You are not logged in.
Super-sonic civil transports are probobly not going to happen, the decreased travel time isn't worth it for enough passengers to make up for the development costs.
That really depends on how much it costs to develop and how many of them end up being sold. If you can sell enough then the development costs are not such a large burden.
It is something of a risk though. The only times it has been tried before it has failed economically, and while the conditions are better now then they were before the question is whether the economics have improve enough to make it successful.
In any case, it has a much better chance then the hypersonic rocketplane transports that alt-space people hope will lead to a SSTO.
Another option would be to give supersonic transports another try. Using modern technology, it is possible to build supersonic aircraft with operating costs significantly lower than Concorde's and have reduced noise issues as well. When you combine improving technology with increasing numbers of wealthier people, supersonic transports should get increasingly more competitive.
That would be good for space enthusiasts as well since some supersonic transport technology can be applied to launch vehicle designs.
You do have a point about not having a replacement for Hubble by the time it stops working. Most of Hubble's time is spent in the UV right now, and there do not seem to be any UV telescopes scheduled to come on line in the near future. So the question is, how important is it to have a good UV telescope? While I know of uses for most other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, I can't think of much that UV is really useful for.
Buy a new computer, but your opening line makes that obvious completely obsolete something which Hubble is not. If Hubble was completely obsolete I don't think anyone would object.
But Hubble is completely obsolete. A modern telescope that is approximately the same mass and cost as Hubble should be able to get at least an order of magnitude improvement in performance. Telescope technology is improving very rapidly right now; they are more like computers than like cars.
Its strange, I say that Hubble still has a usefull life ahead of it, if its repaired, you counter with but we can match it in IR with AO groundbased scopes and will in the visible shortly - now don't groan as I'm about to use a car analogy - I would not throw away my car as in five years time there is a possibility a better option will be available, what happens five years down the line when I suddenly discover that the better option replacement is actually going to take another ten years and will not be much good after all, I'll have spent all those years in which I could have been using my car making do with a bicycle.
Lets say you have a completely obsolete 20-year-old computer that is starting to break down. Do you pay someone a lot of money to try and fix it, or do you just get a new computer?
Your point "whichever option gives you the best performance for the lowest cost and risk is the one that should be employed..." is basically flawed as well, best performance for lowest cost would be a 30 dollar/pound/whatever telescope from your local store, because for the lowest cost it will give you the best performance, and risk is not as much of an issue when you use it in your back garden.
It really depends on how you measure performance. You could argue that, for many purposes, the $30 telescope is effectively useless and has a performance of 0. In any case, your comparison does not really apply here, since we are talking about getting a better telescope that might still cost less then repairing Hubble. If the price and the performance are both better, then it is clearly a better option.
But seriously, this overlooks an important point. What causes budget deficits?
If you said "tax cuts" you're dead wrong. Spending causes deficits. Cutting taxes while raising spending is stupid, but tax cuts aren't the damaging side of that equation.
Both tax cuts and spending contribute to the budget deficit. If you cut taxes enough you will have a budget deficit no matter how much you decrease spending.
I was going to say "Congressional Democrat" but in the interests of reaching out . . .
Democrats do have a reputation as being big spenders, but it is not entirely deserved. It is interesting that spending/GDP decreased every year that Clinton was president and has increased every year that Bush has been president.
I question the sincerity of the belief in equality deep in the hearts of much of the Left as well. These are after all the people who think we need the government to take care of our healthcare, retirement, and general welfare; presumably becaue we're too stupid to do it for ourselves and only through their benign leadership can we survive.
The problem is not that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, the problem is that we live in an unpredictable world and sometimes you can get screwed even if you do everything right. Government acts as a sort of all-purpose insurance policy.
I don't know how much the average millionaire gained off this, but I know a few low income workers and a poor single mother who got to keep a little more of their money.
They save money on taxes only to be gouged by higher interest rates and other negative economic effects that are caused by budget deficits.
P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. remains "in the driver's seat" for another solid 100 years yet. But not much beyond that.
I would be surprised by that. If current trends continue and we continue to rely solely on our own strength, I think that our driver’s seat will be usurped in about ten years.
When development of space vessels - dadelaus probe was several hundred meters long and to build that vessel you need major infrastructure, to build an explorer vessel 100+ meters long ( to carry 6-12 crew ) will require space dock facilities on the space station or separate ( again more infrastructure ) we need to push the required infrastructure before the missions for space.
For exploration it would make sense to start with small, unmanned probes.
Hubble II would be good in my view, but it should be developed as a long term project, not just gather together any leftovers and throw them up there or we'll be discussing save Hubble II in ten years time
If it lasts ten years then that already makes it more cost effective than repairing Hubble. Then in ten years instead of saving Hubble II we send up Hubble III.
As far as Africa goes, the US and EU have actually been influence-peddling and otherwise been involved in sub-Saharan Africa. IMHO, those nations can't be failures forever, so it's likely that someone's efforts will pay off, although it's probably a crap shoot to say which nation will make significant improvements first.
Africa's economy ought to improve, but that does not mean that it will. Unlike Asia, Africa has been getting relatively poorer rather than richer.
In terms of overall power, the US is in the lead and is likely to hold its current relative strength during our lifetimes, as the US has unmatched R&D, industrial, and military muscle matched with a very big (3rd most populous in world) population.
I am not sure that our industrial output is still unmatched, and our R&D advantage won't last forever. Far more scientists and engineers are graduating from Chinese colleges each year than from American colleges. Our military advantage will outlive the other two, but once we are at a significant economic disadvantage it will only be a matter of time before we fall behind there too.
Japan? China can inflict terrible damage with conventional weapons and we cannot prevent that. More important perhaps, China offers Japan a larger export market than the US. Rather than rely upon Japan, I fear we need to be wary of a defection, possibly at a critical crisis point.
The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Forces are still capable of defeating the PLAN in a conventional battle, and they are getting rid of the pacifist restrictions in their constitution. However, in the long term they will not be able to keep up with China's military might unless we back them up, and possibly not even then. I don't think we need to worry about a defection any time soon though; there is a great deal of enmity between the two countries right now.
Taiwan? That's a liability not an asset. It's a target we must defend.
I agree with that.
India is one key. But India and Iran have strong ties and Putin is working overtime to build bridges to India. If we lose India diplomatically, we find ourselves with a lousy, lousy hand.
That is true, but we still have a few cards that we can play. We can give India favorable trade agreements and try to build up their economy, we can work to supplant Russia as India's main source of advanced weapons, and we could support India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN security council.
Flashpoint - - Venuzuela. China needs their oil. All the more as we threaten Iran with regime change.
Chinese support of Chavez could cause a very real war in our own hemisphere.
I am not sure there is anything that we can do about this. The Latin American countries are not happy about the way that we have been overthrowing their governments, and if we try to do it some more it will just make things worse.
It's time for Americans to stop doing whatever we feel like doing and start thinking strategically. The way I see it, the major players in the world today are the US, Europe, the BRIC(Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries, and Japan. The Middle East is basically a battleground between the different sides, and no one really cares about Africa.
Europe and Japan are developed countries facing a demographic bomb and declining populations. While a more unified Europe and a more militant Japan will be able to exert considerable influence in the short term, they will get relatively weaker in the long term. While this is happening, the BRIC countries will be developing and will considerably increase their strength. The US will take the middle path, without the rapid growth of BRIC, but also without having a massive demographic bomb to the same extent as Europe.
The US will be the leader of one side, and China will probably be the leader of the other. Japan will end up on the US side almost automatically, but the other BRIC countries and possible Europe seem to be lining up on China's side. That is a bad sign, because that means that the US is already on the side that is economically weaker. Europe really should be on our side when you consider the shared US and European cultural heritage and historical alliances; we should take some steps to ensure that they do end up on our side rather than on China's.
Aside from maintaining our alliance with Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to cultivate an alliance with India. India and China have fought wars in the past and they still have some border disputes, but relations have been improving recently. This is partly due to the prodding of Russia, who is the largest supplier of foreign weaponry for both countries. Since India is both the only country in the world with a population comparable to China's and the BRIC country that will probably be the easiest to recruit onto our side, it makes sense that India should be the main focus of our diplomatic efforts. With if we can get both Europe and India on the side of the US, we should be able to maintain superiority over China for the foreseeable future.
From a strictly military viewpoint, the lifting of the embargo would not make a huge difference. China's newest indigenous military technology is already comparable to European technology in most areas. In addition, European technology has already been slipping into China despite the ban.
However, as a political statement the lifting of the ban could be very significant. The EU is saying that it values its relationship with China as much as it values its relationship with America.
After his talks in Beijing, Jack Straw will then fly to Tokyo for talks with Japan, which is preparing to defend the southern remote islands off Kyushu and Okinawa from possible invasion amid rising security concerns about China, according to papers published Sunday by Kyodo News.
The plan calls for a dispatch of 55,000 members of the Ground Self-Defense Force as well as warplanes, destroyers and submarines in case the islands are attacked.
It is interesting how they talk about the “invasion” of these islands. The islands in question are a couple of uninhabited rocks exactly half way between Japan and Taiwan. They are claimed by Japan, China, and Taiwan. However, what these countries are really after is not the islands but the sea area around them, which might contain an oil field.
Generally speaking, forcing option A is a not so secret goal of the Republican party; a larger and larger portion of the federal government is earmarked for various social programs, and since raising taxes IS unpopular as hell... It's Machiavellian and a completely unfair, manipulative stance, but hey, fair fights are for suckers, so I approve.
The Republicans say they want to reduce spending, but it seems like modern Republicans end up spending at least as much as the Dems. The big social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are all non-discretionary transfer payments. This makes it difficult to change the funding for these programs, and in addition it is hard to take away the benefits that people believe they are entitled to. Most of the discretionary funding is military.
We could implement B afterwards or at the same time if neccessary to fix whatever budgetary mess results. Since the US doesn't have a GNP-to-debt ratio as whacked as most industrialized countries, I feel we wouldn't need much taxation - if any - to fix things after such an enforced diet.
The US GDP/debt ratio is not as high as it is in some other countries, but you also have to look at who the US owes money to. Japan and China are now buying up increasingly large amounts of US treasury bonds, meaning that the interest on the debt is flowing out of the country rather than staying inside it. This also means that the governments of Japan and China can cause serious disruptions in the US economy and ruin the US government's credit rating whenever they want to.
Nearly all NASA space probes contain some European instruments, and nearly all ESA space probes contain some American parts. The reason that the Titan pictures do not look as good as the Mars pictures is because the mission was much more challenging, not because the technology was much worse.
Yes, it could. That is why any workable plan requires some combination of:
A) Cuts in spending to cover the shortfall
Would you still support this if it means military cuts and abandoning a "strong Roman" plan for the Middle East?
B) Tax increases
I am surprised to see a conservative sugest tax increases. Normally tax increases are unpopular even when they are desperately needed.
C) Non-direct revenue sources, whether from selling off government property or taxes not aimed directly on the citizens, such as tarriffs or "voluntary" taxes, meaning taxes on goods or services that people can choose not to buy, thus avoiding the tax.
Our trade agreements limit the amount of tarriffs we can impose, and even "voluntary" taxes are usually unpopular.
How much land does the federal government acutally have and why isn't it being used for anything constructive?
I don't mind giving Granny some money, but I don't particularly care for giving money to everyone's granny, whether they need it or not, while some elected buffoons stand there and tell me that some poor shmuck will do the same for me when the time comes. I'd much rather take the money I earn and worry about covering my own ass in retirement and maybe have enough left to look out for my own relatives should the need arise.
The problem with that is that you do not know how long you are going to live after retirement, so you don't know how much money you need to have saved up. Social security is supposed to be like an insurance policy. If you happen to live longer than you expect to, there will still be enough money to keep you going. If you don't live that long, the money will go to someone else who needs it instead.
I doubt that Bush will go this far, but benefits for upcoming recipients could be covered through means briefly touched on above, the next generation will have greatly reduced obligations which can worst case scenario be paid through borrowing at a greatly reduced rate that would be necessary otherwise, and after that the program is gone except for the invested per-participant element. Rather than patch it up we can kick the habit in two generations with minimal hardship. One if my peers are willing to take the hit.
In order to "kick the habit", the federal government will have to borrow more than it otherwise would. If the government were running surpluses, that would not be too much of a problem. However, the federal government is already borrowing at unsustainable levels. If you deprive the government of a major source of funds at a time like this, it could result in fiscal disaster.
Is the thing really that big that it will require an Ariane-V launch?
The Webb telescope is only 6,200 kg, but you have to remember that it is going to SEL-2 rather than LEO.
Or you could make a rover that is designed to function in the cold and not heat it.
It seems unlikely that a 4000ft mountain could suddenly rise up out of ocean floor. However, if you have a 4000ft high cliff and it got moved a few feet to the side, it would have the same affect. If the reports are accurate, then that is probably what happened.
Well, such changes can happen near where the earthquake was. However, the submarine was much farther away than that.
That is because they have only released raw pictures so far. After the pictures are processed they will look beter. You also have to consider that there is not much light there to work with.
This does not = zero chances. You said zero before, now you change your mind! Why the change?
There is a chance that you will spontaneously combust in the next 5 minutes. Should you be panicking about that as well?
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2005
1956 GMT (2:56 p.m. EST)The first image shows what appear to be drainage channels flowing to a possible shoreline, the camera's scientist. The pictures are raw and unprocessed.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/cassini/0 … html]First picture
You also have to keep in mind that even if Elon Musk's estimated costs do not bloat any further, those are the costs for launch vehicles rather than launch services. The expenses of actually launching a vehicle are generally high enough to account for a significant portion of the total cost. SpaceX might be able to compete successfully with other small launchers like Pegasus, but don't expect any dramatic decrease in the cost of getting payload into orbit.