Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I'm more inclined to agree with Tyson: while the rover(s) were great news and certainly generated exitment, if a manned landing had been done at the same time, *no-one* of the large public would have even noticed. That is to say: manned missions will *always* generate more excitement than robotic missions.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to Mars too, and I think purely as a PR stunt (though gathering enthusiasm of/from the public is worthwhile) it's not worth its money, unless you open it up to the private sector and get the economical factor playing. But I just wanted to say that the public, politics, economics, etc. and, indeed, science, all play a part in any decision NASA takes.

It's never going to be one sole thing. Some people - scientists included - will think one thing is a pity, while others think another things is wasted money. For instance, as one can see, some scientists are against manned spacetravel, because it cuts in the available budget and thus it means less science for them. Purely from the premise and viewpoint that NASA is there for them to get scientific data, I can understand their complaints. But I think they're mistaken, when taking a more global approach. I think taking steps to actually colonize other planets and become a multi-planetary species is important too. But everyone has his opinion on it, I guess. Politicians see NASA as a means to have and keep jobs and employment in their region, for instance. That's not a worthwhile or useful goal in my book, but I guess politicians see it differently. Etc.

Anyway, I wish they wrote into the constitution that NASA gets a minimum of 1% of the GNP. :-) That way, things would become less cut-throat, and NASA would be assured of stable finances, allowing to plan long-term.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I'm not a real proponent to waste much time and money on a moonbase, certainly not if it's to be intended as complete moon-infrastructure to make and refuel rockets for Mars. I could mayhaps see some use if it's a kept as a testbed for a colony to Mars. But I don't think it's really necessary.

However, I was making a general point. NASA, and it's goals, have never been, and will never be, solely and purely about science and scientific return. It could be as simple as PR; making the public at large interested in spacetravel again, for instance (public = politics). That succeeds better with manned flights than unmanned, and rather with moonlandings then with a station in LEO.

Of course, Mars would achive that too, but not in the same timeframe and with the same cost. It's still more cheaper and less far off to have a moonbase, then a Mars-base.

And, let's face it, it's been such a huge-ass time... if they were going to land on the moon again, I would take leave from my work and watch it live if I had too. ;-) 'Done before' (40 years ago) or not.

Though, personally, if it's that or a Mars-landing during my life-time, I'd rather have the latter.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

True. However, as said, NASA *never* had as sole and ultimate goal only science and scientific return. So it really is strange to take the premise as if it was and is. I understand that (most) scientists would *want* that, because that's their bred and butter, and what they like most, but that doesn't make it correct. The public support - and thus political support - is far easier and better gained by manned spaceflight, than robotic flight, for instance. Colonization is, ultimately, a manned endeavor - colonizing with robotic landings doesn't make the human race multi-planetary.

That's not to say the science isn't interesting: it certainly is. But it was never NASA's sole purpose to begin with. It would be like scientists saying: if they would put all the money they waste on wars and the military, into science, we could achieve far more!

Certainly. No doubt. But that's not the point nor the goal of the military.

Comment Re:Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

Let's take this one step further. I'd rather they spend all that money on me, so I could have a luxurious life without any financial worries.

There.

It all depends on ones' priorities. NASA's priorities is not ONLY scientific return. NASA conducts its work in four principal organizations, called mission directorates:

Aeronautics: manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation.
Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations, development of commercial spaceflight capabilities and human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
Space Technology: rapidly develops, innovates, demonstrates, and infuses revolutionary, high-payoff technologies that enable NASA's future missions while providing economic benefit to the nation.

Note that scientific return is not the only goal for NASA, nor was it ever meant to be. You're starting from a wrong premise, thus. It's the fault of those scientists that they think NASA only exists to serve their purposes. It doesn't.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

" it can be easier to get payloads to Mars from Venus than from Earth "

Let's not go there. You just made an excellent rebuttal to UnknowingFool why it doesn't make sense to make a base on the moon to then send rockets to Mars, and now you're arguing the same...

By the time Venus would (if, ever) be 'colonized' by myriads of cloudcities large and complex enough to make a floating infrastructure possible to send rockets cheaper to Mars, it would take less long and would be far cheaper by that time to have colonized Mars directly.

Unless you're talking about a really, really far away future, where there is trade between planets... but by that time, Earth may have a space-elevator anyhow.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I don't see the advantages for colonizing another planet to go for Venus instead of Mars. It IS pretty corrosive, even without the hype, you'd need to build frickle 'cloudcities' - and hope you never fall off, and there is an almost total lack of any water.

Compared to that, Mars is a relatively benign planet to colonize. Pragmatically speaking, it would be foolish to go for Venus. I mean, yes, I get it: I saw the nasa retro-art too: a cloudcity on Venus looks cool. But with that, all is said. I'm for more exploration of the inner planets (Mercury hasn't gotten much love neither), and our scientific knowledge would gain greatly by it, but if you're talking in the context of colonizing and making humans multi-planetary, it's *definitely* a better idea to go for Mars. Idem with a context of finding life in the solarsystem (though some moons like Europa are also good candidates in that case). Point is, whether we like it or not, there is a reason why there is more attention for Mars than for Venus.

Though I would agree with you it's a bit disappointing they send so little probes to the inner most planets. Then again, budgets are - certainly of NASA these days - limited, so if the money for one is to the expense of the other - in that case, I do think they should focus on Mars and/or Europa, as far as planetary exploration goes. If NASA was guaranteed 1% of GNP, much more leeway would be possible, but it is what it is.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I think you're basically wrong in this.

However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.

There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.

The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon, compared to the same from Earth. But by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.

Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars for centuries to come, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.

So the other poster was right in this respect. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 317

I think you're basically right in this.

However you turn it, it needs a huge sunken cost before you'd ever be able to get any advantages out of it. So it's only good for long term planning, where you have a concerted effort to get humans to other planets for hundreds of years. Building the infrastructure on the moon big enough to be worthwhile to be cheaper to go to Mars thereafter, would take at least 150 years. Quite incompatible with the current plans to send people to Mas between 2030-2050.

There can be NO doubt that in the short term, creating a moonbase to then go to Mars is nonsensical. First of, it would cost even *more* fuel to get to the moon then it would cost to go to LEO. Secondly, you'd need far more hardware (and thus weight) to actually build the infrastructure on the moon. And then you'd have to create the fuel (and rockets?) and transport them to a lunar orbit.

The only part that is cheaper is the last part: getting your fuel out of the gravity well of the moon. but by that time, you've poured 1000 times as much money (and time) in it then it would have cost you if you had launched directly from Earth. For a launch of about 5-10 rockets to get the Mars-vehicle ready in orbit, it really isn't worth it. So for a short term (aka, a couple of decades at most) and for few launches to Mars, it makes little sense.

Only in a long-term future, where dozens upon dozens of rockets need to go to Mars, would it make sense to invest so heavily in a moon-infrastructure.

So the other poster was wrong. That said, creating a moonbase (not a huge infrastructure to launch rockets) could still be worthwhile as a testbed for a Martian colony. Not really necessary, but... at least it would make some more sense, then.

Comment Re:Which religion is most dangerous. (Score 1) 120

Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.

It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.

The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.

But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.

Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.

You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terrorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. That you only find your question legitimate is not my problem, since it wasn't *my* question, and *you* responded to *my* question, not vice versa. And, as said - but you fail to realise, apparently - even if you take it that to mean 'done by believers of a religion', than for the past half century, Muslims still would have killed more than Christians.

I've repeated this several times now, and you never actually discuss anything let alone try to refute anything of the arguments I provided, but only reiterate the same thing over and over, like a mantra. Maybe you should start reading comprehensively? Or is your only point trolling?

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question: you only interpreted it as such. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.

You keep failing to understand that, while you only need a working brain to grasp it, with or without bigotry, but with rationality.

The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.

But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.

Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.

In contrast to your irrational emo-response, this does not mean or imply that I think that *every* Muslim is a terrorist. Far from it. But it does mean, that currently, Islam is the most dangerous religion in the context of terrorist attacks being done in name of a religion.

You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. Period.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Don't be so puerile. This is about applying logic and rational reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.

And.. don't you even read? I've already answered it twice.

Crusade:

1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"

As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Yes, and for that question you obviously need to address the attacks made in name of a religion, otherwise you can't say which religion is the greatest threat. Are you daft or simply being willfully obtuse? It was clear from the start you misinterpreted my question, since you started with a war that had no religious connotation at all, and that's why I clarified my question from the start. It's my question, so *I* know best what is meant by it, me thinks. ;-)

Besides, you can't have it both ways. If no religious connotation is necessary, than I would like to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war alone, 1,66 million Muslims were killed - by Muslims. that would trump your 1 million on the Iraq war by far.

But regardless, I can see you're trolling and will never concede the point unless I ask it directly, so you have no wriggle room anymore.

I'll ask you this question, thus: In the name of what religion is being done the most terrorist attacks this last decade?

Comment Re: I stand with Trump (Score 1) 120

Not at all. You can scroll back, if you want, it's plain to see for all. I'll quote my original post to which you responded again:

"Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.

One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times."

Since you invoked wars done for geopolitical interests and oil control, which had nothing to do with a religious basis, I've provided further context: namely that for determing how dangerous a religion is, it has to have the religious component (duh), aka: which religion is the most dangerous in the sense of which attacks have been done in the name of which religion, and that for the last decade? You can continue to ignore the obvious, but it's clear the war in Iraq wasn't a religious war. You keep 'sic'-ing the word crusade, but I've already given you an anwser on that, namely that that word has other allegorical meanings as well. If you have doubts, you can look up the definitions yourself. Or better still, I'll provide them:

1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"

As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.

The USA, while - granted - inventing excuses like WMD's, did not do it out of hatred for Muslims and wanting to impose Christianity on Iraq, nor was it a Holy War against Islam (if it were, they would have simply nuked all Muslim countries), nor was it done in name of Christianity. You know this as well as I do, so your insistence that religion was the driving force behind the war in this regard is nonsensical and puerile.

You also didn't answer the other question: why did you presume Islam? Why not, for instance, Budhism? Or Jainism?

Comment Re: This is not a serious issue. This is very mino (Score 1) 139

In regard to cracks caused by the pressure and heat of the fuel when ignited, or of the turbineblades which pump the fuel, etc., it gives an exact representation, not a 'pale substitute'. There are some form of stresses that are less accurate when measured on ground-tests, but most of it provides excellent proof of reliability (or lack thereof) at the same level as if the rocket *were* retrieved afterwards.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...