Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Radiation hardening and SpaceX

51 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, slammer said:

NASA was and should always be research and exploration

 

and useful military technology.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, catjones said:

 

and useful military technology.

Not sure about that, at least NASA should not be about that and as we havn`t found any Klingons yet, a NASA military budget would be a waste.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, slammer said:

Not sure about that, at least NASA should not be about that and as we havn`t found any Klingons yet, a NASA military budget would be a waste.

 

NASA is a US government agency, not a private enterprise.  So is the US military, which is a space-based weapons/intelligence platform.  Cross pollination of technology is crucial.  Sputnik was not seen as a tech marvel, but as a military threat and thus the US response..  The line between the two is fine if not invisible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, slammer said:

Not sure about that, at least NASA should not be about that and as we havn`t found any Klingons yet, a NASA military budget would be a waste.

There are 5 hubbles in orbit. 4 facing earth. 4 belong to the military, but development cost was mostly coming from NASA budget.

 

For many years this information was hard to get and hard to confirm directly, but this changed a few years ago when this came to light:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-receives-2-us-military-telescopes-2012-6

 

The Shuttle was a military program disguised as civilian. And it were the stupid military requirements that doomed the original design. It was supposed to be much smaller, with much smaller wings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

Forget the % of Federal budget because it's a terrible metric. It mixes stuff that changed over time, which makes it useless. 

 

Its just a fact the the US spend far less now on NASA, in real term then it did while it was flying people to the moon ....  that means you get less deveoplments

 

23 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

 

The actual value in 1960's money was $4B, which considering inflation now means $23B. Understand or do I need to go baby-talk level?

 

Massively less than what it got years ago, because the US spends less of it GDP on it, thats just a fact from the table.

 

IF somebody came along a cut your salary by 80 %, you would make cuts aswell, just like NASA has done

 

 

23 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

 

Hard to swallow? Yes. Numbers are correct? Yes. Destroys narrative? Yes.

 

There is less to swallow for NASA these days....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesterday said:

 

Its just a fact the the US spend far less now on NASA, in real term then it did while it was flying people to the moon ...  that means you get less deveoplments

Wrong!

 

1 hour ago, yesterday said:

 

Massively less than what it got years ago, because the US spends less of it GDP on it, thats just a fact from the table.

Moon rockets don't care about GDP. They don't care about federal budget size. They care about amout of money.

 

1 hour ago, yesterday said:

 

IF somebody came along a cut your salary by 80 %, you would make cuts aswell, just like NASA has done

NASA did no such thing.What a bad analogy.

Let me explain in kid's terms:

- you are a single child and you get 10€ of allowance per week

- your parents have another kid, and they also give him 10€ per week

- now you are receiving 50% of the allowance budget, and before you were receiving 100%. Are you receiving less money? NO!

 

Get it?? Is it that hard?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

Wrong!

I am RIGHT, you are wrong

4 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

 

Moon rockets don't care about GDP. They don't care about federal budget size. They care about amout of money.

GDP at a certain level means a certain amount of cash to spend on Moon rockets

 

4 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

NASA did no such thing.What a bad analogy.

Let me explain in kid's terms:

- you are a single child and you get 10€ of allowance per week

- your parents have another kid, and they also give him 10€ per week

- now you are receiving 50% of the allowance budget, and before you were receiving 100%. Are you receiving less money? NO!

 

Get it?? Is it that hard?

 

No you giving your kids 10 euro has got nothing to do with funding space rockets

4 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

 

 

I I think we are not going to agree on these points, maybe the conversation should close, before we both descend in to direct insults on each other

 

You live in your world I live in mine 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, yesterday said:

I I think we are not going to agree on these points, maybe the conversation should close, before we both descend in to direct insults on each other

 

You live in your world I live in mine 

 

No, because I'm right. Look at the blue line. There was a brief period of 5 years during the peak where it was higher, but the 11 year average of the Apollo program (1961-1972) was below current budget. Even the year of the first lunar landing was already below 2021's budget.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-budget-1959-2020/

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, yesterday said:

I am RIGHT, you are wrong

 

I I think we are not going to agree on these points, maybe the conversation should close, before we both descend in to direct insults on each other

 

You don't think that two people who are adamant that they are right and cannot be wrong will be able to agree to disagree do you?

 

This is what the Internet is all about - people who can't accept other people have a different opinion and have to get the other person to agree with them before they can move on with their lives. That's why some people spend a lot of time on the Internet, because they have annoyed lots of people in the real world because they can't accept other people can have a different opinion than them.

 

Neither of you will back down and if one of you stops posting in this thread, the other person will think they have 'won' because that is all that is important to people who can't accept other people can have a different opinion than them. They have to get other people to agree with them even if it means they p1ss everyone else off because all that is important to people like this is 'winning' and being right.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warsteiner70 said:

people who can't accept other people can have a different opinion than them. They have to get other people to agree with them even if it means they p1ss everyone else off because all that is important to people like this is 'winning' and being right.

 

An opinion is: white wine is better than red wine.

Nonsense is: wine is distilled horse urine, or the drink of the devil, or really plasma in liquid form.

 

A lot of people including me have just about given up pushing back again MM's nonsense which is simply:

 

Nasa old and useless. spacex the future of everything Nasa used to do.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Particle detected travelling at estimated 99.99999999999999% the speed of light.

 

Detection of a Cosmic Ray with Measured Energy Well Beyond the Expected Spectral Cutoff due to Cosmic Microwave Radiation

We report the detection of a 51-joule (320 +/- 90 EeV) cosmic ray by the Fly's Eye air shower detector in Utah. This is substantially greater than the energy of any previously reported cosmic ray. A Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min cutoff of the energy spectrum (due to pion photoproduction energy losses) should occur below this energy unless the highest energy cosmic rays have traveled less than about 30 Mpc. The error box for the arrival direction in galactic coordinates is centered on b=9.6 deg, l=163.4 deg. The particle cascade reached a maximum size near a depth of 815 g/cm^2 in the atmosphere, a depth which does not uniquely identify the type of primary particle.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0