vger

The big stink isn't specifically GMO's. It's GMO's that were altered to withstand mega-pesticides. When do we get our genes altered to resist Roundup?

If we want to test the feasibility of a long-term craft to Mars, couldn't we just leave them orbiting the moon for two years? That way, IF something proves to not work as intended, we can possibly bring them back before "insert failure here" kills them? I don't see us learning about any new crazy unforeseen circumstances simply by doing a slingshot around Mars.

What Henry Ford did, was invent the AFFORDABLE automobile. One that wasn't accessible only to the super-rich. - - - Updated - - - The super-plague I mentioned before would probably help with that.

Wasn't there an attempt sometime before Columbia bit the dust, to develop a commercial aircraft that would fly up to the edge of space, for the specific purpose of getting from A to B faster?

It takes a LOT less time to visit an asteroid. Even less time to visit the moon with an asteroid orbiting it. Also, by bringing it back, return trips are much more feasible.

We need to get used to putting people beyond LEO again in preparation for Mars. ARM accomplishes that, while giving us some extra science to do in the process. It's been a long time since any human has poked around at rocks that aren't on Terra Firma.

Would you be interested in seeing the airlock?

Getting into a lunar orbit and back is a LOT easier than landing on the moon and coming back.

Nuclear waste is also insanely heavy to move.

That's a silly question. Same reason we aren't using nuclear engines in space. Countries get antsy when something is suspended above them that could do nasty damage. Granted I would think that the "small" rock would be doable without getting a lot of flak. But.. no. Put it in lunar orbit, just so we have to go THERE to look at it. We need to get humans beyond LEO one way or another. If looking at an asteroid is the solution to that, then so be it. It also makes this more interesting for shared knowledge. I've always felt like there's a bit of subtle carrot-dangling in the plan to put the rock into a lunar orbit. If Russia or China wants a peek, we can say, "Sure. IF you can get to the moon."

I hope not. ARM is the only current excuse we MIGHT have for going back to Lunar orbit. Too bad we couldn't do this closer to Shoemaker-Levy 9 - when even conservatives started realizing that Earth was a duck in a shooting gallery. I thought part of ARM was simply proving that we COULD redirect an asteroid, regardless of the science we can get from the rock itself. Relax, we'll still need it for places like Europa.

Also not in view of everyone. Everyone has a chance to see the moon. I remember plotting Mir back in the day, only to find out that it only came above my local horizon for 5 minutes... at daybreak. I'm definitely curious about how they plan on cutting the asteroid. Seems a lot more iffy than to just move the whole thing, which we at least are sure we know how to do. Drilling would be a very inefficient use of power and seems to have much more of a "this might or might not work" vibe. Maybe the mishap with Philae has made everyone a bit sheepish about spending more money to go for the big jackpot?

Being in LEO, the ISS is VERY hard to track.

I was also keen on the idea of having an object in our sky that could be tracked with an amateur telescope. We could look at it and think, "Gee... WE moved that thing there." That would spark the imagination of anyone who looked at it, in a way that nothing else in the sky could.

My father things that certain Newton Laws spontaneously disappear or change in space. What's interesting about this is he otherwise has expert knowledge of flight and aerodynamics.

You know... I think this deserves some serious research. This kind of thing is very common in fandom. I'd like to know why I'm perfectly fine with Sankara Stones that spark to life when they're held near one another, but feel like someone's scratching on Newton's black board when Indiana Jones swings from a light fixture to land in a jeep.

If Legolas and a shark are falling, and Legolas jumps from it, has he effectively jumped the shark?

Well, there IS another concern. Whether or not it's overblown is anyone's guess. The problem is we don't know enough about genes to be splicing things and then eating them. You can test for resistance to something and then inject those genes into something, while having no clue whether or not those genes influence anything BESIDES the thing you're trying to achieve. We could very easily "throw out the baby with the bathwater" without knowing it.

Unfortunately I doubt we're going to see an all-powerful deity come down and lay claim to it. Yes, they're basically taking credit for nature's work, but even if she protested now, she didn't bother to file a patent. She's more the type to just send her gratitude in the form of a super-plague.

Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you over my Force-meditation.

That quote was playing in my mind earlier while this discussion was going on. That way of thinking is a classic route for "evil."

I had that idea 20 years ago. Minus the "acid-trippy tesseract in the middle of a black hole" thing.

Typically, it's the leaders of any 'group' who are held responsible for the actions of their 'minions.' Honestly, when talking about an "evil corporation," I think everyone has a good idea as to what individuals that refers to. There's little point in arguing that to say "a corporation is evil" is to unfairly smear the names of the people who push mops, maintain machines, stuff envelopes, etc. Don't include them as being part of the "evil corporation." Upper management certainly doesn't include them.

Well yeah... you can't really do much to stop cross pollination, unless every farmer builds a freaking dome over their property. So what happens if Monsanto crops end up in your field even if you didn't put it there? You're automatically a thief waiting to be sued for every cent you own. And also to add to this list, tied in with Roundup. Bee-genocide. Which actually may have a solution, but it would also be a classic case of creating the virus and then selling the cure (which they're already doing with the whole Roundup-resistant crops fiasco). 1. Monsanto engineers Roundup-resistant bees. 2. Monsanto patents the bee 'design.' 3. All other bee species die out lacking Roundup resistance. 4. Monsanto starts charging everyone for its patented bees which are the only thing keeping the ecosystem alive.

If you think about it, this is how all armor has worked since the beginning of history. It doesn't negate the energy, it just redistributes it. Instead of a focused point of impact, the energy is spread out more evenly.