This just keeps getting worse - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15186589
BeesKnee5 wrote:
The obvious is that they won't be launching until at least 2028 and ESA/JAXA will have at least 5 years worth of data by then. Not that I expect NASA to meet their targets based on past experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EarthCARE

GRACE ran for 15 years and had an expected lifespan of 5, still they couldn't get its replacement in space to avoid an 18 month gap in the record (even if GRACE-FO is a more advanced version than GRACE). What chance the new ACCP satellites will be in space before CloudSat and CALIPSO die? They're already 15 years old.

Every new satellite has improved technology, but gaps in the record make it much, much harder to know if the results are accurate or if there is an unexpected difference in the sensitivity of the instruments.



Like I said, they asked for more, Republicans wouldn't fund it.

Like I said, NASA needs more funding.

That you haven't mentioned Republicans once, and your attacks imply the impossible, is curiouser and curiouser.
#15186596
late wrote:Like I said, they asked for more, Republicans wouldn't fund it.

Like I said, NASA needs more funding.

That you haven't mentioned Republicans once, and your attacks imply the impossible, is curiouser and curiouser.


I don't give a damn about democrats / republicans.

NASA always want more money, what interests me is whether it's well spent and has an end product. There will never be a time again when the US will spend 4% of GDP to beat Russia to the moon, so you need to let it go.

I have given you plenty of examples of waste, cut that out and focus on end results with competitive tendering then NASA can do much more with less. Thankfully this is now happening.

Another example. The EVA suits used by NASA are over 40 years old, many of the parts are no longer available so they cannot be repaired. Of the 24 built, only four are fully functional.
The replacement suits have been in development for decades, it's just been announced they will be late for the proposed 2024 lunar landing after spending $250m.
Meanwhile Roscomos have 50 fully functional suits, half of which built in the last 20 years using a program of iterative development, used by China and other countries at the ISS. One thing you can guarantee is the Russian space agency do not have NASAs budget.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit

How much do you want want to bet a private company build and uses a new EVA suit first?
#15186716
Nasa has to be wasteful to gain political support. When some congressman from Kansas is asked to spend money on something that doesn't directly and immediately benefit his corporate backers he'll just say no. So Nasa spreads its operations across the country so the short sighted politicians can vote for JOBS since he knows people who become unemployed by his vote won't be voting for him again.
#15186795
AFAIK wrote:Nasa has to be wasteful to gain political support. When some congressman from Kansas is asked to spend money on something that doesn't directly and immediately benefit his corporate backers he'll just say no. So Nasa spreads its operations across the country so the short sighted politicians can vote for JOBS since he knows people who become unemployed by his vote won't be voting for him again.
Exactly this, NASA is more about protecting existing jobs than it is delivering a result
#15188009
Just to reinforce the point

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08 ... ly-summer/

Concerned about job losses after the space shuttle retired, Congress imposed this rocket on the space agency, down to dictating its various components to ensure that space shuttle contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne continued to receive substantial space program funding. Each contractor was given a "cost plus" contract that ensured funding but provided little incentive for on-time delivery.

The cost of the rocket over a five- to six-year period in the NASA authorization bill was to be no more than $11.5 billion.”
More than a decade later, NASA has spent more than $20 billion to reach the launch pad.
#15188014
BeesKnee5 wrote:
1) I don't give a damn about democrats / republicans.

2) NASA always want more money, what interests me is whether it's well spent and has an end product. There will never be a time again when the US will spend 4% of GDP to beat Russia to the moon, so you need to let it go.

3) I have given you plenty of examples of waste, cut that out and focus on end results with competitive tendering then NASA can do much more with less. Thankfully this is now happening.





1) That's what you say, Republicans are the ones that talk like you.

2a) The old Space Race is over, there will be a new one soon. Once China starts mining the Moon, Republicans will sing a different tune, for a little while. Aside from that, we keep throwing away opportunities for scientific research. There is a massive comet headed for the inner solar system, and there is a chance it came from another part of the galaxy. That's just an example, there are a hundred opportunities NASA doesn't have the funding to pursue.

2b) Speaking of which, we should bring a lot of countries together to develop the ability to divert killer asteroids. Turns out it's real hard, and we gave up.

3) Government funding is intentionally wasteful. The Pentagon will promise to deliver a jet fighter everybody can use, and do it cheap. Instead you get a compromised fighter that costs an insane amount of money. Fund NASA adequately, and some of those problems will go away. Which I keep having to repeat...
#15188016
late wrote:
1) That's what you say, Republicans are the ones that talk like you.

2a) The old Space Race is over, there will be a new one soon. Once China starts mining the Moon, Republicans will sing a different tune, for a little while. Aside from that, we keep throwing away opportunities for scientific research. There is a massive comet headed for the inner solar system, and there is a chance it came from another part of the galaxy. That's just an example, there are a hundred opportunities NASA doesn't have the funding to pursue.

2b) Speaking of which, we should bring a lot of countries together to develop the ability to divert killer asteroids. Turns out it's real hard, and we gave up.

3) Government funding is intentionally wasteful. The Pentagon will promise to deliver a jet fighter everybody can use, and do it cheap. Instead you get a compromised fighter that costs an insane amount of money. Fund NASA adequately, and some of those problems will go away. Which I keep having to repeat...

This may have passed you by but I'm not American and I don't live in America. Republican and Democrat are Tory and Tory lite.

The new space race has already begun, but it's no longer about political egos. Mining the moon is a daft concept, because it is the reminants of Theia and the levels of valuable metals is relatively low. Focus has to be on making any operation self sufficient.

NeoWise allows us to map Near earth objects, you've been watching too many disaster movies.

I get it, you want NASA to blow a load of cash and deliver nothing.
#15188023
BeesKnee5 wrote:

NeoWise allows us to map Near earth objects, you've been watching too many disaster movies.

I get it, you want NASA to blow a load of cash and deliver nothing.



One of government's reasons for existence is to manage risk. We know eventually a large asteroid will hit the Earth. The probability is 100%. We don't know how long it will take for us to develop a means to prevent that. Our first attempts were dismal failures. Most things we try to do in Space turn out to be a lot harder than we thought. But managing that risk makes a lot of sense.

Lying won't help. NASA has had a thousand successes.
#15188032
late wrote:
One of government's reasons for existence is to manage risk. We know eventually a large asteroid will hit the Earth. The probability is 100%. We don't know how long it will take for us to develop a means to prevent that. Our first attempts were dismal failures. Most things we try to do in Space turn out to be a lot harder than we thought. But managing that risk makes a lot of sense.

Lying won't help. NASA has had a thousand successes.


There is no lies in my posts

BTW
Being launched on a SpaceX rocket in 3 months time

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_ ... ction_Test

"The mission is intended to test whether a spacecraft impact could successfully deflect an asteroid on a collision course with Earth."
#15188060
Guys, you have strayed very far from climate change getting worse.

Yes, every new news story on ACC is about how it is more worse than we thought it was last month, or sometimes, last week.

IMO, we need to move the Overton Window of what is currently politically possible a long way toward more action, sooner.
#15188094
late wrote:
"deliver nothing"

NASA has had hundreds and hundreds of successes...

Your lies have left the galaxy, so to speak.


So you have a link to me saying NASA deliver nothing?

I have said they are slow, inefficient and the focus is not on delivering to a deadline. They have been a cash cow for certain companies rather than delivering value for money.

Fortunately the lessons are starting to be learned.

https://www.universetoday.com/152336/na ... 0-million/

"One of the biggest ongoing changes in space exploration is the introduction of commercial methods into the field. Commercial launch providers like RocketLab and SpaceX have fundamentally changed the way the industry does business. Now researchers are taking their “move fast and break things” approach to another part of the industry – actual mission design. "

"Various factors enable such a dramatic price drop from the $800 million that such a mission would typically cost using traditional satellite development methods. One large cost savings is high-risk tolerance. Dr. Robert Lillis, an associate director at UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory, puts it plaintively: “Instead of spending $800 million for a 95% chance of success, can we spend $80 million for an 80% chance?”
#15188116
BeesKnee5 wrote:
So you have a link to me saying NASA deliver nothing?



It's on this page...

"I get it, you want NASA to blow a load of cash and deliver nothing."

You were talking about a pattern that came with capitalism/development of the Modern World. The government enables (by building roads, developing technologies, etc) and then business uses them.

But that's for stuff we are already doing.

When you get close to the edge, you need to do better.

I've been hearing this BS since the 70s, age hasn't improved it.
#15188118
late wrote:
It's on this page...

"I get it, you want NASA to blow a load of cash and deliver nothing."

You were talking about a pattern that came with capitalism/development of the Modern World. The government enables (by building roads, developing technologies, etc) and then business uses them.

But that's for stuff we are already doing.

When you get close to the edge, you need to do better.

I've been hearing this BS since the 70s, age hasn't improved it.


So I didn't say NASA deliver nothing, I said you want to throw cash at them to deliver nothing. That is the model they have now. In real terms on human exploration that is where we are today, multiple failed human launch systems cancelled with no end product. Meanwhile private companies are leading the way while NASA and Boeing play with space shuttle technology first developed 50-60 years ago.

When you get close to the edge then those who take risks and learn from their mistakes solve the problems. Just look around at how fast progress is now being made by not aiming for 100% perfection first time. NASA could not do this politically, it's had to be perfect everytime, which is why NASA and Boeing have been left behind in human launch systems and do not have one whilst China, Russia and commercial operator SpaceX do and will soon be joined by India. None of those have any qualms about blowing up an unmanned capsule to learn from mistakes to ensure the end product is safe by being as simple as possible.

You really need to smell the coffee.
#15188121
BeesKnee5 wrote:
1) So I didn't say NASA deliver nothing, I said you want to throw cash at them to deliver nothing.

2) That is the model they have now. In real terms on human exploration that is where we are today


3) When you get close to the edge then those who take risks and learn from their mistakes solve the problems. Just look around at how fast progress is now being made by not aiming for 100% perfection first time. NASA could not do this politically, it's had to be perfect everytime, which is why NASA and Boeing have been left behind in human launch systems and do not have one whilst China, Russia and commercial operator SpaceX do and will soon be joined by India. None of those have any qualms about blowing up an unmanned capsule to learn from mistakes to ensure the end product is safe by being as simple as possible.

4) You really need to smell the coffee.



1) That's a difference without a distinction. You keep saying nothing... which is not true.

2) When was the last time we got out of low earth orbit??? We aren't doing human exploration. There is some movement towards going back to the Moon, but we've been there, it's not exploration. It's the warmup for the next Space Race, assuming we actually go.

At this point in time, I would like to see most additional money going to science, and R&D...

3) Along with money, NASA needs to be a little less risk averse. Politics got them into this mess, politics has to get them out. Assuming anyone with the guts to do it shows up.

4) You need to drink some of that coffee...
#15188124
BeesKnee5 wrote:So I didn't say NASA deliver nothing, I said you want to throw cash at them to deliver nothing. That is the model they have now. In real terms on human exploration that is where we are today, multiple failed human launch systems cancelled with no end product. Meanwhile private companies are leading the way while NASA and Boeing play with space shuttle technology first developed 50-60 years ago.

When you get close to the edge then those who take risks and learn from their mistakes solve the problems. Just look around at how fast progress is now being made by not aiming for 100% perfection first time. NASA could not do this politically, it's had to be perfect everytime, which is why NASA and Boeing have been left behind in human launch systems and do not have one whilst China, Russia and commercial operator SpaceX do and will soon be joined by India. None of those have any qualms about blowing up an unmanned capsule to learn from mistakes to ensure the end product is safe by being as simple as possible.

You really need to smell the coffee.


Sometimes the payoff is more subtle. Everyone knows when a man walks in the moon, we got "our money's worth back", and don't get me wrong, that was a massive achievement for humans and had massive politico-economical consequences given the time. That being said, I believe the contribution of NASA to our modern lives/technologies is uncalculable.
Just the research and experimenting to make up one of the suits, create new materials, new alloys, clever ways of shielding electronics. And all of that shit eventually makes it to consumer items. The recycling of waste in spacecrafts leads to better ways for our water treatment, our circulation/storage/disposal of waste on sea ships. The ripple effects are everywhere.
I think research and exploration is in the betterment of humanity.
#15188172
late wrote:2) When was the last time we got out of low earth orbit??? We aren't doing human exploration. There is some movement towards going back to the Moon, but we've been there, it's not exploration. It's the warmup for the next Space Race, assuming we actually go.


I couldn't disagree with this more strongly

Our brief visits to the moon were the end in itself. The achievement of beating the Russians was the aim and once achieved the infrastructure built had no future purpose.

The moon is a vital stepping stone to further exploration and our exploration of the moon has only just started. It absolutely is exploration, especially if we visit the rougher far side and the subsurface. It's far more than a warm-up and a lunar base would have a huge advantage in making trips further afield by avoiding the bulk of the earth's gravity.

So who is making genuine moves to visit the Moon and then go to Mars in a way that is sustainable and doesn't involve destroying your spacecraft every time you make a trip.

The answer is SpaceX.
#15188173
XogGyux wrote:
Sometimes the payoff is more subtle. Everyone knows when a man walks in the moon, we got "our money's worth back", and don't get me wrong, that was a massive achievement for humans and had massive politico-economical consequences given the time. That being said, I believe the contribution of NASA to our modern lives/technologies is uncalculable.
Just the research and experimenting to make up one of the suits, create new materials, new alloys, clever ways of shielding electronics. And all of that shit eventually makes it to consumer items. The recycling of waste in spacecrafts leads to better ways for our water treatment, our circulation/storage/disposal of waste on sea ships. The ripple effects are everywhere.
I think research and exploration is in the betterment of humanity.
I would ask you to examine the rocket technology currently used by NASA and other commercial operations to see who is moving things forward.

NASA are reusing shuttle solid fuel boosters with an lengthened shuttle fuel tank attached to shuttle rocket engines. The complexity is in shuffling the pack. NASA haven't built a suit for EVA in over 40 years.

SpaceX have designed and built a brand new methalox engine that can use fuel generated on the moon or mars. They have designed and built a ship that can take humans to Mars and back multiple times whilst being refueled in orbit, made of stainless steel. This is innovation in action and needs to be supported and encouraged. Their latest space suit is 3D printed to fit the wearer.

We should celebrate what we have gained from NASA in the past, but using those rose coloured glasses today is holding us back.
#15188269
BeesKnee5 wrote:
I couldn't disagree with this more strongly

Our brief visits to the moon were the end in itself. The achievement of beating the Russians was the aim and once achieved the infrastructure built had no future purpose.

The moon is a vital stepping stone to further exploration and our exploration of the moon has only just started. It absolutely is exploration, especially if we visit the rougher far side and the subsurface. It's far more than a warm-up and a lunar base would have a huge advantage in making trips further afield by avoiding the bulk of the earth's gravity.

So who is making genuine moves to visit the Moon and then go to Mars in a way that is sustainable and doesn't involve destroying your spacecraft every time you make a trip.

The answer is SpaceX.



I am a bit surprised, because that requires a nuanced response.

Most of what NASA does is in science and technology. It spends a lot of time and money adapting technology to civilian use. I see that as it's main mission.

I have nothing against exploration. But when the budget is so limited, you have to make tough choices. At this moment I'd like to see climate research get fully funded a lot more than a dubious trip to Mars, for example.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]