The same place the energy comes from when you roll down a hill or when a meteorite burns up in the atmosphere. Or the same place the energy goes when you expend effort (work) to compress a spring. Well sort of, it might help you picture what's going on here...
You seem to be asserting that because h264 is implemented in software it is a software algorithm and therefore not patentable. So suppose a company implemented h264 in hardware, would h264 be patentable then? After all it's not software when it's a piece of silicon.
Clue: I work for a company in the uk that sells this as a solution...
Ok I'm calling you on this one. I don't disagree with the thrust of your statements (Pun intended) however I do think there is something fishy here.
"Moreover, even the low-thrust ion engines Mr. Benson cites (actually, low "specific impulse," but that's another lesson...) " Wrong. Ion engines are characterised by being low thrust high specific impulse. Specific impulse being the thrust that an engine can provide per unit of propellant. Ion thrusters do staggeringly well here because they have such high exhaust velocity, but low exhaust volume.
"Mr. Benson's hypothetically-suitable ion engines could impart enough added velocity ("delta-V" to engineers)" Again you are making the mistakes you claim others are, you are trying to sound smart and failing. Velocity and delta-v are indeed 2 different concepts; however there's either a language or concept problem you have here. Delta-v is a measure of the change in velocity needed. Mission parameters are often discussed in terms of this delta-v because it is a handy measure. e.g. it might take a delta-v of 20km/s to stage a mission to mars; and this tells you a lot about the performance requirements of your spacecraft and the amount of fuel it needs without telling you about its velocity at any moment. The velocity in this case simply dictating the travel time, which may be of less interest. However it is perfectly valid to talk about an engine adding extra velocity, just and it is valid and more normal to specify an engine/propulsion system/spacecraft in terms of delta-v. However velocity is more comprehensible to the layman and no less correct for this case. I welcome pedants of poorly informed science articles - this one being a cracker - but the strength of your arguments against this article are undermined by your malformed attempts to pointlessly and incorrectly nitpick.
"Secondly, Mr. Benson's proposal to simply connect engines to the ISS and launch it away from Earth and onto interplanetary trajectories completely ignores the fact that every source of propulsion he cites would impart accelerations, even small ones for certain scenarios, that the ISS structure, joints, and arrays simply cannot accommodate" This is one I am unsure of: How is the ISS going to be imparted stresses beyond that imposed by the thrusters? How is this thrust going to be of a magnitude or vector it wasn't designed for (bear in mind that the ISS was designed to support the stresses of the re-boost procedure, an Ion engine will be significantly less thrust than this procedure, all be it occurring over a longer time frame).
But yes, I concur with you that this has to be one of the pottiest ideas I have heard in a long time. Right up there with fixing wings to an orbital vehicle...
Fine, Please tell me where I can find a record of all the laws I need to follow. As far as I can tell, there is no actual law of the land - there's any number of laws unintelligibly recorded in a thousand conflicting laws hodgepode enacted over the course of centuries. And then there's just the statutes of civil law which even students of law cannot be aware of all of. If it's not possible for me be able to remove my ignorance of the law, then ignorance of the law is a valid excuse.
Strangely of all the textbooks and lessons I had at school what the laws of this land actually are was never one of them. I can see no reason for this.
Well it's re-inventing the wheel in the same way that people throughout the ages have re-invented the wheel when they discover that stone/wood/steel/aluminium is not always the best building material. Each time new technology comes along or a new development is tried you have to re-invent the wheel to some extent.
"that's what you hire experienced rocketry engineers for." not if: 1) they've all retired 2) Their experience don't apply to your technology/aims 3) They have a set of presumptions that mean that they can't innovate
"There's absolutely nothing new about carbon fiber tanks or flying up to ~100km with minimal delta-V." Really? Because the X33 was such a success with it's carbon fibre tanks? Name me one sucessful carbon fibre tank or even a carbon fiibre support structure used in an orbital vehicle. And yes, it's very new flying to 100km with only private funding. Not new as in it's never ever been done before, but new as in it's the first time it's been commercial. people get excited about fibre to the home all the time and there is nothing new there either, what is exciting here is the possibility of mass availability.
"If your goal was to advance Formula 1 racing, you wouldn't go about it by building a moped" Well ok, let me propose a hypothetical universe where only governments had motor vehicles and no commercial entity produced a motor vehicle that even a billionaire could buy. Only a few hundred cars have ever been developed and they are one use machines barely doing the job they are intended for and massively expensive. The only transport available to the populous was foot or horse or boat. Then someone came along and developed a moped that a millionaire could afford and so there is the hope of thousands of these re-usable transports being made. I'd say that was a big step forwards. Oh dear I've just used a car analogy on slashdot - I'll get my coat...
"I don't know anybody who's thrilled about the wars in the Middle East, and even supporters (which include myself) view the Iraq war as a necessary evil. I see a lot more "blame America first" people than people you'd consider Jingoists."
Well I can only look from the outside in since I am not american, but the impression I get is of a country that does look at the atrocities it commits (Iraq and guantanamo bay spring to mind) and doesn't learn - they see these as a necessary evil rather than seeing it as something that is wrong. How many things throughout history have been viewed as a necessary evil that we look back on now and cannot forgive the people at the time for standing by. Jingo-ism to me is defined by the carefree invading of other countries all in cause of the greater good, and i can't look at America at the moment without seeing the invasion of Afghanistan then on Iraq, now with eyes on any number of other places, Iran, Syria and North Korea spring to mind. Now I'm not saying anything is going to happen, but the mood seems to be that if those countries could be invaded then they would be - and that is Jingoism.
"More rubbish. The spinoff argument is the least compelling of all, since every Euro you put into some fanciful spaceplane is a Euro that doesn't go into something usefull with just as much spinoff potential"
You see i was very careful to avoid spinoff technology argument because I'm a big believer that the spinoff argument is rubbish too; one of my favourite quotes is "justifying space exploration because it gives none stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinist's arm". Therefore I apologise for using the word spinoff - I should have referred to it as advertising, or public relations.
"The A380 has been an unmitigated disaster for Airbus." Name me any megaproject that wasn't a huge disaster. (ok the manhattan project and the apollo program - oh wait they both failed to produce any commercial applications) All mega projects I can think of have failed to make any commercial sense whatsoever, you name it, from the channel tunnel to concorde, to the spruce goose to early nuclear power all were commercial disasters. The reason we do such mega projects isn't for the money, and if you're going to say that humanity shouldn't push the edges of what's capable, or only do it in careful well thought ways then I think we will never agree.
"Now, with the dollar so low against the Euro it will take massive arm-twisting by governments as well as a constant infusion of cash to keep it in production at all" What has the dollar to do with it? Most of the customers were in the far east or in Europe. The only American routes I was aware of that would have them were the transatlantic ones and I believe they were all going to be on the European airlines anyway, so who cares about the dollar?
"Real national prestige flows from excellence in artistic or useful endeavors, not busywork programs like the American shuttle or this proposal from EADS" Really? What was America's proudest moment? i would say it was putting man on the moon. I wouldn't say that America was famous for its artistic output, except maybe Hollywood. Now I would say that Hollywood is certainly a major source of American prestige, but that too has it's moments of shame/questionable worth - need I mention High School Musical:-)
This is why I've almost given up on slashdot, every sentence has to be fully qualified and backed up or someone jumps down your throat - try and explain everything fully and you end up waffling.
I really was trying to say it's technical capabilities and specification rather than it's technology per-se, as you point out its engine does have issues in that scaling, however my understanding is that the spaceframe is significantly more advanced than the X1 - and it's capable of carrying more passengers. So there are some ways it is more capable, in some ways less capable - I'm not trying to say it's identical because that would be a total waste of time.
Surely you can see the comparison here though that it was the X1 that was a research/data gathering test project - if you view SS1 as the same thing then I'm sure they've collected lots of data about how supersonic vehicles behave in that part of the atmosphere at those speeds etc. This should hopefully mean they're better equipped to build the bigger, better one for Virgin Galactic. That should mean they'll then be able to design one with a new engine. Even if it doesn't the sum total of human knowledge is going up by this endeavour. That's engineering/research, you start with something that's easy to do in one respect (rubber and nitros-oxide engine) and use it to push the envelope in one direction, then when you're comfortable there you push the field another way. I'd be calling them stupid if they were trying to push a hard to control prototype engine _and_ new spaceframe technology _and_ flying in parts of the atmosphere they had no experience with. Better they build a simple engine first and develop their knowledge of the other 2 first and then work on the engine. It's a long road to orbit and I was trying to liken this to one of the first and proudest steps that the US government made to that goal.
As for your second point, is something a useless endeavour because it isn't the first in the field - I certainly hope not. Otherwise every new car that is developed is pointless(well yes this new production car is built with advanced composites and weird alloys, but it's nothing the Formula 1 teams haven't been doing for years), every new geeky toy is pointless (Well this new Apple MP3 player is nothing that hasn't been done before, it's not going to change things), Every new consumer product released is a waste of effort (This new 50" LCD is just like the competitors, sure it's £100 cheaper but they've been making TVs like that for years) So what they've done here may not be immediately applicable to getting to orbit, but it's yet another data point and another solution, it all enhances the total knowledge and skills of the human race so IMO it has to be a good thing. The advantage here is that it doesn't matter if it matches what you want to happen at all - unlike the X1 project it's not your money this time, it's private money and they're free to do with it what they want - so good luck to them.
Actually I think national pride is a damn good reason to build something even if its value is questionable.
For a start too much of the British identity these days seems to be ASBOs and Big Brother and Asylum seekers and house price rises.and other rubbish. American identity seems to be gung-ho invade-istan Jingoism, or flat out racism and segregation. However look at something like the gulf states and they're building some impressive things for national pride (that ridiculously tall hotel on the beach springs to mind) or China with their space program. Who cares if they're using English and Russian technology respectively to do it - you can feel good about being part of something that is going places. I'm not saying it's particularly rational or sensible, but it seems to me that's a part of being proud of one's country is feeling like you're doing something special that you are the best at something - and quite frankly that's an important part of the quality of life IMO.
Of course there's side benefits of this sort of thing, developing SST gives you advances in other areas, not least in terms of prestige and therefore extra orders from other countries. e.g. Europe currently builds the largest commercial air plane and has built the only commercial SST - so who do you look to first when you want to buy a new fleet (ask Singapore airlines who just bought a bunch of A380s - something they probably feel a great deal of pride and gain prestige = business = money for)
Now I'm sure you couldn't convince an accountant of this or a cynical slashdot poster, but I believe it's a worthwhile cause in the same way I believe opera is a worthwhile endeavour.
Depends how you look at it. In a purely technical point of view yes SS1 is at approximately the capabilities of the X1 project. Still I think you'd agree that the X1 was an important project.
But I don't believe the important thing here is the technical point - the ability to build orbital vehicles exists in the public sector because NASA's and others orbital rockets are built by public companies. What is important here is the marketing and the market.
If they can turn a profit from getting people to the edge of space (I's what 400km or something?) then I think we have a large step forwrads if this carries on being a trend. If this does take off and becomes a long term business then you can guarantee they'll do a 600km one, then an 800km one etc. Along the way they may have to completely re-engineer things but as long as there is profit and competition then it's all good.
Imagine as well if this starts off whole new extreme sports or who can get the highest challenges - it doesn't matter if they reach orbit (yet) as long as it gets space back into being a new exciting profitable place to be. That to me is what SS1 and Virgin galactic and all the others will do - they'll take us another step closer - it's a long road ahead, but this does take us one step nearer than if it never happened. But all in all they seem to have created both the public image (the marketing) and the market (hundreds of people signed up) to make a profit from a new avenue in space - this I can only see as a good thing. Further the market they have created appears to have the option to be a market of one-upping the competition - which can also only be a good thing for us space geeks.
Now of course if things go horridly wrong and put people off, then it's bad news yes, but that's one advantage with this - it is a small step forwards and so should be relatively safe - at least compared to other extreme sports, if they can just make it as safe as driving a car and then going sky diving I hope we'll be there...
"I took it to mean NASA would be more innovative and be using next generation power and propulsion systems in future long range missions." What exactly do you suggest they use?
They have solar, chemical and nuke. Solar doesn't work for long range missions. When nukes have orders of magnitude more power per kg than chemical, which is the best to use?
Unless you're aware of any new laws of physics? You can't innovate your way to more power, no ammount of innovation will produce chemical rockets with even 20% more efficiency than Saturn V Well unless you go to metastable fuels, for that, please read here: http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht13rocketprop.htm
"Given the fact that NASA isn't well supported, they are in a tough spot. Rather than making it clear how underfunded they really are, they instead try to play it safe and not rock the boat."
And this is a major problem with modern NASA - the common man seems to think that NASA exists to do science and get us into space when in fact NASA is currently being passive aggressive and cutting off all the useful science. I think their logic for this is that the educated will realise this and the educated have one of the best chances to affect change so i think NASA hopes that by becoming useless to the people it claims to serve it will get back the funding it wants. i.e. missions to the ISS look good for PR, but aren't that good for science and those who are in the know know this, therefore by cutting off the bits that were useful it can get a larger slice of the pie in all respects.
Maybe - I don;t claim to understand bureaucracies, but this is the only explanation I can come up with for them doing this. Unless of course their backs really are to the wall in orther respects so it's not worth spending the political capital to get this as well as all the other things they want.
Well I'm not American and therefore not paying for this, but that aside:
I want humans to leave this rock, I think the only way to do it is to make space profitable. As soon as there is profit to be had, good luck stopping people from doing it. Once we're out there doing something profitable en-mass I think the other goals that people have of scientific research and romantic notions of colonisation will follow. I believe however that the quality of life can be best enhanced by making a profit from space rather than abstract research or having a dozen or so people on the moon. I can see several ways we *might* be able to make a profit in space in the foreseeable future:
* Asteroid Mining * Space Tourism * He3 (or other fantasy) moon mining * Power Satellites
Going to Mars or a long term moon base may be very romantic, but we can't really turn them into a sustainable long term option with our current technology. I believe therefore the best thing to do is accept this and search for something else we can do that is just about within our grasp and would lead to a long term sustainable industry. I'm assuming here of course that a moon base will be a sink of money and not a source. I'm also assuming that people's lives have most been improved by space projects like communications satellites and GPS rather than Hubble or the space shuttle.
"if God didn't want us to be trying to determine our origins and the way that the universe works, questioning everything along the way, why would he give us such strong curiosity about it?"
The same reason he made us covet or be greedy or want to have lots of sex with as many people as possible, and then put lots of rules in the way saying that these things were sinful and that we would suffer for all eternity if we did them.
The same reason that he created diseases that kill the righteous and the lowly irrespective. The same reason he doesn't heal cripples who pray to him for help, the same reason a god of caring and forgiveness and love was also very fond of his smiting. The same reason he has perfect foresight and total knowledge, yet managed to mess up the whole tree of knowledge thing.
He's as confused and inconsistent as we are because he is a creation of ours, not the other way around.
Well I don't have numbers either, but i do know in the early days of nukes a couple of reactors would be quite enough to arm a nation. France has had dozens of reactors for decades so unless they now have the worlds largest arsenal of nukes I imagine that the civilian nuke plant's contribution to weapons is very minimal - certainly not enough to effectively subsidise the entire country's power production for decades.
"This generates a considerable amount of highly radioactive liquid waste"
My understanding of the problem here was that highly radioactive waste isn't that big a problem, because in order to be highly radioactive it must also have a small halflife. i.e. the really nasty stuff has half lifes in the order of a few decades. But that's fine because every few decades you have 1/2 the storage problem you started with. So much better to have a small amount of highly radioactive waste which will be gone soon than a large ammount of slightly radioactive waste that will hang around for thousands of years.
My guess is the answer is supposed to come down to: "Because I am the government, and I decide what is best for the people"
I suppose historically this would have come down to: "Because I am the king (i.e. I am better at fighting than you, or my Ancesters were and therefore I command the loyalty of others who are better at fighting than you are)"
These days I suppose the real situation is: "Because I've decided to make a living out of playing the power/politics game and this is a piece on my chess board; if you want to join the game and fight me for power go right ahead"
Was that really that bad a skeleton? Choose your moral system I would say, also put yourself in his shoes and ask what you would have done differently.
von Braun to me comes across as someone whose "allegiance was one of expedience", is that really such a bad thing? If I proudly state that I'll work for whatever company will pay me the most money, is that that much worse.
Ah but people associated with his work died! Ok, so it's a high stakes game, you might as well curse Albert Einstein for his association with encouraging atomic bomb development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Atomic_bomb).
I really don't see the difference between the two, yet Einstein is often remembered fondly for his (limited) participation in the development of the atomic bomb - at least von Braun's desire was to develop technology for space, by whatever means necessary; as opposed to developing a killer weapon before the other group. Not that I have any problems with the way history turned out, I just don't like people to think badly of von Braun.
Don't get in such a strop, learn to accept when you're wrong without blaming the other person.
A quick check of the dictionary "actuality or reality or fact; 'she is effectively his wife'" The two things in question here are not effectively the same at all for the reasons covered above any more than a hammer or a screwdriver are effectively the same thing; both being usable for putting in a screw or or a nail - do you come to slashdot for debate or to hurl insults around at any discussion - if the latter please grow up, or go to a pub and try the same thing.
And if they did a bad cover then they could have sued for 'defamation of character' or some other such nonsense. i.e. they'd probably have claimed that guitar hero was making them look bad if a poor cover was done. Either way they try and make money even though they previously agreed rights.
In addition to the other excellent comments in reply to your post here: Recall that you can have black holes that have a very small mass, there is some research that seems to indicate we've created some microspic black holes in particle accelerators (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm)
Of course this goes to show that Einstein was wrong about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, but that's way off topic:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Or better than that, use the solar energy to directly heat the water and store that long term. Lose out on one conversion step
The same place the energy comes from when you roll down a hill or when a meteorite burns up in the atmosphere. Or the same place the energy goes when you expend effort (work) to compress a spring.
Well sort of, it might help you picture what's going on here...
You seem to be asserting that because h264 is implemented in software it is a software algorithm and therefore not patentable. So suppose a company implemented h264 in hardware, would h264 be patentable then? After all it's not software when it's a piece of silicon.
Clue: I work for a company in the uk that sells this as a solution...
Ok I'm calling you on this one. I don't disagree with the thrust of your statements (Pun intended) however I do think there is something fishy here.
"Moreover, even the low-thrust ion engines Mr. Benson cites (actually, low "specific impulse," but that's another lesson...) "
Wrong. Ion engines are characterised by being low thrust high specific impulse. Specific impulse being the thrust that an engine can provide per unit of propellant. Ion thrusters do staggeringly well here because they have such high exhaust velocity, but low exhaust volume.
"Mr. Benson's hypothetically-suitable ion engines could impart enough added velocity ("delta-V" to engineers)"
Again you are making the mistakes you claim others are, you are trying to sound smart and failing. Velocity and delta-v are indeed 2 different concepts; however there's either a language or concept problem you have here. Delta-v is a measure of the change in velocity needed. Mission parameters are often discussed in terms of this delta-v because it is a handy measure. e.g. it might take a delta-v of 20km/s to stage a mission to mars; and this tells you a lot about the performance requirements of your spacecraft and the amount of fuel it needs without telling you about its velocity at any moment. The velocity in this case simply dictating the travel time, which may be of less interest.
However it is perfectly valid to talk about an engine adding extra velocity, just and it is valid and more normal to specify an engine/propulsion system/spacecraft in terms of delta-v. However velocity is more comprehensible to the layman and no less correct for this case. I welcome pedants of poorly informed science articles - this one being a cracker - but the strength of your arguments against this article are undermined by your malformed attempts to pointlessly and incorrectly nitpick.
"Secondly, Mr. Benson's proposal to simply connect engines to the ISS and launch it away from Earth and onto interplanetary trajectories completely ignores the fact that every source of propulsion he cites would impart accelerations, even small ones for certain scenarios, that the ISS structure, joints, and arrays simply cannot accommodate"
This is one I am unsure of: How is the ISS going to be imparted stresses beyond that imposed by the thrusters? How is this thrust going to be of a magnitude or vector it wasn't designed for (bear in mind that the ISS was designed to support the stresses of the re-boost procedure, an Ion engine will be significantly less thrust than this procedure, all be it occurring over a longer time frame).
But yes, I concur with you that this has to be one of the pottiest ideas I have heard in a long time. Right up there with fixing wings to an orbital vehicle...
I could keep hearing these TMBG references until my head falls off. If I wasn't shy I'd make some of my own.
Don't let's start on that; after all, alienation's for the rich
Good explanation here too:
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1960.html
Fine,
Please tell me where I can find a record of all the laws I need to follow. As far as I can tell, there is no actual law of the land - there's any number of laws unintelligibly recorded in a thousand conflicting laws hodgepode enacted over the course of centuries. And then there's just the statutes of civil law which even students of law cannot be aware of all of.
If it's not possible for me be able to remove my ignorance of the law, then ignorance of the law is a valid excuse.
Strangely of all the textbooks and lessons I had at school what the laws of this land actually are was never one of them. I can see no reason for this.
Well it's re-inventing the wheel in the same way that people throughout the ages have re-invented the wheel when they discover that stone/wood/steel/aluminium is not always the best building material. Each time new technology comes along or a new development is tried you have to re-invent the wheel to some extent.
"that's what you hire experienced rocketry engineers for."
not if:
1) they've all retired
2) Their experience don't apply to your technology/aims
3) They have a set of presumptions that mean that they can't innovate
"There's absolutely nothing new about carbon fiber tanks or flying up to ~100km with minimal delta-V."
Really? Because the X33 was such a success with it's carbon fibre tanks? Name me one sucessful carbon fibre tank or even a carbon fiibre support structure used in an orbital vehicle.
And yes, it's very new flying to 100km with only private funding. Not new as in it's never ever been done before, but new as in it's the first time it's been commercial. people get excited about fibre to the home all the time and there is nothing new there either, what is exciting here is the possibility of mass availability.
"If your goal was to advance Formula 1 racing, you wouldn't go about it by building a moped"
Well ok, let me propose a hypothetical universe where only governments had motor vehicles and no commercial entity produced a motor vehicle that even a billionaire could buy. Only a few hundred cars have ever been developed and they are one use machines barely doing the job they are intended for and massively expensive. The only transport available to the populous was foot or horse or boat. Then someone came along and developed a moped that a millionaire could afford and so there is the hope of thousands of these re-usable transports being made. I'd say that was a big step forwards.
Oh dear I've just used a car analogy on slashdot - I'll get my coat...
"I don't know anybody who's thrilled about the wars in the Middle East, and even supporters (which include myself) view the Iraq war as a necessary evil. I see a lot more "blame America first" people than people you'd consider Jingoists."
:-)
Well I can only look from the outside in since I am not american, but the impression I get is of a country that does look at the atrocities it commits (Iraq and guantanamo bay spring to mind) and doesn't learn - they see these as a necessary evil rather than seeing it as something that is wrong. How many things throughout history have been viewed as a necessary evil that we look back on now and cannot forgive the people at the time for standing by.
Jingo-ism to me is defined by the carefree invading of other countries all in cause of the greater good, and i can't look at America at the moment without seeing the invasion of Afghanistan then on Iraq, now with eyes on any number of other places, Iran, Syria and North Korea spring to mind. Now I'm not saying anything is going to happen, but the mood seems to be that if those countries could be invaded then they would be - and that is Jingoism.
"More rubbish. The spinoff argument is the least compelling of all, since every Euro you put into some fanciful spaceplane is a Euro that doesn't go into something usefull with just as much spinoff potential"
You see i was very careful to avoid spinoff technology argument because I'm a big believer that the spinoff argument is rubbish too; one of my favourite quotes is "justifying space exploration because it gives none stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinist's arm". Therefore I apologise for using the word spinoff - I should have referred to it as advertising, or public relations.
"The A380 has been an unmitigated disaster for Airbus."
Name me any megaproject that wasn't a huge disaster. (ok the manhattan project and the apollo program - oh wait they both failed to produce any commercial applications)
All mega projects I can think of have failed to make any commercial sense whatsoever, you name it, from the channel tunnel to concorde, to the spruce goose to early nuclear power all were commercial disasters.
The reason we do such mega projects isn't for the money, and if you're going to say that humanity shouldn't push the edges of what's capable, or only do it in careful well thought ways then I think we will never agree.
"Now, with the dollar so low against the Euro it will take massive arm-twisting by governments as well as a constant infusion of cash to keep it in production at all"
What has the dollar to do with it? Most of the customers were in the far east or in Europe. The only American routes I was aware of that would have them were the transatlantic ones and I believe they were all going to be on the European airlines anyway, so who cares about the dollar?
"Real national prestige flows from excellence in artistic or useful endeavors, not busywork programs like the American shuttle or this proposal from EADS"
Really? What was America's proudest moment? i would say it was putting man on the moon.
I wouldn't say that America was famous for its artistic output, except maybe Hollywood. Now I would say that Hollywood is certainly a major source of American prestige, but that too has it's moments of shame/questionable worth - need I mention High School Musical
This is why I've almost given up on slashdot, every sentence has to be fully qualified and backed up or someone jumps down your throat - try and explain everything fully and you end up waffling.
I really was trying to say it's technical capabilities and specification rather than it's technology per-se, as you point out its engine does have issues in that scaling, however my understanding is that the spaceframe is significantly more advanced than the X1 - and it's capable of carrying more passengers. So there are some ways it is more capable, in some ways less capable - I'm not trying to say it's identical because that would be a total waste of time.
Surely you can see the comparison here though that it was the X1 that was a research/data gathering test project - if you view SS1 as the same thing then I'm sure they've collected lots of data about how supersonic vehicles behave in that part of the atmosphere at those speeds etc.
This should hopefully mean they're better equipped to build the bigger, better one for Virgin Galactic. That should mean they'll then be able to design one with a new engine. Even if it doesn't the sum total of human knowledge is going up by this endeavour.
That's engineering/research, you start with something that's easy to do in one respect (rubber and nitros-oxide engine) and use it to push the envelope in one direction, then when you're comfortable there you push the field another way. I'd be calling them stupid if they were trying to push a hard to control prototype engine _and_ new spaceframe technology _and_ flying in parts of the atmosphere they had no experience with. Better they build a simple engine first and develop their knowledge of the other 2 first and then work on the engine.
It's a long road to orbit and I was trying to liken this to one of the first and proudest steps that the US government made to that goal.
As for your second point, is something a useless endeavour because it isn't the first in the field - I certainly hope not. Otherwise every new car that is developed is pointless(well yes this new production car is built with advanced composites and weird alloys, but it's nothing the Formula 1 teams haven't been doing for years), every new geeky toy is pointless (Well this new Apple MP3 player is nothing that hasn't been done before, it's not going to change things), Every new consumer product released is a waste of effort (This new 50" LCD is just like the competitors, sure it's £100 cheaper but they've been making TVs like that for years)
So what they've done here may not be immediately applicable to getting to orbit, but it's yet another data point and another solution, it all enhances the total knowledge and skills of the human race so IMO it has to be a good thing. The advantage here is that it doesn't matter if it matches what you want to happen at all - unlike the X1 project it's not your money this time, it's private money and they're free to do with it what they want - so good luck to them.
Actually I think national pride is a damn good reason to build something even if its value is questionable.
For a start too much of the British identity these days seems to be ASBOs and Big Brother and Asylum seekers and house price rises.and other rubbish. American identity seems to be gung-ho invade-istan Jingoism, or flat out racism and segregation.
However look at something like the gulf states and they're building some impressive things for national pride (that ridiculously tall hotel on the beach springs to mind) or China with their space program. Who cares if they're using English and Russian technology respectively to do it - you can feel good about being part of something that is going places.
I'm not saying it's particularly rational or sensible, but it seems to me that's a part of being proud of one's country is feeling like you're doing something special that you are the best at something - and quite frankly that's an important part of the quality of life IMO.
Of course there's side benefits of this sort of thing, developing SST gives you advances in other areas, not least in terms of prestige and therefore extra orders from other countries. e.g. Europe currently builds the largest commercial air plane and has built the only commercial SST - so who do you look to first when you want to buy a new fleet (ask Singapore airlines who just bought a bunch of A380s - something they probably feel a great deal of pride and gain prestige = business = money for)
Now I'm sure you couldn't convince an accountant of this or a cynical slashdot poster, but I believe it's a worthwhile cause in the same way I believe opera is a worthwhile endeavour.
Depends how you look at it. In a purely technical point of view yes SS1 is at approximately the capabilities of the X1 project. Still I think you'd agree that the X1 was an important project.
But I don't believe the important thing here is the technical point - the ability to build orbital vehicles exists in the public sector because NASA's and others orbital rockets are built by public companies.
What is important here is the marketing and the market.
If they can turn a profit from getting people to the edge of space (I's what 400km or something?) then I think we have a large step forwrads if this carries on being a trend. If this does take off and becomes a long term business then you can guarantee they'll do a 600km one, then an 800km one etc. Along the way they may have to completely re-engineer things but as long as there is profit and competition then it's all good.
Imagine as well if this starts off whole new extreme sports or who can get the highest challenges - it doesn't matter if they reach orbit (yet) as long as it gets space back into being a new exciting profitable place to be. That to me is what SS1 and Virgin galactic and all the others will do - they'll take us another step closer - it's a long road ahead, but this does take us one step nearer than if it never happened.
But all in all they seem to have created both the public image (the marketing) and the market (hundreds of people signed up) to make a profit from a new avenue in space - this I can only see as a good thing. Further the market they have created appears to have the option to be a market of one-upping the competition - which can also only be a good thing for us space geeks.
Now of course if things go horridly wrong and put people off, then it's bad news yes, but that's one advantage with this - it is a small step forwards and so should be relatively safe - at least compared to other extreme sports, if they can just make it as safe as driving a car and then going sky diving I hope we'll be there...
"I took it to mean NASA would be more innovative and be using next generation power and propulsion systems in future long range missions."
What exactly do you suggest they use?
They have solar, chemical and nuke.
Solar doesn't work for long range missions.
When nukes have orders of magnitude more power per kg than chemical, which is the best to use?
Unless you're aware of any new laws of physics? You can't innovate your way to more power, no ammount of innovation will produce chemical rockets with even 20% more efficiency than Saturn V
Well unless you go to metastable fuels, for that, please read here:
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht13rocketprop.htm
"Given the fact that NASA isn't well supported, they are in a tough spot. Rather than making it clear how underfunded they really are, they instead try to play it safe and not rock the boat."
And this is a major problem with modern NASA - the common man seems to think that NASA exists to do science and get us into space when in fact NASA is currently being passive aggressive and cutting off all the useful science.
I think their logic for this is that the educated will realise this and the educated have one of the best chances to affect change so i think NASA hopes that by becoming useless to the people it claims to serve it will get back the funding it wants.
i.e. missions to the ISS look good for PR, but aren't that good for science and those who are in the know know this, therefore by cutting off the bits that were useful it can get a larger slice of the pie in all respects.
Maybe - I don;t claim to understand bureaucracies, but this is the only explanation I can come up with for them doing this. Unless of course their backs really are to the wall in orther respects so it's not worth spending the political capital to get this as well as all the other things they want.
Well I'm not American and therefore not paying for this, but that aside:
I want humans to leave this rock, I think the only way to do it is to make space profitable. As soon as there is profit to be had, good luck stopping people from doing it. Once we're out there doing something profitable en-mass I think the other goals that people have of scientific research and romantic notions of colonisation will follow. I believe however that the quality of life can be best enhanced by making a profit from space rather than abstract research or having a dozen or so people on the moon. I can see several ways we *might* be able to make a profit in space in the foreseeable future:
* Asteroid Mining
* Space Tourism
* He3 (or other fantasy) moon mining
* Power Satellites
Going to Mars or a long term moon base may be very romantic, but we can't really turn them into a sustainable long term option with our current technology. I believe therefore the best thing to do is accept this and search for something else we can do that is just about within our grasp and would lead to a long term sustainable industry.
I'm assuming here of course that a moon base will be a sink of money and not a source. I'm also assuming that people's lives have most been improved by space projects like communications satellites and GPS rather than Hubble or the space shuttle.
"if God didn't want us to be trying to determine our origins and the way that the universe works, questioning everything along the way, why would he give us such strong curiosity about it?"
The same reason he made us covet or be greedy or want to have lots of sex with as many people as possible, and then put lots of rules in the way saying that these things were sinful and that we would suffer for all eternity if we did them.
The same reason that he created diseases that kill the righteous and the lowly irrespective. The same reason he doesn't heal cripples who pray to him for help, the same reason a god of caring and forgiveness and love was also very fond of his smiting. The same reason he has perfect foresight and total knowledge, yet managed to mess up the whole tree of knowledge thing.
He's as confused and inconsistent as we are because he is a creation of ours, not the other way around.
Erm lots of places re-process without too many problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_nuclear_reprocessing_sites
Well I don't have numbers either, but i do know in the early days of nukes a couple of reactors would be quite enough to arm a nation. France has had dozens of reactors for decades so unless they now have the worlds largest arsenal of nukes I imagine that the civilian nuke plant's contribution to weapons is very minimal - certainly not enough to effectively subsidise the entire country's power production for decades.
"This generates a considerable amount of highly radioactive liquid waste"
My understanding of the problem here was that highly radioactive waste isn't that big a problem, because in order to be highly radioactive it must also have a small halflife. i.e. the really nasty stuff has half lifes in the order of a few decades. But that's fine because every few decades you have 1/2 the storage problem you started with.
So much better to have a small amount of highly radioactive waste which will be gone soon than a large ammount of slightly radioactive waste that will hang around for thousands of years.
My guess is the answer is supposed to come down to:
"Because I am the government, and I decide what is best for the people"
I suppose historically this would have come down to:
"Because I am the king (i.e. I am better at fighting than you, or my Ancesters were and therefore I command the loyalty of others who are better at fighting than you are)"
These days I suppose the real situation is:
"Because I've decided to make a living out of playing the power/politics game and this is a piece on my chess board; if you want to join the game and fight me for power go right ahead"
Why do Airbus scare you?
Was that really that bad a skeleton? Choose your moral system I would say, also put yourself in his shoes and ask what you would have done differently.
von Braun to me comes across as someone whose "allegiance was one of expedience", is that really such a bad thing? If I proudly state that I'll work for whatever company will pay me the most money, is that that much worse.
Ah but people associated with his work died! Ok, so it's a high stakes game, you might as well curse Albert Einstein for his association with encouraging atomic bomb development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Atomic_bomb).
I really don't see the difference between the two, yet Einstein is often remembered fondly for his (limited) participation in the development of the atomic bomb - at least von Braun's desire was to develop technology for space, by whatever means necessary; as opposed to developing a killer weapon before the other group.
Not that I have any problems with the way history turned out, I just don't like people to think badly of von Braun.
Don't get in such a strop, learn to accept when you're wrong without blaming the other person.
A quick check of the dictionary "actuality or reality or fact; 'she is effectively his wife'"
The two things in question here are not effectively the same at all for the reasons covered above any more than a hammer or a screwdriver are effectively the same thing; both being usable for putting in a screw or or a nail - do you come to slashdot for debate or to hurl insults around at any discussion - if the latter please grow up, or go to a pub and try the same thing.
And if they did a bad cover then they could have sued for 'defamation of character' or some other such nonsense.
i.e. they'd probably have claimed that guitar hero was making them look bad if a poor cover was done. Either way they try and make money even though they previously agreed rights.
Those who can do, those who can't sue.
In addition to the other excellent comments in reply to your post here:
:-)
Recall that you can have black holes that have a very small mass, there is some research that seems to indicate we've created some microspic black holes in particle accelerators (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm)
Of course this goes to show that Einstein was wrong about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, but that's way off topic