I used to work at a large company that specialized in "e-trading". They paid a fee for access to second order quotes, which meant that they knew about not just the current price of a security, but the actual stream of bid and ask prices from individual investors. If you have access to the stream, you can just write code that slightly underbids and offers slightly overpriced shares, so you get to nickel and dime investors all day with sub-millisecond accuracy. It was basically software that stole money from everyone all day.

First of all, weather is not climate.

Second, those scientists in other nations depend on the data collected by NASA, since no one else can do it as well.

Third, the idiot currently heading the committee that plans to eviscerate the NASA earth sciences program to the tune of $300 million per year sees no problem blowing hundreds of times as much money on Cold War fighter jets. One might ask,why do we need to spend $1.5 trillion dollars on F35 strike fighters that can't turn, can't climb, run hackable software, and explode when struck by lightning or running on warm fuel?

This is not about the money at all. They just don't want anyone looking into this, period.

Why yes, we just saw a story about space stuff:

It's pretty clear that Republicans are seeking to get people into space so they can expand their voter base.

I guess evolution also falls under "utterly ridiculous and transparent scams", right?

WTF, Flamebait? Who the hell is moderating today?

Any story posted by timothy is not worth reading. I clicked on this one by mistake.

Obama has cut the budget deficit in half since 2008. (Bush left it at $1.5 trillion per year, and now it's about $750 billion). Since $750 billion is still greater than zero, the national debt continues to rise, at about half the rate that it did during the Bush administration- when, if you recall, no one seemed to be complaining about it at all.

It's a radio transmitter in a can. It would take an even larger departure from known physics to make it go boom. We have a good deal of experience with radio transmitters in space.

OK, I will try to restate in my baby talk since I don't remember this correctly.

Given that you are accelerating, the appearance to you is that you are doing so linearly, and time dilation is happening to you. It could appear to you that you reach your destination in a very short time, much shorter than light would allow. To the outside observer, however, time passes at a different rate and you never achieve light speed.

I am having an equally hard time thinking of how Earth is more habitable than Mars while atomic bombs are going off or impactors are impacting. If you wait a while, sure it's more habitable than Mars. But for that moment, no.

Can you cite any evidence of "backpedaling"? The global warming 'pause' is more politics than science

What "pause"?

For how many kilowatts though?

The price of solar panels is getting down to about $1/watt (peak) right now, and you get about 1-2 kWh per kW (peak) per day production depending on your latitude and climate.

To an outside observer. I don't think it's the same in the inertial frame.

Before we call this real, we need to put one on some object in orbit, leave it in continuous operation, and use it to raise the orbit by a measurable amount large enough that there would not be argument regarding where it came from. The Space Station would be just fine. It has power for experiments that is probably sufficient and it has a continuing problem of needing to raise its orbit.

And believe me, if this raises the orbit of the Space Station they aren't going to want to disconnect it after the experiment. We spend a tremendous amount of money to get additional Delta-V to that thing, and it comes down if we don't.