Lithium is relatively rare compared to, say, silicon in the Earth's crust, but we're not going to run out.
What you mean to say it, we need to develop better techniques to refine lithium out of lower-grade ores.
This is strange. "20 to 40% power loss" seems to be an awfully poor inverter; existing inverters are 4-8 % loss.
Rather than rewire every house in America, wouldn't it make more sense to just design better inverters?
Nothing can go as fast as light. Slower or faster, sure, but not c.
Light goes as fast as light.
More specifically, you can't send MATTER, ENERGY, or INFORMATION faster than the speed of light IN VACUUM.
The fact that there are "things" that travel faster than light (such as phase velocities) is well known; in these neither the matter nor the energy travels faster than light, and they don't carry information.
If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past.
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Short answer: it isn't. They are unrelated phenomena.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted.
Factually incorrect.
The actual article seems to only say that one web site, titled "What really happened to the dinosaurs", appears in response to one particular search query, "What happened to the dinosaurs".
That's annoying and stupid... but it's not the same as the hyped headline "creationists manipulating results."
The problem is...
The problem is that there are tens of millions of children needing education.
A school teaching tens of children (that have been hand-selected to attend) may be heartwarming, but it's irrelevant by factors of millions. With sufficient resources, it's easy to teach ten or twenty students (especially if you're allowed to select which ones).
It's replicating that by a million times that's hard.
I notice she skipped addressing the questions dealing with the EV1.
Probably necessary, since there is not going to be much more she's likely to be able to add to the subject, but it would be worth hearing anything she did have to say.
I mean with all the technical miracles NASA pulled off on that mission, they somehow managed to underestimate the longevity of the mission by 45x.
To be fair, 90 days was not, in fact, the estimated lifetime of the mission. It was the design specification of the mission. That is, each of the subsystems was designed with the specification "design a system that will operate for a minimum of 90 (Martian) days, even under worst-case conditions."
Think of it as a 90-day warranty-- after 90 days, it wasn't expected to be dead, it was just out of warranty.
(and note that since the engineering specification was validated by testing the subsystems to either three times design life, or testing to design life under three-sigma worst-case conditions, it would have been very difficult to design for 4000 days...)
Three. Carmack did the same, but he backed out I believe.
Now revived as a kickstarter, Exos Aerospace
Four, Richard Branson, Virgin Galactic
Five, Paul Allen, Stratolaunch/Vulcan Aerospace
why Jeff Bezos is doing the same thing that SpaceX is already doing ?
They're not, New Shepard is a SUBorbital craft not an orbital one. I don't know if there are even any plans to make an orbital version...
From https://www.blueorigin.com/new...
"We continue to be big fans of the vertical takeoff, vertical landing architecture. We chose VTVL because it’s scalable to very large size. We’re already designing New Shepard’s sibling, her Very Big Brother – an orbital launch vehicle"
So: yes.
Desalination is a plausible solution for water for consumer use--that is, urban and suburban locations.
It is not a very plausible solution for agricultural use-- too expensive.
Actually, there are a number of issues with desalination as it presently exists. The cost of plant construction and operations puts the cost of water supply at roughly triple that of traditional methods.
Exactly. That's why it's not a plausible solution for agricultural use. If your application is to take water and spray it on the ground, yes, it needs to be cheap.
For urban and suburban use-- well, given the rents, and the cost of housing, in San Diego (not even to mention San Francisco!)-- the cost of water just isn't a factor. You could triple it and not notice.
They also depend on fossil fuels and thus contribute to greenhouse gasses. They produce brine and boron contaminants that can not easily be disposed of on either land or sea without potentially significant impact of the wildlife exposed to them.
Those are engineering problems.
The 2 "crops" that are taking the water:
Shut those 2 things down and water problem solved.
You are clueless.
Look, I hate Nestle and I think bottled water is stupid too, but the amount of water they bottle is trivial compared to the trillions of gallons of water shortage representing the drought. They could bottle a hundred times more water, or a thousand, and it still wouldn't make a lick of difference.
The problem is measured in trillions of gallons. It's not drinking water that's the problem here.
> Back when I was working on lasers for power beaming
Short or long haul? Down or up?
We looked at lasers for space-to-Earth power beaming, but it's less practical than you might think-- heat rejection gets to be a serious problem. Most of the practical applications were Earth-to-space or space-to-space power beaming.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl...
http://proceedings.spiedigital...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.js...
Desalination is a plausible solution for water for consumer use--that is, urban and suburban locations.
It is not a very plausible solution for agricultural use-- too expensive. Do you realize that those people take the water and just dump it on the ground?
*(well, some of the suburban people just spray it on the ground, too. But they spray millions and millions of gallons on lawns. Sounds like a lot... but agriculture uses trillions of gallons.)
Water rights are complicated. Since the rule is, whoever grabbed it first owns the rights to the water, the people who own it aren't necessarily the ones who use it most responsibly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Agriculture is 80% of California's water use (although only 1.5% of California's economy) The big problem is almonds. Who would have thought that such a niche foodstuff would drive agricultural water? https://www.bostonglobe.com/bu...
Trillions? Yep: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...
A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.
