*promote live space launch

Only if you ignore the acidification, heating, and other degradation of the oceans (which contain 99% of the living space and as much as 80% of all life on the planet)...and history. The massive habitat losses there are almost completely unrelated to farming feed crops and dwarf the recent losses on land.


Today creating space for farming is the major single cause for the intentional destruction of terrestrial habitats, but not historically.


Wiki-
Habitat destruction caused by humans includes land conversion from forests, etc. to arable land, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve over destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts, forests, coral reefs).

...but what do you care? GET YOUWA AZZ TO VEGA!

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.

"ALL COSMIC POWER!

...itty-bitty living space."

Charlie Veitch, the founder of the peace activist group ‘The Love Police’, was pre-emptively arrested on Thursday the 28th of April 2011, around 1615h, on an allegation of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance. As the video evidence shows, Charlie was not read his rights, and no warrant was presented for his arrest or for the search of his living space.

He was held for 16 hours at Parkside Police Station in Cambridge. Outraged locals, students, and activists protested outside the station, and concerned citizens from around the world inundated the station with phone calls to voice their concern of this totalitarian police behaviour. Parkside police were obstructive to his lawyer, family, and partner, let alone friends and supporters, by not providing any information of his wellbeing or whereabouts.

At around 1000h on Friday the 29th of April 2011, Charlie was collected by the Metropolitan Police from Parkside and taken to an undisclosed police station in London for 8 hours. Efforts by his lawyer, family, and partner to locate him were made in vain – he had effectively been ‘disappeared’ into the police system. Charlie was denied his right to a phone call from London, again continuing the obstruction of his access to his lawyer, family, partner and supporters. He requested that the police telephone his partner to inform her of his whereabouts, which was promised but not performed. With his family in the dark as to his whereabouts, concern was considerably growing.

Charlie was eventually released on bail 23 hours and 45 minutes after his arrest at approximately 1600h on Friday 29th April from Edmonton Police Station, London – just within the 24 hour limit that a person can be lawfully arrested and detained without charge. - http://www.cveitch.org/

Man You fools have no idea... Thats the plan!!

I dont see why roads should be built for cars at all.
Stop building entire citys around a transport system thats going to pass away sooner or later..
Take all the space that is wasted by cars in a big city due to parking and increase living space.

Take the extra revenue from housing and stop building highways, now improve the public transport system and make it free of charge..

Bigger greener citys..

New york without cars, people start to live on the streets.. parks again instead of just using the outside to get somewhere else..

You even get to know your neighbours..

Like medieval citys...

The American "poor?"

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good crusade on behalf of the richest poor in the world.

>> ^blankfist:

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you mean by privately owned public spaces. That sounds like a lot of doublespeak. Sure, you have to pay property taxes so there's the argument that you never truly own your land, but if you purchase land to build a company on it, it's not technically public. It's private. Like your home.


But it's not private like my home. My home is in a residential area, and is clearly a living space, not a space meant for conducting business. Even if my door wasn't locked, it would be highly irregular for someone to just walk in my front door unannounced without my explicit permission, and started looking through my belongings.

If I owned a store, it would be in a commercial area, and clearly labeled as a store. The door would be unlocked, and it would be fully expected that people would be permitted to walk in the front door without waiting for my explicit permission, and they would be free to peruse the wares on display.

Those are two totally different situations, with completely different rules of etiquette, and with largely different laws.

This is not even getting into the idea that there are so many fundamental services that we rely on that are (rightfully) provided by private businesses, and should be made available to everyone regardless of race, group, or class...like food.

>> ^blankfist:
If some racist asshole wants to buy land and open a racist grocery store, then so be it. I doubt you'd fine many people visiting that shop, because this isn't 1950s Alabama.
It's his property, he can do with it as he pleases pretty much. If he wants to open a "blacks only" grocery store, it wouldn't be fair for the white guy next door to stop him. You're wrong if you think you have a right to dictate what goes on in private spaces when no one is being aggressed against.

How about a "No Muslims" sign? How about a "No latinos" sign? How about a "No gays" sign? This might not be 1950's Alabama, but the US of 2010 isn't a paragon of virtue either.

Personally, I think it's totally fair to stop people from doing this. The object of these signs are being "aggressed against", they're having their freedom constrained, not because of something they've done wrong, or even had any choice about, but because of who they are.

I'm all for the right to "discriminate" on the basis of individual behavior and merit, but prejudice like that is morally wrong.

A very stylish and unique living space. Wow! Previously was a YMCA building and her apartment was originally the men's locker/shower room? LOL! I really dig her shoe gallery/ storage display.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Polar, Bear, Living, Space, Global, Warming, gulf stream' to 'Polar Bear, Living Space, Global Warming, gulf stream' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Polar, Bear, Living, Space, Global, Warming' to 'Polar, Bear, Living, Space, Global, Warming, gulf stream' - edited by burdturgler

really fantastic video.
really depressing subject.

didn't really cover credit-default-swaps though. which is the so-called insurance for the "safe" tier. There was another video on the sift explaining that, but I'm too lazy to search for it right now.

the real problem is 1 word - greed.

it's great that people or families with bad credit can still buy a house, but for god sakes, buy something reasonable. ask yourself "is it worth this much?" I mean if it's a 2-bedroom house in a shithole LA suburb, is it really worth $500k+ ?? Or, if you have a small family, do you really need 3000+ sq ft of living space? Why invest in something so expensive?

and the "flippers" made the problem worse, along with all the stupid reality shows that are about flipping a house. Each show only had stories about people who succeeded. It's easy to fill 1 hour with 3 success stories, but what about the 13 failures that you aren't covering? Who sponsored that shit? Investment bankers?

new rule: only buy a house if you are actually gonna live in it.

What about to say is covered within http://www.videosift.com/video/Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict

bcglorf,

That's an interesting counter reading of the events that surround the times, I believe that section of the documentary should have gone further into explaining the historical context of the creation of Israel but perhaps they assume pervious knowledge of the Balfour agreement of 1917, which was a classified policy adopted by the British government for the creation of a Jewish state within Palestine. The original plan called for the creation of a single Jewish state in all of Judea, something Israel is seemingly achieving over the last 60 years.

Essentially nearly three decades before, it was preordained that a Jewish state be created in Judea, the British government finding favour with Zionist interests. The analogy being that your landlord desclares that someone else will get half of your living space. How do you react to that? The 1947 UN plan to partition the area in to two states, was not in line of its own article 73b that stipulated that any area would come into state under its own localized population.

Mass evacuation of Palestinians followed because there was wider insecurity for them, even though armed resistance had started understandbly because no one asked them about partition of their lands nor the massive immigration of Jews even though a reduction was stipulated in the 1939 white paper. The USA withdrew support for the partition plan, the Arab League and the Arab Liberation Army thought it could end the partition. The British however showed support to Israel, who now enforced forced military service, and taken an offensive stance in securing areas of Palestine. Jordan at the time did not seek to help set up a Palestinian state, wanting to capture more land to annex. The State of Israel comes into form having secured numerous settlements. World wide sympathy existed for Jewish Zionism post Holocaust reducing any international action. Military assessments in 1947 showed that Palestine did not have the military capability to withstand a conflict with Israel.

I could go on but I believe there is more to be found the more on goes further into the history and origins of the creation of State of Israel, the Balfour agreement, the 1947-1948 war, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In some way one can say that colonial actions by the British government at the time, created a volatile situation in the post colonial world, leaving a spectre of war and instability in the same way we see played out in the creation and seperation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Lodurr I understand your argument, and it is a logical argument. But governments don't grant marriage benefits solely for the purpose of procreation. Being in a marriage provides stability which can be beneficial when it comes to the benefit an individual can bring society, be it through work or community involvement or simply using less land by sharing a living space.

The marriage industry is a huge market. It doesn't seem logical for the government to be denying this opportunity.