Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
Given the content of some of those thousands of tweets he's deleted Young has hardly got the moral high ground on abusive posts on Twitter.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
Whatever. He's guilty of no more than being too honest for his own good, and provoking debate on controversial topics. Journalists write copy that gets clicks and shares, shock.
And I'll let you into a little secret: almost all (straight) men ogle and fantasise about women's breasts.
If they didn't, the human race would die out; although I accept some of the feminist ultras would consider that the lesser crime.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Yep, indeed. It's quite remarkable what SpaceX have done. It'll be better when they start passing more of the reuse costs over to the customer (apparently you don't get much of a discount for a flight-tested first stage), but they have over a billion in development costs to cover.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
Now a subsidiary of a French company...
Thanks. I hadn't realised that Airbus owned them now (and have apparently for nearly a decade).
Apparently Warboys promised to work only for Uber in future, which is what gave them confidence that there wouldn't be any more problems.
That’s harsh on Mr Worboys, associating him with a bunch of scumbags like Uber.
But seriously, I hope for everyone’s sake that he’s got some seriously tight parole conditions, including the surrender of his driving licence and a night curfew. One can’t help but feel for the pressure those parole officers assigned to work with him will be under, thanks to decisions made much higher up the chain.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
More specifically, SpaceX's success makes the total cost of a satellite in space much lower. Thanks to price elasticity of demand, it means there will be much greater demand for satellites thanks to Mr Musk. And it's why successful investors are usually fixated on second order effects, because that's where the money will be made.
At least one major satellite constellation owner is already asking their manufacturers to study building cheaper satellites that will not last as long in orbit, as they will probably be cheaper to put in orbit in the future and replacements will have better technology. Instead of a satellite lasting 20 years, they might just last 5 or 10.
Interesting times.
I'd also give Blue Origin an honourable mention: they're a very different company from SpaceX, with very different aims. They might even have more of an effect on the planet's economy than SpaceX.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Yep, indeed. It's quite remarkable what SpaceX have done. It'll be better when they start passing more of the reuse costs over to the customer (apparently you don't get much of a discount for a flight-tested first stage), but they have over a billion in development costs to cover.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
Be nice to beat the yanks and stick a Union Jack on Mars first, though.
Be nice to beat the yanks and stick a Union Jack on Mars first, though.
We'd need to build a big f****ng rocket to do that, and that's really expensive. We also aren't ideally placed for launching them, unless we use our convict friends' land as we did in the 1960s (and the Isle of Wight for testing...)
In all seriousness, it'd be great if we a country could build modules for such spaceships. It'd play to our strengths.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
The satellites are not geostationary, so "e pur si muove" is again not inappropriate.
Be nice to beat the yanks and stick a Union Jack on Mars first, though.
We'd need to build a big f****ng rocket to do that, and that's really expensive. We also aren't ideally placed for launching them, unless we use our convict friends' land as we did in the 1960s (and the Isle of Wight for testing...)
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Be nice to beat the yanks and stick a Union Jack on Mars first, though.
We'd need to build a big f****ng rocket to do that, and that's really expensive. We also aren't ideally placed for launching them, unless we use our convict friends' land as we did in the 1960s (and the Isle of Wight for testing...)
In all seriousness, it'd be great if we a country could build modules for such spaceships. It'd play to our strengths.
Absolutely, we have huge aerospace and advanced engineering industries in the UK, what would be great to see is a halo project - as Concorde was to a previous generation. Maybe something innovative with satellites would be the way to go.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
Fine, so long as they're pert and shapely, but not if they're saggy and shapeless.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
Dunno - that's why I asked
All planets certainly have stuff that accumulates around them, and I imagine (based purely on the observation of what happens on the big ones) that it tends to form rings. Seems reasonable, but just guessing. Obviously we have a ring of some daftness in terms of space junk that we've stuck there ourselves.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
Fine, so long as they're pert and shapely, but not if they're saggy and shapeless.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
AIUI some scientists think that some ring systems (e.g. Saturn's) are transitory features: they may change, disappear and even reappear over time.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
That's a little while away though. Theresa May might even have left office by then.
Do we have (natural) rings now?
PS Also should have said that Ishmael's story get's a thumbs up from me. The universe is such a cool place, I just wish we could somehow get to see more of it.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
Although tidal barrages will be quite an efficient source of power at that point....
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
AIUI some scientists think that some ring systems (e.g. Saturn's) are transitory features: they may change, disappear and even reappear over time.
That's possible of course, but the fact that our four gas giants in a row currently have them suggests that such periods of absence would not be the norm.
That's a little while away though. Theresa May might even have left office by then.
Do we have (natural) rings now?
PS Also should have said that Ishmael's story get's a thumbs up from me. The universe is such a cool place, I just wish we could somehow get to see more of it.
I don't think so, at least not an appreciable one. I think it's a combination of the Earth's gravitational cross section being small, and the proximity to the Sun which would melt ices and blow material out on solar winds.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I might be being stupid, but surely the Moon is outside the Roche limit, and going outwards?
Mars' moon Phobos is falling towards its planet, and will therefore reach the Roche limit and break apart in a few tens of millions of years.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
Fine, so long as they're pert and shapely, but not if they're saggy and shapeless.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
Whatever. He's guilty of no more than being too honest for his own good, and provoking debate on controversial topics. Journalists write copy that gets clicks and shares, shock.
As I said, being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat. And as soon as he's called on it instead of a robust vigorous defensive of his brilliant bants, pride of the Arch Bishop of Banterbury, he deletes the evidence like a coward and runs away and cries about how terribly unfair it all is as do all his mates.
"He didn't mean it, he's just doing it for the money, wah wah wah"
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I might be being stupid, but surely the Moon is outside the Roche limit, and going outwards?
Mars' moon Phobos is falling towards its planet, and will therefore reach the Roche limit and break apart in a few tens of millions of years.
So would it be fair to say that Mars has a Phobia?
I knew there were different pictures (I thought they were all people though) but I didn't know they were options. I just got what I was given when I joined. I didn't encounter any offer of choices. Mine has a picture of Nick Clegg on it - which is fair enough as that's as reasonably close as anything to representing the majority of my opinions.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
No doubt it'll be construed as a "because of Brexit"-type story.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
Is the Roche limit to do with New Labour immigration policy?
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
No doubt it'll be construed as a "because of Brexit"-type story.
I wonder how long after Brexit we stop hearing 'because of Brexit'. I wonder too if the phrase will die out in the UK before elsewhere. For the EU I guess whatever we finish up with becomes a less clean break than for us.
Anyway, back to the universe (well and politics) - one of the very few things I like about Trump is that there's some chance he may throw some money Nasa's way. I really think we should have a space programme too - and I don't mean that chap from Kent who lost his dustbin lid on Mars. Slow-moving maybe, but with a degree of ambition.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
Is the Roche limit to do with New Labour immigration policy?
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
No doubt it'll be construed as a "because of Brexit"-type story.
I wonder how long after Brexit we stop hearing 'because of Brexit'. I wonder too if the phrase will die out in the UK before elsewhere. For the EU I guess whatever we finish up with becomes a less clean break than for us.
Anyway, back to the universe (well and politics) - one of the very few things I like about Trump is that there's some chance he may throw some money Nasa's way. I really think we should have a space programme too - and I don't mean that chap from Kent who lost his dustbin lid on Mars. Slow-moving maybe, but with a degree of ambition.
For how long after Thatcher was she still getting the blame for anything bad that happened? Brexit will be at least that long, while the good news continues despite Brexit.
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
No doubt it'll be construed as a "because of Brexit"-type story.
I wonder how long after Brexit we stop hearing 'because of Brexit'. I wonder too if the phrase will die out in the UK before elsewhere. For the EU I guess whatever we finish up with becomes a less clean break than for us.
Anyway, back to the universe (well and politics) - one of the very few things I like about Trump is that there's some chance he may throw some money Nasa's way. I really think we should have a space programme too - and I don't mean that chap from Kent who lost his dustbin lid on Mars. Slow-moving maybe, but with a degree of ambition.
For how long after Thatcher was she still getting the blame for anything bad that happened? Brexit will be at least that long, while the good news continues despite Brexit.
JJ said "I might be being stupid, but surely the Moon is outside the Roche limit, and going outwards? Mars' moon Phobos is falling towards its planet, and will therefore reach the Roche limit and break apart in a few tens of millions of years."
Yes, owing to a degree of non-sphericity in its mass distribution, the Earth's moon is gaining energy and slowly (in human terms) drifting away.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Good response. But this is the part where I remind you of Gallileo's shortcomings in the world of physics.
One of my proudest moments (genuinely) was when with no previous knowledge of telescopes I bought a £25 refractor and managed to assemble, aim and focus it to show my 6 year old son Saturn with its rings. So, yes, I outperformed poor old Galileo, who could see something was going on, but not what - he thought it might be a planet with ears.
Well done you.
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
Would all planets have rings around them anyway? It seems a logical conclusion to me, but I may be missing something.
Only the gas giants?
They are more efficient at hoovering up material to from rings due to their mass. The Earth will eventually have a ring system when the Moon reaches the Roche limit at a distance of ~6,000 miles (the tides may be more worrisome at that point!).
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
Thanks very much. Interesting. In effect though it is the Sun nicking the Moon. The Sun provides the energy so that the Ocean's stay warm (and flow) and thus the Moon gets nudged outwards. I'd never in a million years have thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. (I'm a little surprised that there's enough energy for that, but not surprised enough to do the calculations)
Be nice to beat the yanks and stick a Union Jack on Mars first, though.
We'd need to build a big f****ng rocket to do that, and that's really expensive. We also aren't ideally placed for launching them, unless we use our convict friends' land as we did in the 1960s (and the Isle of Wight for testing...)
In all seriousness, it'd be great if we a country could build modules for such spaceships. It'd play to our strengths.
We could launch it into Earth orbit and then use a series of slingshot manoeuvres to give it the velocity for the transfer orbit. It has been done before for probes going out to asteroids.
I knew there were different pictures (I thought they were all people though) but I didn't know they were options. I just got what I was given when I joined. I didn't encounter any offer of choices. Mine has a picture of Nick Clegg on it - which is fair enough as that's as reasonably close as anything to representing the majority of my opinions.
I quite like that. Are any of the other parties able to laugh at themselves a little? Suggestions for Labour or Tory membership card images?
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Thanks Beverley. A concise summary of the bbc article JJ linked.
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
Fine, so long as they're pert and shapely, but not if they're saggy and shapeless.
Someone like Toby Young really ought to look in the mirror if he’s seriously out here having high/idealised standards as to what women should look like anyway.
It may well be his epitaph, because post-truthers like you repeat it out of context over and over. That doesn't make it an accurate reflection of what he meant.
Everybody, including him, knows what he said, and what he meant.
The post-truthers are those Brexiteers who try and claim their Nazi inspired posters were not racist.
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Thanks Beverley. A concise summary of the bbc article JJ linked.
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
I recommend the glass of wine
The effects of Earth / Sun interactions are subject to the enormous disparity in mass between the Earth and the Sun. The Earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon and therefore any interactions between the two can be observed affecting both bodies. The Sun is about 330,000 times more massive than the Earth so it affects us a LOT more than we affect it.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
Fine, so long as they're pert and shapely, but not if they're saggy and shapeless.
Someone like Toby Young really ought to look in the mirror if he’s seriously out here having high/idealised standards as to what women should look like anyway.
Until the Sun enters it's red giant phase and it's tenuous atmosphere causes the orbit to decay. Like I said, we'll have bigger things to worry about at that point
You're not suggesting Brexit will have happened by then are you?
No doubt it'll be construed as a "because of Brexit"-type story.
I wonder how long after Brexit we stop hearing 'because of Brexit'. I wonder too if the phrase will die out in the UK before elsewhere. For the EU I guess whatever we finish up with becomes a less clean break than for us.
Anyway, back to the universe (well and politics) - one of the very few things I like about Trump is that there's some chance he may throw some money Nasa's way. I really think we should have a space programme too - and I don't mean that chap from Kent who lost his dustbin lid on Mars. Slow-moving maybe, but with a degree of ambition.
For how long after Thatcher was she still getting the blame for anything bad that happened? Brexit will be at least that long, while the good news continues despite Brexit.
You make a good point.
I guess she was vilified because she did shine some light on some uncomfortable truths. The unions at the time were more hindrance than help for example. I think she was also persona-non-grata on the left (really bizarrely) because she was woman. (And yes of course she may have been criticised because she did things that were bad too)
Brexit will most likely bring some uncomfortable truths too - "there are jobs, and you'll have to do them even though you're not from Eastern Europe". I can't see much that's bad about that.
Sky News correspondent: all of Worboys' victims were assured by police that he would never be released.
A power not in the gift of the constabulary.
What were they doing saying it then?
Sympathetic hyperbole ?
Hm, I think they can be sympathetic without resorting to lying or promising something they have no power to deliver.
In fairness I could understand the police indicating in terms that their professional appreciation would be that the seriousness and scope of the offences would determine that early release would be unlikely.
Such a statement in simple translation or tabloid media speak could easily become transformed to a cast iron guarantee.
The House of Peers surely is an anachronism in a nation which has driven the equality agenda far enough to legalise same sex marriage. We need a second chamber, I appreciate the expertise that cross bencher experts in various fields bring. But party appointees given Ermine for "services to politics"? Its not "to politics" its to "the party".
There has to be a better way of doing things. An elected second chamber proportionally elected from GE national percentages plus an appointed star chamber of experts selected by commission who serve a fixed term. Something like that. And far far fewer members. A quarter of what we have.
I always felt that the Lords should consist entirely of independently-appointed experts from every walk of life (including unpopular and/or rarely represented professions - a futures trader, an estate agent, a prisoner, a refugee, someone with recent experience of homelessness, a fox-hunter, etc.), and should consider EVERY Bill before the Commons and make comments and suggestions; the other side of the deal would be that they would lose all power to delay or block legislation. So the Commons would decide without messing about with ping-pong vs. a funny mixture of experts, cronies and dukes, but they would get expert advice on everything before they reached a decision.
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Thanks Beverley. A concise summary of the bbc article JJ linked.
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
I recommend the glass of wine
The effects of Earth / Sun interactions are subject to the enormous disparity in mass between the Earth and the Sun. The Earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon and therefore any interactions between the two can be observed affecting both bodies. The Sun is about 330,000 times more massive than the Earth so it affects us a LOT more than we affect it.
Yep.
Thanks, but I know all this. I can't solve the integrals needed to work out what's been said, but I can write them down. At least using the earlier idea - as British Physics dictates. I'm not sure anyone can do the Fruity-European-Physics-Of-Einstein on such things. Sounds hard, but maybe doable.
SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
Central Asia, plus those needed for the train there.
You got the train to Central Asia and back. I'd love to know your route.
I only took the train there - it's far more interesting taking a week travelling to somewhere new than heading back the other way.
The route was that I left Shipley just after the morning rush and caught a mid-morning ECML to Kings Cross. Lunch in London followed by a mid-afternoon Eurostar to Brussels. A quick chip stop before a Thalys to Cologne, arriving around 7.15pm. Dinner at one of the restaurants near the station (lasagne, outdoors, IIRC), before a sleeper direct to Moscow from there, via Warsaw and Minsk, leaving at about 10.30pm. That service doesn't run any more - the Russian sleeper goes from Moscow now and the old Amsterdam-Warsaw one that the coaches that went onto Moscow were attached to has been discontinued. Transit visa required for Belorussia and tourist visa for Russia. You spend the second afternoon first at Brest customs and then at the re-gauging shed where the coaches are jacked up and the standard gauge bogies are replaced by Russian gauge ones. The train gets under way again laround sixish on the second day and arrives into Moscow at about 9.30am (Moscow time) on the third day.
From there, I had a 36-hour break in Moscow. I don't quite recall why it was two days rather than one - I think the Amsterdam-Moscow sleeper was a daily service though the onwards one wasn't (twice-weekly, I think). Anyway, I needed to collect my next ticket from an office in some building in Moscow as although I could book through to there from England, that was the limit. I could, however, pre-order the Moscow-Bishkek sleeper through Intourist (now Into Russia; probably KGB/FSB tours either way).
Ticket collected, the Kirgizia departed at about 2330 on day 4 from Moscow Kazanskaya and follows this route:
Transit visa needed for Kazakhstan, tourist visa for Kyrgyzstan. Strictly speaking, you're not supposed to get off the train in Kazakhstan but the best way to buy food is from the ladies at the station markets, who seemed happy enough to take Roubles (I didn't think to take any Kazakh Tenge - if it's even possible (you can't get Kyrgyz Som here). The train goes slowly and there's a lot of arid steppe but it's beautiful in its grandeur and takes about 72 hours, arriving just after midnight on day 8.
Coming back, I flew from Bishkek with British Midland (as was) via Almaty to Heathrow. It was the same plane - it just stopped to drop off / pick up passengers. Bog standard trains from there back to Shipley.
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Thanks Beverley. A concise summary of the bbc article JJ linked.
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
I recommend the glass of wine
The effects of Earth / Sun interactions are subject to the enormous disparity in mass between the Earth and the Sun. The Earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon and therefore any interactions between the two can be observed affecting both bodies. The Sun is about 330,000 times more massive than the Earth so it affects us a LOT more than we affect it.
Yep.
Thanks, but I know all this. I can't solve the integrals needed to work out what's been said, but I can write them down. At least using the earlier idea - as British Physics dictates. I'm not sure anyone can do the Fruity-European-Physics-Of-Einstein on such things. Sounds hard, but maybe doable.
Which integrals? You talked downthread about rings collecting around planetary bodies (usually occur in resonant orbits) and the about the Moon's motion over long periods of time.
The route was that I left Shipley just after the morning rush and caught a mid-morning ECML to Kings Cross. Lunch in London followed by a mid-afternoon Eurostar to Brussels. A quick chip stop before a Thalys to Cologne, arriving around 7.15pm. Dinner at one of the restaurants near the station (lasagne, outdoors, IIRC), before a sleeper direct to Moscow from there, via Warsaw and Minsk, leaving at about 10.30pm. That service doesn't run any more - the Russian sleeper goes from Moscow now and the old Amsterdam-Warsaw one that the coaches that went onto Moscow were attached to has been discontinued.
When I was a young Stodge in the 80s I used to Inter-Rail round Europe and frequently travelled on the Jet Foil from Dover to Ostend. At Ostend Station I would board a train to Cologne but I would frequently see the sleeper service which went right through to Moscow. This was known as the Ost-West Express:
"There is quite a history of trains between Paris and Moscow. After 1945, there was no through service until 1960 when a train using Russian sleeping cars was introduced. In 1969, this train became the Ost-West Express which also included through coaches from Ostend to Moscow. In 1994, this train only served Brussels and stopped running in 1999."
It carried Polish, East German and Russian coaches as I recall and was a wonderful sight sitting at Ostend. I never caught it as I had to make an earlier connection at Cologne for a train to Denmark via Hamburg.
I thought the moon was slowly moving away from the earth.
That seems wrong as we'd be gaining energy if so, but maybe the Sun's so big it's gradually nicking it.
The moon gets 4" (10cm) further away each year in order to conserve angular momentum within the Earth / Moon system. The Earth loses energy to the Moon due to friction caused by the effect of tides. Since the Moon gains energy it moves further away into a larger orbit.
Thanks Beverley. A concise summary of the bbc article JJ linked.
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
I recommend the glass of wine
The effects of Earth / Sun interactions are subject to the enormous disparity in mass between the Earth and the Sun. The Earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon and therefore any interactions between the two can be observed affecting both bodies. The Sun is about 330,000 times more massive than the Earth so it affects us a LOT more than we affect it.
Yep.
Thanks, but I know all this. I can't solve the integrals needed to work out what's been said, but I can write them down. At least using the earlier idea - as British Physics dictates. I'm not sure anyone can do the Fruity-European-Physics-Of-Einstein on such things. Sounds hard, but maybe doable.
Which integrals? You talked downthread about rings collecting around planetary bodies (usually occur in resonant orbits) and the about the Moon's motion over long periods of time.
The sum of the attractions of things. As a first order approximation you'd clearly want to create a time-dependent model of Earth's tides. Then you'd want to assume as a first order approximation that that initial system didn't depend on the Sun - then you'd see what the system as a whole behaved like just assuming that the Sun was a very far off but big point mass. Then you'd worry.
SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
Central Asia, plus those needed for the train there.
You got the train to Central Asia and back. I'd love to know your route.
The route was that I left Shipley just after the morning rush and caught a mid-morning ECML to Kings Cross. Lunch in London followed by a mid-afternoon Eurostar to Brussels. A quick chip stop before a Thalys to Cologne, arriving around 7.15pm. Dinner at one of the restaurants near the station (lasagne, outdoors, IIRC), before a sleeper direct to Moscow from there, via Warsaw and Minsk, leaving at about 10.30pm. That service doesn't run any more - the Russian sleeper goes from Moscow now and the old Amsterdam-Warsaw one that the coaches that went onto Moscow were attached to has been discontinued. Transit visa required for Belorussia and tourist visa for Russia. You spend the second afternoon first at Brest customs and then at the re-gauging shed where the coaches are jacked up and the standard gauge bogies are replaced by Russian gauge ones. The train gets under way again laround sixish on the second day and arrives into Moscow at about 9.30am (Moscow time) on the third day.
From there, I had a 36-hour break in Moscow. I don't quite recall why it was two days rather than one - I think the Amsterdam-Moscow sleeper was a daily service though the onwards one wasn't (twice-weekly, I think). Anyway, I needed to collect my next ticket from an office in some building in Moscow as although I could book through to there from England, that was the limit. I could, however, pre-order the Moscow-Bishkek sleeper through Intourist (now Into Russia; probably KGB/FSB tours either way).
Ticket collected, the Kirgizia departed at about 2330 on day 4 from Moscow Kazanskaya and follows this route:
Transit visa needed for Kazakhstan, tourist visa for Kyrgyzstan. Strictly speaking, you're not supposed to get off the train in Kazakhstan but the best way to buy food is from the ladies at the station markets, who seemed happy enough to take Roubles (I didn't think to take any Kazakh Tenge - if it's even possible (you can't get Kyrgyz Som here). The train goes slowly and there's a lot of arid steppe but it's beautiful in its grandeur and takes about 72 hours, arriving just after midnight on day 8.
Coming back, I flew from Bishkek with British Midland (as was) via Almaty to Heathrow. It was the same plane - it just stopped to drop off / pick up passengers. Bog standard trains from there back to Shipley.
That sounds a fascinating journey.
You must be a top candidate for one of our astronauts.
The House of Peers surely is an anachronism in a nation which has driven the equality agenda far enough to legalise same sex marriage. We need a second chamber, I appreciate the expertise that cross bencher experts in various fields bring. But party appointees given Ermine for "services to politics"? Its not "to politics" its to "the party".
There has to be a better way of doing things. An elected second chamber proportionally elected from GE national percentages plus an appointed star chamber of experts selected by commission who serve a fixed term. Something like that. And far far fewer members. A quarter of what we have.
I always felt that the Lords should consist entirely of independently-appointed experts from every walk of life (including unpopular and/or rarely represented professions - a futures trader, an estate agent, a prisoner, a refugee, someone with recent experience of homelessness, a fox-hunter, etc.), and should consider EVERY Bill before the Commons and make comments and suggestions; the other side of the deal would be that they would lose all power to delay or block legislation. So the Commons would decide without messing about with ping-pong vs. a funny mixture of experts, cronies and dukes, but they would get expert advice on everything before they reached a decision.
I think this is the only thing you and I agree upon.
Which integrals? You talked downthread about rings collecting around planetary bodies (usually occur in resonant orbits) and the about the Moon's motion over long periods of time.
The sum of the attractions of things. As a first order approximation you'd clearly want to create a time-dependent model of Earth's tides. Then you'd want to assume as a first order approximation that that initial system didn't depend on the Sun - then you'd see what the system as a whole behaved like just assuming that the Sun was a very far off but big point mass. Then you'd worry.
Go get the glass of wine because it sounds like you are up against the Three Body Problem and that has no general analytical solution, but you can get close with lots of numerical approximations (is that British Physics?).
These systems are sensitively dependent on initial conditions and that means Mandelbrot et al and pesky foreign stuff again
The route was that I left Shipley just after the morning rush and caught a mid-morning ECML to Kings Cross. Lunch in London followed by a mid-afternoon Eurostar to Brussels. A quick chip stop before a Thalys to Cologne, arriving around 7.15pm. Dinner at one of the restaurants near the station (lasagne, outdoors, IIRC), before a sleeper direct to Moscow from there, via Warsaw and Minsk, leaving at about 10.30pm. That service doesn't run any more - the Russian sleeper goes from Moscow now and the old Amsterdam-Warsaw one that the coaches that went onto Moscow were attached to has been discontinued.
When I was a young Stodge in the 80s I used to Inter-Rail round Europe and frequently travelled on the Jet Foil from Dover to Ostend. At Ostend Station I would board a train to Cologne but I would frequently see the sleeper service which went right through to Moscow. This was known as the Ost-West Express:
"There is quite a history of trains between Paris and Moscow. After 1945, there was no through service until 1960 when a train using Russian sleeping cars was introduced. In 1969, this train became the Ost-West Express which also included through coaches from Ostend to Moscow. In 1994, this train only served Brussels and stopped running in 1999."
The article relates to the modern Paris-Moscow service.
The sleeper that used to operate from Amsterdam and Warsaw was the Jan Kiepura. Sadly, for the rail romantics, it ended service in 2016. Low-cost air and high-speed rail are making sleeper services increasingly redundant. This ought to be a good thing, in the same way that sailing ships, stagecoaches and steam engines being replaced by faster and more efficient alternatives was inevitable. But I do like a good sleeper.
Comments
And I'll let you into a little secret: almost all (straight) men ogle and fantasise about women's breasts.
If they didn't, the human race would die out; although I accept some of the feminist ultras would consider that the lesser crime.
Still a British success story.
But seriously, I hope for everyone’s sake that he’s got some seriously tight parole conditions, including the surrender of his driving licence and a night curfew. One can’t help but feel for the pressure those parole officers assigned to work with him will be under, thanks to decisions made much higher up the chain.
Interesting times.
I'd also give Blue Origin an honourable mention: they're a very different company from SpaceX, with very different aims. They might even have more of an effect on the planet's economy than SpaceX.
In all seriousness, it'd be great if we a country could build modules for such spaceships. It'd play to our strengths.
Out of interest, was he proposed by the Conservative Party? (For services rendered in destroying the Liberal Democrats?)
Now days of course, we know that Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are also "planets with ears".
All planets certainly have stuff that accumulates around them, and I imagine (based purely on the observation of what happens on the big ones) that it tends to form rings. Seems reasonable, but just guessing. Obviously we have a ring of some daftness in terms of space junk that we've stuck there ourselves.
Do we have (natural) rings now?
PS Also should have said that Ishmael's story get's a thumbs up from me. The universe is such a cool place, I just wish we could somehow get to see more of it.
Mars' moon Phobos is falling towards its planet, and will therefore reach the Roche limit and break apart in a few tens of millions of years.
"He didn't mean it, he's just doing it for the money, wah wah wah"
Your coat is over there, sir ...
https://www.newstatesman.com/node/152217
Anyway, back to the universe (well and politics) - one of the very few things I like about Trump is that there's some chance he may throw some money Nasa's way. I really think we should have a space programme too - and I don't mean that chap from Kent who lost his dustbin lid on Mars. Slow-moving maybe, but with a degree of ambition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119
"I might be being stupid, but surely the Moon is outside the Roche limit, and going outwards?
Mars' moon Phobos is falling towards its planet, and will therefore reach the Roche limit and break apart in a few tens of millions of years."
Yes, owing to a degree of non-sphericity in its mass distribution, the Earth's moon is gaining energy and slowly (in human terms) drifting away.
Suggestions for Labour or Tory membership card images?
I want to know how this relates to the Earth-Sun link, and how it might relate to the Milky Way-Universe link. A glass of wine seems an easier option though.
The post-truthers are those Brexiteers who try and claim their Nazi inspired posters were not racist.
Good luck with that
The effects of Earth / Sun interactions are subject to the enormous disparity in mass between the Earth and the Sun. The Earth is about 80 times the mass of the moon and therefore any interactions between the two can be observed affecting both bodies. The Sun is about 330,000 times more massive than the Earth so it affects us a LOT more than we affect it.
If it was simply a misunderstanding, they would just laugh it off, but they go to bat for it, every time.
Almost like they know how much it poisoned rational debate for a generation.
I guess she was vilified because she did shine some light on some uncomfortable truths. The unions at the time were more hindrance than help for example. I think she was also persona-non-grata on the left (really bizarrely) because she was woman. (And yes of course she may have been criticised because she did things that were bad too)
Brexit will most likely bring some uncomfortable truths too - "there are jobs, and you'll have to do them even though you're not from Eastern Europe". I can't see much that's bad about that.
"Here was a key Trump White House rationale: expertise, that liberal virtue, was overrated."
And of course, remember this
https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/924356581709541376
Such a statement in simple translation or tabloid media speak could easily become transformed to a cast iron guarantee.
Thanks, but I know all this. I can't solve the integrals needed to work out what's been said, but I can write them down. At least using the earlier idea - as British Physics dictates. I'm not sure anyone can do the Fruity-European-Physics-Of-Einstein on such things. Sounds hard, but maybe doable.
The route was that I left Shipley just after the morning rush and caught a mid-morning ECML to Kings Cross. Lunch in London followed by a mid-afternoon Eurostar to Brussels. A quick chip stop before a Thalys to Cologne, arriving around 7.15pm. Dinner at one of the restaurants near the station (lasagne, outdoors, IIRC), before a sleeper direct to Moscow from there, via Warsaw and Minsk, leaving at about 10.30pm. That service doesn't run any more - the Russian sleeper goes from Moscow now and the old Amsterdam-Warsaw one that the coaches that went onto Moscow were attached to has been discontinued. Transit visa required for Belorussia and tourist visa for Russia. You spend the second afternoon first at Brest customs and then at the re-gauging shed where the coaches are jacked up and the standard gauge bogies are replaced by Russian gauge ones. The train gets under way again laround sixish on the second day and arrives into Moscow at about 9.30am (Moscow time) on the third day.
From there, I had a 36-hour break in Moscow. I don't quite recall why it was two days rather than one - I think the Amsterdam-Moscow sleeper was a daily service though the onwards one wasn't (twice-weekly, I think). Anyway, I needed to collect my next ticket from an office in some building in Moscow as although I could book through to there from England, that was the limit. I could, however, pre-order the Moscow-Bishkek sleeper through Intourist (now Into Russia; probably KGB/FSB tours either way).
Ticket collected, the Kirgizia departed at about 2330 on day 4 from Moscow Kazanskaya and follows this route:
https://www.tutu.travel/poezda/view_d.php?np=e25b2185
Transit visa needed for Kazakhstan, tourist visa for Kyrgyzstan. Strictly speaking, you're not supposed to get off the train in Kazakhstan but the best way to buy food is from the ladies at the station markets, who seemed happy enough to take Roubles (I didn't think to take any Kazakh Tenge - if it's even possible (you can't get Kyrgyz Som here). The train goes slowly and there's a lot of arid steppe but it's beautiful in its grandeur and takes about 72 hours, arriving just after midnight on day 8.
Coming back, I flew from Bishkek with British Midland (as was) via Almaty to Heathrow. It was the same plane - it just stopped to drop off / pick up passengers. Bog standard trains from there back to Shipley.
It's not far off though in that most PBers are entirely independent of other PBers. (Or maybe that's just me!)
http://eurailtracks.co.uk/page31.html
I also quote this:
"There is quite a history of trains between Paris and Moscow. After 1945, there was no through service until 1960 when a train using Russian sleeping cars was introduced. In 1969, this train became the Ost-West Express which also included through coaches from Ostend to Moscow. In 1994, this train only served Brussels and stopped running in 1999."
From here:
http://www.railstaff.uk/2016/08/03/night-train-to-moscow/
The article relates to the modern Paris-Moscow service.
http://streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track11/ostwest197105.html
It carried Polish, East German and Russian coaches as I recall and was a wonderful sight sitting at Ostend. I never caught it as I had to make an earlier connection at Cologne for a train to Denmark via Hamburg.
The thread is headed 'Michael Crick is right.."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/porn-addict-toby-young-fights-to-keep-role-as-student-watchdog-p8tlktfv0
https://twitter.com/casinoroyalepb/status/949370089618460672
You must be a top candidate for one of our astronauts.
These systems are sensitively dependent on initial conditions and that means Mandelbrot et al and pesky foreign stuff again