An Error Has Occurred!
I'm not NASA's friend unless they have a moon colony. In my opinion, they've rested on their laurels since the original big push, and haven't done anything seriously exciting for a while.
Aside from the occasional space probe. But, you know, that sort of thing should be routine by now.
Is there any time since 1969, when NASA haven't been underfunded? Pretty much the biggest complaints I've heard about NASA are the way they buckle to congress in order to ensure they don't experience more cuts, but presumably, if the uncertainty of funding wasn't a constant carrot/stick.. then they could spend more time working on science and less time worrying about appearances and politics.
I wonder if it would be legal for them to seek donations from Bigelow Aerospace &c... (Bigelow Aerospace is a private company that is best known for building inflatable satellites, producing an economy version of the Ares V, and having all the Air Force's ufo sighting reports outsourced to them).
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 07, 2010, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not NASA's friend unless they have a moon colony. In my opinion, they've rested on their laurels since the original big push, and haven't done anything seriously exciting for a while.
Aside from the occasional space probe. But, you know, that sort of thing should be routine by now.
Whoa whoa whoa! Hubble isn't seriously exciting???
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on February 07, 2010, 04:38:17 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 07, 2010, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not NASA's friend unless they have a moon colony. In my opinion, they've rested on their laurels since the original big push, and haven't done anything seriously exciting for a while.
Aside from the occasional space probe. But, you know, that sort of thing should be routine by now.
Whoa whoa whoa! Hubble isn't seriously exciting???
Don't get me wrong, anything that leaves the planet is pretty cool, but what excites me about space is actually
going there. I want to experience microgravity, I want to stare into space without an atmosphere in the way. I want to play basketball on the moon.
Anything less is, for me, a disappointment.
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
So, we shouldn't go into space until we've ended the plight of our not-flying-into-space people?
I mean, in a perfect world all that war money we've spent probably could have ended world hunger, but whatev. Let's criticize NASA instead.
Seems wrong to go after space funding when so much money is wasted on killing people.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
unobtainable goal.
give people that and they make more people.
more people means the goal becomes unobtainable.
i applaud your ethics but not your logic.
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
unobtainable goal.
give people that and they make more people.
more people means the goal becomes unobtainable.
i applaud your ethics but not your logic.
Actually population growth levels off after a certain point is reached.
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2010, 07:09:35 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
unobtainable goal.
give people that and they make more people.
more people means the goal becomes unobtainable.
i applaud your ethics but not your logic.
Actually population growth levels off after a certain point is reached.
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf
...and our economy is dependent on continued exponential growth.
That'll end well. :|
No! We could, ah, CHANGE IT!
YES! We could change the fundamentals of our economy. Which are strong as it is. Yes.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 07, 2010, 07:16:51 PM
No! We could, ah, CHANGE IT!
YES! We could change the fundamentals of our economy. Which are strong as it is. Yes.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!1
WE NEEDS MOAR PLANETZZZZ!!!!!!ⁿ√·∙·∙°≈÷⌡⌠≤≥±≡Actually, I've thought about this, and the obvious best solution is genetic. I won't go into details here, but it involves lots of sex with pygmies.
Mass starvation is a good mechanism for leveling off population growth.
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
unobtainable goal.
give people that and they make more people.
more people means the goal becomes unobtainable.
i applaud your ethics but not your logic.
A. I didn't present any logic whatsoever in my post, so there isn't any to applaud or not applaud in the first place.
B. The highest population growth occurs in the poorest and least-educated countries.
C. What Cain said.
D. It's true, solving the obstacle of having a growth-based economy is beyond me.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on February 07, 2010, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 07, 2010, 07:16:51 PM
No! We could, ah, CHANGE IT!
YES! We could change the fundamentals of our economy. Which are strong as it is. Yes.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!1
WE NEEDS MOAR PLANETZZZZ!!!!!!ⁿ√·∙·∙°≈÷⌡⌠≤≥±≡
Actually, I've thought about this, and the obvious best solution is genetic. I won't go into details here, but it involves lots of sex with pygmies.
Hey, have we discussed this before? Because a while back I was thinking that a great way to reduce our need for resources would be to engineer ourselves to be tiny. We could start with just an inch every 20 years, so there wouldn't be a huge gap between generations, until we eventually were about half the size we are now.
Current houses would be really troublesome and require a lot of remodeling, but they could also be converted to townhouses, providing twice the housing that's currently available.
I don't think we have. It's a thought I had a few years ago. Personally, I think it will happen on its own by natural selection eventually, if we don't get extincted first.
The sooner we get started the better, though. Want to start a pygmy mailorder bride/groom business?
...or maybe a mailorder pygmy sperm/embryo bank?
I dunno, some pretty good science has come from the un-manned missions to Mars. Hell, those two rovers they sent have far outlasted their original life span. Meanwhile, the manned space program has managed to needlessly kill 17 or so astronauts. It is a shame to have sunk so much money into the Constellation program and then have the plug be pulled, but what I've read sounds like it's a loss-cutting measure as there were serious questions about the vehicles being developed. I just hope they find someway to get astronauts back to the Hubble to re-service it before it's number comes up. That thing has brought us so much science and information about the universe, it would be a shame to lose it.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 07:37:48 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
I kind of want people to have places to live, access to medical care, and enough to eat.
unobtainable goal.
give people that and they make more people.
more people means the goal becomes unobtainable.
i applaud your ethics but not your logic.
A. I didn't present any logic whatsoever in my post, so there isn't any to applaud or not applaud in the first place.
B. The highest population growth occurs in the poorest and least-educated countries.
C. What Cain said.
D. It's true, solving the obstacle of having a growth-based economy is beyond me.
A. i assumed there was a logic behind it, my bad. Only thing that remains: i applaud your ethics.
B. true AFAIK. and this is my prefered method of population control: Increased education.
C. I am interested in the why of what Cain said/linked. (Cool link btw.)
D. and me, sadly. :sad:
We can resort to breeding permits! "If we don't approve, your genetics end here."
Alternatively, there is de-sexing. And homosexuality is natures way of population control (See even Mother Earth is taking a part in this plight!)
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 07, 2010, 07:41:45 PM
Hey, have we discussed this before? Because a while back I was thinking that a great way to reduce our need for resources would be to engineer ourselves to be tiny. We could start with just an inch every 20 years, so there wouldn't be a huge gap between generations, until we eventually were about half the size we are now.
Current houses would be really troublesome and require a lot of remodeling, but they could also be converted to townhouses, providing twice the housing that's currently available.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Oh my god thats a hilarious idea!!
Quote from: NotPublished on February 07, 2010, 11:06:09 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Oh my god thats a hilarious idea!!
Imagine the time travellers. "WE HAVE COME TO SET RIGHT WHAT ONCE WENT- Hey, I'm down here. Get your crotch outta my face, spag."
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
A moon colony would be impressive. But then again, I've read Moon is a Harsh Mistress so much my book split in half. Still, a new world would be nice for the first couple generations, until we fucked it up.
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 10:01:05 PM
I am interested in the why of what Cain said/linked. (Cool link btw.)
People tend to have less kids as their economic situation improves. The why's and wherefores of that are complicated.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on February 08, 2010, 03:39:17 AM
A moon colony would be impressive. But then again, I've read Moon is a Harsh Mistress so much my book split in half. Still, a new world would be nice for the first couple generations, until we fucked it up.
Heinlein made revolution fun again.
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 10:01:05 PM
I am interested in the why of what Cain said/linked. (Cool link btw.)
People tend to have less kids as their economic situation improves. The why's and wherefores of that are complicated.
So the economic situation is improving world wide?
Cool.
Here i was thinking the world was doing bad in most places.
QuoteHeinlein made revolution fun again.
That he did. That he did.
Quote from: Regret on February 08, 2010, 03:21:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Regret on February 07, 2010, 10:01:05 PM
I am interested in the why of what Cain said/linked. (Cool link btw.)
People tend to have less kids as their economic situation improves. The why's and wherefores of that are complicated.
So the economic situation is improving world wide?
Cool.
Here i was thinking the world was doing bad in most places.
Here's an idea: stop putting words in my mouth you fuckstick, and maybe I wont follow you around the board for the next year sniping at your every statement, OK?
I think that was a failed attempt at humor, rather than putting words in your mouth.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
I thought the funny part was that there was a race of "pygmies" who were much like us, except short as heck. They died out.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
This:
QuoteThe administration wants to spend $6.1 billion over the next five years to encourage commercial firms to develop spacecraft that would launch astronauts and cargo into orbit to rendezvous with the orbiting space station after the shuttle retires at the end of this year.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
This:
QuoteThe administration wants to spend $6.1 billion over the next five years to encourage commercial firms to develop spacecraft that would launch astronauts and cargo into orbit to rendezvous with the orbiting space station after the shuttle retires at the end of this year.
That makes sense to me... once the shuttle is out of commission, there will have to be other ways of accessing the space station.
But then, I just skimmed so I may have missed something.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 09, 2010, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
This:
QuoteThe administration wants to spend $6.1 billion over the next five years to encourage commercial firms to develop spacecraft that would launch astronauts and cargo into orbit to rendezvous with the orbiting space station after the shuttle retires at the end of this year.
That makes sense to me... once the shuttle is out of commission, there will have to be other ways of accessing the space station.
But then, I just skimmed so I may have missed something.
The four year gap where there will be nothing?
There is an implication that there may be at least a four-year gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the advent of commercial spaceflight.
[edit - the good doktor got there first.]
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 09, 2010, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
This:
QuoteThe administration wants to spend $6.1 billion over the next five years to encourage commercial firms to develop spacecraft that would launch astronauts and cargo into orbit to rendezvous with the orbiting space station after the shuttle retires at the end of this year.
That makes sense to me... once the shuttle is out of commission, there will have to be other ways of accessing the space station.
But then, I just skimmed so I may have missed something.
The four year gap where there will be nothing?
Does there need to be anything? I mean, isn't it just going to keep orbiting the Earth whether we're sending shuttles to it or not?
I'm not a scientist, so I must be missing why that's a problem.
It's a security risk. We may need to send 5 miners with attitude into space with a bomb, in order to save mankind.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 12:50:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 09, 2010, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 08, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Nobody caught the really funny part of that.
twice the housing! :lulz:
(unless you're laughing at something different)
This:
QuoteThe administration wants to spend $6.1 billion over the next five years to encourage commercial firms to develop spacecraft that would launch astronauts and cargo into orbit to rendezvous with the orbiting space station after the shuttle retires at the end of this year.
That makes sense to me... once the shuttle is out of commission, there will have to be other ways of accessing the space station.
But then, I just skimmed so I may have missed something.
The four year gap where there will be nothing?
Does there need to be anything? I mean, isn't it just going to keep orbiting the Earth whether we're sending shuttles to it or not?
I'm not a scientist, so I must be missing why that's a problem.
Two things that I can think of:
1. If you have a crew, they need to eat (and breathe), and Russian cargo drones have a demonstrated bad habit of slamming into the station. Russian man-rated capsules are not big enough for any real amount of supplies, either.
2. If you don't have a crew, you have a dead station. One thing the crew does is stay on top of leaks caused by metal fatigue (in turn caused by constantly passing into and out of direct sunlight). Nobody fixes the leaks, they get so bad that the station is essentially in vacuum, which means that moisture in the air is gonna freeze and fuck up the electronics (not to mention that it's easier to fix leaks one at a time than to plug up a collander).
Huh. Well, there we go then.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 01:53:18 AM
Huh. Well, there we go then.
What can I say? I'm a maintenance man. We spend all day thinking of how any given thing can go wrong, and we're rarely disappointed. :lulz: