Considering this is the only company building a serious launcher without government involvement, then yes this is an industry wide failure because they are the industry.
I've said it before and this seems to confirm it - entrepreneurs aren't good at rocket science. They look at government funded space programs, and see the redundancy as waste and the precision as bureaucracy. Then when they try and do space cheaper without these things, there are predictably explosions.
My bet is on some kind of organic molecules, perhaps amino acids. Certainly interesting, probably not of interest to the non-scientist. Bush is probably not enjoying his briefing.
Although there is murmuring it will have another test launch today.
I think the idea of them launching a 7 man capsule in 2009 is, to be honest, fantasy. So far they've shown an unrealistic view of their own capabilities even in the face of repeated failure. I wish them luck, but I am keeping my skeptical hat on until at the very least the third falcon 1 pulls off a successful flight.
It seems NASAs automated probes are doing a bit better than the manned program. If they do well enough, will it cause Project Constellation to be cut back or canceled?
Your generation took advantage of post-war social programs paid for by previous generations, then when it came to your turn to pay for the next generation as your parents had done for you, you used your demographic weight to vote in vicious conservatives who gutted those programmes to lower your taxes.
You took, took and took from society and have never gave anything back. Then you have the fucking nerve to accuse every subsequent generation of being workshy and having an inflated sense of entitlement. Your hypocrisy sickens me, and makes you glad you will die sooner than I will. Seriously, your post convinces me your demise will improve the planet.
Each generation these days has it harder than before. When I started my first degree in 1998 the UK government gave me a £800 grant and I did not have to pay tuition. A student starting now has no grant and has to pay £3070 per year tuition. And it is going to go up. Back when you were college age, UK students would've received housing benefit for fucks sake.
So, in summary, please hurry up and die. Our society will keep getting meaner, more alienated, and more unfair towards the disadvantaged in society so long as you draw breath and use your vote to horde the wealth of society whilst 18 year olds face increasing financial hardship.
The summary says it all; the UK government intends to crack down on piracy and most of it is being done by 11-16 year olds. We are still in the demographic grip of the baby boomers and they are stamping on a yet another generation who sees things differently from then, just because they can.
Security of investments is the main priority of the now retiring boomers. Anything that threatens long established profit making is seen to them as a threat to their nest eggs and all other priorities are irrelevant.
The upcoming generation values freedom of information, but of course they can't vote so without representation they are subject to the whims of the senile and frightened, as my generation have been before them.
The Green party in the UK has about as much electoral success as its American namesake. The best hope would probably to have this issue taken up by the Lib Dems, as they have enough seats in parliament for someone to actually notice them once in a while. However, they seem to be politically floundering at the moment.
The capitalisation of the word 'my' in response speaks volumes about your personality. The idea of a social contract, that perhaps your success might have been helped along the way by society, is deliberately excluded from your mind in order to justify your total egotism.
You would likely not have the money (printed by the state, btw) in your bank (which doesn't get robbed every day because of the police) if it weren't for society providing clean water, universal education, and security.
And then, you turn around, and arrogantly state that you owe society nothing. Yes, you are exactly like an adolescent and your post just proved it Mr. Coward.
The surface temperature of Mercury being higher because its closer to the Sun isn't 'common sense' its fucking maths. Trying to apply common sense to scientific problems is anti-intellectual.
"Common sense" is a form of highly parallel reasoning based in comparing current situations to previous ones. It is therefore useless for determining what is on planets never visited by man. For that, we need science. It works, bitches.
I know that a good segment of the public appears to be apathetic to space exploration, or even basic science. But the misconceptions the public has of NASA budget isn't because their stupid or 'anti science'. It means their ignorant and should be informed....
Sorry, rant over. I just grinds on my nerves whenever a science article comes out, and people start talking about us, those who appreciate science, and the dirty stupid majority who is too dumb to understand the beauty/importance.
Information isn't hard to get. These days you would be hard pressed to find someone who couldn't figure out to type 'NASA' or 'Mars' into google. So if someone is uninformed, it is purely by choice.
To me, 'willfully ignorant' is not significantly different from 'stupid'
Compare the cost of the Vision for Space Exploration, the Iraq war, and how much people with children care about those two things, and you'll realise that isn't a sensible position to take.
...is what most people will think. Whilst this is of earth-shattering (well, mars-shattering) importance to a lot a scientists it isn't going to motivate Joe Public to commit any more tax money to the exploration of space, because they don't benefit from it themselves. This isn't a condition of human nature, this is a conscious choice by a significant portion of the population to never grow out of adolescent self obsession. People are told its good to be totally egotistical, and here is a product that will help you do that.
So no, it won't boost interest in space exploration; everyone who will raise an eyebrow to this news is already interested in space. People who didn't care before now won't care now.
lol probably. I can imagine Kim Jong-Ils missus at home "Mrs. Roosevelts husband had nuclear weapons in 5 years, and you've been at it for over 20... you call that a yield? The Jintaos next door are already in the megaton range!"
Sadly we aren't likely to be able to get to the beaches (although apparently my fiancees parents have arranged some form of dolphin-related activity for us).
Depends on *how* radioactive they are. If their is enough radiation to visibly ionise the air, or if the radiation is high enough energy to produce a Cherenkov glow it is visible. However, such levels of radiation aren't generally found outside nasty criticality accidents
Although what you say is accurate, unfortunately calling for new thinking as if it could provide a solution is probably pie in the sky as well. The problem is that those in power, who inhabit a fuzzy but integrated political and corporate tier that is self-propagating, will never willingly dismiss themselves from their power and fortune, regardless of any new thinking. Nor is the democratic process able to dismiss them, but only to reshuffle their figureheads a little with nil result.
I doubt that even a civil war or full-scale revolution in the West could dismantle this setup they have running... we'd just end up with yet another bunch of figureheads, while the world continues to march to the tune of those with the resources. What's more, civil unrest and revolutions don't happen without mass discontent, but 95% of Western populations are programmed with the agendas they receive through the media and thus are perfectly happy with the current situation, so there is no dry social tinder ready to catch fire. Mass unrest is not going to happen, the system's too tightly sewn up and life is too comfortable.
By what means could new thinking change anything then? While it's always interesting to dream up new and better schemes to save the planet and humanity, unless you simultaneously come up with an action vector for removing or transforming or sidelining the old crud (against their will), all you have is empty gesturing.
Couldn't agree more. Much political activity these days seems to be empty gesturing because all the obvious action vectors have become impractical or distasteful to the great mass of people. I find it hard to believe such a situation has occurred by accident, because our sense of being trapped is so very convenient for our leaders.
I think there *IS* a solution, but it's of comfort only to those who take a long-term view: just wait until humanity starts migrating off its birth planet, which in time will dilute to zero the old power and resource structures. Of course, the new power structures that replace them might be even worse, but at least it provides an opportunity for change, and an opportunity for choice in the immensity out there.
With you on that. You can dismantle power simply by making the cost of enforcement too high for the government to gain any economic benefit. The one thing space can offer us that Earth can't, is space itself.
However, to get off space in any meaningful numbers requires massive projects on Earth, which as I said we are currently ill equipped to engage in.
I don't wish to dampen your thinking, but don't fall into the Libertarian trap: great ideas + no viable action vector == nil result. (Every proposal that is based on the democratic process has no viable action vector for change, because the political route is totally stage-managed and only delivers an illusion of democracy. The powers aren't stupid enough to provide a real means for their removal.)
Libertarians, to me, have always seemed like the 'useful idiots'. The chances of a libertarian government delivering the liberty their ideology promises is about as high as a Marxist-Leninist revolution leading to pure stateless communism.
It also fails to deviate from the false dichotomy of business/government being the one to organise the population and the resources, by excluding government as much as possible and trying against all evidence to believe that if 'left alone' business will play nice, in complete contradiction to its historical actions.
I think scientists have a right to be smug around sociologists. Fuck it, binmen have a right to be smug around sociologists. At least what they do has provable benefits.
You are talking about an ideal government that turns its nose up at every bribe and has a constant and competent concern for the wellbeing of its citizens. Yeah fucking right.
Either a government controls commerce itself (and we know how that turns out) or a government runs the country according to business interests, in which case business interests are essentially government, and you are in the same boat - albeit with competitive forces providing enough of an efficiency boost to stop the whole thing collapsing.
Those who have read my posts probably know where I am going with this. Both government and corporation are flawed structures, and it isn't surprising considering that they tend to share management techniques, and people easily migrate between the top echelons of the two. The fact is we simply have no proven way to do things well on a large scale, and this is greatly hampers our efforts with regard to solving poverty, securing a new energy source before our existing one runs out, and migrating beyond the Earth.
We need radical new thinking (and before you ask, I don't have anything concrete that I can't see the flaws in myself) - and we need it fast. How humans organise and coordinate their efforts needs a fundamental overhaul.
Such things make me, the rational scientist, much more comfortable. However, they have little effected on the parts of my brain I inherited from flighty little rodents.
I would gladly hand hydrogen bombs over to Iran and North Korea if it would help the energy crisis. Khamenei and Kim both strike me as far too shrewed political players to risk their carefully built up positions by starting a nuclear war. Certainly neither are suicidal and neither is measurably more insane Stalin or Mao.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering this is the only company building a serious launcher without government involvement, then yes this is an industry wide failure because they are the industry.
Musk's Giant Firework Company seriously believe they can have Falcon 9 up and running in a few months, and have people inside it 'soon' afterwards.
I've said it before and this seems to confirm it - entrepreneurs aren't good at rocket science. They look at government funded space programs, and see the redundancy as waste and the precision as bureaucracy. Then when they try and do space cheaper without these things, there are predictably explosions.
My bet is on some kind of organic molecules, perhaps amino acids. Certainly interesting, probably not of interest to the non-scientist. Bush is probably not enjoying his briefing.
Although there is murmuring it will have another test launch today.
I think the idea of them launching a 7 man capsule in 2009 is, to be honest, fantasy. So far they've shown an unrealistic view of their own capabilities even in the face of repeated failure. I wish them luck, but I am keeping my skeptical hat on until at the very least the third falcon 1 pulls off a successful flight.
Those native bastards, charging you a tax. Its a crime, really, isn't it?
It seems NASAs automated probes are doing a bit better than the manned program. If they do well enough, will it cause Project Constellation to be cut back or canceled?
Fuck you. No, really. Fuck you.
Your generation took advantage of post-war social programs paid for by previous generations, then when it came to your turn to pay for the next generation as your parents had done for you, you used your demographic weight to vote in vicious conservatives who gutted those programmes to lower your taxes.
You took, took and took from society and have never gave anything back. Then you have the fucking nerve to accuse every subsequent generation of being workshy and having an inflated sense of entitlement. Your hypocrisy sickens me, and makes you glad you will die sooner than I will. Seriously, your post convinces me your demise will improve the planet.
Each generation these days has it harder than before. When I started my first degree in 1998 the UK government gave me a £800 grant and I did not have to pay tuition. A student starting now has no grant and has to pay £3070 per year tuition. And it is going to go up. Back when you were college age, UK students would've received housing benefit for fucks sake.
So, in summary, please hurry up and die. Our society will keep getting meaner, more alienated, and more unfair towards the disadvantaged in society so long as you draw breath and use your vote to horde the wealth of society whilst 18 year olds face increasing financial hardship.
Fuck off and die. Seriously.
Homer: When will people learn. Democracy. Doesn't. Work!
The summary says it all; the UK government intends to crack down on piracy and most of it is being done by 11-16 year olds. We are still in the demographic grip of the baby boomers and they are stamping on a yet another generation who sees things differently from then, just because they can.
Security of investments is the main priority of the now retiring boomers. Anything that threatens long established profit making is seen to them as a threat to their nest eggs and all other priorities are irrelevant.
The upcoming generation values freedom of information, but of course they can't vote so without representation they are subject to the whims of the senile and frightened, as my generation have been before them.
The Green party in the UK has about as much electoral success as its American namesake. The best hope would probably to have this issue taken up by the Lib Dems, as they have enough seats in parliament for someone to actually notice them once in a while. However, they seem to be politically floundering at the moment.
The capitalisation of the word 'my' in response speaks volumes about your personality. The idea of a social contract, that perhaps your success might have been helped along the way by society, is deliberately excluded from your mind in order to justify your total egotism.
You would likely not have the money (printed by the state, btw) in your bank (which doesn't get robbed every day because of the police) if it weren't for society providing clean water, universal education, and security.
And then, you turn around, and arrogantly state that you owe society nothing. Yes, you are exactly like an adolescent and your post just proved it Mr. Coward.
The surface temperature of Mercury being higher because its closer to the Sun isn't 'common sense' its fucking maths. Trying to apply common sense to scientific problems is anti-intellectual.
"Common sense" is a form of highly parallel reasoning based in comparing current situations to previous ones. It is therefore useless for determining what is on planets never visited by man. For that, we need science. It works, bitches.
I know that a good segment of the public appears to be apathetic to space exploration, or even basic science. But the misconceptions the public has of NASA budget isn't because their stupid or 'anti science'. It means their ignorant and should be informed. ...
Sorry, rant over. I just grinds on my nerves whenever a science article comes out, and people start talking about us, those who appreciate science, and the dirty stupid majority who is too dumb to understand the beauty/importance.
Information isn't hard to get. These days you would be hard pressed to find someone who couldn't figure out to type 'NASA' or 'Mars' into google. So if someone is uninformed, it is purely by choice.
To me, 'willfully ignorant' is not significantly different from 'stupid'
Compare the cost of the Vision for Space Exploration, the Iraq war, and how much people with children care about those two things, and you'll realise that isn't a sensible position to take.
...is what most people will think. Whilst this is of earth-shattering (well, mars-shattering) importance to a lot a scientists it isn't going to motivate Joe Public to commit any more tax money to the exploration of space, because they don't benefit from it themselves. This isn't a condition of human nature, this is a conscious choice by a significant portion of the population to never grow out of adolescent self obsession. People are told its good to be totally egotistical, and here is a product that will help you do that.
So no, it won't boost interest in space exploration; everyone who will raise an eyebrow to this news is already interested in space. People who didn't care before now won't care now.
I did. I think its a far more common use of the algorithm.
lol probably. I can imagine Kim Jong-Ils missus at home "Mrs. Roosevelts husband had nuclear weapons in 5 years, and you've been at it for over 20... you call that a yield? The Jintaos next door are already in the megaton range!"
Sadly we aren't likely to be able to get to the beaches (although apparently my fiancees parents have arranged some form of dolphin-related activity for us).
Depends on *how* radioactive they are. If their is enough radiation to visibly ionise the air, or if the radiation is high enough energy to produce a Cherenkov glow it is visible. However, such levels of radiation aren't generally found outside nasty criticality accidents
Seeing KSC first day after we land :)
I'm hoping to catch a glimpse of the giant finger they use to check the space shuttles centre of mass
Couldn't agree more. Much political activity these days seems to be empty gesturing because all the obvious action vectors have become impractical or distasteful to the great mass of people. I find it hard to believe such a situation has occurred by accident, because our sense of being trapped is so very convenient for our leaders.
With you on that. You can dismantle power simply by making the cost of enforcement too high for the government to gain any economic benefit. The one thing space can offer us that Earth can't, is space itself. However, to get off space in any meaningful numbers requires massive projects on Earth, which as I said we are currently ill equipped to engage in.
Libertarians, to me, have always seemed like the 'useful idiots'. The chances of a libertarian government delivering the liberty their ideology promises is about as high as a Marxist-Leninist revolution leading to pure stateless communism. It also fails to deviate from the false dichotomy of business/government being the one to organise the population and the resources, by excluding government as much as possible and trying against all evidence to believe that if 'left alone' business will play nice, in complete contradiction to its historical actions.
I think scientists have a right to be smug around sociologists. Fuck it, binmen have a right to be smug around sociologists. At least what they do has provable benefits.
You are talking about an ideal government that turns its nose up at every bribe and has a constant and competent concern for the wellbeing of its citizens. Yeah fucking right.
Either a government controls commerce itself (and we know how that turns out) or a government runs the country according to business interests, in which case business interests are essentially government, and you are in the same boat - albeit with competitive forces providing enough of an efficiency boost to stop the whole thing collapsing.
Those who have read my posts probably know where I am going with this. Both government and corporation are flawed structures, and it isn't surprising considering that they tend to share management techniques, and people easily migrate between the top echelons of the two. The fact is we simply have no proven way to do things well on a large scale, and this is greatly hampers our efforts with regard to solving poverty, securing a new energy source before our existing one runs out, and migrating beyond the Earth.
We need radical new thinking (and before you ask, I don't have anything concrete that I can't see the flaws in myself) - and we need it fast. How humans organise and coordinate their efforts needs a fundamental overhaul.
Such things make me, the rational scientist, much more comfortable. However, they have little effected on the parts of my brain I inherited from flighty little rodents.
I would gladly hand hydrogen bombs over to Iran and North Korea if it would help the energy crisis. Khamenei and Kim both strike me as far too shrewed political players to risk their carefully built up positions by starting a nuclear war. Certainly neither are suicidal and neither is measurably more insane Stalin or Mao.