This just keeps getting worse - Page 5 - 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.
#15185261
BeesKnee5 wrote:
I didn't say shuttle was a bad idea and I couldn't give a damn whether it was Nixon.
The promise didn't live up to the reality, each shuttle was supposed to be capable of launching once a month with minimal repairs but the reality was you were lucky to get one a year from each orbiter. The safety record was dreadful, for half it's life it was restricted to solely visiting the ISS and they needed a second shuttle on standby because they couldn't guarantee the heat tiles would stay on the leading edges during launch.

The shuttle literally ate NASAs budget, costing $1.5bn per launch. In hindsight this huge cost prevented development of something that could get us out of low earth orbit.




I've just shown you this isnt the case.
NASA spent $8bn on constellation which was cancelled because it was going nowhere, now it's in the process of spending $27Bn on SLS which will be obsolete before it gets off the ground. If you add up all the money spent on launch systems to enable human exploration beyond LEO it's $50Bn plus in todays money, for zero return. Almost exclusively to companies involved in shuttle. NASA became a cash cow for these companies.

There is a better way. Backend the contracts so that the contractor doesn't receive the money without delivering the product, NASA has rewarded failure.

I'll give you another example.
NASA have been developing the Orion Space capsule since 2006. They've paid out $21Bn to contractors, so far it's taken zero people into space.

Spacex designed and built Crew dragon for $1.75Bn, they now have three successful crewed launches into space.

How can you possibly say money is the issue when NASA is spending 10-15 times more money than a commercial operator and still do not have an operating product?



Image

Like I said, the shuttle was Nixon. He wanted it to look like we were saving money by building what he thought would be like a van. You want to say it sucked, you'll get no argument from me.

At the same time the budget was being cut (again and again) they kept getting new jobs, like R&D projects to transfer tech to the private sector.

Let me give you an example. Nixon cut funding for Hubble. The guys working on Hubble started working almost 24/7 to get it assembled before the doors were locked. They got there; they knew if it was a bunch of parts, the parts would get sold, and that if it was done, it might one day get launched. There was no time or money for testing. Which we found out about when it got into orbit.

Bush told NASA do more with less. That worked as well as you would expect.

Does NASA have problems? Hell, yes, I've been bitching about it almost exactly 50 years.

But more budget cuts will lead to screw ups just as they have done in the past.

This is all academic, as things heat up, people will want NASA to help, and no one but Rand Paul will be whining about the cost.
#15185264
Not that I advocate for a reduction to NASAs budget, but I believe the whole point of outsourcing was to get more for less @late . If SpaceX can provide more than what its previous budget was achieving... and from my understanding that is the case... then it doesn't matter if there is a reduction to the budget as you are getting better value for money now. Perhaps the savings could go into universal healthcare. :hmm:
#15185266
late wrote:Let me give you an example. Nixon cut funding for Hubble. The guys working on Hubble started working almost 24/7 to get it assembled before the doors were locked. They got there; they knew if it was a bunch of parts, the parts would get sold, and that if it was done, it might one day get launched. There was no time or money for testing. Which we found out about when it got into orbit.


This is a nice romantic view of events.
Truth is that Nixon gave some funding to work out costings. There were no parts, to assemble when the planning was shelved in 1974.

The construction of Hubble was approved in 1977 and the problem with the mirror that was later found to be faulty was made between 1979 and 1981 by a private contractor Perkin-Elmer.

Guess what, Perkin-Elmer promised the mirror would take 12 months to make, took three years and everytime they asked for more money they got it. Now it's true that with more money the error would've been spotted as Kodak had been also contracted to build another mirror so they could be cross checked, cost and project delays meant this was never done.

The telescope was supposed to cost $400m, in the end it cost $10Bn. It's no wonder politicians baulk when so often the cost massively higher than promised.
#15185393
B0ycey wrote:
Not that I advocate for a reduction to NASAs budget, but I believe the whole point of outsourcing was to get more for less @late .



Yeah, I've heard that tune many times, and the end result is almost always trouble..
#15185429
late wrote:Yeah, I've heard that tune many times, and the end result is almost always trouble..


This is a misunderstanding of NASA, they have always outsourced.

Saturn V rocket contractors Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM.
Shuttle contractors Rockwell (later bought by Boeing)

The point I have been trying to shout very loudly is that the outsourcing historically has been to a monopoly that has no incentive to succeed. The result has been large sums spent for very little return. Recent competitive tendering and rewarding success has resulted in the successful Dragon and Cygnus capsules for far less money than NASA have historically spent.
#15185572
BeesKnee5 wrote:
1) This is a misunderstanding of NASA, they have always outsourced.

2) The point I have been trying to shout very loudly is that the outsourcing historically has been to a monopoly that has no incentive to succeed. The result has been large sums spent for very little return.



1) I knew that a half century ago.

2) We got to the Moon. That's as a big a return as it gets. One size does not fit all... If you are trying something new that requires a ton of R&D, you spend the money, or you stay home...
#15185580
late wrote:
1) I knew that a half century ago.

2) We got to the Moon. That's as a big a return as it gets. One size does not fit all... If you are trying something new that requires a ton of R&D, you spend the money, or you stay home...


Seriously!!
We haven't been to the Moon in nearly 50 years, trying to live on past glory has got us to where we are today. Multiple research projects later, costing many billions has provided zero end product.

The daft thing is most of the waste is in not trying something new, it's reusing solid boosters and engines from the shuttle program for building expensive throw away rockets.
Compare that to the progress of SpaceX and you have no option but to question how the money has been spent. Reusable falcon and falcon heavy launch system, new methalox engines and a new starship capable of taking man to Mars.
#15185586
BeesKnee5 wrote:
We haven't been to the Moon in nearly 50 years, trying to live on past glory has got us to where we are today.



We've been budget cutting all that time, and even you whine about the results.

And now you are flat out lying. Christ on a crutch..
#15185614
BeesKnee5 wrote:and a new starship

A starship that would take over 81,000 years to traverse the 4.24 light-years between Earth and Proxima Centauri. To put that time-scale into perspective, that's around 2,700 human generations.

Why call it something it isn't?


:lol:
#15185623
ingliz wrote:A starship that would take over 81,000 years to traverse the 4.24 light-years between Earth and Proxima Centauri. To put that time-scale into perspective, that's around 2,700 human generations.

Why call it something it isn't?




And what were Virgin doing calling theirs Galactic !!

SpaceX have a history of using scifi/fantasy references, their capsule is named after Puff the magic dragon.
#15185635
It would be funny if we were so focused on moving to Mars (which is a dead planet, btw*) that an asteroid snuck up behind us and made us go extinct.

Image

1- No spinning core means no magnetic field, which means constant bombardment from solar wind that strips away the atmosphere and gives you cancer.
2- The soil is toxic
3- We struggle to turn sea water into fresh but once we leave terra firma we'll be able to extract blood from stones?
#15185725
AFAIK wrote:It would be funny if we were so focused on moving to Mars (which is a dead planet, btw*) that an asteroid snuck up behind us and made us go extinct.

Image

1- No spinning core means no magnetic field, which means constant bombardment from solar wind that strips away the atmosphere and gives you cancer.
2- The soil is toxic
3- We struggle to turn sea water into fresh but once we leave terra firma we'll be able to extract blood from stones?

Exactly. We would end up having to live in caves on Mars. Hey, we can do that on Earth and save some dough! :excited:

Seriously though - we haven't been able to colonise Antarctica in over 200,000 years of human existence. A little bit of ice is enough to defeat our best efforts. And we're going to colonise Mars? :eh:
#15186218
late wrote:"But now a study by three geologists says that a heat wave in 2020 has revealed a surge in methane emissions “potentially in much higher amounts” from a different source: thawing rock formations in the Arctic permafrost.

The Arctic has also delivered other sobering news. Polar Portal, a website where Danish Arctic research institutions present updated information about ice, said last week that a “massive melting event” had been big enough to cover Florida with two inches of water."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...siberian-rock/


In recent years there has been a ton of research findings showing this getting worse than expected, and faster than expected.

And the frogs in the pot are just sitting there.

That would be you.

I gave this a like.

If by "this" you mean the effects of ACC aka AGW, then that was what every UN IPCCC report has said for the last 3 reports spaning close to 2 decades.
And yes, I have been terrified of methane releases accelerating out of control for at least 3 years. It does seem like they now are. This is terrible news.

And no, this is not me. However, I have been unable to convince more than 2 people (except for maybe some lurkers at the sites I post on) over 50 years of trying. All I was able to do was to change my own behavior. I had no children, stayed home a lot, had 1 driving vacation in 40 years and 2 car trips from Denver to Chicago to visit family & weddings (& back), and flew very little. I'm not counting moving from Chicago to Denver, that was necessary, not a vacation.
.
#15186219
Potemkin wrote:Exactly. We would end up having to live in caves on Mars. Hey, we can do that on Earth and save some dough! :excited:

Seriously though - we haven't been able to colonise Antarctica in over 200,000 years of human existence. A little bit of ice is enough to defeat our best efforts. And we're going to colonise Mars? :eh:


Mars is just a test run for colonizing Antarctica.
#15186251
If your goal is to make ours a multi-planetary species then your top priority should be to ensure life on Earth is stable. If our civilisation collapses as a result of an ecological crisis we will no longer have the resources to house astronauts in low Earth orbit or send probes to Mars, let alone any more ambitious projects.

A Roman who wants to maintain a network of aquaducts the length and breadth of Europe should recognise that such a project will fail in Rome falls.
#15186286
AFAIK wrote:
If your goal is to make ours a multi-planetary species then your top priority should be to ensure life on Earth is stable.



We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Back in the real world, NASA does research on climate change, y'know.
#15186289
late wrote:We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Back in the real world, NASA does research on climate change, y'know.

Bottom line: if we cannot colonise Antarctica, then we have no business even thinking about trying to colonise Mars. The only thing wrong with Antarctica is that it's very cold and has lots of ice. In every other respect, it's ideal: it has a breatheable atmosphere, stanard Earth gravity, and no dangerous radiation. So what's the problem? Why haven't we done it already? :eh:
#15186294
Potemkin wrote:
Bottom line: if we cannot colonise Antarctica, then we have no business even thinking about trying to colonise Mars. The only thing wrong with Antarctica is that it's very cold and has lots of ice. In every other respect, it's ideal: it has a breathable atmosphere, standard Earth gravity, and no dangerous radiation. So what's the problem? Why haven't we done it already?



A colony on Mars won't happen for a few centuries, we are just not ready...

So why obsess about it, unless it's just a handy excuse?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM One […]

From a perspective of power, environmental acti[…]

sorry for the typos in my previous post I've been[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

<yawn> In your imagination. No reference?[…]