hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 291011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 267

Thread: Higgs Boson finally discovered?

  1. #221
    מלך יהודים
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    The ISS is a massive resource and has provided a platform, bridge and destination between 1980's style big-space exploration to unmanned and private transportation. It's also run hundreds of experiments with many small, but fascinating discoveries that have provided immeasurable value to engineers, chemists and biologists.
    Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.


    

  2. #222
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    The ISS is a massive resource and has provided a platform, bridge and destination between 1980's style big-space exploration to unmanned and private transportation. It's also run hundreds of experiments with many small, but fascinating discoveries that have provided immeasurable value to engineers, chemists and biologists.
    Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.
    Yeah, your preaching to the choir.

  3. #223
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.
    I'm not exactly an authority on business... but i don't think so.

    Also I hate how people overuse "x at best and y at worst".

    How exactly would you have spacex structured to fit what you would call a private enterprise as opposed to how it is now? You are objecting to them using experienced employees? You're objecting to the fact that they're "funded" (paid/hired) by NASA?

    The significant difference is with payment models, bidding processes, and organizational structure. They don't have to be paid by other privately owned bodies to make a profit off of flying dirt into space and seeing how it floats. That's not profitable. The money comes from NASA because the government is the only body currently willing to pay to shoot people into space to watch plants grow in zero gravity.

    There is more of a difference between spacex and the old NASA way of doing things than people putting on a different colored shirt with a different logo on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  4. #224
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,871
    People implying that a public insitution is basically just the same as a publicly funded private enterprise is just

    seriously, get your shit together, that's just bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  5. #225

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..
    Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.

  6. #226
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,551
    To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.

  7. #227
    מלך יהודים
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.
    I'm not exactly an authority on business... but i don't think so.

    Also I hate how people overuse "x at best and y at worst".

    How exactly would you have spacex structured to fit what you would call a private enterprise as opposed to how it is now? You are objecting to them using experienced employees? You're objecting to the fact that they're "funded" (paid/hired) by NASA?

    The significant difference is with payment models, bidding processes, and organizational structure. They don't have to be paid by other privately owned bodies to make a profit off of flying dirt into space and seeing how it floats. That's not profitable. The money comes from NASA because the government is the only body currently willing to pay to shoot people into space to watch plants grow in zero gravity.

    There is more of a difference between spacex and the old NASA way of doing things than people putting on a different colored shirt with a different logo on it.
    Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me. Their future on the other hand is completely in their hands so we can wait and see what they will do with their knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.
    1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.


    

  8. #228
    AmaNutin's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2011
    Location
    Fuck off
    Posts
    2,074
    Calling it, China's going to beat us to having manned missions to Mars.

    edit: how did we get from quantum research to spaceflight?
    Last edited by AmaNutin; July 9 2012 at 04:48:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chakrai View Post
    Flirting with a woman is like flying a nanoship.

  9. #229
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,871
    Who cares,


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  10. #230
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me.
    You're confusing designs and employees with business models. You can't lump everything together into a vague idea of what you consider to be the meaning of a "private company" and expect to have a coherent argument. It's nonsense. If microsoft began manufacturing rockets based on NASA designs and hiring NASA employees, would you say the same thing? The designs of the ships themselves is a completely separate topic from them being a private company. You don't need to invent a square wheel to start a tire company - you need to make tires.

    In fact, if it's more economically viable and efficient for them to adopt field tested NASA designs then they should do that to be considered a well run, profitable company and to compete in the bidding process. Blowing piles money on inventing fancy things for no good reason is what NASA is for and the exact opposite of what you're claiming spacex should be doing. You'll need to point out issues with the COTS program if you want me to believe there's something amiss in how they won over other private companies by being "less private".

    Employees, too, are people with salaries and jobs, not elements of a public entity that pollute the private sector by being tainted with public cooties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.
    1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.
    At what point will they have enough clients in what is a small field (dominated by government agencies) to meet your stamp of approval? They're a new company that's opened themselves up to clients. That's exactly the sort of thing that makes them different.
    Last edited by Frug; July 9 2012 at 05:21:04 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  11. #231
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,253
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..
    Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.
    Ah, the good old days.

  12. #232

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa.
    If what they did was so blatantly just copying nasa's past innovation, why is it that when nasa attempted to do the same thing they've done with Falcon 9 and Dragon in Ares I/V and Orion, they ended up with cost estimates multiple orders of magnitude higher and plans lasting multiple decades? If it was all nasa's brilliance that enabled such things surely they'd have been able to do what SpaceX did much more easily.
    Last edited by elmicker; July 9 2012 at 05:26:53 PM.

  13. #233
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..
    Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.
    Ah, the good old days.
    http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...10/mf_deadhand good read, linked from the wiki article. tl;dr we're still in the good old days if you believe wired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  14. #234
    מלך יהודים
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me.
    You're confusing designs and employees with business models. You can't lump everything together into a vague idea of what you consider to be the meaning of a "private company" and expect to have a coherent argument. It's nonsense. If microsoft began manufacturing rockets based on NASA designs and hiring NASA employees, would you say the same thing? The designs of the ships themselves is a completely separate topic from them being a private company. You don't need to invent a square wheel to start a tire company - you need to make tires.

    In fact, if it's more economically viable and efficient for them to adopt field tested NASA designs then they should do that to be considered a well run, profitable company and to compete in the bidding process. Blowing piles money on inventing fancy things for no good reason is what NASA is for and the exact opposite of what you're claiming spacex should be doing. You'll need to point out issues with the COTS program if you want me to believe there's something amiss in how they won over other private companies by being "less private".

    Employees, too, are people with salaries and jobs, not elements of a public entity that pollute the private sector by being tainted with public cooties.
    What im saying they got subsidized by the government and they got subsidized heavily in money and knowledge. Calling that private is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.
    1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.
    At what point will they have enough clients in what is a small field (dominated by government agencies) to meet your stamp of approval? They're a new company that's opened themselves up to clients. That's exactly the sort of thing that makes them different.
    More then 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa.
    If what they did was so blatantly just copying nasa's past innovation, why is it that when nasa attempted to do the same thing they've done with Falcon 9 and Dragon in Ares I/V and Orion, they ended up with cost estimates multiple orders of magnitude higher and plans lasting multiple decades? If it was all nasa's brilliance that enabled such things surely they'd have been able to do what SpaceX did much more easily.
    Cut the bureaucracy in Nasa and they will be able to. Even Elon Musk is admitting that. He's also saying he wouldn't be able to pull this off without Nasa.

    http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...Employees.html


    

  15. #235

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    2,639
    So it was almost like they innovated in the way they produced the end product!

  16. #236
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102
    We all know private companies don't get subsidized by the government.

    Right guise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  17. #237
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..
    Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.
    Ah, the good old days.
    http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...10/mf_deadhand good read, linked from the wiki article. tl;dr we're still in the good old days if you believe wired.
    We're in a new shift of the good old days. The big boys on the block stopped openly threatening each other. Which doesn't automatically mean that the plans are gone it really just means no one will be banging shoes on podiums declaring that they will bury us. The shit storm is more or less dormant for now but will never really be gone unless we find something else to point our nukes at. I can't really think of a something else without going all science fiction up in here. So hopefully someones trigger finger doesn't get itchy.

  18. #238
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,253
    Yay a double post, so I heard those higgs have bosons in them.

  19. #239

    Join Date
    May 30, 2011
    Location
    asleep
    Posts
    2,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Constantinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Constantinus View Post
    I would argue that CERN is actualy quite cheap.
    After all, a yearly budget of 800 million Euros isn't too much if one considers the great scientifical successes of CERN and the fact
    that this money is shoulded by 20 different nations.
    Particularly not when you consider that cash is all going into the pockets of european academics, engineers and infrastructure. CERN's a cornerstone of european technical academia. It's a bargain really when you consider the amount each nation spends on it per year. About £100m per year for the UK. Less than the cost of a single Eurofighter.
    Hehe, by try to explain that to the usual "fundamental science is expensive and useless" retards.
    I am especialy fond of those who complain that this money could go to africa while they themselfs probably never spend a single buck for charity.
    Considering that just ONE of of the Offshoot technologies developed by the LHC is "The Internet" then the whole discussion is kinda moot.
    No. A Rhinoceros is not a fat Unicorn.

  20. #240

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Itiken View Post
    Considering that just ONE of of the Offshoot technologies developed by the LHC is "The Internet" then the whole discussion is kinda moot.
    I think you mean that some guys who happened to be at cern also happened to develop the world wide web. The internet significantly predates the web, and honestly CERN's role in the WWW's birth is overstated.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •