Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:More corporate welfare (Score 1) 47

My god, what an evil person you are. Spending time typing on a computer while babies are starving to death? Paying for internet access when that money could do so much. If you actually believed what you wrote, you would have sold your computer and everything you don't need to survive, and spent every waking moment to raise money to feed the starving.

Comment Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan" (Score 1) 211

You forget the part where Congress and the OMB kept sending NASA back to the drawing board time and time again because the designs were "too expensive" resulting in the spending of more money (in redesigns) than was ultimately saved and deleting key aspects of the stations that would have provided substantial value along the way.

Comment Re:A new world? (Score 1) 684

Skylab supported 3 astronauts for a combined 171 days and still had over 60 days of water and 140 days of oxygen remaining on board after the final mission. A Mars mission wouldn't have been turn key, but within the scope of a 1980 manned mission, easily within the ability of NASA to develop (assuming the money was available)

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2) 130

It's not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Most prospective designs include a storm shelter to ride out any solar events, and the Van Allen belts don't protect against deep-space radiation events. The biggest protection ISS has against these is the fact that 50% of the "sky" is blocked by the Earth

Comment Re:A new world? (Score 1) 684

We had just about everything we needed to go to Mars in 1970. Saturn V for heavy lift, NERVA for fast transit, Skylab modules for habitation. All that was needed was a Mars Lander, which was specced out in 1968 and would have been no harder to develop than the Lunar Module. It would have been expensive (30-40 billion) but the technology was all there

Comment Re:The Nazis Could Have Won (Score 1) 295

Had the war continued production would have ramped up faster than that. With the direction of all U-235 to the production of composite cores (With implosion proven, the Little Boy design was abandoned), and all reactors operating at Hanford, estimates were as high as 12 per month as early as December.

Comment Re:The Nazis Could Have Won (Score 1) 295

The third bomb would have been ready within days. Bomb casings were available at Tinian and the plutonium core was ready to ship when the war ended. Had the ware continued, production of bombs would have continued to ramp up, with estimates as high as 12 per month by December (once the Fat Man design was proven, all U-235 production was switched to composite implosion cores). Once the war ended, production slowed as there were several improvements engineers wanted to make to K-25 and the top plant that required them to shut down for several months.

Comment Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ? (Score 1) 71

Well I'm not planning to learn Russian to prove someone on the internet is wrong. But I would eagerly and happily visit the exclusion zones in either Ukraine or Japan, after all the most dangerous part of the trip would be the drive to and from the airport. I have visited Chalk River (the site of several nuclear accidents) You on the other hand are vastly overestimating the radiation levels in the exclusion zone. A extensive survey conducted by the Ukraine in 2012 found that 94% of the settlements within their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions due to radiation. In 2010 Belarus found that 80% of the settlements in their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions. In the other places (where some restrictions would be required), the limits for the vast majority of these areas concern the burning of local wood, or the consumption certain wild mushrooms. Cesium levels are now below background and Chernobyl is now a tourist attraction. The biggest limitations to resettlement is the infrastructure that has decayed over the past 30 years and has to be rebuilt at the cost of several billion dollars

Comment Re:Evidence of the Great Filter? (Score 1) 365

It also doesn't factor in the discovery of new technologies that may be far superior in generating energy than building Dyson Sphere. Imagine 500 years from now, a major breakthrough that allows the development of ZPM's (Zero Point Modules, ala Stargate Atlantis), or efficient anti matter synthesis (ala Star Trek), or Hyper Matter reactors (ala Star Wars), or some other technology along those lines why would you bother trying to build a Dyson Sphere for energy collection purposes?