The IIS Express

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">You persist in pointless speculation about events and technologies that won't see the light of day for decades (if ever). </font><br /><br />You speak as if you were working some DOE funded project, and getting paid by the hour. The reality is that entertaining yourself on a message board. So if you don't like my <font color="orange">pointless speculation</font> I suggest you get back to work, before your boss fires you for wasting company time on SDC. As for me I will continue to speculate on my postings if you don't mind; and even if you do!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Ergo</font><br /><br />I hate people that use dead latin words like <font color="orange">Ergo</font> when <font color="yellow">Therefore</font>will do. <br /><br /><i>"A mind is a terrible thing to waste!!!"</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />Using multiple engine technologies to acheive access to space is likely to drive up costs and inhibit growth in the field. I have seen a proposal for an engine which is reconfigured from turbine to ramjet to rocket, but it is unlikely to be developed as long as conventional engine technology can be used in configurations which are successful. Rather than spending enourmous sums of money trying to develop exotic new engines for orbital access, we are more likely to succede by applying existing technologies in new ways.<br /><br />General Electric recently developed an improved turbine fanjet engine for jetliners which only weighs 700 pounds, but produces 118,000 pounds of thrust. Coupling this type of engine technology with composite material construction techniques, aircraft weighing only several hundred thousand pounds may be built which can carry several million pounds. <br /><br />Conventional chemical rocket technology has reached levels of efficiency which can not be easily matched, and the development of hybrid engines have simplified the problems associated with high performance rocket fuels. The main obstacle to developing cheap, reliable access to orbit has not been technology, it has been the lack of investment in alternate methods of acheiveng the velocity needed.<br /><br />The only significant market for orbital access is the satellite business, and the investors backing that business have had no inclination to support developing alternate means of putting mass in orbit. Established rocket technology, although expensive, has become reliable enough to deter financing the exploration of other means than surface launching step rockets. But surface launching step rockets is probably the least efficient method of putting mass in orbit, and is a substantial obstacle to expanding our activities off-planet.<br /><br />Until new methods are developed, it is unlikely that much progress will be made in reducing the costs associated with acc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />'Ergo' has fewer letters than 'therefore', therefore one should use 'ergo'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Correction current ion drives; which are used on satillies can not reach low earth orbit. That doesn't mean that furture ion propulsion technology won't provide greater trust.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>From your comment, I can only assume that you don't know how ion propulsion works. If you were familiar with the technology you would realise that it will be a <b>long</b> time before an ion-based propulsion system will have a thust:mass greater than unity. Even if you assuem that you did have such a powerful yet compact power source, it would make more sense to use it to directly heat a working fluid rather than make ions.<p>Besides, ion propulsion only works in vacuum.</p>

 

[bobvanx]

I predict a post concerning "lifters" is coming soon...

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">'Ergo' has fewer letters than 'therefore', therefore one should use 'ergo'. </font><br /><br />I don't follow your logic? Are you trying conserve memory by using few characters? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">From your comment, I can only assume that you don't know how ion propulsion works. If you were familiar with the technology you would realise that it will be a long time before an ion-based propulsion system will have a thust:mass greater than unity. Even if you assuem that you did have such a powerful yet compact power source, it would make more sense to use it to directly heat a working fluid rather than make ions.<br />Besides, ion propulsion only works in vacuum. <br /></font><br /><br />I think you can add yourself to that list; of those who don't understand how ion propulsion works. I never said that we could today achieve orbit w/ ion drives; but rather sometime in the future ion propulsion could provide solutions to our fuel consumption problems, when dealing with long range space travel. I feel that the self-proclaimed rocket scientists on SDC should spend less time reiterating common facts on current avionics, and look at possible alternatives to how we achieve orbital delivery. I'm sure there where several turn of the 20th century experts who thought that aircraft would never be a viable form of transportation. As a matter of fact it wasn't until airmail carriers in the 1920s that avonics were taken serious as a delivery system.<br /><br />Whatever technology takes us into affordably into LEO; or HEO delivery, it more than likely will not be what we are currently using. <i>"The definition of insanity is doing the same old thing; the same old way, and expecting a different result!"</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<font color="yellow"> "The definition of insanity is doing the same old thing; the same old way, and expecting a different result!"</font><br /><br />... what about ion propulsion<br /><br /><i>it only works in a vacuum</i><br /><br />... what about ion propulsion<br /><br /><i>it doesn't have high enough thrust to do meaningful work in a gravity well</i><br /><br />... what about ion propulsion<br /><br /><i>if you could achieve a thrust power over unity, you'd get better performance by heating a propulsive fluid</i><br /><br />... what about ion propulsion<br /><br /><i>ad nauseum</i>

 

[bobvanx]

BTW, m_l, thank you for resisting mentioning lifters again.

 

[marcel_leonard]

What exactly do you mean by <font color="yellow">lifters</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[bobvanx]

"Lifters" are ion drive demonstrators that use air to provide ions and thrust. They are often trotted out as examples of "unknown physics" that "prove" a form of anti-gravity is possible.<br /><br />They get mentioned with great regularity and little understanding here on the boards.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">"Lifters" are ion drive demonstrators that use air to provide ions and thrust. They are often trotted out as examples of "unknown physics" that "prove" a form of anti-gravity is possible. <br /></font><br /><br />Since anti-gravity, or AKA dark energy has never been proven; how can refer to lifters in this context? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />I can't conserve what I haven't got. In a culture where abbreviations are the norm, IMHO, it is obvious that the fewer keystrokes needed to convey a message, the better. (Sometimes, I feel like I am reading the personal section in the classifieds. Swm seeking bi mbf.)<br /><br />Actually, I like to come across as an educated, cultured person. I really enjoy having people look at me and go, "Huh?"<br /><br />I fear that it won't be long until the average response to the question, "What is the boiling point of water?" will be, "Hot."<br /><br />Of course an ion drive will work in an atmosphere! You just have to have enough power to ionize the atmosphere in front of the space craft, and then suck it into the engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Actually, I like to come across as an educated, cultured person. I really enjoy having people look at me and go, "Huh?" <br /><br />I fear that it won't be long until the average response to the question, "What is the boiling point of water?" will be, "Hot." </font><br /><br />Saying "<font color="orange">Ergo</font>; doesn't make one smart. Niether does saying "<font color="orange">Hot</font> make one seem stupid. It's how you get your point across; which is the bottom line, each and very time we humans try to communicate. All effective communication is based on three basic prinicples:<br /><br />a.) To educate<br />B.) To entertain<br />c.) To persuade<br /><br />If you are effective at either (a), or (b) you automatically can achieve (c) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<font color="yellow">a.) To educate <br />B.) To entertain <br />c.) To persuade</font><br /><br />Thta's an interesting logic chain: If successful at a+b, then c.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's incorrect. From a logic viewpoint, there's no causal relationship between your elements. So while you can string a sentence together that uses these pieces and it's correct grammar, it doesn't successfully reach its conclusion.<br /><br />Here, I'll prove that by citing a specific example: There's a person I happened to work with who tried to explain to me how a certain storefront should be remodeled. She brought all her experience and education to the discussion. However, her experience and education was not in storefront remodeling. She explained, and told funny stories, and wove a nice history of the area into her discussion, but she failed to persuade me.<br /><br />I had more accurate information, necessary to succeed. Her information was truly background chatter.<br /><br />Unfortunately, she'd invested so much effort there was no way she could let in anything else. Anything more correct. Anything that didn't come from her.<br /><br />Her effort to educate was developed from a subset of the total dataset required to succeed. And while I, the client, the city planner, the architect, and the urban developer, could all pool our data and then perceive that larger dataset, she could not. So her efforts to "educate" us could not persuade us.

 

[bobvanx]

<font color="yellow"> I like to come across as an educated, cultured person.</font><br /><br />IMO you do.

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />"All effective communication is based on three basic principles:<br /><br />a.) To educate<br />b.) To entertain<br />c.) To persuade<br /><br />If you are effective at either (a), or (b) you can automatically acheive (c)."<br /><br />Those don't sound like principles to me, I would consider them to be goals. I believe that your conclusion "you can automatically achieve (c)" is a non sequitur, as a result of implying that persuasion is a function of education and entertainment. A 9mm Glock is not very educational, and is rarely entertianing, but it can be extremely persuasive.<br /><br />I don't know the difference between ignorance and apathy, and I don't care. But I am seeing the level of awareness of history, geography, and philosophic thought declining in the United States at an alarming rate. The entertainment industry is striving to enrich itself by determining what entertains us, so it will ignore the flight of SpaceShip One in lieu of interviewing the most recent winner of a reality TV show.<br /><br />Without a sense of direction, or of connectedness with the past, culture descends into self-gratification. Many people are unaware that large rocks impacting Earth have resulted in the extinction of species over the entire planet. Few seem aware that there is any effort to get off of this planet and explore the immediate surroundings. When "hot" is the only answer to when water will boil, our chance of saving ourselves will be slim indeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[najab]

Actually, marcel is right (OMFG did I just say that?!?! <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" />)<p>The best way to persuade is by using non-obvious methods. Don't let the person even realise that they are being persuaded.<p>If people know the facts then they can usually be counted on to make the right decisions. Hence the 're-education centres' common to totalitarian regimes. A less extreme example is the talking heads on TV these days giving all sorts of 'facts' about the opposing candidate, or pressure groups like anti-abortion activists making films like <i>Silent Scream</i>.<p>By the same token, if you make your message entertaining, it will be taken in more willingly. If this wasn't so we wouldn't have funny advertisments on TV and companies wouldn't be spending tens of millions of dollars sponsoring events and getting product placements in movies.<p>These aren't the <i>only</i> ways to persuade, but they are probably the best. I agree that you can use a 9mm handgun to get people to do things, but they will tend resent you for it (watch your back).</p></p></p></p>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">I don't know the difference between ignorance and apathy, and I don't care. But I am seeing the level of awareness of history, geography, and philosophic thought declining in the United States at an alarming rate. The entertainment industry is striving to enrich itself by determining what entertains us, so it will ignore the flight of SpaceShip One in lieu of interviewing the most recent winner of a reality TV show. <br /></font><br /><br />In the book of Ecclesiastes; verse <font color="orange">9: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.</font> In other words nothing has change from the bad old days. When you say you're seeing more ignorance/ apathy in our society; I say look at your past history it has always been w/ us. Since ancient times there have been those of us who looked up intellectually at the stars and wondered why? Then there were those who were simply content to eat, sleep, and breed.<br /><br />Just because one is engage in one of the above activities does not mean he/she can't occassionaly enjoy watching the stars... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />I don't dispute that ignorance has been a common condition for the history of the human race. What I consider to be unusual is that there are so many ignorant who are high school graduates.<br /><br />The majority of the opposition to the Promethus Project has come from people who are terrified of nuclear power, in any shape or form, and are convinced that somehow a launch accident will spray radioactive material all over the country. The fact that many of these same people will pay to have themselves irradiated at a tanning saloon is a little difficult to swallow.<br /><br />I enjoy the word play that goes on here sometimes, and wanted to toss in my two cents worth. But it is dstressing when I have to refrain from using what was a common term because it is now considered 'elitist', or 'intellectual'. I do usually make a point of spelling out 'etcetera' instead of abbreviating it, in the hopes that those who are not familiar with the term in print will recognize it.<br /><br />I sincerely hope that someday humans will be able to observe Jupiter's moons firsthand, otherwise I fear that the knowledge that the JIMO probe will gather will be for naught. If we don't get off of this planet, understanding every aspect of the Cosmos will not do us any good in the long run, because our race will end sometime in the relatively near future. It may not be for millions of years, but it could be next week. Until we have the ability to travel around the Solar System, we have little hope of deflecting rocks which will collide with Earth in time to save ourselves.<br /><br />JIMO may prove that there are large quantities of water in the Jupiter system. If so, then we have even more incentive to find ways to travel there, because water will be a key resource in opening up the Solar System. <br /><br /><br />Opps! I just realized that I have confused this thread with another. Darn. I was sounding so aware and educated, too.<br /><br />Be alert! America needs mo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it is now considered 'elitist', or 'intellectual'.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I've decided this is a flaw of our "entitlement culture." Since I am completely rooted in my desire to deserve what I earn, and earn what I deserve, along with the corollary which is if you don't earn you don't deserve, elitism and intellectualism as labels hold no sway over me.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">The majority of the opposition to the Promethus Project has come from people who are terrified of nuclear power, in any shape or form, and are convinced that somehow a launch accident will spray radioactive material all over the country. The fact that many of these same people will pay to have themselves irradiated at a tanning saloon is a little difficult to swallow. <br /></font><br /><br />I agree that we live in a society of hypocrites; who microwaves there baby formula, talk at length on radio-active cell phones, and spends days in front of CRT pc monitors. Yet if you mention ion propulsion, or nuclear drives they freak out. <br /><br />I don't blame these individuals; as much as I blame our post slavery public educational systems. Which was orginally designed not to produce scientist; and engineers, but instead give an american slave labor work force w/ just enough education to write their name, and remember their SSN...<br /><br />Moon/Mars <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>designed not to produce scientist; and engineers, but instead give an American slave labor work force just enough education to write their name, and remember their SSN... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Excellent post, m_l. You might be pleased to know that all over the United States, through homeschooling and charter schools, people are reclaiming responsibility for teaching their children how to be more than drones in the corporate 40/40 plan.

 

[halman]

marcel_leonard,<br /><br />The way that it looks to me, the American model of mass education came about because of mass production. Large numbers of factory workers were needed who had a basic understanding of math, could read instructions, and write their name. In answer to this novel demand, the educators set up learning factories, which churned out a new lot of factory workers every year. Each received an identical education, and was certified to operate in normal conditions.<br /><br />This form of education brought literacy to huge numbers of people, and created a middle class of blue collar workers and middle management clerks. In an age when the spoken word was the primary form of communication, lecture instruction was very efficient. Coupled with a strict code of obiediance, enforced with physical pain, class size was able to be balloned up to the mid-20's, with one instructor carrying the class for a period of an hour or so.<br /><br />All is sweetnes and light, until television is introduced. The spoken word loses its place as the primary form of communication, giving way to scripted, edited audio-visuals, which moved at a rapid pace, conveying large amounts of information visually. Children begin to learn visually much faster than ever before, and their attention spans shortened as a result of carefully spliced scenes which changed constantly.<br /><br />In a period of a few years, one person standing in front of a group of these children could not hope to hold their attention, and began to rely on punishment to maintain order in the class. Retention rates of lessons fell through the floor, yet there was no provision for dealing with large numbers of children unable to pass their grade. Like an assembly line with a faulty process, these factory schools kept churning out defective product. Graduates unable to read, perform simple arithmatic, and ignorant of even basic knowledge required to survive in a modern society.<br /><br />Tune in next week for an ex <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>