Yes, the People's Republic of China is completely irrelevant to Americans today, and couldn't possibly have any importance in the future of some kind. Maybe if we just ignore it, it will go away?
Yeah, it means job security in the face of shitty pay and very uneven budget situations. Due to changes in insurance, teachers make less today than they have in at least 30 years. It's a small portion of the GDP, and if you think gutting the educational system is going to do anything but destroy America's future, you're either delusional or a traitor, or possibly a delusional traitor, who has no understanding whatsoever of Keynesian economics. Your fellow teabaggers are mostly a collection of old white people who want to continue to get their socialist bennies that form the bulk of our government's expense, while contributing nothing to America's future. It is ironic they espouse Ayn Rand so heavily, when they themselves are the parasites. Well, them and the NO BLOOD FOR OIL GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMES retards on the left. Frankly, I think the best way to improve America's test scores is to take both groups and dump them at the nearest lighthouse in the North Atlantic. You'd be free of those socialist taxes, wouldn't it be great?
Yeah, that's what people said about the Japanese in the 80s too. Even today, China and Japan own about the same amount of American debt. The success of China, or Japan, does not inherently mean doom and destruction for us. It means another export market, Walkmans, and Playstations.
Unfortunately, they really have been extremely disappointing medically. Seriously, go look at the research on PubMed, and come to your own conclusions after seeing the data. It is adult stem cells that have shown any benefit in studies.
In spite of this, fetal stem cells have a disproportionate number of research dollars spent on them, more than adult stem cells, because their funding is a political issue, not a scientific one.
In spite of that, I am not opposed to funding fetal stem cell research, but to see people keep claiming it's "science vs. religion" annoys me to no end, as neither group has bothered to read any of the research.
It's similar to the "descended from monkeys vs. creationism" that I sometimes see -- no, we share a common ancestor with monkeys. How can people not understand that, and yet claim to be pro-science? Richard Dawkins has made similar observations.
Note that he mentioned AVAILABLE explanations, not possible conjectures. You are welcome to create a new explanation for biological diversity and present credible evidence for that, please!
And this is what is most heartbreaking to me -- people losing the ability to think for themselves or see above the polemics of politics as presented to them by the media.
The majority of Christians in America believe in evolution, so obviously your two "choices" have little to do with reality. You are simply presenting a false choice fallacy without any critical thinking on your part, because it was a meme told to you by people exploiting it for their own benefit.
You have been used and don't even know it. The sad thing is though, the loss of ability to recognize that.
Speaking of anti-science, would you like to see a pitchblende sample? Hey wait, why are you running away, crying, and shaking hysterically?
Quick, lets ban tritium exit signs like the city of Berkeley so more people die in fires. We wouldn't want a weak beta emitter to cause no measurable increase in radiation levels to possibly get out!
Give me a break. The anti-science hippies on the left have been just as damaging, if not worse. Most of the technology we have today is a result of defense spending and research. Who do you think it is that supports defense spending and research? Here's a hint: not the people who jihad against nuclear batteries in deep space probes.
Polls have shown most Christians actually believe in evolution. What you see misrepresented on the news is an extremist minority to troll more viewers. Conversely, you see Muslims misrepresented negatively on more conservative news outlets. It is again the media just trolling sensationalism for views. People inciting hatred to make a quick buck? Yep. Sad but true.
That's just the "religion is evil" meme on Slashdot playing itself out. Wait until you see a story on nuclear technology, and the moderation will go in the opposite direction, with +5 insightful comments about how the man is keeping nuclear power down. (Which he is, dammit)
Yep, the Democrat's anti-nuclear hysteria and gross overvaluation of fetal stem cells (which have little actual medical value) make them just as guilty of this as Republicans. Politics uses science as a tool to advance its own agenda... well, that's not terribly surprising, is it?
Somehow, in spite of all this, the government is responsible for driving most of the technological advances we see today; nuclear technology, space technology, the integrated circuit, the internet, etc. Maybe because there were zealots in the government who had fact-free "faith" in those things. They're usually wrong, but occasionally their beliefs are vindicated, and they give something a chance and a lot more funding it wouldn't have necessarily gotten otherwise.
Finally, scientists themselves also shoulder part of the blame for this... many of them have falsely over-represented their own work to secure research grants, and preyed upon people giving grants not fully understanding the issue. Scientists are just as petty and egotistical as anyone else.
Arguably though, if the crowd murmurs loud enough, it's possible the leadership might decide to send in some air support, or whatever real support.
Your average American can't supply the rebels with advanced anti-aircraft weapons or fixed wing fighter/interceptors, which is what they need. Their only (legal) power is to be a voice in a crowd arguing for it -- which typically has depressingly little effect. George W. Bush may have been the decider, but you and I are not. Charlie WIlson may have gotten FIM-92 Stingers for the mujahideen, but unless they want them in Call of Duty 4, I can't really repeat that, either.
Too bad Khadaffi was seen as a good guy at the time, with his worst fault being his busty Ukranian nurses he had follow him around everywhere. All of this stuff occurred after the fact. For all I know, you could become the worst serial killer in America in the future. Should no one sell you anything today? Apparently not, if they have a "shred of ethics, normal intelligence, and normal curiosity", which is apparently your way of saying, "can MAGICALLY see the FUTURE!" How does that work? Magnets?
Who was Khadaffi when he was sold the OLPCs? He was the leader of Libya, a country which we had restored ties to, was relatively prosperous for an African nation and had perhaps the best women's rights, and was being increasingly seen in a positive light.
And that's probably what his "brother" would have said... unless his brother was Skynet and sent this new information back in time.
And yet, information technology has played a key role in all of these revolutions. Kaddhafi buying OLPCs doesn't make the people who created them shameless whores or even mean that he gains an advantage from them. Technology and communications have thus far had the opposite effect.
And, as bad as Khaddhafi is, he's basically Charlie Sheen running a country; I bet you'd be more than happy to make a profit off Charlie Sheen your old laptop.. He wasn't really public enemy number one when they were sold, and the lifting of the sanctions reflected that. Sure, he's responsible for killing a boatload of people since then, but at the time they were sold, relations with Libya and Kaddhafi were warming. So If Charlie Sheen kills 5000 people in 10 years, does that make you an evil intellectual elitist whore today for selling Charlie Sheen your laptop? Probably not.
We get the vast majority of our fuel from domestic sources, Mexico, and Canada. Those Canadians, such dictators. The price increase does NOT reflect the change in supply... it is speculation and change, and even if Libya stopped producing the oil, the prices would decrease and stabilize.
There is no such thing as a "free and open" democracy. Hell, there's no such thing as a democracy either... just republics. As the knife throwing bald dude in Lost wrote, man in his natural state is completely free, but freedom of choice is always sacrificed as man forms societies. The most densely populated regions and countries see the most invasive and restrictive governments typically, while lower population densities confer typically more freedom of choice, as you're butting heads with less people. This is very much a shades-of-gray reality, so applying black-and-white terms to it makes little sense.
I don't think you can really compare European revolutions to middle eastern/african ones. The latter have generally weaker centralized government and more tribal and ethnic factions. Also, initially in Russia under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, things did improved vs. the Czar for people, but once Stalin took power and started killing everyone it kind of went down the tubes.
If you look at other African revolutions, sometimes they work out (South Africa, Mozambique) and other times they do not (Zimbabwe). A big issue with all the recent conflicts is that they all took place in former colonial states, which left a power vacuum and created territory based on European resource exploitation. Iraq is a pretty good example of that, and is an invention of the British for oil back in the day.
It's really hard to say how a revolution is going to work out. I think a big part of these is the military -- we see the military often refusing to engage civilians, either wholly or partially, and the relative attitude of the military also determines who can assume control after the revolution. The Egyptian Brotherhood could not have seized power, because the military was not that conservative. In Iraq, we undermined and destroyed their existing military, and this left many former Baathist officers very bitter, and combined with a newly-created army that was very weak, led to a lot of insurgency and instability.
Yes, military power can go too far and establish a military dictatorship, but if the military is moderate, strong, and loyal to the people, I think it is much more likely things will be successful.
Can you blame them? We've been serious dicks to the Russians, from *publicly lying* about the Georgia / South Ossetia conflict (in actuality, Russia was not the aggressor, nor at fault) to the "Iranian" missile defense in Europe, and other assorted cold-war type stunts. The Russian people are pretty bitter, even about their own government and the oligarchies/corruption. I've read Izvestia and Russian comment threads periodically, and while they certainly criticize US/NATO over stuff like the above, they also voice approval when we do something non-stupid. Heck, I've seen liberals in the US that were less cognitively flexible.
I don't think the Russians as a whole have any sort of wide-ranging anti-American bias or conspiracy, it's just that we keep kicking them in the nuts so they point the finger back at us. Russia has had its share of dealing with terrorism and muslim extremists, such as Chechnya (which we criticized them over), the Beslan hostage crisis (which we criticized them over), and the Moscow theater bombing (which we criti... you see the trend). It's certainly nothing like the "Zionist Jew-American Conspiracy" that a number of nutty left-wingers and Arab Muslims believe.
I think we come across as very insincere in the previous mentioned incidents that contradict what we are saying our policies are, and the Russians certainly pick up on that. I bet you if we quit being dicks to Russia, our relations would improve.
I remember Gates once said something to the effect of "the American people elected the president, not me, so I am obligated to serve the people by serving the president". This was when pressed on why he had done a flip-flop on many issues such as the F-22 and Don't-ask-don't-tell when Obama was elected. While I'm sure he gives Obama an earful behind closed doors, he will never disagree with Obama publicly.
So I wonder to what degree that is true; the only AA systems I've seen from Libya have been ZPUs which aren't going to shoot down a whole lot other than A-10s and rotary-wings. If they have Russian missile-based AA systems, we may or may not be threatened by them. I just have never seen a real public opinion by Gates, because he's only ever given the president's opinion.
And, one of the factions in the Libyan revolution did ask us to bomb mercenary camps. So we have been asked specifically to perform limited air support operations.
Thanks for the correction-- wish I could edit my post to include it. And that's an interesting point about orbital velocity; I hadn't even considered that.
Other than having a completely different engine, completely different electronics, completely different thermal protection, completely different aerodynamics, completely different... Well, you get the picture. SS1 is no more 'derived' from the X-15 than my PC is 'derived' from the Difference Engine.
Woah. Yeah, it has different electronics than something from the 1960s. Why's that surprising? Every aircraft and spacecraft that's been around for a while has seen numerous updates to its electronics (and sometimes avionics) with each block revision.
The fundamental concept of the rocket plane, launch from an aircraft, performance, and design are quite similar. Google "X-15 spaceshipone", I'm not really presenting a unique idea here. The most significant costs of spacecraft development are the R&D costs -- don't you think Scaled Composites looked over what has been done in the past here and studied it quite carefully?
And the same goes for your other 'derivations' - how can the SS1 be 'derived' from the X-15, but the aerodynamically identical SS2 be 'derived' from the X-20, which is radically different from the X-15?
Are we looking at the same pictures here? They most certainly are not "aerodynamically identical"... their size, profile, performance, and characteristics are completely different. The SS1 is a "flying bullet" design quite similar to the X-15. The SS2, otoh, is more similar to the X-20 than it is to the SS1. Again, Google "X-20 spaceshiptwo" -- I am not making any novel observations here.
My point is this: here are the current spaceplanes, here are the historical ones that share many design and performance similarities. The holy grail for orbital research isn't 5 minutes on a SS2 vomit comet, it's getting the stuff to ISS-- the single most expensive object ever created by man, which we are underusing because of a lack of escape craft that hold more than three astronauts. We need to fix the underlying problem. The ISS was designed for orbital research... it kills me that it's being neglected and our manned space program is falling apart. Commercial spaceplanes aren't a substitute for the Space Shuttle. And given the fact that the design and performance has not changed a whole lot, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect huge innovation here that can replace the ISS for orbital research.
You know what happened the last time our manned space program lapsed and we had a neglected space station, Skylab? It de-orbited and crashed into the ocean. Oops.
So yeah, maybe I'm just jaded, but the prospect of orbital research being something that zee Germans could've done on a Me-163 back in 1941 doesn't really impress me.
The Space Shuttle reaches it's designed orbital altitude - what makes you think the X-20 wouldn't have been able to?
I don't know if the Space Shuttle's designed orbital altitude was revised during development or testing -- which the X-20 didn't have -- or not. The X-20's was particularly good relative to other spaceplanes, so it seemed a tad optimistic to me. I certainly could be wrong.
For the 1940's, yeah. But they're no more responsible for the current craft than James Watt is for nuclear power plant.
This sounds like one of those "the AK-47 was totally not based on the StG-44..." posts.
Anyway, moar like Enrico Fermi, amirite? The lineage of the two basic German designs can be traced to modern spaceplanes, and even if you believe they're just coincidentally quite similar in design and performance, they're still similar. Neither the SS1/SS2, coincidentally or not, differ much in performance from the X-15/X-20 that were designed 50 years ago, or the Silbervoger's theoretical performance from 70 years ago. "Stagnant" comes to mind here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the People's Republic of China is completely irrelevant to Americans today, and couldn't possibly have any importance in the future of some kind. Maybe if we just ignore it, it will go away?
Yeah, it means job security in the face of shitty pay and very uneven budget situations. Due to changes in insurance, teachers make less today than they have in at least 30 years. It's a small portion of the GDP, and if you think gutting the educational system is going to do anything but destroy America's future, you're either delusional or a traitor, or possibly a delusional traitor, who has no understanding whatsoever of Keynesian economics. Your fellow teabaggers are mostly a collection of old white people who want to continue to get their socialist bennies that form the bulk of our government's expense, while contributing nothing to America's future. It is ironic they espouse Ayn Rand so heavily, when they themselves are the parasites. Well, them and the NO BLOOD FOR OIL GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMES retards on the left. Frankly, I think the best way to improve America's test scores is to take both groups and dump them at the nearest lighthouse in the North Atlantic. You'd be free of those socialist taxes, wouldn't it be great?
Yeah, that's what people said about the Japanese in the 80s too. Even today, China and Japan own about the same amount of American debt. The success of China, or Japan, does not inherently mean doom and destruction for us. It means another export market, Walkmans, and Playstations.
I lol'd.
Unfortunately, they really have been extremely disappointing medically. Seriously, go look at the research on PubMed, and come to your own conclusions after seeing the data. It is adult stem cells that have shown any benefit in studies.
In spite of this, fetal stem cells have a disproportionate number of research dollars spent on them, more than adult stem cells, because their funding is a political issue, not a scientific one.
In spite of that, I am not opposed to funding fetal stem cell research, but to see people keep claiming it's "science vs. religion" annoys me to no end, as neither group has bothered to read any of the research.
It's similar to the "descended from monkeys vs. creationism" that I sometimes see -- no, we share a common ancestor with monkeys. How can people not understand that, and yet claim to be pro-science? Richard Dawkins has made similar observations.
What, you have a third explanation?
Note that he mentioned AVAILABLE explanations, not possible conjectures. You are welcome to create a new explanation for biological diversity and present credible evidence for that, please!
And this is what is most heartbreaking to me -- people losing the ability to think for themselves or see above the polemics of politics as presented to them by the media.
The majority of Christians in America believe in evolution, so obviously your two "choices" have little to do with reality. You are simply presenting a false choice fallacy without any critical thinking on your part, because it was a meme told to you by people exploiting it for their own benefit.
You have been used and don't even know it. The sad thing is though, the loss of ability to recognize that.
Speaking of anti-science, would you like to see a pitchblende sample? Hey wait, why are you running away, crying, and shaking hysterically?
Quick, lets ban tritium exit signs like the city of Berkeley so more people die in fires. We wouldn't want a weak beta emitter to cause no measurable increase in radiation levels to possibly get out!
Give me a break. The anti-science hippies on the left have been just as damaging, if not worse. Most of the technology we have today is a result of defense spending and research. Who do you think it is that supports defense spending and research? Here's a hint: not the people who jihad against nuclear batteries in deep space probes.
Polls have shown most Christians actually believe in evolution. What you see misrepresented on the news is an extremist minority to troll more viewers. Conversely, you see Muslims misrepresented negatively on more conservative news outlets. It is again the media just trolling sensationalism for views. People inciting hatred to make a quick buck? Yep. Sad but true.
That's just the "religion is evil" meme on Slashdot playing itself out. Wait until you see a story on nuclear technology, and the moderation will go in the opposite direction, with +5 insightful comments about how the man is keeping nuclear power down. (Which he is, dammit)
Yep, the Democrat's anti-nuclear hysteria and gross overvaluation of fetal stem cells (which have little actual medical value) make them just as guilty of this as Republicans. Politics uses science as a tool to advance its own agenda... well, that's not terribly surprising, is it?
Somehow, in spite of all this, the government is responsible for driving most of the technological advances we see today; nuclear technology, space technology, the integrated circuit, the internet, etc. Maybe because there were zealots in the government who had fact-free "faith" in those things. They're usually wrong, but occasionally their beliefs are vindicated, and they give something a chance and a lot more funding it wouldn't have necessarily gotten otherwise.
Finally, scientists themselves also shoulder part of the blame for this... many of them have falsely over-represented their own work to secure research grants, and preyed upon people giving grants not fully understanding the issue. Scientists are just as petty and egotistical as anyone else.
Haha, oh wow. They really do not teach history anymore, do they?
The Great Purge
Nikolai Yezhov
Joseph Stalin HIGH SCORE: Most indirect kills in history
Vasili Blokhin HIGH SCORE: Most direct kills in history
In California, you always find party. In Soviet Russia, party always find YOU!
Arguably though, if the crowd murmurs loud enough, it's possible the leadership might decide to send in some air support, or whatever real support.
Your average American can't supply the rebels with advanced anti-aircraft weapons or fixed wing fighter/interceptors, which is what they need. Their only (legal) power is to be a voice in a crowd arguing for it -- which typically has depressingly little effect. George W. Bush may have been the decider, but you and I are not. Charlie WIlson may have gotten FIM-92 Stingers for the mujahideen, but unless they want them in Call of Duty 4, I can't really repeat that, either.
Too bad Khadaffi was seen as a good guy at the time, with his worst fault being his busty Ukranian nurses he had follow him around everywhere. All of this stuff occurred after the fact. For all I know, you could become the worst serial killer in America in the future. Should no one sell you anything today? Apparently not, if they have a "shred of ethics, normal intelligence, and normal curiosity", which is apparently your way of saying, "can MAGICALLY see the FUTURE!" How does that work? Magnets?
Who was Khadaffi when he was sold the OLPCs? He was the leader of Libya, a country which we had restored ties to, was relatively prosperous for an African nation and had perhaps the best women's rights, and was being increasingly seen in a positive light.
And that's probably what his "brother" would have said... unless his brother was Skynet and sent this new information back in time.
And yet, information technology has played a key role in all of these revolutions. Kaddhafi buying OLPCs doesn't make the people who created them shameless whores or even mean that he gains an advantage from them. Technology and communications have thus far had the opposite effect.
And, as bad as Khaddhafi is, he's basically Charlie Sheen running a country; I bet you'd be more than happy to make a profit off Charlie Sheen your old laptop.. He wasn't really public enemy number one when they were sold, and the lifting of the sanctions reflected that. Sure, he's responsible for killing a boatload of people since then, but at the time they were sold, relations with Libya and Kaddhafi were warming. So If Charlie Sheen kills 5000 people in 10 years, does that make you an evil intellectual elitist whore today for selling Charlie Sheen your laptop? Probably not.
We get the vast majority of our fuel from domestic sources, Mexico, and Canada. Those Canadians, such dictators. The price increase does NOT reflect the change in supply... it is speculation and change, and even if Libya stopped producing the oil, the prices would decrease and stabilize.
There is no such thing as a "free and open" democracy. Hell, there's no such thing as a democracy either... just republics. As the knife throwing bald dude in Lost wrote, man in his natural state is completely free, but freedom of choice is always sacrificed as man forms societies. The most densely populated regions and countries see the most invasive and restrictive governments typically, while lower population densities confer typically more freedom of choice, as you're butting heads with less people. This is very much a shades-of-gray reality, so applying black-and-white terms to it makes little sense.
I don't think you can really compare European revolutions to middle eastern/african ones. The latter have generally weaker centralized government and more tribal and ethnic factions. Also, initially in Russia under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, things did improved vs. the Czar for people, but once Stalin took power and started killing everyone it kind of went down the tubes.
If you look at other African revolutions, sometimes they work out (South Africa, Mozambique) and other times they do not (Zimbabwe). A big issue with all the recent conflicts is that they all took place in former colonial states, which left a power vacuum and created territory based on European resource exploitation. Iraq is a pretty good example of that, and is an invention of the British for oil back in the day.
It's really hard to say how a revolution is going to work out. I think a big part of these is the military -- we see the military often refusing to engage civilians, either wholly or partially, and the relative attitude of the military also determines who can assume control after the revolution. The Egyptian Brotherhood could not have seized power, because the military was not that conservative. In Iraq, we undermined and destroyed their existing military, and this left many former Baathist officers very bitter, and combined with a newly-created army that was very weak, led to a lot of insurgency and instability.
Yes, military power can go too far and establish a military dictatorship, but if the military is moderate, strong, and loyal to the people, I think it is much more likely things will be successful.
It's front-page news here in "the colonies" as well. Though the Orange and Velvet revolutions, not so much.
Can you blame them? We've been serious dicks to the Russians, from *publicly lying* about the Georgia / South Ossetia conflict (in actuality, Russia was not the aggressor, nor at fault) to the "Iranian" missile defense in Europe, and other assorted cold-war type stunts. The Russian people are pretty bitter, even about their own government and the oligarchies/corruption. I've read Izvestia and Russian comment threads periodically, and while they certainly criticize US/NATO over stuff like the above, they also voice approval when we do something non-stupid. Heck, I've seen liberals in the US that were less cognitively flexible.
I don't think the Russians as a whole have any sort of wide-ranging anti-American bias or conspiracy, it's just that we keep kicking them in the nuts so they point the finger back at us. Russia has had its share of dealing with terrorism and muslim extremists, such as Chechnya (which we criticized them over), the Beslan hostage crisis (which we criticized them over), and the Moscow theater bombing (which we criti... you see the trend). It's certainly nothing like the "Zionist Jew-American Conspiracy" that a number of nutty left-wingers and Arab Muslims believe.
I think we come across as very insincere in the previous mentioned incidents that contradict what we are saying our policies are, and the Russians certainly pick up on that. I bet you if we quit being dicks to Russia, our relations would improve.
I remember Gates once said something to the effect of "the American people elected the president, not me, so I am obligated to serve the people by serving the president". This was when pressed on why he had done a flip-flop on many issues such as the F-22 and Don't-ask-don't-tell when Obama was elected. While I'm sure he gives Obama an earful behind closed doors, he will never disagree with Obama publicly.
So I wonder to what degree that is true; the only AA systems I've seen from Libya have been ZPUs which aren't going to shoot down a whole lot other than A-10s and rotary-wings. If they have Russian missile-based AA systems, we may or may not be threatened by them. I just have never seen a real public opinion by Gates, because he's only ever given the president's opinion.
And, one of the factions in the Libyan revolution did ask us to bomb mercenary camps. So we have been asked specifically to perform limited air support operations.
Ronald Reagan gave Gaddafi house redecorating aid.
Thanks for the correction-- wish I could edit my post to include it. And that's an interesting point about orbital velocity; I hadn't even considered that.
Other than having a completely different engine, completely different electronics, completely different thermal protection, completely different aerodynamics, completely different... Well, you get the picture. SS1 is no more 'derived' from the X-15 than my PC is 'derived' from the Difference Engine.
Woah. Yeah, it has different electronics than something from the 1960s. Why's that surprising? Every aircraft and spacecraft that's been around for a while has seen numerous updates to its electronics (and sometimes avionics) with each block revision.
The fundamental concept of the rocket plane, launch from an aircraft, performance, and design are quite similar. Google "X-15 spaceshipone", I'm not really presenting a unique idea here. The most significant costs of spacecraft development are the R&D costs -- don't you think Scaled Composites looked over what has been done in the past here and studied it quite carefully?
And the same goes for your other 'derivations' - how can the SS1 be 'derived' from the X-15, but the aerodynamically identical SS2 be 'derived' from the X-20, which is radically different from the X-15?
Are we looking at the same pictures here? They most certainly are not "aerodynamically identical"... their size, profile, performance, and characteristics are completely different. The SS1 is a "flying bullet" design quite similar to the X-15. The SS2, otoh, is more similar to the X-20 than it is to the SS1. Again, Google "X-20 spaceshiptwo" -- I am not making any novel observations here.
My point is this: here are the current spaceplanes, here are the historical ones that share many design and performance similarities. The holy grail for orbital research isn't 5 minutes on a SS2 vomit comet, it's getting the stuff to ISS-- the single most expensive object ever created by man, which we are underusing because of a lack of escape craft that hold more than three astronauts. We need to fix the underlying problem. The ISS was designed for orbital research... it kills me that it's being neglected and our manned space program is falling apart. Commercial spaceplanes aren't a substitute for the Space Shuttle. And given the fact that the design and performance has not changed a whole lot, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect huge innovation here that can replace the ISS for orbital research.
You know what happened the last time our manned space program lapsed and we had a neglected space station, Skylab? It de-orbited and crashed into the ocean. Oops.
So yeah, maybe I'm just jaded, but the prospect of orbital research being something that zee Germans could've done on a Me-163 back in 1941 doesn't really impress me.
The Space Shuttle reaches it's designed orbital altitude - what makes you think the X-20 wouldn't have been able to?
I don't know if the Space Shuttle's designed orbital altitude was revised during development or testing -- which the X-20 didn't have -- or not. The X-20's was particularly good relative to other spaceplanes, so it seemed a tad optimistic to me. I certainly could be wrong.
For the 1940's, yeah. But they're no more responsible for the current craft than James Watt is for nuclear power plant.
This sounds like one of those "the AK-47 was totally not based on the StG-44..." posts.
Anyway, moar like Enrico Fermi, amirite? The lineage of the two basic German designs can be traced to modern spaceplanes, and even if you believe they're just coincidentally quite similar in design and performance, they're still similar. Neither the SS1/SS2, coincidentally or not, differ much in performance from the X-15/X-20 that were designed 50 years ago, or the Silbervoger's theoretical performance from 70 years ago. "Stagnant" comes to mind here.
Apologies, the Soyuz prices should be in millions of US dollars, not thousands.