The contracts are for designs studies only and, at a combined value of only about $340,000, are a long way from a commitment to purchase space hardware.
Through merchandise sales and donations, Mars One had raised $183,870 as of Oct. 31, according to the company’s website.
Finally, more than 200,000 people applied to the company’s astronaut program, each of whom paid an application fee ranging from $5 to $75, depending on country of origin.
The Phoenix craft on which Mars One’s lander will be based cost NASA about $475 million to build.
The cost of the first crewed launch to Mars will be about $6 billion, Mars One estimates, with subsequent crew launches estimated at about $4 billion each, according to the company’s website.
If anything this press release reinforces my conviction that these guys lack the right stuff and won't even come remotely close. They raise 180k in merchandising, something in the vicinity of 10mil max in their 409 become a reality TV astronaut scam, and they need $6bill to deliver. This whole thing will fizzle out over a few years without any real or serious progress to their stated goal and the founders of it will put their hand on their hearts and insist that their endeavour was fair dinkum and could of succeeded all along.
"renewable energy success story" : ha! Power reliability has always been a significant problem in Leyte. All businesses in Tacloban CBD have backup generators which they fire up at least a couple of times a week, sometimes daily. The city is often accompanied by the hum of diesel generators.
I recall articles in National newspapers talking about constant power shortages across Visaya's region, with rolling blackouts where Northern Luzon region (where Manila is) has plenty of supply.
Maybe it is mostly a transmission problem, not a generation problem, but constant rolling blackouts suggests an enduring generation to me. Hardly a success story
Successful commercial launch systems already exist. And soon, in a few years probably, commercial man rated launch systems will exist too. No one here is refuting this.
Mars One is an out and out scam. That is the claim. Anyone who thinks Mars One is legit needs to familiarise themselves with what a real manned space mission looks like and what is really involved, the time, cost, and expertise, of a manned space mission. I suggest start here. And save yourself the bother of arguing that Apollo was 40 years old and with todays methods make it easier. Here are some mind boggling facts to get your head around and hopefully instil some badly needed incredulity:
1. We have not returned to the moon or even left orbit of the planet since 1972
2. Apollo cost $170b in todays rough figures. 30 times more expensive than Mars One
3. Apollo at its peak employed over 400 thousand people. Mars One - today is a dozen or so and most of them are Marketing/PR types who know fuck all about problem domain they are working in
4. Apollo mission profile is significantly simpler than Mars One. Although the return journey complicated the mission profile,the mission profile of Mars One incurs its own complications : extended stay in deep space and the necessity to provide life support and supplies for extended period of time
5. Apollo delivered in about 8 years along the way they had real and incremental work outputs to show for it. Mars one have been going from about 2011 and they have no tangible outputs to show for it other than martketing/PR spin
Right on. The idea that a private, non profit enterprise can get people to Mars in ten years using privately sourced technology on a shoe string of a few billion $ is so ridiculous it is tedious to enumerate all the reasons why it is ridiculous. The gullibility of some people who self identify as intelligent nerds...
Apollo succeeded from going from one sub orbital human flight to a moon walk in about 8 years. An stupefyingly extraordinary project expeditated right on the edge of technological capability at the time, at enormous expense and involvement of hundreds of thousands of people. They were so way ahead of the curve that the endeavour has, 40 years on, yet to be replicated.
Mars one will not repeat this achievement. It lacks the money, the people and the technology by an enormous margin.
You seem to be arguing more-so about Accelerating change than Moore's law.
Back to Moore's law: I am not arguing against limits of Moore's law. I take issue with Michio Kaku's interpretation what it means when the limits of Moore's law begin to realise itself. In his rhetoric, a collapse in Moore's law will precipitate a collapse in society.
Maybe I've been watching a different Michio Kaku than you. Your's sounds like an optimistic futurist. The one I've watched peddles end-of-times by clinging to an narrow-mindedness that your Michio Kaku presumably rails against.
Anyway what is there for the average citizen to be beware of? We are already essentially dealing with our appetite for expanding compute power beyond Moore's law already; i.e. steady increase in parallel computing, on die and across networks, and steady efficiency improvements, i.e. joules per flop.
Not just limited to SA. Seems like most science journalism and popularization is focused on Malthusian pessimism.
Something more relevant to slashdot that makes my blood boil is every time Michio Kaku opens his mouth bangs on about how the end of Moore's law is imminent and this is going to have destructive repercussions for civilization. Give. It. A. Rest.
These folk are utterly unimaginative. Completely underestimate our combined ingenuity and overestimate the hurdles infront of us. Fortunately there are some popularisers out there who buck this trend, inspire both wonder and optimism just like the figures of my childhood did (e.g. Carl Sagan). i.e. Brian Cox
Moberg graph has 2 features Mann's lacks. A distinct MWP period which is as warm as it is now, and a LIA period. All described in the abstract. Mann's creative master stroke was to disappear the MWP and LIA making the current warming look unprecedented. If you don't allow your eye to be fooled by the overlaying of instrumental data, then you'll see that Moberg plot is undulating, and there is nothing particularly unusual or out of place with the modern uptrend of the proxy component of the plot. And this is validated in the abstract which you continue to willfully ignore even though I have explicitly drawn your attention to it.
But I sympathise with your sub-conscious desire to see hockey sticks in graphs. I used to do alot of timebase measurement, DB performance etc. Everyone sees what they want to see in the data. Even, admittedly myself though I try hard to lift myself above my prejudices. As for CAGW, I am not a denialist, as you put it, I am a luke warmer. I believe we are manipulating the global climate, I just reject the idea there is any real risk that this manipulation it is catastrophic, hockey sticks are tipping points are all junk science, contradicted by evidence. I consider adaptation a better strategy than mitigation, particularly since a) the climate to some degree at least naturally variable anyway inspite of Mann's best efforts to suggest otherwise, and b) we are going to move off fossil fuels in a generation or two anyway; CAGW or not.
None of this necessarily falsifies CAGW of course, civilization as we know it may still end because of warmageddon so cling tight to your pillow at night. The salient point is that Mann's work is mainly advocacy, based on dubious methods, and that as easy as it is to tease out hockey sticks, non hockey stick graphs can be teased out too. Our understanding of the reality of how the climate system behaves over long time scales, or geological time scales are frustratingly limited, and inspite of what the vain-glorious Mann and his ardent supporters believe, remains frustratingly limited.
Finally your attitude you've displayed here is appalling. You are like a fundamentalist, hurling stupefying rage and invective abuse at an abortion clinic. I admit I used a bit of snark in our 'conversation', but I treated you with respect and tried to argue your points not you personally, but you are unable to emotionally manage yourself and reciprocate a similar courtesy. You are pathetic and people like you are also part of the reason why I speak out against this idoicy.
Ah yes, grafting proxy data and instrumental data together, without regard for their frequency response behaviors.
Gee and you guys wonder why nobody takes you warmists serious any more.
Hint: try reading the abstract
Piss weak opinions such as yours are what compel me to do what is frowned upon by the less than polite society of intelligentsia, to openly critique the holy screed of the Church of Climatology.
- Steve McIntyre has never published an alternative proxy reconstruction as you imply. All he has done is demonstrate that Mann's work is balls; on multiple counts.
- There are plenty of papers that claim to reveal hockey sticks. There are plenty of papers that reveal MWP/LWP ups and downs not unlike current temps. McIntyre has never authored any such paper
- Whether or not McIntyre has a professional history in heavy industry is utterly irrelevant. Just a adhom/appeal to authority irreverent fallacy. Are you trying to imply McIntyre is somehow involved in a fossil fuel conspiracy? haha. You realise mining and fossil fuel are not even the same thing right? Arguably fossil fuel is mined, and some mining processes are energy intensive, but I suspect you are probably doing something alot of lightweights do, interchanging them as though they are equivalent.
- McIntyre, unlike Mann is skilled in statistical methods. This is relevant
- McIntyre, unlike Mann understands his intellectual limits and routinely defers to and seeks expertise of actual experts in statistical methods. Again unlike Mann. i.e. his regular co-authors, e.g. Mckitrick (economics professor) and many others.
The original hockey stick relies on broken PCA.
Of course other hockey sticks have subsequently been teased out of the data, therefore Mann's hockey sticks were right all along. Quant Suff.
The high latitude argument is frivolous.
The data fails to track what they hope it tracks, so they go on a fishing expedition seeking for some sort of discriminator so they can further throw out 'inconvenient' data.
Firstly, the discriminator has little explanatory power.
Secondly, the _retained_ southern tree ring data is polluted with a species that is _sensitive_ to fertilization. They retained data that has other signal influences, instead of removing it.
Instead of eliminating the unwanted signal as all the hand waving implies, they explicitly rely on it to get the shape they need.
But at least it creates the shape they wanted.
Fact is tree are dubious thermometers, and that the 'climate team' continue try to polish this turd speaks volumes about the quality of their professional output.