Broken_Erika
Play with me.
So Dwayne Johnson is responsible for killing the Dinosaurs? I always knew The Rock was tough!
The thread for space cadets!
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I'm pretty dubious about this. I only skimmed the article and I'm also not a paleontologist but I find the notion that so many dinosaurs were so stupid that they kept eating poisonous plants until they extinctified themselves is dubious. And it's not like the plants themselves sprung up overnight either. There would have been hundreds of thousands to millions of years of adjustment. OTOH, I know horses and cattle are dumb enough that if they get into a patch of St. John's wort growing wild they can poison themselves by gorging on it. I just don't find it credible that multiple entire species would do this en masse to the point of stressing the species to extinction or near extinction.
But I do think it's well known that many dinosaur species went extinct or were headed that way before the asteroid and that does require explanation.
________
A report was published which exonerated SpaceX in the Zuma failure and entirely blamed the payload attachment fitting provided by Northrup Grumman. Between this and the multiple problems Northrup has caused with the James Webb Space Telescope, things don't look good for them. Of course it could still be a cover story for a successful ultra-low orbit/re-entry experiment.
________
Senator Richard Shelby was confirmed as the head of the appropriations committee. To describe him as a SpaceX hater is an understatement. He blamed them for Zuma before anything was really known about the situation and has attacked the company repeatedly and viciously in the Senate while talking up ULA (which is in his district). Apparently he's even refusing to meet with SpaceX lobbyists.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
ILS is revamping the Proton rocket to better serve the commercial launch market. The rocket currently is dramatically overpowered for most of its launches and it has a small fairing. So they are eliminating one of the stages and widening the fairing and calling this new version the Proton Medium; it should be a bit cheaper to fly than the current Proton. A side benefit of this redesign is that since there will be fewer stages to drop, they say they will be able to launch into polar inclinations from Baikonur now. Flights from Baikonur are over land and previous configurations would have dropped stages on populated areas which the new rocket can avoid.
What is a bit confusing to me though is that Kazakhstan is very much against launching hypergolic-fueled rockets from there and Russia is supposed to be phasing them out of Baikonur launches. The Proton is a hypergolic rocket and I don't see how breathing new life into the program squares away with the commitments Russia has made to Kazakhstan on this issue. In particular, the new trajectory means they will be dumping toxic stages on an entirely new drop zone.
The reason why these polar launches are a big deal is that many currently planned constellations of satellites use polar orbits and Baikonur can support a much higher launch cadence than the other Russian launch sites. Previously it could not support polar launches but this new development will allow for that. Although this also goes against Russia's goal of phasing out Baikonur in favor of their new launch pad in the far east.
What is a bit confusing to me though is that Kazakhstan is very much against launching hypergolic-fueled rockets from there and Russia is supposed to be phasing them out of Baikonur launches. The Proton is a hypergolic rocket and I don't see how breathing new life into the program squares away with the commitments Russia has made to Kazakhstan on this issue. In particular, the new trajectory means they will be dumping toxic stages on an entirely new drop zone.
The reason why these polar launches are a big deal is that many currently planned constellations of satellites use polar orbits and Baikonur can support a much higher launch cadence than the other Russian launch sites. Previously it could not support polar launches but this new development will allow for that. Although this also goes against Russia's goal of phasing out Baikonur in favor of their new launch pad in the far east.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I had a rude reminder that not only are there people that are not fans of space exploration but in fact some people hate it and think it's a giant waste of money.
I've been watching this show called Alien Deep by Robert Ballard about the oceans and the final episode is this false-dichotomy thing on whether people should settle outer space or explore the ocean. They have Buzz Aldrin say a bunch of boisterous things about how important Martian settlements will be and then Ballard comes on says how stupid space travel is and how neglected the oceans are and I'm just like
I'm sure they punched up Ballard's dialogue for dramatic purposes but he says a bunch of things that paint both space and oceanic exploration in very unrealistic light. It's the final episode of the mini-series and it had been fantastic up to this point but I turned it off half way through the episode when it became apparent that the episode had nothing meaningful (or even really truthful) to say about exploring space or the oceans. Also Ballard at one point said people were going to settle the oceans but then never expounded on it which would have been neat. Instead he talked about harvesting all the ocean's resources and I'm like Bruh...you spent 4 episodes talking about how our exploitation of the ocean was destroying it for future generations and now you're talking about strip mining and industrializing it....ok.
I've been watching this show called Alien Deep by Robert Ballard about the oceans and the final episode is this false-dichotomy thing on whether people should settle outer space or explore the ocean. They have Buzz Aldrin say a bunch of boisterous things about how important Martian settlements will be and then Ballard comes on says how stupid space travel is and how neglected the oceans are and I'm just like
I'm sure they punched up Ballard's dialogue for dramatic purposes but he says a bunch of things that paint both space and oceanic exploration in very unrealistic light. It's the final episode of the mini-series and it had been fantastic up to this point but I turned it off half way through the episode when it became apparent that the episode had nothing meaningful (or even really truthful) to say about exploring space or the oceans. Also Ballard at one point said people were going to settle the oceans but then never expounded on it which would have been neat. Instead he talked about harvesting all the ocean's resources and I'm like Bruh...you spent 4 episodes talking about how our exploitation of the ocean was destroying it for future generations and now you're talking about strip mining and industrializing it....ok.
I'm a big fan of space exploration and in the same time I think that at our current technology level projects like human colonization of Mars are a giant waste of money
As for settling the ocean, we should better start with cleaning it up from all crap we already put there.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I like both and i think we will do both things eventually, like in Civilization Call to Power.I had a rude reminder that not only are there people that are not fans of space exploration but in fact some people hate it and think it's a giant waste of money.
I've been watching this show called Alien Deep by Robert Ballard about the oceans and the final episode is this false-dichotomy thing on whether people should settle outer space or explore the ocean. They have Buzz Aldrin say a bunch of boisterous things about how important Martian settlements will be and then Ballard comes on says how stupid space travel is and how neglected the oceans are and I'm just like
I'm sure they punched up Ballard's dialogue for dramatic purposes but he says a bunch of things that paint both space and oceanic exploration in very unrealistic light. It's the final episode of the mini-series and it had been fantastic up to this point but I turned it off half way through the episode when it became apparent that the episode had nothing meaningful (or even really truthful) to say about exploring space or the oceans. Also Ballard at one point said people were going to settle the oceans but then never expounded on it which would have been neat. Instead he talked about harvesting all the ocean's resources and I'm like Bruh...you spent 4 episodes talking about how our exploitation of the ocean was destroying it for future generations and now you're talking about strip mining and industrializing it....ok.
Being a beach kind of guy i even find oceans more fascinating with a lot of free space and potential for the next couple of centuries or so. However space will be the final destiny in any case, if we survive long enough...
Only one correction to that mene since today is my pedantry day:
Por qué = why
Porque = because
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I think your first sentence falls into a common misconception about space exploration. Not a single penny spent on space exploration really leaves this planet. Ballard himself made the argument that we shouldn't waste money on space exploration and instead should spend it all here on Earth. Well, all the money spent on space exploration is spent here on Earth supporting scientists and engineers. For all of its flaws, the SLS is a wonderful jobs program and unlike a plethora of military projects, the space-jobs program is peaceful and advances technologies that we all use. Space exploration is directly or indirectly responsible for creating or advancing a huge range of technologies and services that make our world more livable.I'm a big fan of space exploration and in the same time I think that at our current technology level projects like human colonization of Mars are a giant waste of money
As for settling the ocean, we should better start with cleaning it up from all crap we already put there.
You are right that Mars colonization is not realistic right now but I feel that by pushing toward that goal we increase the technological sophistication of our entire civilization.
Thanks for the correction.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Orbital ATK (soon to be acquired by Northrup Grumman) posted details about their new EELV rocket today:
It's going to use a modified space shuttle solid rocket booster for the first and second stages, strap-on solid rocket boosters derived from what they are developing for ULA's Vulcan rocket and an RL10C-based upper stage like Atlas and Delta IV.
With all those solids, it's going to be a very bumpy ride.
Spoiler :
It's going to use a modified space shuttle solid rocket booster for the first and second stages, strap-on solid rocket boosters derived from what they are developing for ULA's Vulcan rocket and an RL10C-based upper stage like Atlas and Delta IV.
With all those solids, it's going to be a very bumpy ride.
I don't think the argument that it supports someone is valid, because it could be made about almost any spending, even if it accomplishes exactly nothing. You could use the money to support engineers and scientists to improve conditions on earth. So if someone didn't sees the utility of a space program, considering it a waste would be the right conclusion.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Employing large groups of people with high-paying jobs is accomplishing something worthwhile in and of itself. I think that addresses the flaw you pointed out in the argument.
As for the specific utility of the space program, I found it hard to accept Ballard as a credible source in this argument given his ships navigated to wreck sites using GPS satellites while avoiding underwater hazards revealed by satellite mapping. He communicated with his small fleet using satellite communications and the fleet itself had submersibles containing rocket-descended inertial navigation units attached to hulls stuffed with materials and electronics developed for space applications. At one point he set up buoys with satellite-enabled tracking and data forwarding capabilities. These buoys were used to collect information to compliment data sets provided in large part by weather satellites. The data sets were gathered to advance or disprove climate change and geological theories heavily informed by data collected off-world.
His exploration and study of the ocean was one long list of reasons why we need a space program in the first place.
Back to the jobs angle, one of the greatest strengths (and flaws) with the aerospace industry is that the US government went to great pains to set it up in economically depressed areas. NASA place a lot of their facilities in the American south during a time when a primary occupation for many in those areas was subsistence farming. This move spurred a lot of private industry to move to those same areas to service NASA and in many cases developed into a healthy, virtuous cycle of high-paying job and economic growth. That alone is worth a lot, even if they build rockets that go nowhere. And of course the reality is that the industry itself develops a ton of useful technology and services that have not only allowed the US to stay ahead in economic turns but have flat-out made the world a better place.
The tragedy of this geographic dispersion is that it practically mandates a huge level of inefficiency. Centers and companies that should consolidate geographically for efficiencies don't; programs that achieve no real purpose trudge on thanks to congressional interference.
In any case this doesn't have to be an either-or proposition; it's silly and self-defeating to put forward that argument in the first place. The budget isn't breaking due to either space or oceanic exploration.
Last edited:
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
The scrubs began early this time. They had a problem during a wet dress rehearsal and the launch has been pushed back a few weeks. Though it's better to take things slow and get it right. You don't get a second chance.
Lexicus
Deity
Nah, this is quite true, but what of the real resource accounting? How many non-renewable resources are now orbiting Earth in the form of space junk? How many fossil fuels, etc. have been burnt?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
All space junk could fit in a large American landfill in my estimation. Rockets burn a disproportately high, but still small (in the scheme of things) amount of fuel.
There are also some really contaminated factory and drop sites globally, however. The amount of toxic waste that comes out of rocket and spacecraft fabrication is pretty extreme on per-pound basis as well.
There are also some really contaminated factory and drop sites globally, however. The amount of toxic waste that comes out of rocket and spacecraft fabrication is pretty extreme on per-pound basis as well.
Berzerker
Deity
study on diamonds found in a meteorite that landed ~10 years ago suggests they formed within a proto planet comparable in size to Mercury or Mars.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-diamond-sky-lost-planet.html
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-diamond-sky-lost-planet.html
Lexicus
Deity
The money point is really a good one though. It's reminiscent of the argument I always like to use about the debt, ie, that our grandchildren won't be sending a cent (or any real resource) back in time to "pay for" our spending now.
They won't be sending it back in time, no. But they will be consuming less, so that the owners of the debt can get repaid. And the owners of the debt are banks, financial institutions, rich people, and foreigners.
Lexicus
Deity
No, they won't. If we have to consume less in the future it will be because we made stupid decisions about the management of our real resources today, not because we spent the money necessary to educate the population, combat global warming, and so on.
The debt isn't ever going to be "repaid." It will have to be serviced, but servicing the debt is done by keystroke the way all federal spending is.
That's not how it works. This isn't a question of growth. This is a question of distribution.
People who are not in the top 10% of income earners pay taxes disproportionately high to what they earn. These people also are the ones who most need direct government services and transfers. People in the top 10% pay taxes disproportionately low compared to what they earn. Yet they get the greatest total benefits from what the government does, other than transfer payments. And the 10% are the ones that own nearly all the debt.
When the debt is really out of whack for a long time, the spending that interest on the debt crowds out of the budget is the spending that benefits the 90%, not the spending that benefits the 10%. The spending that benefits the 10% is untouchable.
What this means is that the service on the debt is taxed away from the 90%, and given to the 10%. It is a direct transfer from the 90 to the 10. The 90 will have lower consumption so that the 10 can get their payments on the debt.
