That is a good summary. The main thing I take from it though is that slow funding has been the most important recent cost driver. Brinksmanship in Congress imposes extra costs as money is delayed. So, the question is, why does Congress not pay for its grandstanding?
Not too sure why JWST is being blamed for this. JWST does impact support for other astronomy missions, but planetary exploration is its own program. Might just as well say that not closing the space station is to blame if these kinds of games are going to be played.
This description of the study seems a little more informative: "The total mass ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and all Earth’s glaciers and ice caps between 2003 to 2010 was 1,000 cubic miles, about eight times the water volume of Lake Erie.
“The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water,” said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr"
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/02/09/global-warming-cu-led-study-pinpoints-earths-ice-loss/
Weapons making peace necessary is an interesting thought. Kind of harmonizes with libertarian ideas about an armed society being a polite society. My thinking was more along the lines that tech development, even when military, has peaceful applications as well.
There are keyboards designed to withstand 100% of coffee spills. Reactors could be designed to withstand 100% of earthquakes. Likely, naval reactors could do so already. Don't be silly.
Let's suppose there is 15 lb/square inch of atmosphere to punch through and the projectile is 7.5 tons with 100 square inch profile. Then its surface density is about 150 lb/square inch. So, it needs to shed about 10% of its momentum to get through the air. Not a lot.
Seems to me that deceleration from the atmosphere could be handled by using a high surface density projectile, something long. Then F/m is not so large. One could also lead with several sacrificial projectiles to clear the air ahead. Normally, a way to circularize an orbit would be a rocket. But, for low earth orbit, an air anchor on a tether might do the job.
"What we are seeing here, as any military person in the audience can tell you, is nothing more than a repetition of weapons systems that goes back to the beginning of time. An offensive weapons system is developed, and it takes time to develop the defense. And then another offensive weapon is developed that overcomes that defense, and then another defense is built up -- as surely as castles and moats held off people with spears and bows and arrows and riding horses, and the catapult was developed to overcome the castle and the moat." -- President Clinton http://www.cybercrime.gov/nas9901.htm
I sure hope you are not saying they should only do what the licensees want (which is what they do). Congress established the fee. The fee could just as well be a tax that goes into general revenue. WE pay for the NRC by those missing revenues.
Actually, we started out with bombers, which we still use. But I'll grant that the hydrogen bomb was aimed towards a missile. More bang for the buck meant more bang per launcher really.
So the NRC's job is to rubber stamp laughable risk estimates from industry? In the forty years or so of commercial nuclear power we get a major meltdown every eight years. The NRC talks about one per million years per reactor, complete claptrap....
What is important is the amount of energy you need to carry with you. With a rocket, you need to carry your fuel, with a gun, you don't. It may make sense to use a longer rail for human spaceflight. Last I checked, about 60 miles was a comfortable rail length.
Good point. But why would you need a surface fleet if a submarine fleet would do a better job. The carrier group projects force, but a rail gun equipped sub group projects more. TFA mentions using the rail guns for carrier protection against missiles too.
The commissioners are abusive and dysfunctional with each other. Little wonder the whole organization can't get along with any other part of the government.
Slashdot Mirror
For things that run hot, dry cooling is an option. 60% efficient gas turbines are an example. There is much less heat to dissipate for the power produced compared to low thermal efficiency nuclear plants. Dry cooling is an option for desert solar too. http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/07/12/dry-cooling-project-for-genesis-solar-solar-thermal-energy-plant-in-california/
That is a good summary. The main thing I take from it though is that slow funding has been the most important recent cost driver. Brinksmanship in Congress imposes extra costs as money is delayed. So, the question is, why does Congress not pay for its grandstanding?
Not too sure why JWST is being blamed for this. JWST does impact support for other astronomy missions, but planetary exploration is its own program. Might just as well say that not closing the space station is to blame if these kinds of games are going to be played.
This description of the study seems a little more informative: "The total mass ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and all Earth’s glaciers and ice caps between 2003 to 2010 was 1,000 cubic miles, about eight times the water volume of Lake Erie. “The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water,” said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr" http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/02/09/global-warming-cu-led-study-pinpoints-earths-ice-loss/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-license-idUSTRE8181T420120209
Got to do the guitar solo....
Weapons making peace necessary is an interesting thought. Kind of harmonizes with libertarian ideas about an armed society being a polite society. My thinking was more along the lines that tech development, even when military, has peaceful applications as well.
There are keyboards designed to withstand 100% of coffee spills. Reactors could be designed to withstand 100% of earthquakes. Likely, naval reactors could do so already. Don't be silly.
Let's suppose there is 15 lb/square inch of atmosphere to punch through and the projectile is 7.5 tons with 100 square inch profile. Then its surface density is about 150 lb/square inch. So, it needs to shed about 10% of its momentum to get through the air. Not a lot.
My son and I have been considering building the thing as a neutral buoyancy structure in the ocean. Could get a better launch angle that way.
Seems to me that deceleration from the atmosphere could be handled by using a high surface density projectile, something long. Then F/m is not so large. One could also lead with several sacrificial projectiles to clear the air ahead. Normally, a way to circularize an orbit would be a rocket. But, for low earth orbit, an air anchor on a tether might do the job.
"What we are seeing here, as any military person in the audience can tell you, is nothing more than a repetition of weapons systems that goes back to the beginning of time. An offensive weapons system is developed, and it takes time to develop the defense. And then another offensive weapon is developed that overcomes that defense, and then another defense is built up -- as surely as castles and moats held off people with spears and bows and arrows and riding horses, and the catapult was developed to overcome the castle and the moat." -- President Clinton http://www.cybercrime.gov/nas9901.htm
I sure hope you are not saying they should only do what the licensees want (which is what they do). Congress established the fee. The fee could just as well be a tax that goes into general revenue. WE pay for the NRC by those missing revenues.
Good point. They protected their turf against Chu and were abusive to his appointees. Towards Chu, they were merely, I don't know, turds?
The navy is looking for a power source that can handle 10 rounds per minute.
Actually, we started out with bombers, which we still use. But I'll grant that the hydrogen bomb was aimed towards a missile. More bang for the buck meant more bang per launcher really.
So the NRC's job is to rubber stamp laughable risk estimates from industry? In the forty years or so of commercial nuclear power we get a major meltdown every eight years. The NRC talks about one per million years per reactor, complete claptrap....
Or, the republicans just want to stage a coup and are insubordinate to try to push that. Either way, they are not working well together.
What is important is the amount of energy you need to carry with you. With a rocket, you need to carry your fuel, with a gun, you don't. It may make sense to use a longer rail for human spaceflight. Last I checked, about 60 miles was a comfortable rail length.
Good point. But why would you need a surface fleet if a submarine fleet would do a better job. The carrier group projects force, but a rail gun equipped sub group projects more. TFA mentions using the rail guns for carrier protection against missiles too.
We do expect the NRC to know what to do in case of a meltdown. Evidently they take the money but don't do the job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potomac_two-step
The commissioners are abusive and dysfunctional with each other. Little wonder the whole organization can't get along with any other part of the government.
Actually no. The projectile survives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfU-wMwL2U
Got to pronounce it right.