and some troops are going to die. Its sad but that probably what it will take to end this crap practice. (sorry, just had to vent about that for a minute)
As far as the facts, you have wrong the propsed end of the filibuster. It is for judicial nominees only, not legislation. Though, hey, it feeds in to your bombast and rhetoric to over state the issue so thats all that matters right? Thats not to say that the end of the judicial filibuster is a good thing but please if your going to rail against injustice keep it accurate, exaggeration just makes you look silly and hurts the over all cause to fight said injustice.
A couple of easy ways to avoid this:
1. Don't use public access terminals for your important transactions.
2. Don't let you home computer become infected with tons of malware.
3. Go back to snailmail and telephones for those transactions... ok not a great solution but a logger can't get your bank password if your sending checks to pay your bills, reading paper statements and calling the bank for your balance.
Yu are correct you can not get a particular rocket motor that has flown more than one mission, that is not how everwhat I was refering to. It is a matter of the type of rocket. Take for example the Minuteman II 1st stage. With RSLP for example we have had 144 consecutive successful launches with that motor type. People are comfortable using it because they know everyone that is involved with the launch are intimately familiar with it, each part has gone through the strictest quality checks etc. This is not and will not be the case with SpaceX as they have zero flight record and more importantly the design process has had 0 oversight. Like the government or not we do oversight on all rocket design done by the major aerospace companies because when it comes down to it we know what we are doing. Most of those companies actual beg for the oversight because it is so effective. This means that everyone knows that someone has looked over all the design models and said yes these are good, go forth and profit. SpaceX has recieved none of this (inpart because they severly lack documentation) and so know one knows what went into their process. So there is no way to tell how reliable it is likely to be. Yes, there are preflight tests but tests and performance are still different things. The other thing you are missing is that even with a full refurb and structural check those 1st stages are going to take a beating and eventually may fail because of missed damage. That isn't going to happen with a motor that only flies once.
I have worked with SpaceX on the TacSat project and there is something everyone should know about their cost figures, they only cover the rocket! $16M only gets you a rocket, it does not get you a launch. You are going to have to pay the cost of range integration, transportation, and all applicable gov't fees and insurance. Right now all those thing minus insurance can add up to about $6-$10M for a rocket the size of the Falcon V. The insurance though is insane, especially with people on board, guess $20M on the low end. The insurance is to cover all concievable damage to facilities in the over flight path and when you are flying over somewhere like Vandenberg there is lots of valuable stuff out there. The Falcon V will be great when it has flown and proven itself but even that is going to take awhile. Right now all of SpaceX efforts are on getting the Falcon I launch off the ground as they are over 2 years late (TacSat was scheduled to launch Jan 03). There is very little work done on the Falcon V and you can bet if Falcon I goes down on launch it is going to delay the V even longer.