EPTNASA and the Private Sector - Page 74
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xQQwhtU.jpg) | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On December 23 2015 09:54 radscorpion9 wrote: I had no idea reusable rockets were such a big deal. Apparently a single launch from a falcon 9 rocket costs 56.5 million (Wikipedia). Space X stated that if they are successful in developing reusable launch systems, they can bring that cost down to $5 - 7 million. That's quite amazing. I wonder at what point does it become feasible to actually use rockets to throw away garbage from the Earth. In particular liquefied CO2 to help combat global warming. I'm guessing someone has already asked this online so off I go to research Edit: Well I didn't find much specific, but I did find an extremely fascinating idea proposed by Professor Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles. For anyone interested, you can use the Earth's magnetic field to help propel ionized CO2 particles into space. www.economist.com. Anyway I shan't derail any further As earth we should not throw any mass permanently into space. Every gram the earth looses in weight is a loss. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On December 30 2015 18:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: also, note the conclusion ," requires NASA to come back with a status update about how it has distributed funds within 180 days of the bill becoming law, which happened on December 18." NASA got a funding increase and they have $55 million to spend on building a prototype and Congress wants the prototype done by 2018. i'd like to hear NASA's official reaction to the money and the deadline.  i think nothing will ever come of this and what we have here is some politicians trying to gain some right wing street cred by acting tough towards NASA about keeping things on budget and on time. 55m$ to build a prototype,lol This can not be serious. You can not even build a prototype of a new car for that amount of money. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 03 2016 01:23 Rassy wrote: As earth we should not throw any mass permanently into space. Every gram the earth looses in weight is a loss. Thanks kenM | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
On January 03 2016 01:25 Rassy wrote: 55m$ to build a prototype,lol This can not be serious. You can not even build a prototype of a new car for that amount of money. Red Bull's R&D bill for its F1 team has varied from $20 million to $120 million over the past 10 years. so i'm sure "a car" can be prototyped for $55 million. However, its unlikely a top of the line F1 race car can be prototyped for $55 million in 2016. basically, NASA top officials and Congress are engaged in a PR tug-of-war negotiation. NASA advertises long range goals requiring deadlines multipe decades long with budgets in the 10s of billions of dollars. Congress fires back with a 2 year deadline and $55 million. Both sides are trying to score points with voters/taxpayers. Also, NASA has some discretion in how they spend their funding increase. They can spend more than $55 million on this specific prototype if they wish to take money away from other projects in 2016 and 2017. Cancelling Mars Insight, for example, might be a way to put more cash towards this prototype. I've offered a pretty skeptical perspective when it comes to human space travel ; the US Congress is playing right into that skepticism with their latest actions because they believe its the best way to get votes and appear responsible with taxpayer cash. | ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4EEWTCz.jpg) | ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
some interesting photos. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-best-lesser-known-vintage-apollo-images/ss-AAgusPY#image=26 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
http://www.cnet.com/news/goal-of-new-nasa-office-protect-earth-from-asteroids/ Jeb BUsh, however , disagrees. This Republican Presidential candidate takes a shot at NASA while complimenting SpaceX and Blue Origin. http://spacenews.com/jeb-bush-nasa-has-lost-its-purpose/ | ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
the refueling stage in low earth orbit is particularly interesting. | ||
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
On January 14 2016 02:04 micronesia wrote: I may have missed it, but I didn't see any mention of how to deal with space radiation... only radiation from the reactor powering the ship. true. also, my "low earth orbit" comment is not completely accurate either. Low earth orbit is at most 400 KM off the earth's surface; however, WVB's theoretic space station was 1600 KM off the earth's surface. Still not far away from earth , but not what is viewed as "low earth orbit" in modern times. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17181 Posts
| ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
| ||
