Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 35222
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/08/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
8/20    

2004/12/9-10 [Health/Men, Science/Space] UID:35222 Activity:very high
12/9    Would you fly into space if you had a 5% chance of dying?
        \_ Why?  I don't understand why people would want to go to space
           under the current circumstances(no ftl travel, no inhabitable
           planets, no space stations with any real life or industry.)
           I can see the excitement of space *science*, done by robots,
           but I just don't get the appeal of being the monkey in the can.
           \_ It's an experience that few people in history have had. You
              obviously have no sense of adventure.
           \_ Yeah there's not much up there anyway. I mean, it's called space
              for a reason. If they get a moon base I'd want to go there.
        \_ http://zoom.cafepress.com/6/1540286_zoom.jpg
           \_ where can i get this shirt?
              \_ http://tinyurl.com/6m6jp
        \_ driving is?
           \_ ...not very useful for getting into orbit.  Just so ya know.
           \_ Apples to oranges...
        \_ 5% per trip
        \_ once?  sure!  20 times?  uhhhh.... no.
        \_ If I'm single and the trip is free, maybe.
        \_ depends on what that 5% is.  probably yes, though   -sax
           \_ Wow, you are crazy. -- ilyas
        \_ Hell yeah! When do we go?
        \_ What's this 5% based on?  If number of fatal missions out of total
           missions flown, then this is somewhat misleading; cf. the number
           of fatal flights out of total flights flown versus number of fatal
           flights this year out of total flights this year for air travel
           safety parallels.
           \_ I don't think it's based on anything.  You're reading far too
              deeply into a hypothetical question.  You're not very fun at
              parties, are you?
              \_ Feh.  This is what you do for fun at parties?  Dinner parties,
                 perhaps, but odds are good you spend a lot of time getting
                 pantsed at keggers.
                 \_ I think you just proved my point about not being fun at
                    parties, Mr Painfully-Literal Dorkboy.  Train harder,
                    grasshopper.
           \_ actually, it is more like 2%:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030204-space01.htm
              http://tinyurl.com/46g4g (global security)
        \_ Every man dies, few men truly live.
           \_ Every man lives. Few men win the lottery.
              \-at 5% i'd go. however i dont think i'd pay $5000
                for a day in orbit. if you guys would subsidize
                to bring the out of pocket costs to say $2500,
                i'd go. probably if you die, you die pretty fast.
                i think the odds of a horrible death are lower.
                i probably wouldnt tell my mom until i got back
                however. in case you are interested, in about
                50yrs of everest climbing, <1500 summiteers, >150 deaths
                on the mountain. peak fee i believe is $USD 18,000.
                my guess is, the moment you cross 7000meters you have
                more than a 2% chance of dying in the next 48hrs ...
                although maybe i am underestimating the number of
                deaths in the Khumbu Ice Fall. --psb
                \_ Yeah, but on Everest, your intestines don't bubble out
                   of your eyes while your skin explodes and your lungs turn
                   to jelly, just before the space monster comes and eats
                   you.  -John
2018/08/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
8/20    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/1/5-2/13 [Science/Space, Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:54574 Activity:nil
1/5     Apollo Robbins, Master Pickpocket:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/bbgggol [New Yorker]
	...
2012/9/18-11/7 [Science/Space] UID:54478 Activity:nil
9/18    The Space Shuttle Endeavour is doing a fly over of Nasa Ames on Friday:
        http://tinyurl.com/8ffrx5j [nasa.gov]
        \_ They have reached their cap on car passes!  Ahh!  I wish I heard
           about this earlier! :-(
        \_ I saw it above HW 101 in San Mateo this morning.  I wonder how many
           people in the Bay Area watched it (the real thing, not a broadcast.)
	...
2012/6/26-7/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54422 Activity:nil
6/26    WW2 brought us antibiotics, syringe, production capacity,
        excessive petroleum, radar, television, atomic energy,
        rocketry (HEIL VON BRAUN), synthetic rubber, microwave,
        computers (GAY TURING), jets.
        What did the Iraq war bring us?
        \_ HMMWV -> Hummer H1 the gas guzzler.
	...
2012/3/9-26 [Science/Space] UID:54337 Activity:nil
3/9     "First amateur video of Challenger shuttle explosion revealed"
        http://www.csua.org/u/vqh (news.yahoo.com)
        Given that the explosion occured so far up in the sky, why was the
        "boom" sound heard at the same time as the visual explosion?  Shouldn't
        there have been a couple seconds of delay?
        \_ Wake up, sheeple!
	...
2011/12/18-2012/1/10 [Science/Space] UID:54263 Activity:nil
12/17   Mission Accomplished!
        \_ The Honorable President of the United States George W. Bush has
           already told me this ...... years ago!
	...
2010/11/15-2011/1/13 [Science/Space] UID:53993 Activity:nil
11/15   "Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_one_way_to_mars
        \_ CSUA/OCF guy gwh has been a big proponent of the one-way trip to
           Mars for years.  -tom
        \_ I think it is suiciadal.  One glitch and you life is down to the
           tens of minutes of reserve oxygen with any kinds of physical supply
	...
Cache (140 bytes)
tinyurl.com/6m6jp -> www.cafepress.com/d20shirts
When you do, what do you scream through a mouthful of pulve rized doritos? NOTE: there is a CENSORED version of the d20 shirt now available.
Cache (5189 bytes)
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030204-space01.htm
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff Three days after the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia and the d eaths of its seven crew members, scientists, engineers and politicians are asking the crucial questions: What went wrong? But there's another vital question: What were those people doing up ther e? America spends billions of dollars to send handfuls of brave, brilli ant people into a region totally hostile to human life. They go to expa nd our knowledge of the universe, but critics say that much of the astr onauts' work could be accomplished with automated space probes, and the rest probably isn't worth doing. In a time when unmanned satellites ca n broadcast TV images around the world, and robots can scurry across th e surface of Mars, why send people into space? A Gallup poll taken ri ght after Columbia went down showed that 82 percent of Americans want t o continue sending people into space. The same poll was taken after the 1986 destruction of the shuttle Challenger, and the result was nearly identical. But why such devotion to this expensive and sometimes deadly adventure? Ask the aeronautical engineers and space scientists, and while they spe ak of commercial benefits and scientific breakthroughs, they speak of s omething else, something oddly nontechnical and deeply human. People wi ll keep on going into space because they're people, beings that hate no thing more than an empty space on a map. They've scanned and photographed the planets at a fraction of the cost of sending humans on the same voyages. In 1997, a miniature dune buggy called Sojourner, launched to Mars for a mere $265 million, sent back razor-sharp photos of the planet that ast onished the world. This year alone, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will spend $600 million to launch two roving robots towa rd the surface of Mars, while the agency will go partners with the Euro pean Space Agency and the Italian government to fire a $150 million rad ar-mapping satellite at the red planet. The cost of all these Mars miss ions added together barely amount to a rounding error, compared to the estimated $400 billion cost of sending people to Mars. But there'll be nobody on Mars to repair these robot probes if things go wrong. Dava Newman, associate professor of aeronautics at the Massachu setts Institute of Technology, said people must go into space to do the jobs robots cannot do. Spina, who helped design a n experiment that flew aboard the doomed shuttle, said that public supp ort of space travel requires humans in the loop. Assign all the mission s to robots, he argues, and political backing for the space program wou ld fade to the point where even robots would no longer be launched. org and former director of space p olicy at the Federation of American Scientists, justifies sending human s to space in language reminiscent of the Cold War. Roland said it soon became cle ar that the system would never be cheaper or more reliable than the thr owaway rockets it replaced. Most of the useful stuff could have been done in other ways; We learned how to fly and we were so intoxicated by the excitement of it that we just flew a lot. It could be flown as an unmanned rocket for launching satellites, or with the addition of a modular crew capsu le, could launch people into orbit. Bruce Murray of the California Institute of Technology agrees with Rolan d's case against the shuttle. He said that the system was a good idea a s an experimental craft, but it could never have lived up to NASA's vis ion of a cheap, reusable space vehicle. He would get no argument from Gregg Maryniak, executive director of the X-Prize Foundation, a St. Louis organization that will award $10 millio n to the first privately funded group that launches a three-person craf t into space, brings it safely back, then does it again with the same c raft in two weeks. The idea is to provide a financial incentive for aer ospace companies to invent low-cost ways of getting people into space. In the 18th century, Britain's Royal Society used a cash prize to spur the invention of the first clock to keep accu rate time on a ship at sea. This enabled navigators to accurately calcu late the ship's longitude, making ocean travel far safer. Maryniak said he figures the same incentive might finally result in a cheap space ro cket. And he's convinced such a ship will have no shortage of passenger s ''Pretty much seven out of 10 people in the developed world, in surv ey after survey after survey, say that if they could buy a ticket to ri de into space, they'd buy one,'' Maryniak said. The United States has sent 786 people into s pace since 1961; If you add the cr ew of Apollo 1, killed on the launch pad during a training exercise, th e number rises to 17. That's a fatality rate of a little more than 2 pe rcent. Compare that to Magellan's trip around the world during the 16th century. By that standard, the human explorati on of space so far has been remarkably free of tragedy. Still, there's no question that others will die in space, or on the trip to space or the way back. Doug Belkin of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent David Chandler co ntributed to this report.
Cache (5189 bytes)
tinyurl.com/46g4g -> www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030204-space01.htm
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff Three days after the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia and the d eaths of its seven crew members, scientists, engineers and politicians are asking the crucial questions: What went wrong? But there's another vital question: What were those people doing up ther e? America spends billions of dollars to send handfuls of brave, brilli ant people into a region totally hostile to human life. They go to expa nd our knowledge of the universe, but critics say that much of the astr onauts' work could be accomplished with automated space probes, and the rest probably isn't worth doing. In a time when unmanned satellites ca n broadcast TV images around the world, and robots can scurry across th e surface of Mars, why send people into space? A Gallup poll taken ri ght after Columbia went down showed that 82 percent of Americans want t o continue sending people into space. The same poll was taken after the 1986 destruction of the shuttle Challenger, and the result was nearly identical. But why such devotion to this expensive and sometimes deadly adventure? Ask the aeronautical engineers and space scientists, and while they spe ak of commercial benefits and scientific breakthroughs, they speak of s omething else, something oddly nontechnical and deeply human. People wi ll keep on going into space because they're people, beings that hate no thing more than an empty space on a map. They've scanned and photographed the planets at a fraction of the cost of sending humans on the same voyages. In 1997, a miniature dune buggy called Sojourner, launched to Mars for a mere $265 million, sent back razor-sharp photos of the planet that ast onished the world. This year alone, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will spend $600 million to launch two roving robots towa rd the surface of Mars, while the agency will go partners with the Euro pean Space Agency and the Italian government to fire a $150 million rad ar-mapping satellite at the red planet. The cost of all these Mars miss ions added together barely amount to a rounding error, compared to the estimated $400 billion cost of sending people to Mars. But there'll be nobody on Mars to repair these robot probes if things go wrong. Dava Newman, associate professor of aeronautics at the Massachu setts Institute of Technology, said people must go into space to do the jobs robots cannot do. Spina, who helped design a n experiment that flew aboard the doomed shuttle, said that public supp ort of space travel requires humans in the loop. Assign all the mission s to robots, he argues, and political backing for the space program wou ld fade to the point where even robots would no longer be launched. org and former director of space p olicy at the Federation of American Scientists, justifies sending human s to space in language reminiscent of the Cold War. Roland said it soon became cle ar that the system would never be cheaper or more reliable than the thr owaway rockets it replaced. Most of the useful stuff could have been done in other ways; We learned how to fly and we were so intoxicated by the excitement of it that we just flew a lot. It could be flown as an unmanned rocket for launching satellites, or with the addition of a modular crew capsu le, could launch people into orbit. Bruce Murray of the California Institute of Technology agrees with Rolan d's case against the shuttle. He said that the system was a good idea a s an experimental craft, but it could never have lived up to NASA's vis ion of a cheap, reusable space vehicle. He would get no argument from Gregg Maryniak, executive director of the X-Prize Foundation, a St. Louis organization that will award $10 millio n to the first privately funded group that launches a three-person craf t into space, brings it safely back, then does it again with the same c raft in two weeks. The idea is to provide a financial incentive for aer ospace companies to invent low-cost ways of getting people into space. In the 18th century, Britain's Royal Society used a cash prize to spur the invention of the first clock to keep accu rate time on a ship at sea. This enabled navigators to accurately calcu late the ship's longitude, making ocean travel far safer. Maryniak said he figures the same incentive might finally result in a cheap space ro cket. And he's convinced such a ship will have no shortage of passenger s ''Pretty much seven out of 10 people in the developed world, in surv ey after survey after survey, say that if they could buy a ticket to ri de into space, they'd buy one,'' Maryniak said. The United States has sent 786 people into s pace since 1961; If you add the cr ew of Apollo 1, killed on the launch pad during a training exercise, th e number rises to 17. That's a fatality rate of a little more than 2 pe rcent. Compare that to Magellan's trip around the world during the 16th century. By that standard, the human explorati on of space so far has been remarkably free of tragedy. Still, there's no question that others will die in space, or on the trip to space or the way back. Doug Belkin of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent David Chandler co ntributed to this report.