 |
| |
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Btw didnt we put an engravement message inside for extra terreriastials? . |
The plaque
quote:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Pioneer 10 spacecraft, destined to be the first man-made object to escape our solar system, carries this plaque. It is designed to show scientifically educated inhabitants of some other star system-who might intercept it millions of years from now-when Pioneer was launched, from where, and by what kind of beings. The design is engraved into a gold-anodized aluminum plate, 152 by 229 millimeters (6 by 9 inches), attached to the spacecraft's antenna support struts in a position to help shield it from erosion by interstellar dust.
At the far right, the bracketing bars (1) show the height of the woman compared to the spacecraft. The figure indicated by (2) represents a reverse in the direction of spin of the electron in a hydrogen atom. This transition puts out a characteristic radio wave 21 cm long, so we are indicating that 21cm is our base length. The horizontal and vertical ticks (3) are a representation of the number 8 in binary form. Therefore, the woman is 8 x 21 cm = 168 cm, or about 5'5" tall. The human figures represent the type of creature that created Pioneer. The man's hand is raised in a gesture of good will.
The radial pattern (4) will help other scientists locate our solar system in the galaxy. The solid bars indicate distance, with the horizontal bar (5), denoting the distance from the Sun to the galactic center. The shorter solid bars represent directions and distances to various pulsars from our Sun, and the ticks following them are the periods of the pulsars in binary form. Pulsars are known to be slowing down and if the rate of slowing is constant, an other-world scientist should be able to roughly deduce the time Pioneer was launched. Thus, we have placed ourselves approximately in both space and time. The drawing at the bottom (6) indicates our solar system. The ticks accompanying each planet are the relative distance in binary form of that planet to the Sun. Pioneer's trajectory is shown as starting from the third
planet, Earth. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Yep, as far as, but its not headed in the direction of the Centaurus system. |
I'm aware, BC.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 21-11-2001 at 06:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aaglo
|
 |
the contradiction is filled with holes...
Aug 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
IIRC
A few years ago I heard about a new type of engine (was it a particle engine, I don't know), which could propel a spacecraft to huge speeds, something like 100 000 miles per hour, or something of that magnitude (correct me if I'm wrong). The only downside of this engine was, that acceleration to such speeds would take very long time.
Maybe JPL (Jet propulsion laboratory) website can offer some information about this subject.
EDIT: the engine is called ion engine. If you're intrerested, go to www.jpl.nasa.gov and search for ion engine.
Last edited by aaglo on 21-11-2001 at 12:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
 |
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
Earlier in this thread was a "debate" about governments spending $ on military development. According to UNESCO: "Every year the world spends 100$ to teach a person to read and 8000$ to teach a person to shoot a rifle"
That's just sick.
|
I am sorry, but this information is plain wrong. Even at the height of the cold war, military spending 'only' reached $1 trillion per annum. Now it's down to 750 billion per year. According to your statistics:-
$8,000 * 6,000,000,000 = $48 trillion
Since the total world GDP is under $40 trillion you claim that the world is spending everything on the military (ie. nobody eats, nobody buys clothing, and nothing, absolutely nothing else is produced other than weapons) and since that still is not enough, the extra $8 trillion + just magically flows into the military.
Now don't get me wrong $750 billion per year is a vast amount of money that could be put to better uses, but there is no need to make up ridiculous statistics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
|
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
IIRC
A few years ago I heard about a new type of engine (was it a particle engine, I don't know), which could propel a spacecraft to huge speeds, something like 100 000 miles per hour, or something of that magnitude (correct me if I'm wrong). The only downside of this engine was, that acceleration to such speeds would take very long time.
Maybe JPL (Jet propulsion laboratory) website can offer some information about this subject.
EDIT: the engine is called ion engine. If you're intrerested, go to www.jpl.nasa.gov and search for ion engine. |
The engine is not so new at all. It was developed and used on satellites by the Soviet Union in the 1960s. NASA had just tested the engine a few years ago on one of its probes.
As to the speed the engine can reach - this is very misleading. In theory, every engine can attain any possible speed, but needs varying amounts of fuel to do so. The point about the ion engine is that it is about 10 times as efficient as a standard chemical engine. However, the maximum thrust the engine provides is very low and that's why the acceleration is so low. On large spacecraft the problem would likely be even worse, because we don't know whether the engine scales well (most likely it does not).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
|
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
Well, if I understood the article correctly (and my translation was a bit poor):
In education (read: teaching a person to read) every year some 100$ is spent per student. In military training (read: teaching person to shoot a rifle) every year some 8000$ is spent per trainee.
I think that was the point of the article... sorry about the mix-up. |
Hey, no problem 
That would make more sense. Military training is expensive, so the $8000 figure is probably accurate, but the $100 dollar figure for education is probably a large underestimate. Education is expensive too, albeit cheaper than military training. Statistics can be easily manipulated (eg. using PPP figures for the military spending, but only nominal figures for education and excluding private spending on education, etc.). I find that many agencies, especially NGOs do that to prove their point. Now, I do agree that military spending could be reduced, but one must always be careful/sceptical when one sees shocking figures.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
|
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
I think that 100$ could be quite accurate. In third world countries the education isn't that expensive (or am i wrong again  ), and there are lot more students than soldiers (at least I hope so). So the average sums may be averagely right. Or I am averagely wrong. Again. And again  .
|
Well, I am not saying you are wrong. In fact it is exactly as you say, education in the 3rd World is inexpensive. In purchasing power parity terms, though, the pric is the same everywhere. It is the nominal value used that distorts the real investment into education, which is most likely much higher.
quote:
Or maybe those figures are only to make people feel bad.  However it is, they are only statistics, like you said  . Be sceptical, be wary.  |
Right, that's what I think happens. The figures are presented in such a way as to make people feel bad and guilty. They try to appeal to people's emotions and not reason. Now, once again, it would probably be better to spend more money on education and less on the military, but I hate it when some NGOs/agencies try to "shock" people into doing so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2001 03:47
|