How to FLY A SPACESHIP to the SPACE STATION has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/How-to-FLY-A-SPACESHIP-to-the-SPACE-STATION

Your video, Why Space Station Resupply Rocket Failures are a Good Thing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 16 Badge!

SpaceX has released footage of the April 14 landing attempt from the CRS-6 First Stage Tracking Cam:



Footage from a tracking camera that followed the first-stage of the Falcon 9 during a landing attempt. The footage starts at about 10 km in altitude. Falcon 9 first stage approached the drone ship “Just Read the Instructions” in the Atlantic Ocean after successfully launching the Dragon spacecraft during the CRS-6 mission to the International Space Station on April 14. More info:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/06/24/why-and-how-landing-rockets

Post-launch analysis has confirmed the throttle valve as the sole cause of this hard landing. The team has made changes to help prevent, and be able to rapidly recover from, similar issues for the next attempt, which will be on our next launch—the eighth Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo mission to the space station, currently scheduled for this Sunday.

Belief is not evidence.
Stories are not evidence.

No, we've learned nothing important. That's why I'm dying of polio right now. Oh wait, NO I'M FUCKING NOT.

I'm done here. If you need me, I'll be in the 21st century with vaccines and space stations and the internet. Enjoy your neolithic life experience.

I love how amazed he is by everything he finds. It's all amazing stuff, getting an astronaut on the space station to do your video outro is very cool, and he's been doing this for a long time now but you can just tell how excited he is about it all

So you make a video on the internet, an astronaut sees it from the space station and then sends you a video FROM SPACE to include in your video?

I love every single thing about that. More of this. Much, much, more.

Space and internet everywhere.....

Spoilers do follow:

What bugged me most was that as a last ditch attempt to save humanity, the NASA successors in the film decided to spend all their time and resources on sending first scouts, then hopefully colonists through an unprecedented wormhole, in the hopes that a suitably survivable planet might be found on the other side. To judge by the film, a lifeless, icy waste without a breathable atmosphere was considered a decent candidate.

So against that background, we come back from the wormhole to a city-sized space station, complete with lawns and baseball.

Why all the trouble? With that level of tech apparently within reasonable reach, why not at least consider colonizing a planet in our own solar system? Why risk everything on a complete unknown?

if we've learned anything from star wars it's that moons and space stations are mutually exclusive things.

The moon is a space station.

Where I live, in the boondocks of N Cal., we usually have a few days of power outage a year. On those rare occasions when there's an outage and a clear sky, we get to see this. There's nothing like sitting in your hot tub, looking up at the night sky FULL of stars, and watching the international space station get re-supplied, and noticing how many satellites cross it's path every orbit. I feel like we should have at least one 'blackout' night per year worldwide, where we do our best to not use outdoor lights in an effort to show this beautiful expanse of nature to those who never get to see it.

The first step is to build a self-sustaining base in Antarctica. Greenhouses, etc.

The second step would be a self-sustaining base on the moon. Then Mars. Then in a space station in orbit around the Earth.

Then... anywhere

I didn't say any such thing.
A large percentage of farm land is going to be lost by displaced people and lack of water.
A large percentage of people, those who live less than 1 foot above sea level will be displaced.
Just wow, you think we can build dykes around Florida? New Orleans is not the only low lying city in the world, you know.
We would have to start from scratch. The tech is abandoned, there's not a concord to get on no matter how much you pay, nor is there a rocket that can make it to the moon, no matter how much funding you throw at NASA, just plain old gone. We would have to start from scratch again. We're trying to use 40+ year old Russian rockets just to go to the space station, we can't even get there on our own, how do you assume we can just go back to the moon?

Food production where it's needed is the issue. The men with guns are also an issue, but even without them there's simply not enough food where people are starving. I'm not talking about instances where dictators starved their people intentionally, I'm talking about the billions of people who are lacking food because of either economic or climate pressures, or often both. If people in Africa could grow their own food, the men with guns could not stop them from eating, but no water, no fertilizer, and no seed make that impossible. We do NOT have 'more than enough food', we may have near exactly enough food if it were perfectly distributed throughout the world (accounting for spoilage, probably not though). Perfect distribution is impossible, so there's not enough food. Period.
Another reason Africa has massive crop failures is lack of water. It's a much larger reason than displacement, not smaller.

CO2 emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented. If you implement enough new tech to reduce emissions, the new industry will be more productive, create more jobs, and be better for the economy than 'staying the course' and giving it all to Texaco.
My point. No matter what we do, we are likely going to see the same climate changes through the next 100 years, it takes at least that long for the gasses to be absorbed.

Dude, did you read the link you posted? It said one glacier is stable, the rest are melting FAST. One glacier will not keep India, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc wet, nor will it supply any other area that survives on glacier water. They showed that only one odd, incredibly high glacier was stable(they mentioned it's on K2, the highest mountain in the world, so don't even try to say there are lots more stable glaciers around the world, from what they said it's only this ONE mountain range, in the tippy top of the Himalayas, that's high enough and in the right weather pattern to be stable.)

My thought was actually to have multiple projectors per block approximately 10 feet up (building mounted) with sensors to identify people and have them 'place' a smallish ball of light at about 8-10 feet up that floats above and in front of them, but with much less light needed than a 'street light'...and maybe stationary one's in intersections (these could even have 'covers' to stop wasted light from going up). Or, it could project tiny lights (like in the video) near ground level to illuminate the sidewalk, but that's not as useful by far.
By my estimation, there could be less pollution because there would be fewer, smaller lights on at any one time (where normal lights are just ON all night). I agree, there are many issues to solve, but it's doable if thought about thoroughly.
It's a little too late to worry about 'light pollution'...in fact I bet it's not on the average person's radar. Sadly, many people in cities have never seen stars at night and don't have a clue how much is hidden from them. (I live in the boonies of far N cali, and we still have light pollution from nearby towns, but nothing like in a city...I've even watched the international space station get re-supplied while sitting in my hot tub! That was amazing!).