Hm. But can it launch timbits? Now that would be "friendly fire."

Don't take this the wrong way: what's the difference? A sincere question, not a snark.

I do understand that each of the branches of the US military has its own sense of pride in its mission and mandate, and wants to distinguish itself from others. How do Marines distinguish themselves from other military roles, particularly soldiers?

Please understand, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I'm genuinely curious to hear about how Marines and soldiers see each other.

You admit you are not a physicist. That means you admit you do not know what your are talking about.

Not just CERN "geeks" but scientists from all over the world, looking for patterns in the way the universe is constructed. Patterns are useful, because they allow us to distill vast amounts of knowledge into a much smaller number of concepts. It's no secret that scientists try to find patterns that fit observations, and then try to extend their applicability to other potential observations, with the goal of finding those patterns that do the best job of summarizing and conceptualizing our understanding of nature and our ability to predict its behavior.

As I said, you don't know what you are talking about. Astrophysicists don't "make up" hypotheses out of thin air -- they base them on observations of the universe. And they don't use "arcane" math with lots of dimensions just so they can create "weird" scenarios. Rather, they're trying to find patterns that fit observations, per above. The math is a tool that supports this endeavor.

That's putting it mildly.

A failed experiment can do more than advance knowledge. It can start a scientific revolution.

Consider what is arguably the most famous failed experiment in history: the Michelson-Morely experiment that failed to show the presence of an aether on which light was thought to travel. The consequences of this failed experiment included the development of Special Relativity.

That takes energy. Lots of it. Desalination is not a panacea for drought-relief. Just ask California.

This. Science is a process of progressive refinement, with occasional revolutionary paradigm-changes. Newer, broader understandings of nature almost invariably extend previous work, instead of replacing it.

A good example of the evolution of scientific thought can be found in this essay by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR:

- We used to think the earth was flat. We found out this was an accurate view for short distances, but failed for longer ones.
- Then we thought the earth was spherical. This also was an accurate view for many purposes, but more precise measurements revealed that the earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation.
- Then we thought the earth was an oblate spheroid. This view held until satellites revealed irregularities in the earth's gravitational field due to very slightly larger bulging in the southern hemisphere.

The point is that each successive refinement of our understanding of the earth's shape did not render previous concepts "completely wrong." Rather, it revealed limits on their applicability.

Keep in mind, the rocket has a self-destruct feature. Going up or coming back down, one can destroy it if it threatens populated areas.

FTFY. He was pushed out an airlock.

How about:

int abs(int x)
{
    return (x >= 0) ? x : -x;
}

1968 was the year Djikstra wrote his article. At that time, arguably the dominant languages (FORTRAN IV and maybe BASIC) did not have structured control-flow constructs such as if-then-else, do-while and begin-end blocks. Others that contained these constructs (PL-I and Algol come to mind) were struggling for mind-share.

Without structured control-flow constructs, one is pretty much forced to write goto statements everywhere. I think Djikstra's cautioning against the use of gotos was also a call to abandon them in favor of the structured approaches that the new languages supported. And he was right: if you're using gotos to replace structured control-flow, then you're abusing gotos.

But at all times you know where the rocket is, and can calculate where it might end up, based on various contingencies. If data shows that it might miss the landing point by 10 km, there's plenty of time to push the Big Red Button before it threatens anything on the ground.

No more than if it were already an active launch pad, I'd guess.

Rockets have a self-destruct feature that is used if control is lost and the rocket strays near populated areas. It could be used on the way down just as well as on the way up.

Here's a different version of prior art.

Sorry riverat1, I responded to the wrong post. This was directed at AC.

For one thing, it would be a desecration of one of the most important sites in human history.

For another, the cost to salvage the artifacts would be enormous. It would not be cost-effective to mine gold from low-earth orbit, if it were there. What would something have to be worth to profit from salvaging it from the moon?