AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by MKSheppard »

SirNitram wrote:The badly engineered is a direct reference to the crazy that designed it in the first place and made a highly public sulk about people daring to check his work
We know you're a fucking idiot; because you think a rocket family which has flown 262 times successfully, with only one failure is a badly engineered system.*

* NOTE: The O-Ring failure wouldn't have caused a hull loss if there hadn't been a tank full of highly explosive LOX/LH2 next to the SRB.

Total is 261 Successful Shuttle SRB Launches (the other SRB on 51L worked), 1 Ares I-X Flight, 1 SRB failure.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Iosef Cross
Village Idiot
Posts: 541
Joined: 2010-03-01 10:04pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Iosef Cross »

Temujin wrote:No, the fact is to establish a permanent presence in space (which includes routine manned spaceflight), you need to have a long term vision, and the patience to see it out through thick and thin; and large amounts of resources (i.e., cash) that you can essentially flush away for years, if not decades, before you establish enough of an infrastructure in space to actually start seeing a return on your investment. Corporations have traditionally shown neither. Short term thinking and the maximization of profits is the order of the day.
You are wrong. To maximize profits doesn't mean to take the short run view. But of course, returns in the short run are always better than in the long run. That's because time is money (interest).

However, the rate of interest is what determines the degree of shortness in time view of corporations. With zero interest rates, companies will make investments with will turn out profits in 500 years, for example. They can make such investments because they can take money and pay it back without interest in 500 years. That means that they could sack the profits to be made in 500 years today with zero interest rates. What ultimately determine the interest rates are the time preferences of individuals at large, not individual corporations. That means that corporations reflect the view of society at large.
If companies will not get into space until they can turn a profit, than they won't be getting into space; that is until the government paves the way, spends the money, develops the technology and infrastructure (unless they're contractors), and basically does all of the work for them. And then like the leeches they are they will jump in and try to take credit, cry that they shouldn't be regulated, while creating one disaster after another while trying to turn a profit. Fuck'em! :finger:
Actually, companies will only go to space when technology is sufficiently developed so as to make a ton reach LEO cost 10 bucks. Or if they discover 100,000 tons of platinum in an asteroid, so they can make it crash on Earth to get the material.

If the government needs to invest money into space in order to make it profitable that means that space travel is not efficient and that there is a net loss, even thought companies can make profits, the government will have to pay off for them. Otherwise private companies would go to space without the government help.

I like sci fi and I wish that space travel was economically viable. But it is not. And it will take probably many years before it becomes. Until the time comes, it is simply waste of money to get to space.
User avatar
Temujin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1300
Joined: 2010-03-28 07:08pm
Location: Occupying Wall Street (In Spirit)

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Temujin »

Iosef Cross wrote:You are wrong. To maximize profits doesn't mean to take the short run view. But of course, returns in the short run are always better than in the long run. That's because time is money (interest).

However, the rate of interest is what determines the degree of shortness in time view of corporations. With zero interest rates, companies will make investments with will turn out profits in 500 years, for example. They can make such investments because they can take money and pay it back without interest in 500 years. That means that they could sack the profits to be made in 500 years today with zero interest rates. What ultimately determine the interest rates are the time preferences of individuals at large, not individual corporations. That means that corporations reflect the view of society at large.
That would work if corporations were individual entities that thought logically and lived long enough to see returns on their investments. But corporations are made up of a multitude of people who come and go, each with different priorities and goals; thus companies' priorities, directions and cultures are constantly in flux. You can't seriously claim that they are going to establish goals that take longer then any company has ever existed and actually stick with it through all of the ups and downs that occur between now and then.

Hint: If you say yes, your just bullshitting!
Iosef Cross wrote:Actually, companies will only go to space when technology is sufficiently developed so as to make a ton reach LEO cost 10 bucks. Or if they discover 100,000 tons of platinum in an asteroid, so they can make it crash on Earth to get the material.
In other word, they will do exactly what I said and leech off of the government.
Iosef Cross wrote:If the government needs to invest money into space in order to make it profitable that means that space travel is not efficient and that there is a net loss, even thought companies can make profits, the government will have to pay off for them. Otherwise private companies would go to space without the government help.

I like sci fi and I wish that space travel was economically viable. But it is not. And it will take probably many years before it becomes. Until the time comes, it is simply waste of money to get to space.
But ignoring the problem and hoping a solution magically materializes some time in the future just because its not efficient nor economically viable now is not going to solve the problem. The only way we're going to achieve those technological breakthroughs that reduce the cost to get into space is to keep working towards them and keep throwing money at them.
Image
Mr. Harley: Your impatience is quite understandable.
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry... I wish it were otherwise.

"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe.
If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other." – Frankenstein's Creature on the glacier[/size]
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Ma Deuce »

SirNitram wrote:I've always viewed the moon as useless from an exploration perspective because we won't learn much new there. But. I believe, after consideration of the points, a calm mind, and an injection of reality, that it is long past time to concede. I wasn't arguing sensibly, and so I concede all points
Okay, since you've decided to calm down I will as well.

Anyway, although you've declared your intention to concede there's one other point I feel hasn't been properly addressed, and that is program continuity: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that ObamaSpace really can deliver on everything promised on time: IF it could then it might just be better than Constellation. Trouble is, by the time the next administration takes office no later than 2017, ObamaSpace will be just as embryonic as Constellation is now, so what's to stop the next administration from doing exactly what Obama is trying to do now and setting us back to square one again? Meanwhile, if the program continued, most of Constellation's major hardware would be either ready or in advanced development by that time (even factoring delays) and thus would be far harder for the next administration to consider terminating or radically altering. A passable program already underway is probably a much better option than a perfect program later given the vagaries of Washington politics. NASA's last big development programs (the Shuttle and Apollo) each gestated through three administrations, not something we can as easily count on these days; but if a program can survive two administrations, then it's chances of survival increase immensely.
(The badly engineered is a direct reference to the crazy that designed it in the first place and made a highly public sulk about people daring to check his work.)
That was Mike Griffin, who was then NASA's administrator. While Griffin is an aerospace engineer by trade, I seriously doubt he would actually had any part in designing Constellation's hardware (I doubt even Constellation's program manager would have). Further, while that exchange (if it happened) does come across as rather petulant and certainly not the best response he could have made, I can sort of see why he would feel that an unqualified paper pusher like Ms. Garver was being presumptuous to feel she can audit a complex engineering program under the authority of himself, a trained expert in that field. If it was another engineer asking Griffin for a "look under the hood", then that would be different. He might also have felt that Garver had already decided she was going to "find" problems weather or not they really existed to give her bosses an excuse to do what they'd already decided they wanted to do, which is actually a pretty common purpose of such "factfinding tours" in Washington (and lo and behold that's exactly what happened).
There won't be strong support for any space missions anytime soon. Photo-ops are nice, but the Congress prefers dumping money into other kinds of pits.
Can't argue with that. I might criticize Obama for not really caring about NASA, but that's hardly an unusual trait among politicians. Constellation would not even exist had Columbia not forced everyone's hand, and nobody would be even thinking of replacing the shuttles or going beyond LEO until maybe 5-10 years from now when their airframes were worn out. This is also why Constellation is "over budget and behind schedule": Kind of hard for it not to be when nobody, even it's supporters, were ever willing to give it a realistic budget for a program of that nature. If ObamaSpace is adopted it would be subject to that same problem.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Darth Holbytlan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2007-01-18 12:20am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Darth Holbytlan »

SirNitram wrote:Holbytlan, a Budget Bill can have an amendment for anything. Amendments rather specifically do whatever the hell people like. The Senate specifically allows these 'Nongermane amendments' in all but a few cases.
Granted that, as a Senate rider, it wasn't limited to budgetary issues. But I don't see what else should have been in the amendment given the context. What do you think was missing from it?
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by SirNitram »

Darth Holbytlan wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Holbytlan, a Budget Bill can have an amendment for anything. Amendments rather specifically do whatever the hell people like. The Senate specifically allows these 'Nongermane amendments' in all but a few cases.
Granted that, as a Senate rider, it wasn't limited to budgetary issues. But I don't see what else should have been in the amendment given the context. What do you think was missing from it?
Instructing NASA to put it to use, or scheduling additional tests, or as simple as stating 'Resuming all previous schedules'. Things could change. But given it was just these two, whose states have strong ties to the contractors, I'm moved to beleive payoff first.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Though simply keeping the money flowing may keep the program on mothballs for a while.

Obama's decision with respect to Constellation doesn't really have a lot of enthusiastic backers, as far as I can tell; there are people strongly against but very few people strongly for, who think that the rockets Obama promises we'll have around 2020-25 will be better than the rockets we knew we were going to have around 2015-20.

That being the case, if there's any chance of Obama reversing himself or having the decision reversed for him by Congress... the longer it goes on, the better. Keeping the pipeline going is better than shutting it down entirely.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Stofsk
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12925
Joined: 2003-11-10 12:36am

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Stofsk »

Can he reverse it without being tarred as a flip flopper?
Image
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by K. A. Pital »

Our wise man Iosef apparently doesn't take into account that governments can last for thousands of years, and thus can collect returns from fundamental science even in 1000 years after original allocations have been made.

Much of scientific exploration, especially fundamental science (and that includes space as a practical branch) is lossy. That does not mean we should not do it.

Iosef is funny.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by MKSheppard »

AAAAAAAAAAAND:

According Stewart Powell writing for the Houston Chronicle, the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 13 *unanimously* amended an Afghanistan war funding bill. The amendment wording came from senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Robert Bennett. It requires that NASA funds, "shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Fiscal Year 2010."

SAC Members:

Democrats:
* Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV West Virginia
* Daniel K. Inouye Hawaii
* John F. Kerry Massachusetts
* Byron L. Dorgan North Dakota
* Barbara Boxer California
* Bill Nelson Florida
* Maria Cantwell Washington
* Frank R. Lautenberg New Jersey
* Mark Pryor Arkansas
* Claire McCaskill Missouri
* Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
* Tom Udall New Mexico
* Mark Warner Virginia
* Mark Begich Alaska

Republicans:
* Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas
* Olympia Snowe Maine
* John Ensign Nevada
* Jim DeMint South Carolina
* John Thune South Dakota
* Roger Wicker Mississippi
* George S. LeMieux Florida
* Johnny Isakson Georgia
* David Vitter Louisiana
* Sam Brownback Kansas
* Mike Johanns Nebraska

Getting these 25 people to agree on anything is pretty epoch shaking.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by SirNitram »

Huh. Then they are continuing. This ought to cause some fun chaos in NASA..
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Samuel »

You can't seriously claim that they are going to establish goals that take longer then any company has ever existed and actually stick with it through all of the ups and downs that occur between now and then.
Just a nitpick- the East India Company ran for over 2 centuries and stuck through its "projects" in changing economic climates. The difference is that it was exploting someone already known, not something that was a complete unknown with large start up costs, unknown returns and the possibility of being completely undercut by a foreign government.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Stofsk wrote:Can he reverse it without being tarred as a flip flopper?
Since the nation did not give a shit when he proposed to cancel it, that will probably not be effective. Being "for the Iraq War before you were against it" hurts because people care about the Iraq War. Relatively few people are worked up about NASA, and I suspect that only a very tiny minority of Americans are strongly anti-NASA.

Moreover, anti-NASA people aren't necessarily concentrated in one party; Republicans can support NASA too, as the bipartisan amendment shows.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by phongn »

Given funding, NASA is aiming for a 2014 manned mission - and we may see Ares IV live.
NYT wrote:Busy Schedule for Rocket Obama Wants Scrapped

By KENNETH CHANG

The rocket that President Obama wants to kill is not dead yet.

NASA managers in charge of the rocket, the Ares I, which is part of the program to send astronauts back to the moon, have put together an ambitious testing program to accelerate its development, including a flight in November 2014 with astronauts aboard.

That would be four months earlier than NASA’s current schedule, which calls for the first manned flight in March 2015, and much faster than the 2017 date predicted by a blue-ribbon panel that reviewed NASA’s human spaceflight program last year.

Delays and rising costs are the primary reasons the Obama administration cites for its desire to kill the moon mission and turn over to private companies the business of launching astronauts.

But loud objections have come from some members of Congress, particularly those in Texas, Florida and Alabama, the homes of the NASA centers undertaking most of the development work for the moon program, known as Constellation.

Last month, in a speech at the Kennedy Space Center, President Obama modified his proposal, originally unveiled in February, and called for continuing the development of the Orion crew capsule that was to ride on top of the Ares I, but only as a stripped-down lifeboat for the International Space Station. The Ares program would still be canceled.

Jeffrey M. Hanley, the Constellation program manager, said in an interview that given the uncertainty of what might emerge in the final budget, “we felt it prudent to continue to operate in the program as if the program were to continue.” He described that possibility as “the unlikely case.”

Douglas R. Cooke, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems, said Mr. Hanley was not subverting the White House and NASA leadership.

“Until Congress passes the president’s proposed 2011 fiscal year budget that restructures the Constellation program,” Mr. Cooke said in a statement, “Mr. Hanley is obligated by law to comply with the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, which requires planning for the future of the Constellation program.”

Mr. Hanley described the proposal, first reported last week by the Web site NASASpaceFlight.com, as “a fairly rigorous planning exercise” that would be refined through the summer. The plan also outlines how the Ares I could evolve into a heavy-lift rocket by around 2018.

The Ares I is to be a two-stage rocket, with the first stage consisting of a stretched version of the solid rocket boosters used to launch the space shuttles, and the second stage powered by an updated version of the engines from the second and third stages of gigantic Saturn V rockets. The Orion crew capsule is to sit on top of the second stage.

A prototype of the Ares I, called Ares I-X, flew last October, but critics dismissed it as a public relations sham, because the first stage consisted of a standard shuttle booster rather than the stretched version, and the second stage and the crew capsule were hollow mock-ups.

The testing plan is similar to what has been advocated by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida. On Friday, Mr. Nelson, who was attending the launching of the space shuttle Atlantis, said, “If I had to guess right now, I’d say that the Senate is going to come out with some continued testing for an Ares I-X vehicle, to keep the options alive.”

In the latest version of the plan, a second flight test, with a fully developed first stage but still a dummy second stage, would launch in March 2013. Mr. Hanley said that flight could include a high-altitude test of the launching abort system that is designed to pull the crew capsule away from the rocket in case of trouble.

The abort system was successfully tested this month at the Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

“The test article last week came back so clean that we are studying whether or not we could possibly reuse it,” Mr. Hanley said. “That would save us some money and some time.”

A year later, in March 2014, a third flight test with a powered second stage would send a functional but empty Orion capsule into orbit. The Orion would circle the Earth for five days before splashing down in the Pacific.

Eight months later, a fourth flight with astronauts aboard would launch and dock with the space station.

“We have not settled or finalized any of those plans,” Mr. Hanley said. “This is still a study we’re doing.”

Mr. Hanley said the schedule could be sped up by reducing some of the ground testing of pieces like the second-stage engine and by simplifying somewhat the Orion capsule.

“We felt that accepting perhaps a little more risk, but certainly getting flying and getting real flight experience with this hardware, was going to be a more effective approach in the long run,” Mr. Hanley said.

The plan gives nods to the priorities outlined in the proposed Obama administration space policy.

After the three additional fight tests, the Ares I would be used only “if needed” to take astronauts to the space station, according to a presentation last month. The plan also casts the flight tests as a progression leading to heavy-lift rocket for missions beyond Earth orbit, and it de-emphasizes the original goal of landing on the moon.

Instead of building the behemoth Ares V envisioned by the current Constellation program, the plan looks to develop a smaller heavy lifter that uses the same second stage as the Ares I. The first stage would consist of two of the stretched solid rocket boosters strapped to a core cylinder with additional engines, similar to what was planned for the Ares V.

Although the simplified heavy-lift rocket would not be as powerful, “That system could lob the Orion around the moon,” Mr. Hanley said.

Mr. Hanley said he did not yet have estimates for how much this test program would cost. “That’s what’s going on through the summer,” he said.

He acknowledged that his efforts were somewhat at cross-purposes with those of his bosses, who are trying to convince Congress that Constellation is unworkable.

“I really have to leave it to them to sort out with the national leadership,” he said.

William Harwood contributed reporting from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Patrick Degan »

Iosef Cross wrote:However, the rate of interest is what determines the degree of shortness in time view of corporations. With zero interest rates, companies will make investments with will turn out profits in 500 years, for example. They can make such investments because they can take money and pay it back without interest in 500 years. That means that they could sack the profits to be made in 500 years today with zero interest rates. What ultimately determine the interest rates are the time preferences of individuals at large, not individual corporations. That means that corporations reflect the view of society at large.
Corporate boards-of-directors won't want to wait five hundred years to get their ROI, they want it NOW. If they can't get it NOW, they're not interested. That's the way corporate decisionmaking operates in the real world. Sorry to burst your balloon.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Darth Holbytlan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2007-01-18 12:20am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by Darth Holbytlan »

SirNitram wrote:
Darth Holbytlan wrote:But I don't see what else should have been in the amendment given the context. What do you think was missing from it?
Instructing NASA to put it to use,
Constellation is still under development. Why would Congress need to order it to be used right now?
or scheduling additional tests, or as simple as stating 'Resuming all previous schedules'.
From the previously-passed law (obtained here):
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (amending Sec. 219. (a) sch. IV of ch. 57 of title 5, U.S.C.) wrote:Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
As I read that, it already covers tests and schedules. It even arguably bans even spending employee time (and therefore pay) on evaluating cancellation of the Constellation program. I came across an article quoting a Congress-critter saying exactly that, although I lost track of the reference. Given the article phongn found, it looks like the tests and schedules haven't been interrupted at all.

In this context, the amendment just serves as a reminder and demonstration of Congressional support for Constellation. It doesn't really have to do more, and trying might risk complicating the show of support with too much debate.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by MKSheppard »

Link

quite a few papers will be presented tomorrow.

In the Heavy Lift and Propulsion Tech there's this:
R&D on First Stage Launch Propulsion

Large hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine capable of generating high levels of thrust exceeding roughly one million pounds of thrust at sea level. Improved robustness, efficiencies, affordability, operability

– Explore partnership with DoD – common engine for national security and civil space missions

– Goal: Fully operational engine by 2020
2020. Christ.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by phongn »

Oh, great, RS-84 all over again.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: AL, UT Republicans demand more Ares spending.

Post by MKSheppard »

phongn wrote:Oh, great, RS-84 all over again.
Didn't we get RS-84 near flight testing before it was cancelled in what 2003?

So what's with the decade long delay before we can get RS-84 (plus)?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Post Reply