Why do most people dislike "John Carter"? When I discuss it with people, they are furiously against it. Why? And, what are your opinions on the movie?

thanksforcalling · 2012-05-24T10:14:43.957476+00:00

wow. You're right.

I just saw the fan trailer and now I actually want to see it.

When marketed it seemed they focused on "Tim Riggins" bare-chested to get the girls interested.

Of course that' s a problem because girls typically won't pay to see a sci fi film, and guys who would don't usually want to see the film focus on the bare chest of some dude.

TSC · 2012-05-24T10:02:18.593401+00:00

sounds very "back to the future" ish when speed up.

mepper · 2012-05-24T09:23:12.124284+00:00

Are you kidding?

Sometimes the shear lack of understanding at NASA of what interests the public who fund these mission just astonishes me.

And NASA wonders why people don't care about space much anymore.

Rocks!

Here's an idea. Nasa will grant the first people who survive 1 yr on Mars exclusive permanent legal right to the 200 square miles surrounding their landing site.

Then have a contest to be the astronauts on the mission.

You would have millions watching it for years.

People want HUMAN INTERACTION.

As a space geek I hate to say it but it's true.

They want to see people doing back flips on mars in low gravity against a red canyon background.

They want to see them growing the mars bacteria in petri dishes and stoking their aquariums with them like mars seamonkeys with a live webcam to watch.

And that's ok because those things are what life is about and if we are every gonna get off this planet we better start planning missions around what it means to be a balanced human and not what is means to be a scientist stuck in a lab.

really?

We are going to send people all the way to mars to get rocks?

That really didn't promote the exploration of the moon too well did it?

jb2386 · 2012-05-24T09:13:49.529530+00:00

Viking landers in 1976 already definitively found life as has been shown over and over.

Repeatedly analysis for decades since the landing has shown it ove rand over in multitudes of different ways.

The fact that people still don't admit it shows more about the struggle to get people to admit to anything definitively than it does about life on Mars.

No doubt some redditors will jump here and prove that point by arguing.

jb2386 · 2012-05-24T09:11:27.201803+00:00

Compare that to the fact that you have more bacteria in/on your body then you have cells.

love a source for that.

find it hard to believe based on body volume

achacttn · 2012-05-24T08:52:25.735530+00:00

I would suggest a browser plugin to spyder pages.

firefox has several

i use scrapbook which will go down several levels

also look up independent sypder programs that owrk outside of a browser.

http://www.httrack.com/ is one free one but its hard to figure out.

you do often have to tell it to ignore robots.txt and also set time interval between downloads so it doesn't hit servers too hard and fast.

aguafiestas · 2012-05-24T08:23:54.378772+00:00

If one of them got a PSA test a year or two before they died, and then a prostate surgery to remove the cancer, they probably would have felt that their life was saved by the PSA. But, it wasn't. They died at 65 from something else with a prostate cancer they never knew about. This is what a lot of the concern is about.

EXZACTLY. right back to the "they are going to die of somethign else first so we shouldn't spend the money to treat what will kill them if they DON'T die of something else first.

Except then when life saving new medicine comes along which extends lifespan by 10 years the prostate cancer you didn't treat kills them.

That is why that is a false cost saving analysis.

georedd · 2012-05-24T08:20:10.564296+00:00

SpaceX Developing Low-Cost Launch Vehicle for Space Travel
April 22, 2003 - Aerospace Daily
Soaring Interest in Earth's Low Orbit
April 22, 2003 - LA Times
Entrepreneur Tries His Midas Touch in Space
April 22, 2003 - LA Times
Taking a Cheap Shot at Space
April 15, 2003 - USA TODAY
Will A Low-Cost Satellite Launch Firm Fly?
March 26, 2003 - Investors Business Daily
Rocket Man - Web Entrepreneur Focuses on Aerospace in El Segundo
March 26, 2003 - Daily Breeze
Rocket Man - Paypal Co-Founder Now Banks on Space
March 2003 - Futuredex
Web Entrepreneur Eyes Small Launcher Market
November 11, 2002 - Space News

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:59:44.131221+00:00

Thank you.

Well said and briefer and more to the point than I would have been.

People seem to think that after someone wants to start buying your product they should get credit for developing your product to begin with.

It ironic how they argue the ratio of money spent on a final purchase for three flights to make the case which actually make it look WORSE for the guy like SpaceX who develops a rocket for nearly nothing!

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:51:36.684497+00:00

He is just trying to thinly justify his seething dislike for SpaceX so he is making ridiculous arguments.

It's too bad he and others can't share the joy of the accomplishments. It's their loss really.

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:49:28.158945+00:00

SpaceX received NASAs $300 for NASA SPECIFIC LAUNCHES of the existing rocket more than ten years AFTER SpaceX had already built and developed the Falcon 1 the first orbital rocket and finished design and development of Falcon 9 launcher and part of Dragon.

The guy who runs in with the latest check can't say he paid for the whole party that preceded them.

NASA didn't.

NASA is the guy who came late and now seems to be trying to claim credit for the job.

SpaceX developed those rockets on their won. NASA is simply paying for the right to utilize them now for their own specific purposes which require NASA specific testing which they are only PARTIALLY paying for.

SpaceX has far more customers lined up (more than 100 launch contracts I think now) SpaceX would be launching with or without NASA just like they did for over decade.

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:40:36.068116+00:00

No.

You were actually factually wrong and still are.

NASA DID not fund Falcon 1 the first orbital rocket and did not fund the design and development of Falcon 9 the second and current orbital rocket.

NASA first paid only $10 million in 2007 fully 13 years into SpaceX's existence after SpaceX had already designed built and substantially completed and partial tested Falcon 1 their first orbital rocket and completed the initial design of Falcon 9 and offered it to consumers, 10 of whom had already signed up and all of which was self funded with over $200 million dollars.

NASA did NOT fund the development of falcon 9. And Falcon 9 was SpaceX's SECOND orbital rocket.

What NASA did was come along AFTER the rocket wa smade available and wanted to pay for THEIR OWN TESTING for the Falcon 9 to interface with nasa's space station. They wanted 3 launches mostly dedicated to that specific task which SpaceX did not need as part of their future business which they only partially paid for. SO it is completely false to say that nasa "paid for the development" of Falcon 9

That's like saying because you bought half the gas for your car to drive it the last 50 miles you paid for it's development - no you did not!

Hell until 2006 just a few short years ago NASA wanted nothing to do with SpaceX and treated them like a bastard child.

Now NASA slaps NASA logos all over SPaceX pictures and acts like NASA teams built the rocket.

I looked at your linked PDF.

Did you notice how in all pages pictures on pages 3 through 6 that NASA chose every picture of the rockets they could find that did NOT have a SPACEX logo and put their own NASA logo right on top of the page like they were all NASA buildings down in Florida or something?

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:17:57.681032+00:00

"tldr; meesa, people gunna die"

yup. We screwed..

georedd · 2012-05-24T00:09:54.109513+00:00

"So, you're more qualified than the guy with a degree with nuclear engineering? " To give an honest and truthful assessment? ABsofuckinlutely.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, years of structural design and computer simulations and as importantly years in business and politics and experience with the precarious shaping of reports that desperation breeds in failing businesses, and - guess what - I am also more HONEST and have no AGENDA that shapes my conclusions.

Hell I would be the first to love nukes if only they weren't so much worse than the alternatives we have now. (I did love nukes in the 80's)

but don't believe me

look at the only detailed non industry funded source for worldwide nuclear industry review

enenews.com

plenty of nuclear engineers and workers there.

read away dude.

start with the japanese ambassador's statement as a laymen's guide:

"Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375). [...]"

http://enenews.com/former-japan-ambassador-warns-govt-committee-a-global-catastrophe-like-we-have-never-before-experienced-if-no-4-collapses-common-spent-fuel-pool-with-6375-fuel-rods-in-jeopardy-would

thenr ead these at the bottom of that page

Mainichi Expert Sr. Writer: Gov't sources say No. 4 pool a grave concern -- Storage pool barely intact -- We have no time to humor senseless thinking of those who downplay the risks
Asahi TV: "Unbelievable" -- If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo -Expert -- Doesn't have to be large tremor, already shaken many times (VIDEO)
Radioactive Waste Specialist: Would be just a few hours before fuel catches fire in Reactor No. 4 pool if cooling water supply was lost (VIDEO)

aguafiestas · 2012-05-24T00:02:17.191814+00:00

"If I'm wrong, and there actually was a group making a determination in the past weighing lives saved against healthcare dollars, then I hope you can provide a link to an article about that, because I'd be interested in reading it."

Tell you what. You post your google search terms that you have tried here first.

Then if you can't find It. I'll help

georedd · 2012-05-23T23:59:56.551885+00:00

"I'm not aware that SpaceX have come along with anything truly revolutionary from an engineering point of view. "

Then you know what?

You need to look it up!

georedd · 2012-05-23T23:44:56.203993+00:00

Basically by your logic the only payment Nasa made to Spacex for non NASA reviews was for $10 million by 2007 when the falcon 1 was built and testing and falcon 9 was already designed and parts being tested.

and you say that $10 million payment funded the whole Falcon 9 design and development and the whole existence of SpaceX through the development and development and construction of the whole previous orbital rocket Falcon 1 and it's engine for 10 years prior?

Right.

NASA funded it all for $10 million. Sure!!!

Hell SPACEX is MUCH better than we thought if they did it all for a measly $10 million!!

Dude you are smokin some wicked crack.

georedd · 2012-05-23T23:38:38.764528+00:00

First of all you made my point..

NASA funds came in AFTER 2006 in tiny incremental amounts long after Falcon 1 (their first orbital rocket - remember Falcon 9 is their SECOND ORBITAL ROCKET) was being built and tested and Falcon 9 was being tested. furthermore the NASA money dwarfed by the money Elon put in and the other contract orders preexisting before 2006 and long after both Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 were developed and being built and reserved for by others.

Furthermore the NASA money wasn't to develop Falcon 9 - it was to pay for NASA's testing of the rocket to certify it. NASA's NASA's NASA's Read it:

"Project Management Plan" that's NASA's

"Demo 1 System Requirements Review" that's NASA's review - not SpaceX's !!!

"Demo 1 Preliminary Design Review" again NASA's Review not SpaceX's!!!

"Financing Round 1, Mar 07, $10m" This is the FIRST thing NASA paid SpaceX for: a $10 million dollar downpayment on a future launch reservation.

That's in 2007! SpaceX already had more than 10 other orders for tested and designed systems in near full production by then?

We're done here (although apparently you will never stop) . You conclusively proved SpaceX developed their rockets far before NASA put a dime in for a rocket.

Dude you be trolling. You AREN'T what you say you are.

You're Kinda like the guy who says he's your best friend while he's telling your girl how bad you are.

Nice try Boeing dude. You had me going there.

axolotl_peyotl · 2012-05-23T23:16:36.234191+00:00

Yeah. As in you know tha thing about ending Afghanistan?

Yeah..

"X" it

off your list.

It ain't gonna happen.

georedd · 2012-05-23T22:59:17.201728+00:00

I do remember it.

(he may have since chaged his mind becuase today it is possible to go public and not lose control of your company - although it tends to happen so I hope he doesn't)

People(massive corporate government contractor insiders who stand to lose billions if he succeeds) want to bring Elon and SpaceX down. If he goes public they have a whole lot more laws to do it with. I hope he stays 100% private. It's safer.

We need him to stay independent and get those rockets with some people in them up off the earth permanently. It's a vastly important goal.

Verified Email	Four-Year Club
reddit mold

georedd

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login