Well, how do you test it before you're happy ? If the beacon is 40 bytes, and transmitted every 15 seconds, it would take half a year before you fill up 32 MB. That's a long time for testing.
This is the kind of mistake you shouldn't even make in the first place.
Sounds more like someone forgot to put their thinking cap on.
The drone doesn't actually have to transmit anything. It can also be made to just have a receiver.
And what would be the benefit over staying in a lava tube on earth ?
If nobody is going there we aren't actually USING that information are we?
We're satisfying our curiosity. I, for one, am still waiting for discovery of (ancient) life forms on Mars, or some evidence that rules that out. On top of that, unmanned rovers also result in spin-off technology.
When do we get someone up there with a shovel to look beneath the sun-sterilized surface?
Rovers can do that better.
When do we get actual permanent habitats anywhere outside of Earth?
Because it's both insanely expensive as well as utterly pointless.
I don't suppose you even looked at the author of the article you linked?
Yes I have. I don't suppose you've even looked at the contents ?
ALL his methods systematically underestimate recent warming.
That has been well known for a long time.
If you notice the trend, of Manns peers and Mann himself is to repeatedly republishing more and more moderated versions of his original extreme results as his original work is put in check.
The results from the 2013 PAGES 2k Consortium research still look very much the same as the original Mann graph.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
His whole hockey stick temperature reconstruction has been thoroughly rebuked by The Annals of Applied Statistics [projecteuclid.org]
Of course, others disagree with that sentiment. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
And of course, after the original Mann hockeystick paper, a few dozen more studies have been done that have agreed with his graph.
You are mixing "things" and "things of substance".
Climate science is probably the most scrutinized field of science right now. And despite people saying the whole field is a crock, nothing of substance is found wrong.
An easy example of this is when climate scientists refuse to make their raw data available to those that wish to challenge their findings.
Pretty much all raw data is available now. Much more so than in other fields of science. Besides, if you really wanted to challenge their findings, wouldn't you want to go out and collect your own raw data ?
Other notable issues arise when things like the famous hockeystick graph which clearly showed temperatures rising in advance of rising CO2
Not true. CO2 started to climb around 1800. Temperatures started to go up around 1900. https://futilitymonster.files....
Or when dire predictions are made (No polar ice by 2015!)
That was never consensus. Maybe a handful of scientists had that date as the earliest of a range.
Consensus is not part of science. Consensus is what people outside science look for when deciding how to write school books or determine policy.
I was taught that the scientific method welcomed challenges to accepted beliefs
People do like challenges, and even if the first reactions are doubtful, the challenger will be successful if he brings enough evidence.
No, the government will start offering low-cost proxy services that keep a detailed log of all your traffic.
The word "detonate", used as a transitive verb means: to trigger an explosive object. You can detonate a bomb, but you can't detonate a door.
So they didn't detonate it, but they blew it up.
blowing up peoples personal property because they have a pressure cooker.
Well, apparently it was an explosive pressure cooker, because they managed to detonate it.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
