OT: Brazilian Launch Facility

[Loser]

I had no idea Brazil was working on a space program (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/08/21/brazil.rocket.reut/index.html). I'm hoping Erax can come in here and enlighten me concerning its history and how Brazilians feel about it.

[Erax]

Hi Loser. It's a good thing I caught this thread early on. I am no expert, but here's what I can tell you :

- Brazil is not working on a full-fledged space program. The idea is to have a fully operational launch site which can then be rented to other nations (AFAIK there are few other equatorial launch sites in the world, built or planned, so it's a BIG economic advantage).

- Once this phase is in place, income from the base can be used to develop and launch our own communications sattelites. Brazil is a BIG country, with all sorts of natural barriers separating everything, so all of our governments since the 60's have invested heavily in telecommunications.

- INPE and the Brazilian Air Force have participated in several of NASA's projects and also in Europe's Ariane project.

- Our air/spaceflight history is as long as yours. The Wright Brothers got their airplane in the air first, but they used a catapult. The world's first fully self-powered takeoff, flight and landing was performed by a Brazilian called Alberto Santos Dumont (link) (http://educate.si.edu/scitech/impacto/graphic/aviation/alberto.html).

- I can't speak for all Brazilians, but I think most of them understand the need for investment in high-tech projects and the importance of having our own sattelites.

[Loser]

Thanks Erax, I never knew (of course).

By the way, don't post again before you check your Profile.

[Gozra]

I was saddened when I saw in the news today that the rocket that Brazil was preparing to launch blewup on the launch pad. I was really rooting for Brazil to get into the space race. We really need to get out there so we can get all the energy and raw materials we need and get Heavy industry off Earth so we can give this Planet a rest. An any one that expands our ablity to get us into space has my admiration.

[oleg]

There are 25 fatalities, according to BBC. My condolences. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Rocket launch was and still is a very dangerous business. Basically, you mount hundreds tons of high explosives and then blow them up in controled fashion. The chance it goes off can never be a zero. US, Russia and France suffered setbacks and so will any other nation. Important thing is not give up and persevere.

That' make us humans, right ?

[Erax]

Argh. This will set us years back. Funding for this project was meager before, now it's likely to dry up entirely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Well, there's nothing I can do about it, other than feel sorry for the families of the victims.

Gozra, we aren't racing anyone, we just want to take our place in line behind the other space powers. Although the chances for that are slim to nonexistent now.

Maybe we try again in another 5 years.

[Loser]

Condolences. Flying machines of all sorts are dangerous to use and sometimes just to be around, rockets even more so. Passenger or technician, those who deal with rocketry up close and personal are brave people, putting their lives on the line for noble purposes of their own choosing.

I was going to look up some data on Brazil (government, GNP, etc.) in the CIA world factbook, but I can't seem to get to cia.gov.... That's bad.

I'm sure it's up, perhaps score of gateways between us are down, or its IP is not what my DNS is telling me it is.... weird.

[Makinus]

Loser, i hope this helps:

Brazil

Government: Democratic Republic (Very similar with the US, with only minor differences).

Population: According to Last census 170 millions, but it was in 1991, today it is probably above 200 million.

Language: Portuguese (While we can understand perfectly the language spoken in Portugal and vice-versa, we have a lot of pronunciation and grammatical diferences)

Economy: Very high internal and external debt, that causes an stagnation in the economy, we desperatly need several reforms, mainly in the government spending (our government spends much more than it gains).

Advantages: Very rich in natural resources, south and southeast regions higly industrialized, very good climate.

Disvantages: Stagnant economy (see above), riches very poorly ditributed (a lot have nothing and a few have a lot), government corruption (being reduced, thanks to the press).

Any doubt, just ask me......

[Loser]

Thanks, Makinus. I finally managed to get to the Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html) and read up on Brazil a bit. It is very good to see the structure of your government and especially the divided legislature, absent from so many developed countries and world powers. I hope your people are able to deal with the corruption in government without abandoning your 1988 constitution.

I also admire the popular election of your president. I never much cared for the Electoral College in the U.S, since we assume the popular choice will be elected, indeed many states specify how their College member vote based on the popular vote and the number of such members is determined by population... so why is it not a popular vote? Not a big deal, but really...

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Loser:
I also admire the popular election of your president. I never much cared for the Electoral College in the U.S, since we assume the popular choice will be elected, indeed many states specify how their College member vote based on the popular vote and the number of such members is determined by population... so why is it not a popular vote? Not a big deal, but really...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. And I think it is a big deal, because our Last presidential election would have turned out differently (and probably the Last three years of world politics, too) if our electoral system were like Brazil's.

[Makinus]

One thing i find strange in your (US) elections: if in Brazil we have an entirely eletronic voting system (where the citizen just punches in a special computer the number of his candidate), why the US, in several states, the vote is still in the old paper system?

We have almost imediate results in elections, with accuracy assured by computers, while using paper votes you have a long process to "count" all votes, normally done by humans, that, intentionally or no, can give inacurate results.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Makinus:
One thing i find strange in your (US) elections: if in Brazil we have an entirely eletronic voting system (where the citizen just punches in a special computer the number of his candidate), why the US, in several states, the vote is still in the old paper system?

We have almost imediate results in elections, with accuracy assured by computers, while using paper votes you have a long process to "count" all votes, normally done by humans, that, intentionally or no, can give inacurate results.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Technological Determinism Answer:
It is called technology “lock-in”. Why do some developing nations have newer, faster, more cost-efficient telecommunications systems than the USA? Because the USA has the most extensive and developed telecommunications system in the world and a correspondingly huge legacy infrastructure. The USA has the same problem with voting technology.

Socio-Political Answer:
Each administrative unit in the USA has local authority over voting. For example, I live in the state of Pennsylvania. I live in a small, incorporated borough (village, town) inside a township (traditionally 16 square miles) inside a county. 30+ townships in my county, 67 counties in Pennsylvania. We generally elect school district Boards here, but school district domains do not follow municipal boundaries, i.e. they can cross multiple counties or any number of smaller administrative units’ boundaries. Each of those voting units has some local degree of authority over voting.

When I lived in the state of Maryland, there were no townships and very few incorporated boroughs. Generally, the smallest administrative unit was the county and the counties ran the schools. Much more efficient, but very different than Pennsylvania. So all of the states in the USA vary in their voting practices as well.

Do not ask me about taxes…! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Getting everyone to agree to replace the voting technology they have already purchased previously and to coordinate that effort above the local level is politically impossible most of the time.

[geoschmo]

We could have a whole thread discussing the pros and cons of the electoral college system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Here's an interesting article about it for anyone wanting something deeper then the typical arguments that come up on the subject. It was written before the 2000 election mess.

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

[Loser]

Nice one Geo. I'm passing that around like and AOLer with a survey.

[Andrés]

I didn't know how your electoral system works.
Let's see if I get this right.
Electors are proportional to the number of congressmen of each state, who are proportional to the population of each state.
This systems prevent a small state with a high voters ratio to disbalance the election. (Note that in other countries like my own, mandatory vote is suposed to prevent tis disbalance. But that has its own pros and cons.)
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Andres:
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, that wasn't quite the original intention it was something of a compromise, it's just cool that it worked out that way.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Andres:
I didn't know how your electoral system works.
Let's see if I get this right.
Electors are proportional to the number of congressmen of each state, who are proportional to the population of each state.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Almost right - Electors from a given state = congressman + senetors from that state. Congressmen are proportional to the population, senators are an arbitrary 2 per state; this is why the smallest states still have three electors. Originally posted by Andres:

This systems prevent a small state with a high voters ratio to disbalance the election. (Note that in other countries like my own, mandatory vote is suposed to prevent tis disbalance. But that has its own pros and cons.)
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Possibly, but then you are trying to replace a portion of United States Constitution with something designed to have exactly the same effect as the replaced portion, just to get rid of a few hundred people. Personally, I suspect that minimizing changes to the Constitution to help increase the respect for the document and its intentions are more important than the money wasted on salaries for those few hundred middlemen.

[Wardad]

The two Senate per state and the resulting +2 electoral votes are more than just a legacy from the States Rule era.
They allow better representation of rural agricultural areas. Otherwise important pursuits like growing food may get ignored and trampled on by the voter demands from heavily populated cities.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Electors from a given state = congressman + senetors from that state. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be Representitives. Both Senators and Representitives are Congressmen.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
That would be Representitives. Both Senators and Representitives are Congressmen.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ach, you're right. Ah well, at least I got the numbers right; I missed the term. Oops.

[Loser]

Coming back! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/01/brazil.launch.reut/index.html)