You are not logged in.
The word from the World Space Congress says that NASA will fefocus the scope of Space Launch Initiative. Instead of leading to a new RLV, it will produce a crew rescue & transfer vehicle for the ISS and upgrade the shuttle.
Instead of pouring money into a new rescue vehicle for the ISS, NASA should just contract with Russia to keep a Soyuz up there. Even though we'd be paying Russia for such a service it'd probably be cheaper in the long run than having to redesign the wheel.
It looks like your previous predictions about Scaled Composites might be right on. I never even heard of them until now, and I thought I was up on all of the most promising contenders for the X-prize. I think someone will pull it off in time though, I'd be willing to sucker an insurance company out of 10 million dollars on it.
I have said this before, it's simple. The system is just simple.
How many feet in a mile? do you know off hand?
If you had to estimate distances, would you do it in yards or feet? Can you divide yards into feet easily if you have too?
Of course learning a new system is going to be hard, and many Americans don't want to do things that will be hard in the beginning but benefit them later.
You are going to tell me that there are no benefits.
There are. If I see a sign that says 50 Meters, I can tell you that it's going to be 5 000 Centimeters away. If I asked you to convert 50 feet into inches, could you do it in your head?
Think of drafting and engineering. You won't ever have a scale of 1:37 1/4 and have to divide that each time. It's going to be 1:10 or 1:100.
It eliminates confusion and error. changing base every time you want to change a unit is not helpful. It's slow and impractical. Just because you like it, does not make it right. And don't say the same thing for me, because I have used both, and I can tell you what one is better.
Beautiful. There's no question that the metric system is far superior to the imperial system especially since scales of distance are changing so rapidly in modern times. There's no analog in the imperial system for nanometers for instance. I guess you could always write it as .00000000000000000000000000000000523451 inches or even worse 1/10000000000000000000006346735735 or some such nonsense. And don't get friggin technical with me about the number of zeros I put in there.
I like the idea of making the next workhorse launcher a modular design. They should definately make it possible to lift heavy, unmanned payloads into orbit using the same boosters but with different carriers, one for manned and others just for payloads. It's a little like the Shuttle-C concept. It would certainly make it easier for projects like missions to Mars.
*I've been thinking your response over, and you might be onto something. The US is a rather religious nation, and at least in the 1980s [and prior to] a lot of Christian sects were opposed to "one-world-ization." I seem to recall that many Christians I grew up with disliked the metric conversion plans because it smacked of some nefarious plan to further advance the cause of a "one-world government."
::shrugs::
--Cindy
To respect Nirgal's desire to keep his other thread from being hijacked even further off topic I decided to reply over here. But I think your right about the "One World" conspiracy theories keeping the imperial system on life support. I've noticed it's usually Christians who get most up in arms about it, even though I've noticed in the past that if you refer to something in metric to people in general they sometimes wonder if there's something "different" about you. I actually think there's a small stigma attached to using the metric system in certain situations. I can just see someone telling the guy driving the grader that the grade is "21 centimeters too high". I guarantee you'll get that "you g-ddamned communist" look. Because from their point of view only outsiders and communists use units like that.
I never considered the cost of changing all of the road signs out there over to metric units. I guess there's finally a good argument against converting to the metric system. I pretty much agree with Byron's points, the best reasons to switch is simply because the metric system is much easier, more precise, and the rest of the world is using it. I remember when I worked as an engineering technician the hell I'd sometimes go through having to use both systems. It was especially bad when taking certification tests. There was more than once when I missed questions because I remembered the number to use in the imperial system but couldn't remember its metric equivalent or the formula used to convert between imperial and metric. I think what I like most about the metric system though is that you dont get into annoying situations where you to subtract things like 5 4/5"-3 7/8". God I hated that, especially when I didn't have calculator handy. With metric its easy to stick to whole numbers because it has more units available and its easy converting between units by just moving decimals.
Incidentally, I find it strange that the country that invented the standard measures no longer uses them, while the country that broke away from them more than 200 years ago still uses the old ENGLISH system. You'd think that whole US pride and patriotism stuff woulda kicked in as soon as metric became availiable, eh...figures...
LOL, the next time someone accuses me of being a godless traitor for wanting to chuck the imperial system, I'll have to bring up that fact about England.
Huh, GIVE Russians part of MY tax dollars?
Novel idea. Stupid, but novel.
Seriously though, how would our interests be served by giving up any control over the resources we contribute and how they are utilized?
We give the money to the Russians, who exactly do we complain to when they decide to head off to Venus instead? The Duma? Perhaps maybe Putin would hear us out, after all, he has to get our American vote for.... oh wait, nevermind.
Chill Clark, I was just saying we should give NASA's funds to Russia in jest. Anyway, we already do give our tax money away to multitudes of foreign organizations and we've already pulled up the slack for the Russian side of the ISS more than once. So I hate to inform you, but your tax money finds plenty of places to go that don't directly affect American programs. Anyhow, from a hypothetical point of view, if we did decide to finance the Russian form of a Mars trip (because it was way cheaper than anything NASA could do, etc) we could easily put in oversight mechanisms and time tables to make sure the money is going toward the project. If they deviate in the least there would be no more funding. But just to say again, don't take everything you read so seriously!!! Sheesh.
Perhaps they realize that building and demonstrating a proto-type of a Martian settlement on Earth is the quickest way to demonstrate the disadvantages to living off planet.
LOL! Leave it up to Clark to make such interpretations. He could very well be right though. Who knows what was going through minds of those penning the bylaws.
Phobos, as for why many of our fellow Americans are resistant to the switch: I have to admit I've been resistant to it as well. It's dislike of loss of familiarity, I guess.
--Cindy
Yeah, the loss of familiarity is the big hurdle. I think some Americans though consider switching over to the metric system to be something akin to an act of godless communism. The imperial system of units seems to be more than just a measuring system, it's a point of American pride right up there with mom and apple pie. I don't know how many arguments I've gotten into with people over the pros of converting to the metric system and the arguments usually turn into some weird emotional thing about how the metric system is the work of the devil or something like that. You'd be surprised! ???
Perhaps all of this Russian declarations for Men on Mars is an attempt to increase the "sending men into space" market. After all, they do have a preponderance of skilled space experts of all sorts, twiddling their thumbs, fomenting the loss of the once mighty Empire. It seems that these individuals are trying to make their particular skill set meaningful and marketable...
Of course they're trying to save their hides by wanting funds for a Mars mission. Nothing wrong with that. At least the means by which the Russians want to keep their paychecks coming is more exciting and drives technology better than the boring and practically useless ISS which is nothing but a makework project in itself. So I still vote to give NASA's funds to the Russians.
In a society where people are accustomed to government handouts from cradle to grave, there are too many who say, "Why are we shooting money into space when people are living in rat-infested apartments in the slums?" The same people who make these claims forget that money spent on developing the technologies to explore space has a huge return in the form of spinoffs. Investing in development projects is probably the wisest investment any government can make.
I have the feeling that there will be plenty of "missile defense" spinoffs as well. For instance, my opthamologist was trying to sell me on the idea of getting laser eye surgery. I was amazed to learn that the eye-movement tracking system in the vision-correction machine was a direct spinoff of the original SDI. Still, my sense of techno-philia wasn't enough to convince me to get the surgery.
I don't disagree for a second that there would be significant technological spinoffs from a Starwars program that could be used for peaceful purposes, particularly in fields like lasers, optics, sensing, etc. One of the reasons I mentioned funneling the money instead into ambitious projects like space elevators and moon bases was precisely because I believe in developing higher technology that would help civilization and create new economic opportunities. I just wanted to go in a more peaceful route and potentially less expensive one as well. And of course I don't believe that just throwing money at social problems is always the best answer either even though my post made it look that way. Often it's political rather than economic problems that are the root of social problems around the world. Anyways I know what you mean about laser eye surgery. There's some parts of my body that I don't want hacked on regardless of how good the technology is.
Only the Russians have what I would call an "intense" desire to send humans to Mars. But their financial crisis will prevent that from happening for a long time.
The Russians seem to be getting the right ideas about Mars. All this Russian talk about building manned-Mars vehicles that would be reusable with fifteen-year lifespans sounds encouraging. They don't seem to be interested in one shot deals. Maybe we should give NASA's budget to the Russians instead.
I never urged retaliation if we successfully intercepted an enemy missile--I would only condone a counterstrike in the event that our homeland was attacked. IF the missile defenses were breached, we can be absolutely certain whether the incoming missile was a nuke (becauase thousands of people will be dead), and the offending country will be promptly flattened.
I think what bothers me most about Starwars is not so much that it could provoke other countries into attacking, but rather its very high pricetag. I'm just not convinced the threat is high enough to justify it, but I guess it only takes one nuke to ruin your day, and like you said, if we did successfully intercept a nuclear warhead and prevented nuclear retaliation as a result (if a policy like that is adopted) then the price of the thing will have been more than justified, at least in my opinion. But just imagine all of the other uses that money could be funneled into. We could probably build a space elevator, put a base on the Moon, and feed everyone around the world fifty times for the cost of that thing.
From a legal perspective, the Mars Society and the Mars Institute are "two completely different organizations". However, given their overlapping leadership, these two organizations will be able to closely coordinate their operations.
That cleared things up.
You wrote, "I like the move to a more science oriented organization that doesn't concern itself with politics". The Mars Institute will facilitate cooperation between physical scientists. The Mars Institute is for geologists, astronomers, and physicists and it is not likely to include political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, and other social scientists.
Makes sense since the study of Mars is their goal and not the relationship of people to it. Hopefully they turn out to be a productive bunch.
Quaoar. Much better than that embarrassing "Uranus", I'll tell you!
Did the word "anus" exist back in William Herschel's time or is that a more recent term? I sometimes wonder because I just can't see someone naming, or shall I say, abusing their new discovery with such a label unless they have a twisted and dirty sense of humor (hey Mozard did so who knows .) Anyways, I wonder how many other big planetoids are floating around out there in the Kuiper belt. Some astronomers think there could be dozens of Pluto sized objects out there awaiting discovery.
I disagree with that sentiment. I mean, war may drive production, but ingenuity has nothing to do with war. The Wright Brothers, Ford, and Boole, the guy who made velcro, the inventor of the TV; they were just normal citizens.
In some ways, war actually prohibits technological change, since we're often in a position to use old technology due to costs. If there was no need for a huge military complex (of which half of the US's GDP goes a year), just imagine where that wealth could go.
But war is often the economic incentive that drives the development of these technologies. I'm not defending war here, I'm just saying that historically speaking war has provided the economic incentives to develop technology to their most mature states. Competition in consumer markets (i.e. TVs, computers, etc) is another driver of technology, but it doesn't usually lead to things like jet engines and remote sensing technology. Those things are usually first created with military applications in mind even if they were thought of independently of military applications.
But, having said that, units are important. And it's worth chewing over what Preston has told you until you are completely satisfied you understand how SI units work and can comfortably manipulate them. Some people at NASA, working on guidance for a probe called Mars Climate Orbiter, obviously didn't look deeply ENOUGH into their understanding of units!!! I won't dwell on the consequences of that little debacle (too painful) !
Lol, I found it strange that NASA could mix up standard units with metric ones. I always thought NASA worked exclusively with the metric system. I find it funny how so many people in the USA are against the metric system. The metric system is WAY easier to use then the standard one. I can convert instantly distances and volumes from one unit to the next because it's all based on 10 so you usually only need to move decimal points around. The USA system is based on a bunch of abstract numbers with no commonality. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, etc. Good luck trying to instantly convert yards to miles or feet to inches.
I wasn't aware that the Mars Society founded the Mars Institute. So if your a MS member, are you automatically an MI member or do they have different membership models? Will the two share funds or will they be treated as two completely different organizations? I like the move to a more science oriented organization that doesn't concern itself with politics. I agree that your far more likely to get people to work on projects if they know they won't automatically be associated with X political movement.
Bird of Prey? Must be some trekkies, I mean, trekkers in charge of naming it. That is a very unusual looking plane though with the stabilizer being on the bottom instead of the top (I think that's acting as the stabilizer) and the placement of the wings so far back on the fuselage. I also like the way the wings angle off. It almost looks like a bird flapping its wings. It looks like something you'd see in a 1950's sci-fi comic book.
It's really pathetic that so much life, potential, and diversity is WASTED on such levels of hatred. I wonder, if there are other planets with intelligent life "out there," if they have the same level of warfare and hatred as this pretty little blue planet has faced all these millenia. I've always thought, when looking at photos of the Earth, or during video shots of the Earth "passing by" underneath space-walking astronauts during shuttle missions, that you'd never suspect there was such animosity and brutal hatred and atrocities here, just by looking at those serene and placid planetscapes of silver, blue, green, and white.
I don't remember where I read it, but there's a theory that the reason we're so prone to wage war and kill other people is that, unlike a lot of predators, we never developed an instinct against killing our own kind. I don't really subscribe wholesale to that theory though. I think war is inevitable when there's people out there who despise your way of life and/or want something you have whether it be resources or the people themselves. And quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other civilizations out there that exhibit hatred and the propensity toward war that we do. As much as I hate to admit it, we wouldn't be nearly as technically advanced as we are now without war since war is often the incentive that drives technological change.
If you don't want to use fuel cells, a pressurized rover has an internal combustion engine able to produce far more than ten kilowatts of power. A spare engine would weigh what?; a hundred kilos? How much does a ten kilowatt natural gas electric generator weigh; maybe thirty kilos or fifty kilos? Methane burned in oxygen is, basically, natural gas.
You'd have to make sure you didn't burn fuel at a faster rate than you could produce it obviously, but using gas generators could have major advantages in a base that tries to power itself via solar energy. You could offset some of your need for a huge solar cell farm by augmenting your arrays with small gas powered generators. They'd also be nice to have around just for those times when you need an extra dose of electrical energy for some reason.
On the topic of a 700 tonne counter weight, perhaps the US and/or Russia could follow the idea in Red Mars where small boosters are attached to the BIG space shuttle boosters to lift them into orbit. (a booster booster???)
Did you propose this idea in the spirit of carrying the whole thing up in one shot or just reducing the number of launches required to lift the counterweight? I'm not sure how big the counterweight would be volume wise. Anyways, I agree theres a good possibility the first space elevator might not be as cheap to use as its being made out to be, but even if they go five or ten times over their target cost of $100 per kg to orbit, it'll still be a deal particularly if you want to put something into a high orbit.
Nope, can't speak Japanese although I might learn the words for 'Hi' and 'Bye'. I presume (and hope! that they'll talk to me in English, but they said that they would definitely have a translator on hand to translate what I say into Japanese.
lol, yeah it might be kinda hard to answer questions if you don't know what the hell they're asking. Konnichiwa is a common way of saying hello and there's several ways of saying goodbye like sayonara and shisurei shimasu. That last one though isn't really pronounced much the way its spelled, its more like "shi-su-lye shi-mas"
Great poll Bill! A lot of those questions would make good discussion topics. I didn't realize question six could have multiple answers until I read the results (guess I should learn to read) but I picked colonize Mars of course.
I visited the homepage for the Mars Institute and came across something called the "Mars Haughton Project" but the only info there about it was a page of sponsor links. What exactly is that project? Seems to have something to do with Antartica. Is it a concerted hunt for mars meteorites?