Seeing as you're such an admirer of 'big government', I presume that has never happened to you? Or if it ever does, you won't mind having your home sequestrated?
It will revolutionize rockets going forward as everyone will be expected to do the same, and the technology (computer program and sensors) have enormous implications.
?? Of COURSE I'll mind. As I pointed out, the idea of dividing people's property in the way I noted received major objection and not just from the affected homeowners - so that particular planning option was rejected in favor of other options that cost significantly more tax dollars. Rights of way are one of the several serious conflicts that government is there to resolve. We have to have highways, airports, rail lines, etc. You can't build any of those without serious effects on specific individuals or communities. So, general welfare has to be weighed against these effects, meaning serious planning efforts involving mitigations, conservancy, etc.
Does it not occur to you that those government officials might have self-serving agendas, or that they might not be very smart, therefore make flawed decisions?
The catch is that these decisions DO have to be made. We do need roads, airports and rail, yet any addition to these means that there will be property owners who are impacted. So, we need wise representation to be following guidelines and principles that our legislatures have put in place and we need law such as open records law and public hearings. To make our government work, we need to be paying a lot of attention to the "self-serving agendas" of our officials. For example, presidential candidates (other than Trump) make their tax statements public. That way when Trump cancels penalties against foreign agents who have attacked our democracy we would be less suspicious that personal business dealings aren't involved. (I picked this because it is a federal example that is in the news, but there are similar examples throughout government.)
Oh I know what 'space walk' means, it's just that I wouldn't think an adult would actually use such a jejune expression.
Which is often used as well...just not so much in the press or informal settings. It just seems a silly thing to complain about.
It seriously irritates me when adults conduct themselves like children. It's bad enough to watch it at sporting venues never mind further afield.
I certainly understand this irritation...I get it as well when adults seem unable to grasp factual and obvious data.
The press knows their audience extremely well. They use terms that the greater percentage of the public understands. So, we see "global warming" and all sorts of other colloquialisms. In fact, even though this forum focuses on science it certainly does not limit itself to technical terminology in any field of science.
What are you saying - that everyone's too dumb to understand a simple acronym like EVA except you (and tecoyah lol). Just drop it - your double-speak is getting on my nerves.
Do you consume fermented grain beverages with male companions in an alcohol related retail establishment, or do you have a beer with buddies in a bar?
That was a great choice to go private and has paid off tenfold already with just the invention alone. Once these corporations find a profit in space they will be the first to figure out how to get it, not some government agency who's only missions should include things like protecting the earth and exploring...scientific stuff.
Wonder how much that will contribute to climate change. More than me.. Impossible to be pro nasa and anti climate change
Making full use of private corporations isn't something new. What is new is that there are some companies ready to do more than they have been willing/capable of doing in hte past. NASA has always been ready to share its technology advancements and provide help to those interested in creating everything from parts to full scale missions when they are in line with congressional direction. (Remember that much of what NASA builds is required by congress. For example, NASA can not choose to abandon the SLS rocket, regardless of what private corporations such as Musk create. And, congressmen aren't going to OK such decisions without examining how many jobs they mean in their home districts.)
How is the Soyuz a death trap? Four cosmonauts have been killed in them since they were first flown 50 years ago. All in the first few years. By contrast 14 astronauts were killed in the two shuttle accidents.
True. There have been over 1600 launches total of Soyuz missions, counting unmanned missions. They lost 1 man early on due to a parachute failure on reentry. They lost 3 in 1971 due to a decompression. They had a mission ]where the rocket basically blew up right after launch. Emergency plan got the crew to safety two seconds before the rocket blew up. Bad news, but on the other hand it shows they have taken care of emergency procedures! They have a good record.
