Err... NASA is a government agency funded with taxpayer money. SpaceX, private corporation. You're absolutely right that even one death in a US space program is a disaster of enormous proportions, though.:-)
But I am POSITIVE they will probably stick to unmanned missions for a good time to test out the rocket's quirks before sending people up. But I'll bet people will pay to go up all the same. The prospect of seeing the earth from orbit beats the risk. The Falcon's design seems solid and well-thought out.
Hell, I'd pay for a seat if I had the money. Maybe go on a diet 6 months before to get a better price tag even.;-)
Omg, what a reversal of values. He's not 'flying people' or 'putting them into jeopardy'. People are flying his rockets and putting themselves into jeopardy.
It's not that we've lost our sense of adventure. It's just that people have lost their sense of minding their own business. I guess government taught them that. Be nosy.:-)
We don't know everything about cancer or AIDS, true. We know much, but not enough to totally cure it. But the treatments we do have, had empirical, scientific testing and have been proved to work. That's an important distinction that breaks your metaphor for me.
But to play with it; if he _suspects_ I have either, he's not a competent doctor that did not do his job properly, and I'll take to another doctor where I'll spend another thousand dollars in consultation and testing to be sure before I spew out the two million dollar cancer or AIDS treatment based on the first doctor's suspicion.
Yea, or by an alternate, but equally possible line of thinking: maybe CO2 isn't the only factor, since much more of it gets absorbed than we though in the first place? Maybe we should look harder for the other pieces and stop just wasting $$$ on computer weather models that predict oh-so-politically-useful disaster?;-)
The point I am making is that the proponents of doing something about global warming NOW and at ANY COST do not KNOW what is going to happen. They can't, they have no hard evidence, no comprehensive theory on it, just a 'consensus that CO2 is the cause of global warming'. Last I checked consensus doesn't make something hard science, evidence does.
And I'm not saying nothing is to be done, we just need to be careful not to hop into a big trillion dollar bandwagon with Al Gore and the UN just to look dumb and swindled afterwards. I'm just taking Obi-wan's advice, that politicians cannot be trusted. Or bureaucrats, in the UN case.:-)
No it doesn't. But it does show that there is MUCH we don't know about the issue.
Also I've heard no hard evidence - unless you count a consensus of scientists as evidence - of the scenarios being predicted by mostly people with a vested interest in spending billions and billions in order to DO something about it.
I guess skepticism comes as an instinct to me, but that looks like a great read, I'll be sure to pick it up, thanks.:)
In most ion drives there is interactions between the electrodes and the propellant, reducing reliability and maximum input too, I believe.
In the VASIMR the electrodes and propellant are completely separate by the containing magnetic field, which also means that the temperature of the plasma, thus propellant speed, is only limited by the power used to heat it, up to fusion temperatures, which is hellishly cool.
This gets my geek insticts completely haywire, sorry for the fanboyish post.:P
Heh, the mechanism for braking is turning the ship 180 degrees as you reach the middle of the trip. But basically having the propulsion system go dead spells death of everybody no matter what system you use.
And since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I'd reckon the design decision to use it pretty good.
We just need compact and efficient nuclear reactors for the power, for a ship I mean, solar panels might be just fine for the ISS.
This is exactly what needs to be done: Provide more speed.
Combine that with a cheap and reliable way to get to LEO and you have the beginnings of a real exploration of the Solar System.
This engine looks really cool, I've been checking it out for awhile. I really think plasma engines are the tech we'll be using as propulsion.
This is a good trend for us to pursue. Truly SPACE-craft that don't have to be spectacularly and expensively launched and go thru the trouble of reentry every single mission.
Parent's right, what we need now is the most efficient and cheap means to get to space as possible; the new private space companies that are trying out with pure liquid fuel rockets and are failing miserably now could be on the right track. And hopefully the space elevator idea might come to be feasible in the next 50 years.
Then my friends, humanity will have moved OUT of it's parents house, and finally be free.
They can do better, and will do better. That they fail like this and are still financially able to regroup and attack the problem again, is proof of it.
They're trying to build a rocket that reaches space solely on liquid fuel mixture, thats the fundamental difference and from the space shuttle, with its two solid rockets, huge O2/H2 tank ( that's lost in every launch, btw ). When waste is not a restraint, everything is much easier to set up; see welfare.
If, more properly, when they suceed they will make space travel that little bit closer to being an everyday reality.
Do you mean a hundred of years of slavery is "O.K.?"
Then I want to know what country does not o.k. in your book?
Capitalism did not create slavery. It existed before it developed. But England - a very much pioneering capitalist nation - DID outlaw slavery and slave trade overseas much earlier than many countries dreamed to emancipate slaves.
This kind of egoism does only align with the worst in human nature. I question the humanity of a being that is only after his/her own interest. Not to say that self interest has its place. But without considering what it does to others or what would happen if everybody would act the same way is simply inhumane.
You say that the human desire of improving his condition aligns with the worst in human nature? How do you expect poor people to free themselves from poverty other than trying to make a better life for themselves? With welfare checks?
Because with this kind of limitless self interest I can justify slavery, destruction of the environment, sub prime mortgage debacles (it was certainly in the self interest of some people), even aggressive wars.
Oh could you? Interesting insight into your person.
> If by "liberalism" you mean the philosophy of letting people do their own thing (i.e., what libertarianism used to be called), you couldn't be more wrong. Capitalism is the ideal economic system for such a political philosophy.
I'm not the AC who posted that, but that's NOT what liberalism means. It comes from liberal (not liberty). It has more to do with a generous and caring society, NOT one where you can do whatever the hell you want.
But I don't blame you for not knowing it. Chinese speakers of English use the word far more often than we do. But it is a real word.
That is exactly what liberalism means. What you think it means is socialism, which is called by its proper name in Europe and South America, but in America they thought Liberal sounded better than Socialist. I wonder why?;-) *cough* red scare *cough*
Hence Libertarians had to change their name to avoid confusion with the Liberals Homer hates so much...
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to say this, but it's one of the thousand names of Nyarlathothep.
We're doomed.
Hell, no. I guess in a world where incompetence is so widespread, I'll prefer death. :P
Abusive boss? Didn't make it into SpaceX team, didn't you. I'm sorry. :)
who modded you Insightful? oh, I guess slashdot doesn't have the "Self-righteous" mod.
It's not a production system, it's the THIRD test launch.
And they changed it because the regen cooling is better, and I reckon, cheaper than ablative. Simple as that.
Err... NASA is a government agency funded with taxpayer money. SpaceX, private corporation. You're absolutely right that even one death in a US space program is a disaster of enormous proportions, though. :-)
But I am POSITIVE they will probably stick to unmanned missions for a good time to test out the rocket's quirks before sending people up. But I'll bet people will pay to go up all the same. The prospect of seeing the earth from orbit beats the risk. The Falcon's design seems solid and well-thought out.
Hell, I'd pay for a seat if I had the money. Maybe go on a diet 6 months before to get a better price tag even. ;-)
Omg, what a reversal of values. He's not 'flying people' or 'putting them into jeopardy'. People are flying his rockets and putting themselves into jeopardy.
It's not that we've lost our sense of adventure. It's just that people have lost their sense of minding their own business. I guess government taught them that. Be nosy. :-)
It's not the voters who decide the winner, but who counts the votes. -Stalin
They.... run.... WINDOWS??!?!?!?!?!?
Run! Run for you lives!!!!!
We don't know everything about cancer or AIDS, true. We know much, but not enough to totally cure it. But the treatments we do have, had empirical, scientific testing and have been proved to work. That's an important distinction that breaks your metaphor for me.
But to play with it; if he _suspects_ I have either, he's not a competent doctor that did not do his job properly, and I'll take to another doctor where I'll spend another thousand dollars in consultation and testing to be sure before I spew out the two million dollar cancer or AIDS treatment based on the first doctor's suspicion.
Yea, or by an alternate, but equally possible line of thinking: maybe CO2 isn't the only factor, since much more of it gets absorbed than we though in the first place? Maybe we should look harder for the other pieces and stop just wasting $$$ on computer weather models that predict oh-so-politically-useful disaster? ;-)
The point I am making is that the proponents of doing something about global warming NOW and at ANY COST do not KNOW what is going to happen. They can't, they have no hard evidence, no comprehensive theory on it, just a 'consensus that CO2 is the cause of global warming'. Last I checked consensus doesn't make something hard science, evidence does.
And I'm not saying nothing is to be done, we just need to be careful not to hop into a big trillion dollar bandwagon with Al Gore and the UN just to look dumb and swindled afterwards. I'm just taking Obi-wan's advice, that politicians cannot be trusted. Or bureaucrats, in the UN case. :-)
http://xkcd.com/244/ :)
No recursing!!
No it doesn't. But it does show that there is MUCH we don't know about the issue.
Also I've heard no hard evidence - unless you count a consensus of scientists as evidence - of the scenarios being predicted by mostly people with a vested interest in spending billions and billions in order to DO something about it.
I guess skepticism comes as an instinct to me, but that looks like a great read, I'll be sure to pick it up, thanks. :)
Farms. Hydroponic Farms... and hell, those gyro destabilizers were so freakin unbalanced. :-(
In most ion drives there is interactions between the electrodes and the propellant, reducing reliability and maximum input too, I believe.
In the VASIMR the electrodes and propellant are completely separate by the containing magnetic field, which also means that the temperature of the plasma, thus propellant speed, is only limited by the power used to heat it, up to fusion temperatures, which is hellishly cool.
This gets my geek insticts completely haywire, sorry for the fanboyish post. :P
No, it means that global warming isn't the disaster the proponents would have us believe.
I'll take it with a grain of salt, of course, this is slashdot. But I did take 'an inconvenient truth' with some skepticism too. ;-)
Heh, the mechanism for braking is turning the ship 180 degrees as you reach the middle of the trip. But basically having the propulsion system go dead spells death of everybody no matter what system you use.
And since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I'd reckon the design decision to use it pretty good.
We just need compact and efficient nuclear reactors for the power, for a ship I mean, solar panels might be just fine for the ISS.
This is exactly what needs to be done: Provide more speed.
Combine that with a cheap and reliable way to get to LEO and you have the beginnings of a real exploration of the Solar System.
This engine looks really cool, I've been checking it out for awhile. I really think plasma engines are the tech we'll be using as propulsion.
This is a good trend for us to pursue. Truly SPACE-craft that don't have to be spectacularly and expensively launched and go thru the trouble of reentry every single mission.
Parent's right, what we need now is the most efficient and cheap means to get to space as possible; the new private space companies that are trying out with pure liquid fuel rockets and are failing miserably now could be on the right track. And hopefully the space elevator idea might come to be feasible in the next 50 years.
Then my friends, humanity will have moved OUT of it's parents house, and finally be free.
They can do better, and will do better. That they fail like this and are still financially able to regroup and attack the problem again, is proof of it.
They're trying to build a rocket that reaches space solely on liquid fuel mixture, thats the fundamental difference and from the space shuttle, with its two solid rockets, huge O2/H2 tank ( that's lost in every launch, btw ). When waste is not a restraint, everything is much easier to set up; see welfare.
If, more properly, when they suceed they will make space travel that little bit closer to being an everyday reality.
PHP... pheefff... I was talking about manly, virile languages such as Assembly. :P
Don't ruin my wisecrack with facts! :)
Sorry, but when expressing inequality != is the correct operator.
You're not really a programmer, security, please escort this gentleman to Digg, please. :-)
We move. Doh. :-)
Do you mean a hundred of years of slavery is "O.K.?"
Then I want to know what country does not o.k. in your book?
Capitalism did not create slavery. It existed before it developed. But England - a very much pioneering capitalist nation - DID outlaw slavery and slave trade overseas much earlier than many countries dreamed to emancipate slaves.
This kind of egoism does only align with the worst in human nature. I question the humanity of a being that is only after his/her own interest. Not to say that self interest has its place. But without considering what it does to others or what would happen if everybody would act the same way is simply inhumane.
You say that the human desire of improving his condition aligns with the worst in human nature? How do you expect poor people to free themselves from poverty other than trying to make a better life for themselves? With welfare checks?
Because with this kind of limitless self interest I can justify slavery, destruction of the environment, sub prime mortgage debacles (it was certainly in the self interest of some people), even aggressive wars.
Oh could you? Interesting insight into your person.
>> Incompatible with liberalism
> If by "liberalism" you mean the philosophy of letting people do their own thing (i.e., what libertarianism used to be called), you couldn't be more wrong. Capitalism is the ideal economic system for such a political philosophy.
I'm not the AC who posted that, but that's NOT what liberalism means. It comes from liberal (not liberty). It has more to do with a generous and caring society, NOT one where you can do whatever the hell you want.
But I don't blame you for not knowing it. Chinese speakers of English use the word far more often than we do. But it is a real word.
That is exactly what liberalism means. What you think it means is socialism, which is called by its proper name in Europe and South America, but in America they thought Liberal sounded better than Socialist. I wonder why? ;-) *cough* red scare *cough*
Hence Libertarians had to change their name to avoid confusion with the Liberals Homer hates so much...
"Grrrr... Liberals.... Grrr...."