The IIS Express

[scottb50]

I think our best hope to prosper here on Earth is nuclear energy. In Space solar energy is there for the taking without the obvious risks to both those using it, the environment it is being used in and those who might be inadvertently exposed to it, at least in the area we can reasonably hope to explore in the near future.<br /><br />Also, as a point of reference, microwaves have nothing to do with radioactivity and tanning salons and cell phones don't use or generate nuclear energy. <br /><br />I question the effectiveness of a nuclear engine. If you use it to superheat a gas and expell it you could get a lot of thrust, but you need a lot of propellant, and tanks to store it in, if you want to provide very high acceleration. You also need a lot of peopellant to slow-down and enter an orbit at a destination, relative to the velocity you impart, plus a way to keep such a large reactor cool enroute, when it has little to do. <br /><br />Ion propulsion is great, on a six month trip to Mars it could have a positive effect on shortening the enroute time. The problem becomes slowing from the increased velocity, which you would have to do quickly to make the added acceleration worth the mass of using it. In other words a huge ion engine could shorten the transit time to three months, but the amount of energy needed to enter an orbit at Mars would increase the faster you go and require more propellant and mass.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I question the effectiveness of a nuclear engine. If you use it to superheat a gas and expell (sic) it you could get a lot of thrust, but you need a lot of propellant . . . </font><br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />The whole point of a nuclear engine is to heat your propellant to really high energies, all the way to plasma, and spit that out the back.<br /><br />This lets you achieve very high Specific Impulse which means you don't need nearly as much propellant. I'd show you the math but my experience indicates you would ignore it.<br /><br />You really need to do some research scott . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

Scottb50,<br /><br />Radiation has nothing to do specifically with nuclear power. Light is radiation, and so are Ultraviolet A and B waves. Tanning means allowing yourself to be irradiated, just as you would be on a beach. However, tanning beds tend to produce a narrow spectrum of radiation, unlike sunlight, which is very broad spectrum.<br /><br />High frequency radio energy is generally considered to be a health risk, except if it is generated by cellular phones. Then it is okay.<br /><br />In Russia, high voltage transmission lines are kept away from housing developments and schools. In the United States, we are told that there is no health risk associated with long-term exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. I, for one, would not want to live under a high tension power line.<br /><br />In using nuclear propulsion in space, the same rules apply as with chemical rockets; you have to run the engine the same length of time to slow down as you did to build up the velocity. Because a nuclear engine is capable of much higher exhuast velocities, a given amount of propellant mass can produce a higher velocity with nuclear power than with chemical. The penalty with nuclear power is generally lower thrust ratios, but the upside is that thrust can be maintained for longer periods of time, resulting in higher vehicle velocities.<br /><br />Using your example of a trip to Mars, a chemical rocket might fire its engines for 15 minutes to impart the velocity needed for the trip, wheras a nuclear rocket might run the engine for two weeks. The nuclear rocket will end up going faster than the chemical rocket, and will make the trip in a shorter time. The chemical rocket will have to run its engine for 15 minutes to lose its excess velocity, and the nuclear rocket will have to run for two weeks. THIS EXAMPLE IS FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY! A Hohman transfer orbit does not require a burn at the end of the orbit, if performed correctly. There is no advantage to using a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

bobvanx,<br /><br />The results you cite from charter schools and home schooling indicate that there has been no general decrease in intelligence. However, the fact remains that large numbers of people need to be educated, which home schooling can not address, and charter schools generally refuse to address. It is all well and good to cite the results of special situations in education, but applying the principles which make those results possible in general education is usually considered impossible, or impractical.<br /><br />This is because of a refusal to acknowledge that the paradigm has shifted. People want to believe that our current methods of educating children will work satisfactorily if we can just fine tune them enough. There is little evidence to support that belief. We also must bear in mind that producing factory workers is no longer the goal of the education system. Even if the system were working perfectly, churning out factory workers, it would be a failure, because the factories are gone. We need individuals who understand risk taking, are creative, can think independantly, and are flexible in their thinking. These qualities are generally suppresed in American schools, because they lead to Disruptive Behaviour.<br /><br />Yet, we have the ability to educate every student on an individual basis, tailoring their education to their abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. To do so, we must throw out the whole concept of 'class', or 'lot number.' Every individual will progress at different rates, and no two individuals will receive the same education. These are, I believe, basic truths, which apply to all educational systems. In our system, they are liabilities. We must learn how to make them strengths.<br /><br />Using computer technology, multi-media, and a flexible approach to methodology, any student can learn certain subjects well enough to demonstrate proficiency in those subjects. Mathematics, geography, history, grammer, these are subjects <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Using computer technology, multi-media, and a flexible approach to methodology, any student can learn certain subjects well enough to demonstrate proficiency in those subjects. Mathematics, geography, history, grammer, these are subjects which have a specific concept to be taught. Interpersonal relationships, creative writing, anger management, public speaking, these are subjects which each individual will find new ways to understand. By using computer technology to teach math, grammer, history, and other 'inflexible' subjects, we can free up the time of the teachers to instruct in creative writing, anger managment, risk analysis, and the other 'flexible' or 'people' subjects. <br /></font><br /><br />What you're talking about is Distance Learning; which we've had access to for the past 30 years. The problem is that Science/ Engineering departments are reluctant to make the transition to the new technology. <br /><br />They fear the reprocussion they will have to face after years of bias and elitism; that the old guard has practiced since biblical times... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />Distance learning is indeed an application of the techniques I have described, but what I am describing is an alternative to the basic education methedology used today in elementary and high schools across America. Every student learns differently, yet having all the students sit through varied attempts to convey the information results in students losing interest in what is happening due to boredom. By using a computer to teach math, for instance, a number of different approaches can be used to reach the student, using feedback from the student to fine tune the approach. A specialist in math would oversee the progress of all the students, and be available to tutor students who are not able to grasp a concept. Students having problems regularly would be brought to the attention of the home room team, so that all the variables in the students environment can be analyzed.<br /><br />A home room team would consist of a lead teacher and two or three assistant teachers, plus several aides. Sessions in creative writing might be in a group setting for describing learning goals, and one-on-one settings for evaluation of the students work. Anger manangment would be held in group sessions, with one-on-one counseling when problems arise. Basic living skills, fire fighting, and sports are also group activities.<br /><br />So a students time would be broken up between learning sessions with a computer, group sessions with a team teaching, and one-on-one sessions with an instructor or counselor. The home room would be the location of some of the group activities, as well as one-on-one sessions, which would take place in adjoining dens.<br /><br />Not only are we facing a breakdown in the effectiveness of current teaching methods, but a desintegration of family structure and support. The schools must be prepared to perform some of the tasks which have been thought of as the responsibility of the family. By allowing students to spend up to 12 hours a da <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Pouring more money into the current education system is not going to correct the problem. The fundamental concept of treating groups of students as a class is no longer viable, because students are different in the way that they learn. The spoken word is no longer the primary form of communication in our society, and this has changed the way that children learn. There are still highly motivated individuals who overcome the inadequacies of the current system, but measuring the success of the whole is the only way to determining the effectiveness of what we are doing</font><br /><br />I agree w/ some of the aspects of your proposal; however unlike conventional thinking; I believe the problem lies in how we introduce math to the [K-12] public school system. If you look at some of your collegues from overseas. They don't have the same problems w/ math, and science that we experience here in America. <br /><br />They are introduced to abstract math [algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus] at a much earlier age; then children here in the states. Biologist have successfully thought primates how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Which to me means; that when you teach a child basic arithmatics, you aren't really teach the child anything instinctively new. As a result we don't recieve introduction to abstract math until the last four years of our college preparatory education.<br /><br />Is it any wonder why all across campuses around the U.S. the majority of PhDs in Science/ Engineering are coming from places like Bejing; and Bombay. For the most part they aren't coming from places like D.C., and Detroit... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

Better than "Lifters" is the comcept of Inflatable Space Outposts.<br /><br />If Robert Bigelow and Burt Rutan can get a joint venture started; it may not be long before we all take an orbital cruise...

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more. A math instructor I had once said that it is easier to teach calculus to fifth graders than in is to college students, because fifth graders are willing to accept new concepts.<br /><br />But I think that we are dealing with a symptom of the problem here, not the problem itself. How many teachers are the 'math-inclined' type in the elementary grades? Very few, I believe. Most of them, in my experience, are the 'english-inclined' type. In other words, the majority of techers in the lower grades are more comfortable teaching English than they are teaching math.<br /><br />If math was taught by computer, and the student was allowed to progress at their own rate, we would probably see elementary school children getting into higher math. Not all of them, certainly, but a considerable portion, I am sure. When the class progression is determined by the 'lowest common denominator', or the slowest person in the class, it is not surprising that our schools are not introducing students to algebra until high school.<br /><br />This is the heart of the problem. A teacher in today's schools can only advance the class as fast as the slowest learners are able to keep up. In any given subject, there are students who have difficulty assimilating the material, so the teacher has to go over the material several times to reach that student. In the current structure of mass education, there is no alternative.<br /><br />What I advocate is that computers, overseen by specialists in the particular fields, be responsible for the daily instruction of the subjects which are 'rigid', such as mathematics, grammer, history, geography, and probably others, while human teachers handle the subjects which are 'non-rigid', such as creative writing, interpersonal relationships, cooking, etcetera.<br /><br />A computer can use a multitude of approaches to reach a student, including graphics, so that if one approach fails, it can try a different o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">But I think that we are dealing with a symptom of the problem here, not the problem itself. How many teachers are the 'math-inclined' type in the elementary grades? Very few, I believe. Most of them, in my experience, are the 'english-inclined' type. In other words, the majority of techers in the lower grades are more comfortable teaching English than they are teaching math. <br /></font><br /><br />Bullseye!!!<br /><br /><font color="orange">If math was taught by computer, and the student was allowed to progress at their own rate, we would probably see elementary school children getting into higher math. Not all of them, certainly, but a considerable portion, I am sure. When the class progression is determined by the 'lowest common denominator', or the slowest person in the class, it is not surprising that our schools are not introducing students to algebra until high school.</font><br /><br />It makes you wonder why; you can't find any acredited BS degree programs offered by major universities in Science/ Engineering online. Could it be they don't really want to level the playing field. After all who would pick up the garbage, and clean our rest rooms if everyone had actual access to higher learning? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[najab]

><i>It makes you wonder why; you can't find any acredited BS degree programs offered by major universities in Science/ Engineering online.</i><p>Well, I can't speak for US universities, but I know that in our case the reason we don't do science courses by distance education is that there's no way to conduct the lab work without a lab. There are very few people who have a fully stocked biology/chemistry/physics lab sitting down at home.<p>We teach computer science and maths by distance, but not the practical sciences.</p></p>

 

[spacester]

I have <i>got</i> to find time to read and ponder this discussion on education. I'm breaking a personal rule by commenting without reading the whole thread, sorry . . . <br /><br />My $0.02:<br /><br />The fundamental problem with education is that everyone seeks the one single, true, correct, best, universal, do-it-my-way-the-rest-of-you-are-wrong answer; yet we live in a highly polarized and diverse culture.<br /><br />My idea is to somehow establish multiple (two to six maybe) approaches, all of which are approved and sanctioned, and let parents choose among them.<br /><br />This will be resisted because it will be seen as institutionalizing a divided society, but I have a big long argument why just the opposite would occur.<br /><br />It's like gardening: there are lots and lots and lots of ways to do it right, and they all are beautiful if pursued with diligence and humanity.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />The gist of my argument is that every child should receive the education which benefits that child the most, at that childs optimum rate of progress. The 'one room schoolhouse' is often touted as the best format for education. It fell by the wayside because the demand for educated factory workers required thousands of children attending school in every population center. But that mass production of students has come to be viewed as the 'standard', yet it has only been used in education for a little over 100 years.<br /><br />Universities used to be based on very small classes, with a great deal of dialectic between instructor and student. The 'learning factories' had no time for dialectic, it was all 'Shut up and learn!' But the intent of the learning factories was not to create a well rounded individual, it was to produce large numbers of identical, slighly educated indivduals.<br /><br />Facing totally different needs than the early 20th century, we must break away from the early 20th century concept of mass education, because its goal was only to minimally educate many, not to maximally educate any. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[fatjoe]

<font color="red">Well, I can't speak for US universities, but I know that in our case the reason we don't do science courses by distance education is that there's no way to conduct the lab work without a lab. There are very few people who have a fully stocked biology/chemistry/physics lab sitting down at home.</font><br /><br />That is not true w/ interactive multi-media and virtual laboratories we came approximate many experiments online. Besides labs are meant to give the students hands on exposure to experimentation, and the laboratory process. It does little to improve over all exam grades.<br /><br />I feel that the reason major universities are reluctant to offer these courses online; is one of politics/job security for tenured professors, and graduate students.<br /><br />Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Calculus, Diff Eq. have traditionally been the weeding out process for unsuspecting freshmen/sophmores who have there eye on becoming engineers, or scientists.<br /><br />It is also where a significant dip; in American GPAs takes place. This would explain why we have so many liberal arts majors, and a shortage of engineering/science majors...

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />Don't bother reading the whole thread, most of it has nothing to do with education. (Unless magnetically levitatiating frogs is educational.) This thread has been the "Missions And Launches" answer to "Free Space."<br /><br />There are lots and lots of ways to 'do' education right, but the problem we face right now is accepting that what we are doing is not working. Debates about 'reforming' education center around altering student-teacher ratios, insuring teachers are qualified, and other methods of 'fine-tuning' the existing system.<br /><br />What I am arguing for is a totally new approach, which is actually a very old approach, using new technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">"Continuitiy is important in the human experience. Creating a 'home room' would benefit students greatly, especially if the other members of the home room did not change constantly."</font><br /><br />We have home rooms. At my school they are called "Spartan Families". (The spartan is our school mascot.)<br /><br />We have the same teacher as our spartan family leader and the same kids in our family all for years. Spartan families basically only serve for continuity. We do schedule our next years classes during spartan family sessions, and we do choose our career clusters during these sessions, but other that that, we do little else. Career clusters are these categories of classes that are related to certain career fields. We have to choose one, and we have to take 6 or 7 classes that are included in it over our 4 years of high school. If a student does not take and pass those courses, the student cannot graduate from high school. <br /><br />Home rooms right now are not as expansive as what you have proposed, but they are better than nothing. We do get close to the people in our family, and the teacher usually becomes a friend of the students in his/her home room. Our home rooms offer that source of continuity. <br /><br />BTW, I like your proposal for education reform. The current way is in need of change.

 

[halman]

Arobie,<br /><br />It is nice to know that my ideas are not completely out in left field. I would quailify the 'home room' concept by stipulating that a student would have three or four during the course of their primary education, as having 7 year olds in the same home room with 18 year olds may not be advantageous.<br /><br />But creating social support for children is becoming imperative in the United States, as the concept of 'family' has devolved down to a single parent in many cases. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">It is nice to know that my ideas are not completely out in left field. I would quailify the 'home room' concept by stipulating that a student would have three or four during the course of their primary education, as having 7 year olds in the same home room with 18 year olds may not be advantageous. </font><br /><br />The problem is not at the academic level, but rather at the colligiate level. If you wish to see more math/science at the academic levels; you first have to increase the amount of science/engineering majors being produced at the collegiate levels. After all the real problem is that we simply have too many liberal arts majors; teaching the math/science in our public schools; with no real solid mathematics base.<br /><br />I propose that we increase the number of online acreditted engineering/science degree programs online. I feel this will increase the number of college freshmen/sophomores; who are now dropping out of the engineering/science majors at an alarming rate due in large part to the factory model of traditional universities... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />We cannot expect children who can barely read and write to do well at college. College level classes now have to start at what used to be elementary levels if the failure rate is to be kept acceptable.<br /><br />No matter how well educated a teacher is, they are going to have significant difficulty educating children who have grown up watching television. It is not a matter of whether an instructor is good or bad, it is a matter of the students being conditioned by years of mult-media to split-second editing, constantly changing viewpoints, audio which manipulates the emotional state, and action, action, action.<br /><br />This is why I believ that it is so important to shift the paradigm. The model of an instructor standing in front of a group of students just does not work any more, except in rare cases. Using the same technology that has changed entertainment so drastically over the last 30 years, we can make math, grammer, geography stimulating, riviting, exciting subjects. But only when the student is one-on-one with a computer, and that computer is teaching that student at the students rate of progression.<br /><br />Many teachers feel threatened by this concept, but that type of education must be balanced with human interaction in subjects that are subjective by nature. When there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer, a computer will not be able to tell if a student is making progress, but a teacher can.<br /><br />Children can learn at rates far faster than most education systems are willing to teach them. If the child is restrained from learning as fast as they want, they often lose interest, and their assimilation of the subject matter slows down. Boredom is the enemy of education, yet boredom is inevitable if the whole class has to wait for the slowest learners.<br /><br />Get rid of the class! Teach each student at the rate that they want! It was impossible 30 years ago, but we have the technology to do it now. If we don't, colleges <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">We cannot expect children who can barely read and write to do well at college. College level classes now have to start at what used to be elementary levels if the failure rate is to be kept acceptable. <br /></font><br /><br />You can't expect students to do well when being taught by incompetent teachers; who themselves are the very engineering/science major dropouts that I'm speaking of.<br /><br />As for not being able to read/write that is a misconception; brought on by the conservative right. Actually literacy is higher now than in the entire history of the United States. The problem lies within the way science/math is introduced to our students. If you don't believe me go visit any major university campus and see for yourself how many american born professors/graduate students you find in the Engineering/Science departments... <br /><br />How is it that a college student born in a under developed third world counrty; can excel at math/science, while american born students are flunking out of the same courses at an alarming rate? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />The point that I am trying to make is that the competence of the teachers is irrelevant. Competent teachers are failing to educate children, because the methods that are used are not effective when the children have been trained to focus their attention in a different way. It is not a matter of discipline, or of competence. The methods being used are no longer effective with the majority of the students. That is because the methods being used do not take any account of the effects of television on students, and the methods being used are meant to be used with much smaller class sizes.<br /><br />My experience with young people in the last 10 years indicates to me that the ability to read well is much less common than it was 30 years ago. And the ability to write has almost disappeared. When people only read when they absolutely have to, and they struggle to comprehend what they read then, I consider literacy to be threatened. Supposedly, a high school diploma certifies that an individual can read and write, but I have met a number of graduates who could do neither. Science and math are the least of my concerns when there are huge numbers of high school graduates who have difficulty reading and filling out a job application. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">My experience with young people in the last 10 years indicates to me that the ability to read well is much less common than it was 30 years ago. And the ability to write has almost disappeared. When people only read when they absolutely have to, and they struggle to comprehend what they read then, I consider literacy to be threatened. Supposedly, a high school diploma certifies that an individual can read and write, but I have met a number of graduates who could do neither. Science and math are the least of my concerns when there are huge numbers of high school graduates who have difficulty reading and filling out a job application. <br /></font><br /><br />You seem to be avoiding my question so I'll ask it again.<br /><br /><font color="orange">As for not being able to read/write that is a misconception; brought on by the conservative right. Actually literacy is higher now than in the entire history of the United States. The problem lies within the way science/math is introduced to our students. If you don't believe me go visit any major university campus and see for yourself how many american born professors/graduate students you find in the Engineering/Science departments... <br /><br />How is it that a college student born in a under developed third world counrty; can excel at math/science, while american born students are flunking out of the same courses at an alarming rate? <br /></font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />I suspect that motivation is the big difference between students from underdeveloped nations and American students. A student who has traveled to the US to receive an education is going to want to make the most of the oppurtunity. Many American college students are there because their parents want them there, and the parents are paying the cost of school. This results in lack of application by the students.<br /><br />I also believe that the primary schools in many underdeveloped nations do not have to contend with trying to teach children who have been watching 6 or 8 hours of television a day. As a result, they are more effective at educating their students, which means that the students basic skills are not questionable, as the basic skills of so many American students are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">I also believe that the primary schools in many underdeveloped nations do not have to contend with trying to teach children who have been watching 6 or 8 hours of television a day. As a result, they are more effective at educating their students, which means that the students basic skills are not questionable, as the basic skills of so many American students are. <br /></font><br /><br />You may have a point about this [8 hrs/wk TV]; keeping in mind that surfing the internet on your PC can be just as mindless an activity. For example how many times have you visited a coprorate office, or a college campus computer lab; only to find nearly everyone involved in some type of Yahoo chatroom, game, or some other type of time consuming entertainment.<br /><br />I agree w/ some of what you propose, but to think that self-education through the internet is the main solution to the problem; in my opinion is a big mistake... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />Although surfing the web, playing video games, and hanging out in chat rooms are all very efficient ways of avoiding reality, they require at least some mental activity, and, in the case of chat rooms, the ability to think fairly quickly, and know the language well enough to be understood, plus being able to type. (Don't you just love trying carry on a conversation with someone who types about 5 words per minute?)<br /><br />The majority of television programming in the United States seems specifically designed to encourage passive absorbtion, with a distinct tendancy to avoid making people think. And when you look at the programming that most young children are exposed to, which is not designed to young children usually, there is a tremendous amount of action, rapid changes in camera angles, and cuts to different locations. All of these things are done for a purpose, which is to keep the audiance involved in the story just a little longer.<br /><br />This results in children becoming restive when situations don't change rapidly, losing interest quickly when a person speaks for more than 30 seconds, and all the other symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Students are being medicated in droves, numbers going up 20 percent a year sometimes, because of ADHD. Rather than changing the structure of the education system, society is now using drugs to try to get children to pay attention long enough to learn something.<br /><br />High schools are doing nothing to prepare students for higher education, which results in large numbers of freshmen being placed on academic probation. Calculus and trigonometry used to be offered in most American high schools, but not any more. Very few students were showing interest in advanced mathematics, and all the resources were needed to get the students through the required math classes. Studying math requires concentrating on something for a long time, which does not seem to be a very common abil <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>