Disqus - Latest Comments for chris_radcliff

Re: Shortened Links on Twitter Being Marked ‘Spammy,’ ‘Unsafe,’ or ‘Malware’

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:17:26 -0000

A Twitter engineer is looking into the problem as of this morning. I started a discussion on the Twitter API forums: https://dev.twitter.com/dis...

Re: MSL Pony Eats The Planets! Well, sort of. These...

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:37:28 -0000

Don't eat the Earth! It's where I keep all my stuff!

Re: Submission request! What’s the best thing for space exploration that will happen in 2013?

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:32:52 -0000

"Falcon Heavy wont fly [in 2013]…" Oh, now you've made me cry. ;) I *will* see a launch someday, I *will*! Maybe they'll launch a F9 from there in 2013 instead…

Re: Submission request! What’s the best thing for space exploration that will happen in 2013?

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:49:04 -0000

Wheels up on the first XCOR Lynx Mark 1. I'll yell myself hoarse.

Re: How a Rubber Chicken Became a NASA Celebrity

Chris Radcliff — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:09:28 -0000

Much as a horse propels a carriage or a sail propels a sailboat, the helium balloon propelled Camilla upward. Thus, propulsion. A nitrogen balloon, for example, would not have worked nearly so well.

Re: I used to do a little

Chris Radcliff — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:38:17 -0000

Yep, they're like credit cards. Great for an occasional boost when you really need it, but you'll pay it all back sooner or later.

Re: Go ahead and TRY to watch this without ending up smiling

Chris Radcliff — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:43:54 -0000

Yep, I was right.

I like the part where everyone dances. :sniff:

Re: Go ahead and TRY to watch this without ending up smiling

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:26:53 -0000

Smiling? Heck, if it's anything like the 2008 version, I'll be lucky to get through it with a dry eye.

Re: Pictures of the day: 30 May 2012

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:15:36 -0000

The "SpaceX Dragon" photo is actually of the ATV spacecraft that docked in April:

http://blogs.esa.int/andre-...

Re: An Analysis of Blaster Fire in Star Wars

Chris Radcliff — Sun, 27 May 2012 03:00:31 -0000

Good point, Patrick. The blaster would require a force field that can maintain its own stability while traveling, at least for a few frames. :) Something analogous to a smoke ring comes to mind; not impossible, but an added difficulty.

Re: An Analysis of Blaster Fire in Star Wars

Chris Radcliff — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:06:10 -0000

I can't believe I'm taking the time to write this, but in the spirit of the day:

Both blasters and light sabers can be explained consistently by postulating two technologies in the "long ago and far away" galaxy: 1. A compact, long-lasting, intense power source and 2. A force field that blocks hot plasma and *only* hot plasma.

Here's how it works: A light saber generates an elongated bubble of force field and fills the interior with hot plasma. If you swing the saber, the force field moves and shoves the plasma around. If the plasma comes in contact with anything but the force field (air, Luke's hand) it burns it. If the plasma comes in contact with another force field (another saber) it's blocked.

How about the blaster, you say? Easy. Blasters generate a tiny version of the same force-field bubble and shoots it out the front. If it comes in contact with another force field (like a light saber), the plasma bounces off. If it comes in contact with anything else, the force field passes through leaving a hot pile 'o plasma behind. Ouch.

Why is the power source necessary? Because generating that much superheated plasma on the fly from a hand-held device is beyond our capabilities. At least as far as I know...

Re: SpaceX Ready to Launch First Dragon to the International Space Station This Morning

Chris Radcliff — Tue, 22 May 2012 12:51:14 -0000

As much as I'd love to let your post go without comment, I have to correct the factual inaccuracies at least:

"A national treasure is being gutted by private companies"

This is surprisingly false. I say 'surprisingly' because if the Shuttle and other NASA technologies were useful to private companies, NASA would happily transfer the technology to them. However, most of what's been developed under NASA contracts has had to be reinvented by the commercial space industry in order to make it efficient.

"explain to me how a company... can make space exploration cheaper than if we did it ourselves?"

Simply, because "we" (meaning NASA, or possibly the United States as a whole?) don't have inexpensive space exploration as a goal. Competing goals like job creation, spreading work around to geographically-diverse centers, and appeasing political interests make that very difficult. SpaceX has one goal: inexpensive, reliable access to orbit.

"Why are we giving these corporations our technology"

I'm not sure what technology "we" have that we're giving "these corporations", but SpaceX has spent a lot of time and effort developing their rockets from top to bottom.

"giving them huge subsidies to develop it"

The total development cost of SpaceX rockets to date has been less than the cost of a single Shuttle launch. Most of that was paid for by non-NASA clients; the only "subsidized" parts are the ones NASA itself required (like the launch-abort system for crew), totaling a small fraction of the development cost.

"then letting them turn around and charge us for using it?"

The total cost to NASA of all the SpaceX cargo-supply flights (12 of them!) will be about the same as a single Shuttle launch. Because the human-rated versions of Falcon and Dragon are very similar to the cargo versions, NASA is expected to send astronauts to the ISS for a fraction of what we're currently paying the Russian space agency.

"thousands of NASA engineers who were laid off to make the dreams of Richard Branson and other billionares a reality"

Zero NASA engineers were laid off because of Virgin Galactic, or even because of SpaceX. None. Shuttle engineers were laid off because the Shuttle program ended, after about a decade of planning its end, and because nothing viable was ready to take its place. That would be true even if SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Orbital, and XCOR were all out of the picture.

Re: The problem with Netflix streaming

Chris Radcliff — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:58:49 -0000

This is an interesting indicator, but you might be confusing popularity with demand. You are definitely confusing what viewers want with what benefits Netflix.

How much of what gets viewed on Netflix is represented by a top-100 list? I'd wager it's less than one percent of their total, DVDs and instant combined. In other words, the long tail is loooooong, and that's what Netflix streaming is good at giving you. (Or good enough.)

I watch Firefly on Netflix because it's easier than finding the DVD on my shelf. That's an insane level of convenience. There are tons of things I'll try on Netflix because I can start the show, watch it for a few minutes, and switch to something else without even the tiniest hassle.

Viewers want that same convenience for absolutely anything they want to watch, but Netflix only needs to give them enough to justify the $10/mo (or whatever) they're paying for the service. Does Netflix streaming deliver that? Yep. Do they overdeliver? Yep. Do they care that you stop by a Red Box for something on that top-100 list? Nope, because then they know it's not worth their money to pursue it for streaming. Will they still give you the opportunity to get it the slow-by-mail way? Yep. For now.

Re: WordPress Is Now A ~$50 Million Business, But It Still Won’t Take My Money

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:16:04 -0000

Since my name is on this, I'll expand the thought. :)

If customers like Dan are knocking down the door, it might make sense for Automattic to offer more hosting options under the Wordpress.com brand, even if the A-list of Wordpress provider companies actually manage the hosting.

It would require someone at Automattic to make the kind of recommendations Matt did in his comment: Which host is doing a great job right now? Which services make the most sense as a bundle? That person would become a Wordpress services expert, and hopefully there would be enough extra money from the service to pay them.

Re: Evadot and Kentucky Space think YOU can hack space

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:04:36 -0000

Oh, man! That's the coolest thing I've seen today. Please tell me you'll have one of these to show off at SXSW...

Re: KidsRuby 1.0 Released

Chris Radcliff — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:36:35 -0000

I just introduced my geeklet to KidsRuby over the weekend; he loved telling the Turtle what to draw. It was simple to show him more advanced concepts like loops and variables, usually by explaining how they would save him from boring repetitive tasks. :)

Re: This is How I Want Social to Work

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:59:10 -0000

I like it. This would solve the problem that Emily Lakadawalla posted about just recently:
https://plus.google.com/117...

Basically, she wants to prevent her family and friends from being overwhelmed by space posts, but she doesn't need to *prevent* them from seeing those posts. Topics would allow them to choose "follow Emily except when she talks about space", and she'd just need to tag the topic appropriately.

Re: https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/11/commentators-will-have-to-get-real/

Chris Radcliff — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:00:37 -0000

Oh, U-T. I applaud your goal, but the way you're hoping to achieve it is seriously flawed. For one, "real names" (whatever that means) don't change the tone of a debate. Vitriol will find its way into your discussions whether the participants have "real names" or not; the real answer to that is consistent, open, active moderation. Even if "real names" were a good idea, Facebook is not the way to achieve them. I personally avoid any site that requires using my Facebook account because of issues with the Facebook platform, so you'll lose me with this move. There are plenty of Facebook accounts that have no relation to "real names", so you'll gain them. Is that really what you want?

Re: The Launch Pad: About the MTA..

Chris Radcliff — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:02:45 -0000

Thanks for this, Alex. This makes it clear that there's a lot that goes in to administering a multi-year, multi-partner, multi-million-dollar prize. It also answers my question from the last post, I think. Let's see if I can paraphrase it:

My Q: "can a team be disqualified from winning the prize for not meeting terms that aren't core to the goal itself (i.e. getting to the moon)?"

My paraphrased A: "Yes. A team can be terminated for non-compliance with aspects of the MTA that are not part of the final judging. GLXP has some leeway in determining when and how to enforce the terms of the MTA."

Let me know if I didn't get the substance of that right.

Re: Hubble telescope hand-stitched in felt is awesome

Chris Radcliff — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:06:23 -0000

Hands that worked on Space Shuttles felted that Hubble. Pretty dang awesome.

Re: SXSW 2012 - The Government, short URLs, open data, and you

Chris Radcliff — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:36:43 -0000

That's what comments are for, right? :)

Re: The Launch Pad: "X-Files" at the Google Lunar X PRIZE!

Chris Radcliff — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:39:20 -0000

Ah, gotcha. Didn't mean to jump the gun; if the next post will cover my question then I'm happy to wait. Thanks!

Re: The Launch Pad: "X-Files" at the Google Lunar X PRIZE!

Chris Radcliff — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:30:34 -0000

Welcome, Alex! It's unfortunate that your introduction to the GLXP community is overshadowed in this way, but I hope that it'll get brighter from here.

I know very little about conspiracies or conflict-of-interest guidelines, so I'll leave that discussion for others. One phrase jumped out at me, though, and it's something I've wondered about before: "in the end, the prize will be judged against objective criteria that are already set and by a team of independent judges." My take on the prize rules are admittedly naive, but this seems like the core strength of an X Prize; any team that can complete the challenge, whether "connected" or not, gets the prize.

If that's true (and it would make sense to be so), why would the MTA be an issue at all? Specifically, can a team be disqualified from winning the prize for not meeting terms that aren't core to the goal itself (i.e. getting to the moon)? To fabricate an example, if a team doesn't meet the shoe-size requirement in the MTA (again, totally making this up), but that team goes on to land a rover on the moon and meet the other objective criteria, do they still win the prize?

Re: ISDC 2011: There’s a story in here somewhere

Chris Radcliff — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:09:38 -0000

With my Disruptor hat on, I completely agree with this. It's impossible to focus on everything, by definition. Focus requires exclusion, which means a big-tent conference like ISDC has trouble driving toward a goal while also encouraging everyone to participate. Taking a slice that many people can identify with (even if they take wildly opposing views on it) might work.

With my Article Editor hat on, I can see why AdAstra rejected this. If I was your editor, I would ask you to put more meat on the skeleton of how the next ISDC could be focused. Which presentations, discussions, and attendees from this year would be highlighted with a disruption-focused conference? Which ones would be excluded, even though they're crowd favorites? The resulting article could still make your point, but the tone would be informative rather than dismissive, and interesting even after the point was made.

Re: Why the US can beat China: The Facts about SpaceX Costs

Chris Radcliff — Wed, 04 May 2011 20:07:25 -0000

Can't tell you how awesome this is. "Hi everyone, here are some effing facts. Like 'em? Great. Let's get back to work."

Also: Now I know how much a F9 + Dragon Cargo mission costs. Hadn't seen that before...