"After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest to the USA to bring their astronauts to the International Space Station using a trampoline."
In response, Elon Musk who is the co-founder of SpaceX tweeted:
"Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon Mk 2 spaceship that @SpaceX has been working on w @NASA. No trampoline needed." Link
AND
"Cover drops on May 29. Actual flight design hardware of crew Dragon, not a mockup." Link
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
I've always said that the biggest mistake out there was the scaling back of NASA. Beyond doing very cool stuff, the drive for space to me was always motivating and inspirational.
At some point though they went from the exploration of space to the UPS truck drivers of space.
there have been major stalls in pushing mans boundaries beyond this planet. At one point man said leaving the atmosphere was impossible, but through concerted efforts and scientific leaps forward we orbited the globe. Then we were told that landing a man on the moon was nearly impossible, but we beat the impossible. We did all of his within a couple of decades.
To be honest the launching of probes into deep space and to explore mars for example should have been a precursor to manned travel to different destinations. Instead in a lot of ways we took the easy way out, we've lost our explorer spirit, and I'm not sure that putting it into the hands of private interests is the way to go. We really don't need the space program run by the tourist industries, or worse yet, reality T.V.
If we could go from launching rockets at each other to landing men on the moon in 30 years, think of where we should be now if we had continued on that concerted effort. I always hopped that I would see a man land on mars in my lifetime, now I believe that its very unlikely that it will happen before I die.
As far as Canada's role, as a country we're always going to be the passenger supplying technology for other countries to use, and that's fine, Canada is never going to land on another planet by themselves and plant the maple leaf while O'Canada plays on T.V.
I do find the Russian comments humorous. Maybe there needs to be another space race between Russia, the US and China.
Personally I don't think the ISS is the end goal that its become.
I think we need a better improved version of tang.
I think we need to step on another planet that has an atmosphere and water and might have potentially hosted a form of life.
I've always said that the biggest mistake out there was the scaling back of NASA. Beyond doing very cool stuff, the drive for space to me was always motivating and inspirational.
At some point though they went from the exploration of space to the UPS truck drivers of space.
there have been major stalls in pushing mans boundaries beyond this planet. At one point man said leaving the atmosphere was impossible, but through concerted efforts and scientific leaps forward we orbited the globe. Then we were told that landing a man on the moon was nearly impossible, but we beat the impossible. We did all of his within a couple of decades.
To be honest the launching of probes into deep space and to explore mars for example should have been a precursor to manned travel to different destinations. Instead in a lot of ways we took the easy way out, we've lost our explorer spirit, and I'm not sure that putting it into the hands of private interests is the way to go. We really don't need the space program run by the tourist industries, or worse yet, reality T.V.
If we could go from launching rockets at each other to landing men on the moon in 30 years, think of where we should be now if we had continued on that concerted effort. I always hopped that I would see a man land on mars in my lifetime, now I believe that its very unlikely that it will happen before I die.
As far as Canada's role, as a country we're always going to be the passenger supplying technology for other countries to use, and that's fine, Canada is never going to land on another planet by themselves and plant the maple leaf while O'Canada plays on T.V.
I do find the Russian comments humorous. Maybe there needs to be another space race between Russia, the US and China.
Personally I don't think the ISS is the end goal that its become.
I think we need a better improved version of tang.
I think we need to step on another planet that has an atmosphere and water and might have potentially hosted a form of life.
Oh I get that, that's what I meant when I said, I wonder how feasible it is, cause I understand we simply don't have the people and money for that kind of clout, but I think we could have a bigger role if it become a national priority. And I don't even mean like a top five priority, but just, more than it is now.
I wonder about different technologies for habitats and terraforming and stuff like that. Stuff that could have applications here too.
I guess, in the spirit of this thread, I always wished Canada had a bigger and more cutting edge high tech sector. There was a time we dared to dream in aerospace.
We need a more balanced economy anyway. Far too resource driven. Don't get me wrong, I know we'll likely be resource driven forever, if not for the next 200+ years, but I just feel not enough priority is placed on diversity and sustainability, which could really help in the future. Instead it's all chop it down, drill it out, as fast as you possibly can.
I guess we do some pretty cool things in medical research. There's that.
Exploring the solar system is one of NASA's most prominent and successful activities. Curiosity's dramatic landing on Mars in 2012 was a generation's "Apollo moment"--an unforgettable achievement in space. Next year a NASA spacecraft will fly by Pluto for the first time in human history. No other nation has this level of capacity. We should preserve it.
But with the White House's current budget, we will go radio dark in the outer solar system by 2017--the first time in 40 years. We've broken international partnerships and cancelled missions. It threatens to terminate perfectly functioning missions like the Opportunity Mars rover, wasting taxpayer money. This is a shame.
Exploring the solar system with regular small, medium, and large missions maintains a strong industrial base of highly-trained engineers and scientists that contribute to the U.S. economy. It also inspires countless students to pursue professions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It helps answer deep questions about the origin of life and provides context for the thousands of distant exoplanets discovered by astronomers. It unites scientists from many fields to work together, and it engages the public on a deep level.
But even more fundamentally, exploring the solar system is what a great nation does. It's inherently optimistic. It says that any problem we face can be overcome. That we reach outward with a desire to learn about ourselves and our origins.
Let's explore again. Please work to restore Planetary Science at NASA to its historical average of at least $1.5 billion.
How not to talk to your kids. A study turns upside the notion of calling your kids Smart
Quote:
Dweck sent four female research assistants into New York fifth-grade classrooms. The researchers would take a single child out of the classroom for a nonverbal IQ test consisting of a series of puzzles—puzzles easy enough that all the children would do fairly well. Once the child finished the test, the researchers told each student his score, then gave him a single line of praise. Randomly divided into groups, some were praised for their intelligence. They were told, “You must be smart at this.” Other students were praised for their effort: “You must have worked really hard.”
Why just a single line of praise? “We wanted to see how sensitive children were,” Dweck explained. “We had a hunch that one line might be enough to see an effect.”
Then the students were given a choice of test for the second round. One choice was a test that would be more difficult than the first, but the researchers told the kids that they’d learn a lot from attempting the puzzles. The other choice, Dweck’s team explained, was an easy test, just like the first. Of those praised for their effort, 90 percent chose the harder set of puzzles. Of those praised for their intelligence, a majority chose the easy test. The “smart” kids took the cop-out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
"We know that the impact occurred within the last 70 million years," Doug Schmitt, co-author of the paper and a professor in the Faculty of Science at the U of A, said in a news release. "In that time about 1.5 km of sediment has been eroded.
"That makes it really hard to pin down and actually date the impact."
Their research shows that the crater likely reached a depth of 1.6 to 2.4 kilometres — an impact that would have had major consequences.
"An impact of this magnitude would kill everything for quite a distance," said graduate student Wei Xie. "If it happened today, Calgary (200 km to the northwest) would be completely fried and in Edmonton (500 km northwest), every window would have been blown out.
"Something of that size, throwing that much debris in the air, potentially would have global consequences, there could have been ramifications for decades."
Interesting 80 minute radio interview with Michio Kaku, well-known American theoretical physicist, talking about everything from technology to extraterrestrial life to scientific theories. A great video to listen to while working.
Interesting 80 minute radio interview with Michio Kaku, well-known American theoretical physicist, talking about everything from technology to extraterrestrial life to scientific theories. A great video to listen to while working.
Kaku is what I would call a fun flake/geek and very smart but George Noory is a complete nutbar, one show he's all about Aliens,the next about Jesus,in other words,...Show me the money!
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Really frustrating how he interprets Einstein and his dabbling with the idea of God, he really really misses so many fundamental things while talking about this with the host.
Whats so brutal is here is a guy who's all in with multiverse theory, yet he poses to the host, "why is our universe not ugly, why is it so ideal" when he knows the answer lies in multiverse that there is an infinite number of universes, some exist for millionths of a second, some for trillions, and laws are different from one to the next. So of course where life exists in these universes it will have seemed like fine tuning.
This is really low level thinking on Kaku's part which is what I've always dreaded about him, he seems to have these bouts of cognitive dissonance when it comes to these types of questions.
This is like me suggesting a creator because the earth is in the habitable zone.... Obviously we had to evolve in this spot in order to evolve and then be here to question how we got here, the same argument is of course there for multiverse and its staggering how he's missing that.
Really frustrating how he interprets Einstein and his dabbling with the idea of God, he really really misses so many fundamental things while talking about this with the host.
Whats so brutal is here is a guy who's all in with multiverse theory, yet he poses to the host, "why is our universe not ugly, why is it so ideal" when he knows the answer lies in multiverse that there is an infinite number of universes, some exist for millionths of a second, some for trillions, and laws are different from one to the next. So of course where life exists in these universes it will have seemed like fine tuning.
This is really low level thinking on Kaku's part which is what I've always dreaded about him, he seems to have these bouts of cognitive dissonance when it comes to these types of questions.
This is like me suggesting a creator because the earth is in the habitable zone.... Obviously we had to evolve in this spot in order to evolve and then be here to question how we got here, the same argument is of course there for multiverse and its staggering how he's missing that.
I haven't watched the video but I believe we can't come to an answer about god through our thoughts or arguing about it. When he says "why is our universe not ugly, why is it so ideal", I don't take it as an argument for god's existence, more an appeal to experience awe.
I think it's just tough for popular scientific media types like Kaku, Degrasse or Filippenko, Lately Degrasse is getting more brave but for the most part most of these people stay away from proclaiming GOD is a pile of even know most likely that's exactly what they believe.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
See thats the thing with Kaku, can't figure out if he's just trying to be liked by everyone OR if he is genuinely believing that nonsense. I say nonsense because a man of his education knows better, so its either cognitive dissonance or he's a coward.
I haven't watched the video but I believe we can't come to an answer about god through our thoughts or arguing about it. When he says "why is our universe not ugly, why is it so ideal", I don't take it as an argument for god's existence, more an appeal to experience awe.
Watch the video, I was paraphrasing, but you'll see what I mean when I say he's trying to appease the question and come off likable by it seems someone who is religious.
Watch the video, I was paraphrasing, but you'll see what I mean when I say he's trying to appease the question and come off likable by it seems someone who is religious.
I didn't get that impression but I'm looking at it from the opposite viewpoint. He sounded like he is looking for answers.
If he's using as you say low level thinking such as saying god occupies the space that science hasn't explained yet or ignoring such explanations, yeah that's a dead end road.
Well its just that he's discussed before the fallacy people make suggesting that the earth had to be where it is because of a diety since it is in the habitable zone.. The fine tuned argument, he's argued against it before when discussing this argument put forth by the religious.
However the exact same argument is made by astrophysicists when discussing the idea of a fine tuned universe, especially when when like Kaku you are a big proponent of the multiverse theory.
That's why he seems disingenuous because I have seen him do this before and its really irritating. I'm pretty sure its appeasement or trying to be all things to all interviewers, you will rarely find him argue or take a stand that will upset people, look how he really tried to distance himself from the discussion on how Stephen Hawkings book said no God is required and then went into the Einstein and how a theory of everything is so elegant that a God could be behind all this...
Anyways don't want to ramble too much about Kaku, he's always been kind of frustrating for me to listen to, and he keeps popping up because he's well liked by so many.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
even know most likely that's exactly what they believe.
