Bush Cancels trip to Pluto.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Roman
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...

Oh, I didn't know that Soviets have used ion engines...

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.

Ok, you got me on that. As long as a force affects an object in the same direction, the speed of that object increases if no other force affects on that same object (vacuum, no gravitation). Thus even constant farting (without a space suit) would increase your speed in such conditions, unless you start to rotate.

The thrusting force of an average (what is an average in this case) ion engine is only about 100 milliNewtons, equivalent for 9 milligrams. Not much...

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Roman
...Military training is expensive, so the $8000 figure is probably accurate, but the $100 dollar figure for education is probably a large underestimate...

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 .

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.

[Roman]

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.

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.

[Roman]

aaglo, I just checked your profile. What field of engineering are you in?

[aaglo]

Construction&Civil engineer (no, not CIV-engineer ) - thus not very close to the issue here (ion-engines and stuff).

[Roland]

As a guesstimate, education spending may be 4-5 % of global GDP, and military spending 2-3 %. As has been pointed out, there's a lot of leeway depending on the method you use.

100 $ might be a number for the LDCs... for a global average even devided through the entire population, it's a bit low... might work for an older number and/or on elementary school spending only, though.

[Ted Striker]

Thank you for your assistance, Herr Stats Master.

[Roland]

My pleasure, Herr Bruchband.

[TCO]

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.

Well if someone were shooting at you...

[faded glory]

Ion propulsion is a joke.


Controlled Atomic reactions is the way to go. Get to mars in 3 weeks. As opposed to 8 months with a normal chemical booster. NASA was designing the ship...the greenies did like it tho cause the word 'nuclear' was written all over it

But imagine being able to reach mars in 3 weeks. Saturn in 9 months... and beyond. It had alot of potenetial using controlled Atomic reaction bursts to get it moving.

But the greens worrys are justified. But there was a plan to assemble the ship in space and keep it above the earths atmosphere so there would be no danger.....

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm aware, BC.

Just clearing up for any who may have mis-interpreted what you typed.

[Dauphin]

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

Using single stage engines the amount of fuel required to increase its speed by x kms^-1 increases exponentially.

It one of the reasons that launch rockets are multi-staged, a single stage rocket can not reach orbit.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

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

Using single stage engines the amount of fuel required to increase its speed by x kms^-1 increases exponentially.

It one of the reasons that launch rockets are multi-staged, a single stage rocket can not reach orbit.

Agreed, after all the old fuel tanks make up a large percentage of the mass.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Roman
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.

My bad - this information is slightly off! Ion propulsion was actually developed by the Soviets in the 1950s and used for the firs time on com. satellites in 1972. At the beginning of 1990s Russians transefered the technology to NASA, ESA an Snecma (a French aerospace company concentrating on propulsion especially rocket engines). NASA then used this technology on a deep space 1 probe to test it and it proved to be reliable. ESA is planning to carry out its test in 2002 on the new Moon probe (I forgot the name).

[Roman]

Originally posted by Roland
As a guesstimate, education spending may be 4-5 % of global GDP, and military spending 2-3 %. As has been pointed out, there's a lot of leeway depending on the method you use.

100 $ might be a number for the LDCs... for a global average even devided through the entire population, it's a bit low... might work for an older number and/or on elementary school spending only, though.

Thanks! Why have you been called on? Are you the local statistics buff?

I am somewhat of a stats lover myself.