[QUOTE=OvB;46913120]Without SpaceX, science doesn't come back down for [I]any[/I] country.[/QUOTE]
The EU, Russia, China and India all would disagree with you.
[QUOTE=darunner;46912966]This could actually lead to a financial boost for NASA, since half their operations are in TX, where Cruz is from.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, people are being silly here. Cruz is an opportunist. He's not going to gut funding or anything like that which would anger his constituents.
[QUOTE=darunner;46913164]The EU, Russia, China and India all would disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
The only other vehicle that can [B]return[/B] to land is the Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou and they can only carry a tiny bit of cargo. Dragon is the only cargo return vehicle to date. The rest burn up.
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
The cargo variant of the Soyuz, the Progress-M is used to incinerate waste from the ISS in the atmosphere. ATV-2 can't return and burns up after use, so does HTV-1, Cygnus, and everything else.
How much cargo currently goes up that then has to come back down and be recovered? Almost nothing, because cargo goes up to resupply the ISS, they fill it with their trash and it burns up in re-entry.
this better not fuck with the James Webb ( 2018 )
[QUOTE=darunner;46913274]How much cargo currently goes up that then has to come back down and be recovered? Almost nothing, because cargo goes up to resupply the ISS, they fill it with their trash and it burns up in re-entry.[/QUOTE]
The Dragon brings down a full load of mission critical cargo each flight. It is also can loft 7,300 pounds of pressurized cargo. Without it ground scientists simply can't study physical datas from ISS experiments. The ISS has a garden because they're able to bring down food grown in space for study on the Dragon. Dragon brings down freezer loads of medical research for study, after bringing up fresh freezers, heavy cargo, replacement EVA suits, and living animal payloads. It's a very important asset to space flight and there's simply nothing that can replace it in the time being.
[QUOTE=OvB;46913026][B]SpaceX[/B] isn't based in Texas. SpaceX is based in Hawthorne, California. They have a rocket engine test facility in McGregor, Texas, and a private launch site under construction in Boca Chica, Texas. They also have launch sites in California and Florida.
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
Also, Neil Armstrong, and Gene Cernan were also against SpaceX funding, calling it a "pledge to mediocrity"
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wszPA8dURqY[/media]
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
SpaceX's government funding comes from them flying missions for the government. They were paid a contract to develop crew and cargo capabilities to fulfill those missions. They're not "subsidized"[/QUOTE]
Wow that was painful to watch. I hope they sent him an apology or something.
[QUOTE=OvB;46913026][B]SpaceX[/B] isn't based in Texas. SpaceX is based in Hawthorne, California. They have a rocket engine test facility in McGregor, Texas, and a private launch site under construction in Boca Chica, Texas. They also have launch sites in California and Florida.
Also, Neil Armstrong, and Gene Cernan were also against SpaceX funding, calling it a "pledge to mediocrity"
SpaceX's government funding comes from them flying missions for the government. They were paid a contract to develop crew and cargo capabilities to fulfill those missions. They're not "subsidized"[/QUOTE]
ok be the litteral police, but my post isn't incorrect, they have a large portion of their current, and future operations in texas. additionally they have recieved big portion of their money for developing the dragon and falcon from nasa funds for the commercial crew program. their operation until last year was almost entirely funded by venture capital and nasa's money, their commercial launch service has only been around for 2 years now
yes its sad that NASA isn't headed back to the moon, or being given sane directions, but if private sector has to be the ones to do it, then they will do it, progress is better than none
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=darunner;46913274]How much cargo currently goes up that then has to come back down and be recovered? Almost nothing, because cargo goes up to resupply the ISS, they fill it with their trash and it burns up in re-entry.[/QUOTE]
sssscience?
nasa doesn't want to burn up everything at the end of every mission, theres tons of experiments that the space-station isn't equipped to process completely up there as well as many experiments with animals that critically need to be compared to controls on earth
[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;46913085]Isn't SpaceX one of Elon Musk's things?
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
Confirmed by ninja
Tbh I don't find tesla all that great either[/QUOTE]
If you don't find a car that doesn't rely on fossil fuel to function, with next to 0 CO2 emissions, being able to compete in the market against other well established auto companies, a great thing....
Then you must be really ignorant.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;46914488]If you don't find a car that doesn't rely on fossil fuel to function, with next to 0 CO2 emissions, being able to compete in the market against other well established auto companies, a great thing....
Then you must be really ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Good thing the tesla isn't that since it's pretty much priced as a luxury car and therefore can't compete
If a tesla cost me the same amount to buy as a Honda Civic, then that would surely be amazing. As it stands though the thing costs 100,000, and I hear they even sell the tesla at a loss with government subsidy.
You can opine all you want about your ~zero~ emissions and fabled ~ability to compete with other cars~ but until the cost of production is made more efficient, I'll say that a Prius is more practical to have, and has some pretty low emissions itself.
[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;46919007]Good thing the tesla isn't that since it's pretty much priced as a luxury car and therefore can't compete
If a tesla cost me the same amount to buy as a Honda Civic, then that would surely be amazing. As it stands though the thing costs 100,000, and I hear they even sell the tesla at a loss with government subsidy.
You can opine all you want about your ~zero~ emissions and fabled ~ability to compete with other cars~ [B]but until the cost of production is made more efficient[/B], I'll say that a Prius is more practical to have, and has some pretty low emissions itself.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh you mean like the Model E... which is coming soon? Which has been the plan the whole time?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;46920162]Uhhh you mean like the Model E... which is coming soon? Which has been the plan the whole time?[/QUOTE]
Well it hasn't come out yet and the last time I checked up on Tesla things was a few months ago. Sorry I overlooked it.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46913403]Wow that was painful to watch. I hope they sent him an apology or something.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with Armstrong and Cernan on this, but they shouldn't really have to apologize for having a different opinion than Elon Musk.
It would be great if they took Elon up on his offer and had a look at Elon and SpaceX' work though, but they shouldn't be forced to change their opinion just because someone who looks up to them as heroes has a different one to theirs.
"If we send a rocket to space what if it hits god on the way up? Budget cuts 4 lyfe."
[QUOTE=imbored;46925657][url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-ted-cruz-position-nasa-oversight-subcommittee-space-science-and-competitiveness/0hj7fRCY[/url][/QUOTE]
Whitehouse petitions are a joke.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;46913110] They don't have to follow your vote.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they do, except for a few (2) states. Learn how the electoral college works please.
Everytime someone asks me why its wrong to have a "conservative christian" head a science department, I ask them how they would like it if Bill Nye was made head of the church
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ted-cruzs-epic-plan-for-nasa-2015-1[/url]
[QUOTE=Ted Cruz]Our space program marks the frontier of future technologies for defense, communications, transportation and more, and our mindset should be focused on NASA’s primary mission: exploring space and developing the wealth of new technologies that stem from its exploration. And commercial space exploration presents important new opportunities for us all.
We must refocus our investment on the hard sciences, on getting men and women into space, on exploring low-Earth orbit and beyond, and not on political distractions that are extraneous to NASA’s mandate.
I am excited to raise these issues in our subcommittee and look forward to producing legislation that confirms our shared commitment to this vital mission.[/QUOTE]
Well that doesn't sound too bad. Makes sense too since he's planning a 2016 run. Hurting the space program isn't going to do anything to improve his chances at the ballot.
Well least his plan for NASA isn't too bad.
[QUOTE=Smooth Jazz;46934481][url]http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ted-cruzs-epic-plan-for-nasa-2015-1[/url]
Well that doesn't sound too bad. Makes sense too since he's planning a 2016 run. Hurting the space program isn't going to do anything to improve his chances at the ballot.[/QUOTE]
uh it seems like he's basically saying he knows more about what nasa should be doing than nasa does. its also worrysome that he'll use his new position to pressure nasa away from things he doesn't believe in such as climate change research.
ya nasa should get more resources alocated to planetary sciences and the manned space program, but to dictate what research will be important to space missions is idiotic, you can't choose to innovate, you don't know what incrimental advances will lead to the big breakthroughs.
[quote]and not on political distractions that are extraneous to NASA’s mandate.
I am excited to raise these issues in our subcommittee and look forward to producing legislation that confirms our shared commitment to this vital mission.[/quote]
im worried about his definition of political distraction is, he's said way too many idiotic things for me to not be scared about it
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46914458]"what the heck is a space hyuk"[/QUOTE]
"you know who else went into space
communists"
[QUOTE=Sableye;46936172]...
im worried about his definition of political distraction is, he's said way too many idiotic things for me to not be scared about it[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when politicians talk about getting "politics out of science", what they often mean is scientific subjects they don't like.
Like when Bush era officials censored NOAA researchers because they believed climate change study was extraneous to NOAAs mission, somehow.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.