terrible
Re: terrible
unluckyMassive Quasars wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4338245.stm
-
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
quick response
[url=http://www.marxists.org/][img]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3050/avatarmy7.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1736/leninzbp5.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1076/modulestalinat6.jpg[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9239/cheds1.jpg[/img][/url]
Paul Allen could save these missions with his lunch money.
They would also compliment his other spaceship.
He could start a collection of spaceships by supporting them and in return they can let him put his name on them like his telescope array.
Too bad Gates is such a house nerd with no ambitions like him.
They would also compliment his other spaceship.
He could start a collection of spaceships by supporting them and in return they can let him put his name on them like his telescope array.
Too bad Gates is such a house nerd with no ambitions like him.
[img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/popehat.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/images/smilies/nothing.jpg[/img]
-
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
-$4.2m a yeartnf wrote:Well, we do need a lot of cash in that nation building fund. Some things are going to have to go.
-Voy. 1 and 2 are 14 billion and 11 billion km from Earth
-launched in 1977
-another 15 years of life left in them
My point is that we won't be getting probes that deep into space for a while to come, why throw away such a resource particularly when it costs so little (comparatively) to run. Yes their technology is long obselete, but it's all we've got out there. It's the farthest we've sent man-made technology as of yet.
I agree with you completely. I was being sarcastic...Massive Quasars wrote:-$4.2m a yeartnf wrote:Well, we do need a lot of cash in that nation building fund. Some things are going to have to go.
-Voy. 1 and 2 are 14 billion and 11 billion km from Earth
-launched in 1977
-another 15 years of life left in them
My point is that we won't be getting probes that deep into space for a while to come, why throw away such a resource particularly when it costs so little (comparatively) to run. Yes their technology is long obselete, but it's all we've got out there. It's the farthest we've sent man-made technology as of yet.
Yes, but the cumulative savings is $4.2 million/year * 15 years = $63 million. that's just over a third of a day in Iraq. The US would have to leave Iraq before suppertime.megami wrote:From slashdot:
39 minutes to save 28 years of effort.By my calculations at $166 million a day to be in Iraq, the US government could save the Voyager's first year's $4.5 million by leaving Iraq 39 minutes early.
its all about priorities.
Naturally, inflicting war throughout this world far outweighs the value of scienctific data which could give us more insight into the evolution of the universe
Naturally, inflicting war throughout this world far outweighs the value of scienctific data which could give us more insight into the evolution of the universe
[i]And shepherds we shall be, for thee my Lord for thee, Power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command, we shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine patris, et fili, et spiritus sancti.[/i]
At least they'll sink america too. Though it'll cost them another 22 milion.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001428.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... %20America
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001428.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... %20America