China could dump all their investments, driving down the price, and making it difficult for the gov't to get any new money since everyone will just buy the stuff that China is selling.
a) That doesn't make any sense. If they did that, it would be a short term market shake-up, predators would jump in to pick up essentially free bonds, and it would use up China's entire "arsenal" in a one-time event, and burn T-T-Trillions in its own capital in the process.
The conspiracy theory is that somehow, because of "Chinese loans", China now has some long term "leverage" over the US. But it doesn't work like that. China can't "call in its loans", it can't make threats. All it can do is sell on the open market. For China to try to act, it burns trillions in its own capital, and gains nothing in the long run but a few months of market excitement which they can't take advantage of, because...
b) The US Treasury completely controls the bonds it sells. If China dumps it's entire investment, not concerned about the cost, the US govt could simply force the purchase for itself at that price. The effect on the market is zero. If that's not enough, the US govt could selectively default on Chinese-owned bonds, or ban their resale for so many days, zeroing their value, restoring a normal market. Or it could just limit the rate of transfer of Chinese-owned bonds.
Likewise, if China dumped its current holdings, hoping to raise the interest rates the US must offer for new debt to extortionate levels, then buys those bonds to lock in a higher interest rate as some kind of market scam, the US can happily take China's money and then selectively default on those new Chinese-owned high-interest bonds. (It's not as if crashing the bond markets is subtle. So the US govt will have every excuse to pass emergency legislation against this "hostile act". Just as they could act against any dangerous market manipulation.) And China isn't stupid enough to risk it.
You can't damage another country by buying its debt in its currency in a system that it has utter control over.
(The reason European debt is dangerous (ie, Greek debt) is because it's in a "foreign" currency, the EU. Any country that is forced to borrow in a foreign currency puts itself at risk. The US doesn't "Borrow" at all. It issues US Dollar, fixed interest, debt bonds. Any crisis that lowers the value of the US dollar, lowers US debt relative to other currencies. Totally different ballgame.)
Suppose the US needs (like, *really* needs) some additional money, so they decide to float some new bonds.
Oh, and these two events don't have to be tightly correlated. The US can print money now and issue debt later. Inflation isn't instant. The US dollar might drop in value on the currency markets, but that doesn't affect internal prices immediately, although it does immediately make US exports more competitive. Once China shoots its wad, and markets have recovered, the US then issues debt to cover spending.
So you want them to spend money now on missions that will only be viable if the SLS works out?
(I don't want them to spend money on SLS at all.)
SLS will cost $3 billion to maintain whether it has a mission or not. (Fixed costs.)
Say it takes 8 years to develop mission hardware (say a lunar lander and a base module). During that 8 years you are funding the development of that hardware and you are spending an extra $24 billion on a launcher you aren't actually flying.
So, if you insist on building SLS, then you can either spend that extra $24 billion on mission hardware while SLS is being developed, or you can wait and then waste $24 billion keeping SLS operational while you develop mission hardware. There's no savings unless you intend to cancel SLS early.
This makes no sense. The reason you build military hardware in anticipation of a war is because wars can flare up much faster than hardware can be built.
So you are assuming that, while it takes a decade to build the launcher, the mission hardware is somehow available immediately, without warning? That's just silly.
You don't want to decide 8 years from now you need ANOTHER space launch vehicle because this one is too small for something critical.
Why the hell not? You'll then know precisely what capacity you need, what payload diameter, and what budget you have. Why piss $70 billion-plus on a launcher for an unknown, unfunded, unspecified mission today? Put it in the bank for when you know what you actually need. Or spend it on technology that reduce long term cost and enhance mission capability (like orbital refuelling and commercial crew.)
70 tons was a number pulled out of a senator's ass. What happens if it's too small for an actual mission? You've just wasted $70 billion on nothing.
You've heard people respond to "Illegal downloading is stealing!" by pointing out that it's copyright violation, not "stealing"? People call it "stealing" to try to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
In the same way, "Cyber-warfare" just means espionage, mostly corporate espionage, not "war". People call it "war" in order to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
Foreigners own less than 30% of US Treasury bonds. China owns 30% of those foreign owned bonds. About 8% of US bonds in total. The bonds are for a fixed term. They are paid in US dollars, at a fixed interest. And the US Treasury must register and approve all buyers.
China cannot "call in their debt" early. That's not how bonds work. The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term. Since the interest rate paid on bonds is about a low as it can get, it means demand is high and so the US is not in any way dependent on China buying new debt. In fact, China seems to be gradually selling out of US Treasuries, and the interest hasn't gone up. If China tried to dump its bonds, the market would scoop them up.
Since each bond is individually registered with the US Treasury, and is paid by the US Treasury, if China somehow tried to... do something... somehow... to blackmail the US over its debt, the US government could selectively default on Chinese owned bonds. This wouldn't spook the bond market much because of the narrow targeted US response, and the obvious dickishness of the Chinese in bring it on themselves. (In fact, under such circumstances it would probably settle the markets.)
Put simply, you cannot fuck with another country by buying their debt in a form they have absolute control over.
Anyone who says you can is lying to you in order to sell you something.
But I have not heard any sound justification for public funding of commercial development.
NASA has a space station, ISS, run jointly with international partners. With the end of the shuttle program, NASA has no ability to launch crew or equipment to the ISS, and must purchase flights on a foreign launcher. The cost of seats has increased sharply since NASA became dependent, and the reliability of the foreign launch vehicle has decreased sharply. Each time the foreign launcher is grounded for safety reasons, there's a risk that the ISS will have to be abandoned because there is no alternative vehicle, and their capsule cannot land in winter. And NASA has no control over them, or any way to enforce standards.
So NASA is spending less than a billion dollars on subsidising (but not fully funding) four US commercial crew launchers, and two cargo launchers. That enables them to bring forward the first commercial crew flights, and gives them a powerful guarantee that the commercial systems will meet NASA's requirements. Judging by SpaceX prices, this will, in the long term, at least halve the cost of launching US astronauts to the ISS compared to the foreign launcher.
Once developed, some of the commercial players may also carry tourist flights and non-NASA funded science flights. This creates a secondary market that, from NASA point of view, subsidises the continued development of launch capacity to NASA's benefit.
Importantly, if any of the four commercial players do not meet NASA's goals, they will not be paid.
By contrast, NASA is spending $3 billion per year on commercial contractors to build NASA's own SLS launcher and MPCV capsule. This will likely launch no more than twice per year at about $1.5 billion per launch, and carry no more than 4 astronauts per year. It is estimated to cost about $70 billion to develop, and launch crew no earlier than 2021, assuming it doesn't go over-schedule or over-budget. (Prior to its cancellation, the schedule of the previous program, Constellation, was slipping 1 year per year.)
All risks of this project are NASA's, all cost overruns come out of NASA's budget.
So the issue is which of these two approaches is the most cost effective way for NASA to fulfil it's goals on the limited budget it is given.
Advocates of Commercial Crew believe that being able to develop four new commercial carriers on a budget of $200 million per year each, is much more cost effective than developing one launcher on a budget of $3,000 million per year. Thus cancelling SLS and directing it's $3 billion per year budget to CCDev style goal-driven development will allow NASA to leverage a much greater capacity for BEO missions.
I don't understand how people like this Minister think they are helping their case. I mean, in their heads, how does the logic work?
Power-grabber: I want to grab power. Opponent: I don't trust you with that much power. Power-grabber: That's because you are an Enemy. Only Enemies want to keep their rights. Opponent: Oh, okay, now I totally trust you with that much power.
And private schools. And don't forget churches. If you're in favour of sending your kids to church, you clearly support the pedophile priests. You're either anti-church, or pro-pedophile. If it seems unfair to punish the entire concept of religion for the actions of a few child rapists, but that's only because you support child rapists, obviously.
And of course, more children are abused by their parents/family than by non-family-members, so children should be raised by non-family-members. It's only logical. Anyone who objects is obviously an child abuser or a sympathiser.
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
look up the port arthur massacre. none of us have guns anymore because of that.
Actually gun ownership numbers are higher now than before Port Arthur. A bit under 5 million registered firearms, and god knows how many unregistered.
You just can't legally own auto or semi-auto rifles, or some large calibre handguns and high capacity shotguns. Manual-action rifles and small-calibre handguns are fine, and we import about 80,000 each year, 40,000 rifles, 10,000 shotguns, 20,000 handguns (Yes I know there's a missing 10,000, no I don't know what it is.)
Stop buying their shit. Don't download it, don't stream it, don't swap it, don't buy it. I stopped going to movies, stopped buying/renting movies, stopping buying music altogether. I disconnected the cable/satellite service.
These are seen only as a reduction in sales. No reason is attached to a non-sale. They will blame the loss of sales on piracy. By not buying, you are merely reinforcing their assumption that you are pirating their product, whether you are or aren't. You can't win their game, you can't quit their game. The only way is to change the game. And IMO, encouraging piracy is actually the best strategy, even if you, yourself, have no real desire to. Help make it mainstream, help make it easy to do, encourage another generation of kids (and their grandparents) who just see downloading as "using the internet".
The orbiter burned hydrazine in the three auxiliary power units (APUs) to provide pressure for the hydraulic systems, including the control surfaces and landing gear.
Can't understand why a couple people weren't prosecuted for manslaughter over Columbia. "Hey guys, the videotape shows some foam hit the wing at Mach 1 or so. Do you think maybe we should see if the wing got damaged?" "Nah, let's stick with the mission plan. Tell the astronauts there isn't a problem."
(To be fair they did run a simulation with the software they used for predicting the size of debris based on damage, to try to predict the size of the hole based on debris size.)
What bugs me about Columbia, yeah even more than the loss of vehicle and crew, is the loss of the opportunity. Imagine when the decision got to whoever made the final call, and instead they'd said: "fuck it, save this ship" and made it an emergency rescue and repair. Even if it turned out that there was no damage, it's still fantastic training for an actual emergency. You fast-track the next shuttle launch (Discovery?), you put the Columbia crew on emergency power & O2 rationing, you put out an international call for the first cargo launcher capable of reaching the shuttle to take supplies up to extend Columbia's orbital duration, the crew start training for EVA to check for damage and retrieve the supplies. Meanwhile engineers on the ground start creating techniques to both extend the orbital duration and do an in-orbit repair. Once Discovery is ready, you launch two volunteer test-pilots with EVA experience, and a payload bay full of rescue gear, to meet Columbia in orbit. (The first time two orbiters have flown at the same time.) The Columbia crew are brought over to Discovery, the test-pilots do an EVA and attempt a repair using the hastily developed methods. If the repair works, the plan is for those pilots to fly Columbia back, but inevitably Columbia's pilot & co-pilot request the chance to bring "their" ship home...
Apollo 13 in high-def. The world holds its breath. NASA's finest hour.
Instead, the decision-maker was more afraid of the risk of doing an EVA (the crew weren't trained), and the inevitable call for a rescue if damage was found and then the risk of losing two shuttles. And that fear meant that it was easier to find any piece of evidence that said "no damage", it was easier to not look and just hope. (Kind of like not going to the doctor to check out that lump. As long as you don't go, it's just a lump.)
Agreed. But why to care about being "green" once you are out of the Earth atmosphere?
It's like changing from nitroglycerine-based dynamite to something stable like ANFO or C4.
Hydrazine is viciously toxic and corrosive. That means it's slow and difficult to handle, and expensive to design equipment around. Plus spills contaminate the work site, meaning there are higher-level EIS compliance costs for contractors.
Something like NOFBX, if it proves to be as effective and stable as hydrazine, dramatically simplifies handling. As well as being less corrosive on containers, pumps, etc. The only danger you're left with is its tendency to asplode. (Which is, you know, like, its job.)
Green fuel.. I mean seriously, who came up with that term anyway?
From TFA's lame author. The NASA paper doesn't use the term.
The quote from NASA is: "Hydrazine is an efficient and ubiquitous propellant that can be stored for long periods of time, but is also highly corrosive and toxic. It is used extensively on commercial and defense department satellites as well as for NASA science and exploration missions. NASA is looking for an alternative that decreases environmental hazards and pollutants, has fewer operational hazards and shortens rocket launch processing times."
Even though it has the dreaded "E" word, it all seems fairly reasonable to me. They want a fuel that can replace hydrazine that's less toxic (hence easier to handle), less corrosive (hence cheaper to design around), and is less polluting (hence is easier for suppliers to comply with govt EIS regs.)
Slashdot Mirror
China could dump all their investments, driving down the price, and making it difficult for the gov't to get any new money since everyone will just buy the stuff that China is selling.
a) That doesn't make any sense. If they did that, it would be a short term market shake-up, predators would jump in to pick up essentially free bonds, and it would use up China's entire "arsenal" in a one-time event, and burn T-T-Trillions in its own capital in the process.
The conspiracy theory is that somehow, because of "Chinese loans", China now has some long term "leverage" over the US. But it doesn't work like that. China can't "call in its loans", it can't make threats. All it can do is sell on the open market. For China to try to act, it burns trillions in its own capital, and gains nothing in the long run but a few months of market excitement which they can't take advantage of, because...
b) The US Treasury completely controls the bonds it sells. If China dumps it's entire investment, not concerned about the cost, the US govt could simply force the purchase for itself at that price. The effect on the market is zero. If that's not enough, the US govt could selectively default on Chinese-owned bonds, or ban their resale for so many days, zeroing their value, restoring a normal market. Or it could just limit the rate of transfer of Chinese-owned bonds.
Likewise, if China dumped its current holdings, hoping to raise the interest rates the US must offer for new debt to extortionate levels, then buys those bonds to lock in a higher interest rate as some kind of market scam, the US can happily take China's money and then selectively default on those new Chinese-owned high-interest bonds. (It's not as if crashing the bond markets is subtle. So the US govt will have every excuse to pass emergency legislation against this "hostile act". Just as they could act against any dangerous market manipulation.) And China isn't stupid enough to risk it.
You can't damage another country by buying its debt in its currency in a system that it has utter control over.
(The reason European debt is dangerous (ie, Greek debt) is because it's in a "foreign" currency, the EU. Any country that is forced to borrow in a foreign currency puts itself at risk. The US doesn't "Borrow" at all. It issues US Dollar, fixed interest, debt bonds. Any crisis that lowers the value of the US dollar, lowers US debt relative to other currencies. Totally different ballgame.)
Suppose the US needs (like, *really* needs) some additional money, so they decide to float some new bonds.
Oh, and these two events don't have to be tightly correlated. The US can print money now and issue debt later. Inflation isn't instant. The US dollar might drop in value on the currency markets, but that doesn't affect internal prices immediately, although it does immediately make US exports more competitive. Once China shoots its wad, and markets have recovered, the US then issues debt to cover spending.
So you want them to spend money now on missions that will only be viable if the SLS works out?
(I don't want them to spend money on SLS at all.)
SLS will cost $3 billion to maintain whether it has a mission or not. (Fixed costs.)
Say it takes 8 years to develop mission hardware (say a lunar lander and a base module). During that 8 years you are funding the development of that hardware and you are spending an extra $24 billion on a launcher you aren't actually flying.
So, if you insist on building SLS, then you can either spend that extra $24 billion on mission hardware while SLS is being developed, or you can wait and then waste $24 billion keeping SLS operational while you develop mission hardware. There's no savings unless you intend to cancel SLS early.
This makes no sense. The reason you build military hardware in anticipation of a war is because wars can flare up much faster than hardware can be built.
So you are assuming that, while it takes a decade to build the launcher, the mission hardware is somehow available immediately, without warning? That's just silly.
You don't want to decide 8 years from now you need ANOTHER space launch vehicle because this one is too small for something critical.
Why the hell not? You'll then know precisely what capacity you need, what payload diameter, and what budget you have. Why piss $70 billion-plus on a launcher for an unknown, unfunded, unspecified mission today? Put it in the bank for when you know what you actually need. Or spend it on technology that reduce long term cost and enhance mission capability (like orbital refuelling and commercial crew.)
70 tons was a number pulled out of a senator's ass. What happens if it's too small for an actual mission? You've just wasted $70 billion on nothing.
Then why isn't the vastly better funded DoD at all interested in, or funding, SLS development? The DoD is only paying for the X-37, Atlas and Delta.
You've heard people respond to "Illegal downloading is stealing!" by pointing out that it's copyright violation, not "stealing"? People call it "stealing" to try to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
In the same way, "Cyber-warfare" just means espionage, mostly corporate espionage, not "war". People call it "war" in order to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
Diebold?
Should China use this position against the US
How? That's the part no one ever gets around to. How exactly does China "use" debt "against the US"?
They can either buy, hold or sell.
Which of those hurts the US?
Foreigners own less than 30% of US Treasury bonds. China owns 30% of those foreign owned bonds. About 8% of US bonds in total. The bonds are for a fixed term. They are paid in US dollars, at a fixed interest. And the US Treasury must register and approve all buyers.
China cannot "call in their debt" early. That's not how bonds work. The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term. Since the interest rate paid on bonds is about a low as it can get, it means demand is high and so the US is not in any way dependent on China buying new debt. In fact, China seems to be gradually selling out of US Treasuries, and the interest hasn't gone up. If China tried to dump its bonds, the market would scoop them up.
Since each bond is individually registered with the US Treasury, and is paid by the US Treasury, if China somehow tried to... do something... somehow... to blackmail the US over its debt, the US government could selectively default on Chinese owned bonds. This wouldn't spook the bond market much because of the narrow targeted US response, and the obvious dickishness of the Chinese in bring it on themselves. (In fact, under such circumstances it would probably settle the markets.)
Put simply, you cannot fuck with another country by buying their debt in a form they have absolute control over.
Anyone who says you can is lying to you in order to sell you something.
But I have not heard any sound justification for public funding of commercial development.
NASA has a space station, ISS, run jointly with international partners. With the end of the shuttle program, NASA has no ability to launch crew or equipment to the ISS, and must purchase flights on a foreign launcher. The cost of seats has increased sharply since NASA became dependent, and the reliability of the foreign launch vehicle has decreased sharply. Each time the foreign launcher is grounded for safety reasons, there's a risk that the ISS will have to be abandoned because there is no alternative vehicle, and their capsule cannot land in winter. And NASA has no control over them, or any way to enforce standards.
So NASA is spending less than a billion dollars on subsidising (but not fully funding) four US commercial crew launchers, and two cargo launchers. That enables them to bring forward the first commercial crew flights, and gives them a powerful guarantee that the commercial systems will meet NASA's requirements. Judging by SpaceX prices, this will, in the long term, at least halve the cost of launching US astronauts to the ISS compared to the foreign launcher.
Once developed, some of the commercial players may also carry tourist flights and non-NASA funded science flights. This creates a secondary market that, from NASA point of view, subsidises the continued development of launch capacity to NASA's benefit.
Importantly, if any of the four commercial players do not meet NASA's goals, they will not be paid.
By contrast, NASA is spending $3 billion per year on commercial contractors to build NASA's own SLS launcher and MPCV capsule. This will likely launch no more than twice per year at about $1.5 billion per launch, and carry no more than 4 astronauts per year. It is estimated to cost about $70 billion to develop, and launch crew no earlier than 2021, assuming it doesn't go over-schedule or over-budget. (Prior to its cancellation, the schedule of the previous program, Constellation, was slipping 1 year per year.)
All risks of this project are NASA's, all cost overruns come out of NASA's budget.
So the issue is which of these two approaches is the most cost effective way for NASA to fulfil it's goals on the limited budget it is given.
Advocates of Commercial Crew believe that being able to develop four new commercial carriers on a budget of $200 million per year each, is much more cost effective than developing one launcher on a budget of $3,000 million per year. Thus cancelling SLS and directing it's $3 billion per year budget to CCDev style goal-driven development will allow NASA to leverage a much greater capacity for BEO missions.
Hope that helps.
SLS isn't only a "backup". It will be the primary means of launching heavy materials and vehicles beyond orbit for deep space missions
What "heavy materials and vehicles"?
No such missions are funded. No such vehicles are funded.
"Backing up" commercial launches, at $1.5 billion per launch, is the only mission SLS has.
I don't understand how people like this Minister think they are helping their case. I mean, in their heads, how does the logic work?
Power-grabber: I want to grab power.
Opponent: I don't trust you with that much power.
Power-grabber: That's because you are an Enemy. Only Enemies want to keep their rights.
Opponent: Oh, okay, now I totally trust you with that much power.
Yes, Minister.
Therefore common sense says that the Minister's children should be medically examined for signs of abuse.
His refusal would be admitting that he has something to hide, and the children should be removed for their own safety.
And private schools. And don't forget churches. If you're in favour of sending your kids to church, you clearly support the pedophile priests. You're either anti-church, or pro-pedophile. If it seems unfair to punish the entire concept of religion for the actions of a few child rapists, but that's only because you support child rapists, obviously.
And of course, more children are abused by their parents/family than by non-family-members, so children should be raised by non-family-members. It's only logical. Anyone who objects is obviously an child abuser or a sympathiser.
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
Guns. Big ones, little ones. Ones carried by men, ones carried by trucks. Gun on ships and guns on planes.
"In his later years, Dr. Seuss became increasingly... unstable."
look up the port arthur massacre. none of us have guns anymore because of that.
Actually gun ownership numbers are higher now than before Port Arthur. A bit under 5 million registered firearms, and god knows how many unregistered.
You just can't legally own auto or semi-auto rifles, or some large calibre handguns and high capacity shotguns. Manual-action rifles and small-calibre handguns are fine, and we import about 80,000 each year, 40,000 rifles, 10,000 shotguns, 20,000 handguns (Yes I know there's a missing 10,000, no I don't know what it is.)
Stop buying their shit. Don't download it, don't stream it, don't swap it, don't buy it. I stopped going to movies, stopped buying/renting movies, stopping buying music altogether. I disconnected the cable/satellite service.
These are seen only as a reduction in sales. No reason is attached to a non-sale. They will blame the loss of sales on piracy. By not buying, you are merely reinforcing their assumption that you are pirating their product, whether you are or aren't. You can't win their game, you can't quit their game. The only way is to change the game. And IMO, encouraging piracy is actually the best strategy, even if you, yourself, have no real desire to. Help make it mainstream, help make it easy to do, encourage another generation of kids (and their grandparents) who just see downloading as "using the internet".
btw - downloading isn't pirating...
No, uploading is piracy. ^_^`
the excuse was child pornography. Now it's piracy. The effect is to gain control over speech.
The orbiter burned hydrazine in the three auxiliary power units (APUs) to provide pressure for the hydraulic systems, including the control surfaces and landing gear.
[[Space Shuttle orbiter#Propulsion]]
Can't understand why a couple people weren't prosecuted for manslaughter over Columbia. "Hey guys, the videotape shows some foam hit the wing at Mach 1 or so. Do you think maybe we should see if the wing got damaged?" "Nah, let's stick with the mission plan. Tell the astronauts there isn't a problem."
(To be fair they did run a simulation with the software they used for predicting the size of debris based on damage, to try to predict the size of the hole based on debris size.)
What bugs me about Columbia, yeah even more than the loss of vehicle and crew, is the loss of the opportunity. Imagine when the decision got to whoever made the final call, and instead they'd said: "fuck it, save this ship" and made it an emergency rescue and repair. Even if it turned out that there was no damage, it's still fantastic training for an actual emergency. You fast-track the next shuttle launch (Discovery?), you put the Columbia crew on emergency power & O2 rationing, you put out an international call for the first cargo launcher capable of reaching the shuttle to take supplies up to extend Columbia's orbital duration, the crew start training for EVA to check for damage and retrieve the supplies. Meanwhile engineers on the ground start creating techniques to both extend the orbital duration and do an in-orbit repair. Once Discovery is ready, you launch two volunteer test-pilots with EVA experience, and a payload bay full of rescue gear, to meet Columbia in orbit. (The first time two orbiters have flown at the same time.) The Columbia crew are brought over to Discovery, the test-pilots do an EVA and attempt a repair using the hastily developed methods. If the repair works, the plan is for those pilots to fly Columbia back, but inevitably Columbia's pilot & co-pilot request the chance to bring "their" ship home...
Apollo 13 in high-def. The world holds its breath. NASA's finest hour.
Instead, the decision-maker was more afraid of the risk of doing an EVA (the crew weren't trained), and the inevitable call for a rescue if damage was found and then the risk of losing two shuttles. And that fear meant that it was easier to find any piece of evidence that said "no damage", it was easier to not look and just hope. (Kind of like not going to the doctor to check out that lump. As long as you don't go, it's just a lump.)
Whatever...
Ah, the mating cry of the greater spotted loser.
Agreed. But why to care about being "green" once you are out of the Earth atmosphere?
It's like changing from nitroglycerine-based dynamite to something stable like ANFO or C4.
Hydrazine is viciously toxic and corrosive. That means it's slow and difficult to handle, and expensive to design equipment around. Plus spills contaminate the work site, meaning there are higher-level EIS compliance costs for contractors.
Something like NOFBX, if it proves to be as effective and stable as hydrazine, dramatically simplifies handling. As well as being less corrosive on containers, pumps, etc. The only danger you're left with is its tendency to asplode. (Which is, you know, like, its job.)
Green fuel.. I mean seriously, who came up with that term anyway?
From TFA's lame author. The NASA paper doesn't use the term.
The quote from NASA is: "Hydrazine is an efficient and ubiquitous propellant that can be stored for long periods of time, but is also highly corrosive and toxic. It is used extensively on commercial and defense department satellites as well as for NASA science and exploration missions. NASA is looking for an alternative that decreases environmental hazards and pollutants, has fewer operational hazards and shortens rocket launch processing times."
Even though it has the dreaded "E" word, it all seems fairly reasonable to me. They want a fuel that can replace hydrazine that's less toxic (hence easier to handle), less corrosive (hence cheaper to design around), and is less polluting (hence is easier for suppliers to comply with govt EIS regs.)
emergency decent.
Heh. Emergency "decent". I crack myself up.