Elon Musk is changing the rules of space travel

(CNN)Space exploration is a rich person’s game. Every time you see a rocket launched from the Kennedy Space Center, thunderously clawing its way above the Earth’s atmosphere, this represents an expenditure of tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. The cash equivalent of each space shuttle launch was a cube of US dollar bills about 25 feet (8 meters) on a side.

influencer marketing agency

The reason for this is simple. Historically, rockets have been a single-use object — imagine the cost of commuting to work if you had to buy a new car each day.
Thus, Thursday, March 30, marked what might well be a watershed moment in the annals of rocketry — one that could greatly increase the prospect of deep space travel. A company named SpaceX successfully reused a rocket to launch a satellite into space.
Founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk, SpaceX has been in the vanguard of commercial space exploration. Musk has long been a proponent of colonizing the planet Mars and he has used his considerable wealth to develop reusable rocket technology.
SpaceX’s current equipment consists of the Falcon 9 two-stage rocket system and the Dragon payload and crew module. The Falcon 9 lifts the payload into orbit. While the second stage of the rocket is currently designed to fall to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere, for several years SpaceX has been developing the ability to gently land the first stage vertically either on a pad near the launch facility or on platforms floating in the ocean several hundred miles from the launch site.
The first successful land-based landing occurred on December 22, 2015, at LZ-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, while the first landing on a barge-like ship occurred in the Atlantic on April 8, 2016.

SpaceX: Falcon 9 has landed



There have been several other successful vertical landings, but none of these rockets had been reused until now. Thursday, SpaceX launched a geostationary communications satellite using a refurbished first stage Falcon 9 booster. The launch not only successfully inserted the satellite into orbit, but the booster again landed as planned on a floating platform located in deep water off the Florida coast.
So, these successes are technically satisfying, but are they important? They most certainly are. In fact, they could be a game-changer.
The reason is simple. The price of the fuel is only about 1% of the total cost of a rocket launch. The rest is the rocket itself, with 70% of the price tied up in the first stage of the booster. Being able to reuse the rocket represents a huge cost savings. Industry estimates suggest that reusing the first stage of the Falcon 9 booster might lead to a 30% reduction in the launch costs.
Thus, the typical cost of a SpaceX launch of $62 million might be reduced to $43 million — a considerable contribution to the satellite company’s bottom line. The cost of Thursday’s launch has not been released, but SES, the company owning the satellite that was launched, has said they were interested in an even lower price of $30 million for this first attempt.

Elon Musk on Mars travel: Ready to die?



SpaceX is developing a viable commercial launch ability, but Musk has not been shy about his ultimate goal of colonizing Mars. In September 2016, he gave a talk to the International Astronautical Congress called “Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species,” in which he laid out his vision. One of the key requirements to make that happen is to develop a robust and reliable technology that reuses the rocket components.
Musk has made clear his near-term goal is is to drop the launch costs to 10% of the current costs, with a longer-term goal of dropping the launch price tag to 1%. If successful, a launch that costs $62 million in 2016 will eventually be $620,000.
A viable Martian colonization strategy will require an even greater reduction in the price tag, but this recent development is a key step toward a much grander goal.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

On September 12, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave an inspiring speech at Rice University, my alma mater, where he said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade … not because (it is) easy, but because (it is) hard.”
Kennedy was speaking to Americans, but it was all of humanity that watched raptly on July 20, 1969, as Neil Armstrong took humanity’s first halting steps on a heavenly body other than Earth.
The recent SpaceX achievement does not rise to that level of accomplishment, but there is no question that we have achieved a different, but important, step. The day that mankind returns to deep space is that much closer.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/01/opinions/elon-musk-change-rules-of-space-travel-lincoln/index.html

MashTalk: Can Samsung’s Galaxy S8 make us forget about the Note 7?

Image: mashable

After months of daily leaks, Samsung finally announced its next flagship Android phones, the Galaxy S8 and S8+.

Do the new phones live up to their hype and can they restore confidence in Samsung after the disastrous Galaxy Note 7? Mashable Tech Editor Pete Pachal, Chief Correspondent Lance Ulanoff, and Senior Tech Correspondent Raymond Wong weigh in on this week’s MashTalk podcast.

New smartphone releases can feel underwhelming these days with most annual releases being only slightly better versions of the previous.

There’s no denying the Galaxy S8 is a gorgeous phone (2:48) that looks like no other phone thanks to its larger and taller “infinity display,” and smaller top and bottom bezels. But it’s not a phone without some trade-offs that may or may not bother you.

The physical home button’s gone and has been replaced with a virtual home button (5:56) and the fingerprint sensor’s moved to a really awkward place on the back (7:25).


How will the Galaxy S8 compare to the iPhone 8? We’ve still got about six months before we find out what Apple’s working on and if any of the rumors on the iPhone 8 are true.

Though the phones were the stars of Wednesday’s Unpacked event, Samsung also unveiled a couple new accessories (15:01), including the new Gear VR with controller, an updated Gear 360 camera that’s capable of live streaming, and Samsung DeX, a dock that transforms the phones into a desktop-like experience.

SpaceX’s big launch

Space Reporter Miriam Kramer joins to tell us about the successful SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launch that happened on Thursday (20:14).

While SpaceX has successfully launched nine rockets into orbit before, none of them were as significant as this week’s. The launch was the first time a previously flown SpaceX rocket successfully flew into orbit and landed back on Earth.

Its success opens the door for reusing rockets to get payloads (and eventually people) into space, which will drive down the cost of space travel (22:27).

Change is in the air

Lastly, we have tech Intern Freia Lobo come on to break down all of the changes Facebook and Twitter made to their services this week.

Facebook copied Snapchat again (31:15) for the billionth time and now includes a Stories feature within its app. It’s a blatant clone and Facebook’s not ashamed.

But is it overkill, now that it’s in the Facebook app and every other app Facebook owns, like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger? Or is it brilliant? Does the idea of content that expires even make sense on Facebook (38:10), which is all about preserving memories for revisiting later?

Twitter also ruffled some feathers. The company finally loosened up its 140-character limit (41:32), and now longer counts usernames towards it. Not everyone is happy with the changes, though. In fact, many users are now complaining about how replies now work.

And, as always, don’t forget to leave your questions and comments by tweeting @Mash_Talk with the #MashTalk hashtag. We welcome all feedback.


WATCH: Samsung has unveiled the new Galaxy S8, and it’s beautiful


Read more: http://mashable.com/2017/04/01/samsung-galaxy-s8-hype-mashtalk/

Famous Composers

  • Mozart: The term is defined from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, an Austrian composer. He was looked up as the father of Mozart, he was hardly three years old when he learned the Piano and soon developed his skills on all musical forms he created a string of operas, concertos, symphonies and classical music. Being the son of a great composer Leopold, It’s unbelievable how he could compose music at the age of five. The form of music is named after his name which is not surprising because he was the creator of this style of singing. He was the personification of Classical Music; the music style is well balanced and highly technical.
  • How to sing better
  • Bass: Bass is typically classified as a type of classical Male singing with a lowest vocal range of all voice types. Culture and individual variations has created a wide range of Quality of Bass singers. In Choral music, Voices are classified into first bass and second bass; there is no distinction between bass and baritone voices in contrast to the three fold (tenor, baritone, bass) categorization of solo voices. Again there are many categories of bass singers like Basso Buffo which means funny lyrical these are comic operas usually. Then we have Lyric Basso Profound which is the lowest bass voice type, The categories of Bass is basically on Regional and Nationality level since ever region in our country has adapted changes based on the communal choices. But it’s really not the voice type very popular today.

Few famous Bass singers like Richard Sterban, J.D Sumner, Paul Robeson and Billy Medley.

Alto: The term Alto means High in Italian and refers to the second highest part of a contrapuntal music texture, and is also associated to vocal range, especially in Choral music.

Technically Alto and Contra alto are not the same since *Alto* is not a voice type but a designated vocal line in choral music based on vocal range, the vocal range if alto in choral music is usually more similar to that of a mezzo-soprano.SO basically in a Choir women are split into sopranos and altos where as men are split into tenors and basses .We can say that tenors are the male equivalents of sopranos and basses are male equivalent of altos.

How to Sing Better

Towards A Successful Society


The success of any society is ultimately determined by how well its population lives and dies. Within this paradigm of “successful population” are two fundamental elements – individual and collective wellness. It embodies the notion that both individuals and the overall population are well, and these two measures are reasonable assessments of the wellness, and hence the success of any given society.

The four scenarios below represent a summary snapshot of healthcare systems currently in existence in the Western Hemisphere. The scenarios are predicated on the reality that the cost of healthcare is (next to purchasing a home) the most expensive cost one will experience during his or her lifetime and that these costs are expected to continue to escalate over time as new technology, treatments, and pharmaceuticals continue to drive costs. These four main approaches to healthcare are:

1. No healthcare programs (other than free market)

2. Universally funded programs

3. Insurance company funded programs

4. Combinations of the above

These four healthcare approaches are summarized below with respect to how well they represent the ability to create a successful society. Remember, a successful society is one that encourages, promotes, and allows for both individual and collective wellness, as measured by population health.

1. No Healthcare Programs: Countries which have no healthcare programs generally have lower than average population health. While some members of the population in these societies (namely the very rich) who are able to afford healthcare may be healthy indeed, the overall population health is often quite low. It is important to note that socioeconomic status is generally a good predictor of population health. In countries where no healthcare programs exist, and the reason for these lack of programs is lack of finances, then population health is usually comparatively low. Using our definitions of societal success, the success of these societies would be low, or unsuccessful.

2. Government Sponsored Programs: Countries with government sponsored and funded universal healthcare programs generally have a collectively higher level of healthcare than other countries. Again, if the one applies the definition of success of the entire population as the sum total of the wellness of all individuals within that system, then countries which offer healthcare programs that collectively confer benefits on the highest number of individuals are, by definition, successful. Since one cannot be more than well, there is no incentive for individuals to access more services than are required in order to be well. Leaving aside preventative programs and social marketing costs as key aspects of overall population health, health and wellness can be accessed within government sponsored programs up to a certain level depending on the aggregate overall need of the population. Therefore, by definition, and in spite of incentives and disincentives within the system, the societies that employ these systems are successful.

3. Insurance Company: Healthcare programs sponsored by insurance corporations can work well, provided that the insurance coverage provides all members of society with at least basic coverage and coverage through catastrophic illness. Nobody plans on getting leukemia, or ALS, or meningitis, or lupus, for instance. If you are well-educated and have a position with health benefits with a corporation or you have been successful in your career or business, then it is likely you will be able to afford the costs of healthcare. However, since healthcare and profit-motive are mixed within the same crucible, there is a strong incentive to cheat or to create environments where profit supersedes care if the two vie for supremacy – much as suggested in Michael Moore’s movie, Sicko. The active removal or denial of healthcare is a logical and inevitable outcome of a for-profit, insurance corporation controlled system of care delivery – particularly where the population is aging. Also, there is no compelling motive for insurance corporations to cover individuals susceptible to high healthcare costs (i.e., those with catastrophic physical illness; mental illness; the frail elderly; new mothers and infants), period. The outcome of such a system would be to spiral into category 1 – No healthcare programs – (mediated by a very few insurance companies) wherein the richest segments of society would be able to access services. The irony is, the richest citizenry often require much less healthcare than others. The upshot is this: there is an increasing disparity in the number of people who are able to access healthcare in the face of age and cost escalations. One needs to question the current and future success of these social systems.

4. Combinations of Above: Combinations of the above become extremely complex and difficult to assess. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages, as well as incentives and disincentives for a hybrid of the above systems. Each of these advantages and incentives (or lack of) are inextricably connected to the socioeconomic class you and your family belong to or are transitioning into as well as a host of external and internal factors. A government funded universal system provides healthcare to everyone, including those who are disadvantaged and could not possibly access care without subsidization. It also provides care to those who are charged by some who would abuse care (though unclear who this group might be as people do not consume unlimited healthcare once they are well). Alternatively, the system dominated by large insurance companies provides very high quality, responsive care to individuals who can pay or who are insured by corporations who in turn can pay. This system works well where individuals insured are reasonably healthy and young. A problem occurs when the population of employees becomes older and insurance premiums are either hiked to cover extraordinarily high costs or removed entirely. Countries in which no healthcare programs exist results in costly but accessible services for the very few. There is no need to get into the obvious personal suffering and strife in this latter healthcare system.