On the flip side such devices probably do less, having a more narrow mission (assuming no scope-creep). This may balance out the additional effort of trying to fit tighter hardware constraints.
The maintenance/support/licensing costs of a given gizmo is probably roughly the same regardless of the cost or size of the physical box*. The software is becoming the bottleneck.
The physical size and/or hardware costs seem to get too much attention. A system is a system. Size does NOT matter (that much).
* Call it "Tablizer's Law" if it's not already taken by another pundit.
An alternative candidate appeared slightly larger, but would require a lot more fuel (propellant). If it's the last target, one could argue it wouldn't matter if you use up most of your fuel. It seems they want to keep their options open and have spare fuel for unforeseen situations or problems. Who knows, if they get lucky, the probe may be able to visit a 3rd system.
How do you think all the heavier atoms were created in the first place?
Most from novas and supernovas. That's not something we want happening in the lab, unless you believe it will get you 72 virgins. (Then again, most labs probably already contain 72 virgins.)
I need clarification of that. There are no "elements" in Newtonian gravity. Epicycles can be quite accurate if enough "layers" are used. Think of it as "circular regression".
It's true that a model is not necessarily an explanation. Epicycles had predictive value (if tuned well), but almost all agree it's not how planetary motion "works". Newton gravity is considered a better explanation because it's the simplest working model: Occum's Razor.
If a better model comes along, we may make that the top model, ie, the "best explanation so far". Maybe there is no gravity, only something that happens to fit our gravity model. We do more experiments to find that out by testing the model more and testing alternative models.
I wish I could request paper records. Some old systems are better than the replacement.
Better yet, let's use stone tablets so that it's harder for thieves to steal more than a few at a time. Paper is too easy to slip under a coat or tunic. And rats & moths eat it.
Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk. The prices would go back up after the Great Hoax is fully revealed by the alert and detail-oriented Fox reporters.
Mars has been explored heavily because a manned Mars mission (MMM) has been in planning since W announced the project during his term. True, the funding for MMM has been waxing and waning, but so far the plan is still alive (even if sick).
It makes sense to probe Mars heavily before a MMM. For one, the question of past or existing life has yet to be answered. If there is life on Mars, that will greatly affect how a MMM is done.
It's not something that just "capitalists" do; spinning and BS are part of every known organization. We saw it in the Soviet Union also. Humans, especially those who strive to move up in an organization or power structure, are overall aggressive and selfish, and playing games with language is part of this process.
Even if students don't want to play language games themselves, they should be exposed to spin and understand its usage and techniques in order to navigate the real world.
It has an ion engine. While quite efficient, current ion engines are slow. One advantage of ion engines is that they can use electricity from solar panels for power, and thus the probe doesn't have to carry large amounts of chemical fuel. This makes the launch cheaper, saving tax-payers money. See, the government cares!
Slashdot Mirror
On the flip side such devices probably do less, having a more narrow mission (assuming no scope-creep). This may balance out the additional effort of trying to fit tighter hardware constraints.
The maintenance/support/licensing costs of a given gizmo is probably roughly the same regardless of the cost or size of the physical box*. The software is becoming the bottleneck.
The physical size and/or hardware costs seem to get too much attention. A system is a system. Size does NOT matter (that much).
* Call it "Tablizer's Law" if it's not already taken by another pundit.
Multi-player collusion. See, the market is efficient!
It's not mutually exclusive. When you are rich you can vent wide and help.
A successful celebrity was once asked if money buys happiness.
Her reply was, "I'd rather be rich and miserable than poor and miserable."
gives rural states more voting power relative to population. Thus, this could be seen as pandering.
I'll drink to that
They keep lowering the bar. Next it will square up against a drunk guy with cataracts in a weathered Cessna.
An alternative candidate appeared slightly larger, but would require a lot more fuel (propellant). If it's the last target, one could argue it wouldn't matter if you use up most of your fuel. It seems they want to keep their options open and have spare fuel for unforeseen situations or problems. Who knows, if they get lucky, the probe may be able to visit a 3rd system.
Most from novas and supernovas. That's not something we want happening in the lab, unless you believe it will get you 72 virgins. (Then again, most labs probably already contain 72 virgins.)
The odds of writing sci-fi accurately are approximately 3,720 to 1.
How is that done exactly? Space umbrellas may be cheaper.
Spooky bicycles at a distance
I need clarification of that. There are no "elements" in Newtonian gravity. Epicycles can be quite accurate if enough "layers" are used. Think of it as "circular regression".
Finally, I'll get paid for my magnetic personality!
USA has more experience snooping and more victims, I mean subjects to test it on. Domain experience matters.
It's true that a model is not necessarily an explanation. Epicycles had predictive value (if tuned well), but almost all agree it's not how planetary motion "works". Newton gravity is considered a better explanation because it's the simplest working model: Occum's Razor.
If a better model comes along, we may make that the top model, ie, the "best explanation so far". Maybe there is no gravity, only something that happens to fit our gravity model. We do more experiments to find that out by testing the model more and testing alternative models.
Is that a step up from cows?
Better yet, let's use stone tablets so that it's harder for thieves to steal more than a few at a time. Paper is too easy to slip under a coat or tunic. And rats & moths eat it.
Never once was Fred Flintstone hacked.
Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk. The prices would go back up after the Great Hoax is fully revealed by the alert and detail-oriented Fox reporters.
Mars has been explored heavily because a manned Mars mission (MMM) has been in planning since W announced the project during his term. True, the funding for MMM has been waxing and waning, but so far the plan is still alive (even if sick).
It makes sense to probe Mars heavily before a MMM. For one, the question of past or existing life has yet to be answered. If there is life on Mars, that will greatly affect how a MMM is done.
It's not something that just "capitalists" do; spinning and BS are part of every known organization. We saw it in the Soviet Union also. Humans, especially those who strive to move up in an organization or power structure, are overall aggressive and selfish, and playing games with language is part of this process.
Even if students don't want to play language games themselves, they should be exposed to spin and understand its usage and techniques in order to navigate the real world.
It has an ion engine. While quite efficient, current ion engines are slow. One advantage of ion engines is that they can use electricity from solar panels for power, and thus the probe doesn't have to carry large amounts of chemical fuel. This makes the launch cheaper, saving tax-payers money. See, the government cares!
What's an "official scientist"? You mean NASA staff scientists?
Oh yah? Well I ran it on my Commodore 64 in 1984!
Of course, back then it didn't yet have a file system, or, um, memory management, or a command line.