I live just outside of Austin and couldn't vote on this but would have voted against Prop 1 (against Uber an Lyft) just because of the annoying radio ads constantly running against it -- the ads with the hushed, concerned female voice saying things like, "Did you know that the city will take over background checks, at taxpayers expense?" Combine that with the threats to leave the market... After enough of those I wasn't even interested in looking into the merits of the arguments on both sides. Good riddance, although Uber and Lyft will probably run to the state government and get some State Rep from Bumscrew, West Texas to sponsor a bill overturning all local elections/ordinances preventing "consumer ride choice freedom".
Ok, this may sound like a troll answer but it is intended seriously. We shouldn't care about what happens to the waste in 1000 years and probably much sooner for a couple of reasons. Reason #1: At the rates of technological, societal, and environmental change we have seen since the Industrial Revolution and especially since the turn of the 20th century, humanity is going to face much worse existential threats in the next few hundred years than a few repositories of decaying nuclear wastes. Reason #2: If our descendants in much less than a thousand years can't go in and transmute that waste into whatever they want then somewhere along the way humans got lazy and stopped bothering to advance themselves -- then I say screw 'em, just let them designate any waste contaminated areas as cursed "no-go" zones like in 'Planet of the Apes'. So as a practical matter we only need to design safe storage of those wastes for at most a few hundred years, after that it won't matter for one reason or another.
Thanks for the interesting correction on the assembly location. I knew that the Laser was the less popular third sibling in the Eclipse/Talon/Laser trio, but I've never seen one of the high performance Lasers on the street, or at least didn't know it when I did.
True, but they sent at least two good ones over here, the first generation (1990-94) Eclipse GSX, all-wheel drive turbo, and the Lancer Evolution also an all-wheel drive turbo tuner edition. The boy racer in me would love to have either. The Eclipse GSX was also imported by Chrysler and rebadged as the Eagle Talon TSI, one of the baddest-ass car names ever, and the car could back it up.
What I've observed (and I have a BA in Math and a MS in Electrical Engineering) is that Common Core attempts to teach the concepts of math and not necessarily the most efficient algorithms for calculating an answer. And I may be a bit uncharitable here, but the complaints I generally see about Common Core seem to be from people who are either not so good at math so they can't see doing arithmetic any way other than how they were taught, or people who are good enough at math but see it as a tool rather than a study in itself. Most engineers seem to fall into the later category. With my mathematician hat on, I personally fully endorse the Common Core math that I have seen, with the caveat that just maybe some of the concepts are too abstract, too soon, for some kids. I've seen several posts about Common Core which start out as, "I'm an engineer and Common Core math sucks...". There is always at least one in every discussion of Common Core. I've never seen a post which starts out as, "I'm a mathematician and Common Core math sucks..." Maybe it depends on what you are learning the math for and how far you intend to go with it.
Third sentence is wrong. Nixon didn't get prosecuted for anything. But he did get a pardon for "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974".
You say that SLS payload is 130 tons to LEO like it is already built. It's not. The Falcon 9 Heavy is a lot closer to operational capability with a payload of 53 tons to LEO. The best estimates of launch dates I can find for both vehicles are: SLS -- Nov 2018, Falcon 9 Heavy -- late 2016. By the time SLS flies its first test flight it is very likely that Space X will indeed have an operational super heavy lift launch vehicle.
Chutes were used on all the missions for some of the deceleration but rockets were also needed after the chutes for final deceleration. Mars Pathfinder also had bouncy balls (airbags) for the very end. Mars is tough to get anything heavy onto (in one piece) because the atmosphere is too thin to use a parachute all the way down, but it is thick enough to cause problems with lighting landing rockets at supersonic entry speeds (that last, about the rockets, I was told and don't have a handy reference).
I asked just that question of some people who build scientific spacecraft. They told me that building the second copy doesn't cost much less than the first one -- the second costs about 70% of the cost of the first was their guess. Economies of scale don't kick in for just a couple or few units. And you have to consider that these things seem to usually run over budget so any extra funds for a second spacecraft will be eaten up by overruns on the first unit. As far as building more than a few copies, by the time a science spacecraft actually gets built and launched the design is pretty old and the investigators would want to move on to the next generation rather than repeat capabilities. There have been times when twin spacecraft were built (Mariners 1&2, Mariners 3 Mariners 6&7, Mariners 8&9, Voyager 1&2, Viking 1&2) but those were a long time ago when launch vehicles were less reliable (Mariners 1, 3, and 8 were all lost to launch vehicle failures) and in those cases the second vehicle complemented the first rather than just providing redundancy.
How many people can write songs, stories, or poems which meet human standards for quality and originality? Machines can now do all three, poorly, which makes them just as good at those tasks as the majority of humanity. To be honest, I plagiarized this answer. In the movie "I, Robot" (which the Slashdotariat hates, but was not bad), the robot lead was confronted with just that question by a human. The exact exchange is, "Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? Sonny (the robot): Can *you*?"
No mission for it going forward anytime soon. NERVA was only needed for big interplanetary payloads. A crewed Mars mission was going to require Apollo style funding for another decade and by 1970 it was clear that the country wasn't interested. Von Braun wrote up a plan in the mid-60s to use NERVA to go to Mars, but national interest and funding didn't happen.
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
The F-111 got a bad reputation early on because it didn't work out for the Navy mission, but it turned out to be a heck of a medium bomber for the Air Force, both USAF and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was fast, carried a big bomb load, and long ranged; in service with the USAF until 1998 and the RAAF until 2010. Designed as a tactical bomber, the Strategic Air Command had some built for the strategic bomber role to fill the gap in capability from the B-52 until the B-1 and B-2 came on line. The USAF used in various combat actions, notably very effectively in the 1991 Gulf War. This is a quote about the Australian Air Force F-111s from Wikipedia, "The purchase proved to be highly successful for the RAAF. Although it never saw combat, the F-111C was the fastest, longest ranged combat aircraft in Southeast Asia.[74] Aviation historian Alan Stephens has written that they were "the preeminent weapons system in the Asia-Pacific region" throughout their service and provided Australia with "a genuine, independent strike capability" The whole wikipedia article is worth a read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The F-111 is probably the most unfairly maligned combat aircraft ever built.
"But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street." I already can't choose if drunks, teenagers, and idiots are on the street with me -- I'll take self-driving cars over at least half the drivers I see every day. Self driving cars would be easy to be on the road with -- predictable, not distracted, and no road rage.
I'd say there is a chance (never thought I'd defend cold fusion) because muon catalyzed fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion) almost works, though I mean 'almost' in the sense that if the physics of muons were a little bit different then it would work, not that it can be made to work with just a little more trying on our part. If muon catalyzed fusion almost works then maybe there is something else out there that does, but that's a big 'maybe'.
One reason, and I'm sure there are others, is that the thermal load from the sun at Venus is greater than at Earth or Mars (nearly 2x the solar flux at Venus as at Earth) and the spacecraft would need at least a partial redesign and some added thermal control items (sunshades or increased heating tolerances) to accommodate it. If the spacecraft was planned for launch in March 2016, the final design is already done. Venus flybys have been used before but not for schedule convenience, only when the spacecraft just wouldn't make it to the destination without a Venus assist, or for Mercury missions where the solar flux at Venus is not the limiting factor.
"currently there is no significant difference between russia or usa" -- yeah, that's why all the refugees and economic migrants are beating down the border gates to get in to Russia. It's called "voting with your feet".
A Soyuz launched mission failed just last April, carrying a Progress 27M spacecraft meant for a resupply mission to the ISS. http://spaceflightnow.com/2015... "Roscosmos said in a statement Wednesday that mission control lost communications with the Progress spacecraft 1.5 seconds before the cargo carrier’s planned separation from the third stage of its Soyuz launcher." "A report by Russia’s Tass news agency Wednesday claimed the RD-0110 engine burned longer than designed during Tuesday’s launch, citing a source from the engine’s manufacturer."
It's hard to decipher what snark the AC parent is trying to say, but the Atlas which ULA provided for this launch uses Russian engines in the first stage so he needs to revise his second witty remark to make even a semblance of sense.
Von Braun was a big proponent of Earth orbit rendezvous and had to be brought around to lunar orbit rendezvous, like almost all of the rest of NASA. But the engineering studies said that LOR was the only way to make it by the deadline which Kennedy had set. NASA was under orders from the politicians, the ones who were writing the checks. If Earth orbit rendezvous had been adopted and the possible lunar landing had slipped into the mid-late 70s, no one knows if the money for the lunar landing would have come along and the Apollo-Saturn hardware would have been abandoned in the 70's anyway. By 1969 interest among the politicians and citizens in spending the money it took to keep the Apollo-Saturn ecosystem going was already on the wane.
Your point that the SLS is a bad way to get back into space is a good one and I agree, especially given the low launch frequency. We may never build more than a couple of them, like the Soviet Energia. My optimism going forward is based on the Falcon9/Dragon and (less so) on the Atlas5/CST-100, and maybe that Atlas follow-on which ULA is working on as a competitor to the Falcons. My original discussion point with the OP is that the US has not abandoned crewed space, especially with (at least) three vehicle combinations available in the next few years. But, I'll close by completely seconding your point that the SLS is not the way to do it, especially with the heavy versions of the Falcon 9 in the works.
Well, in 1975 we abandoned our existing orbital (and deep space) capability and put all our leftover Apollo/Saturn vehicles in museums. Then we had a six year gap in crewed space capability until STS-1 in 1981. Now, the first crewed missions for the Boeing Atlas/CST-100 vehicle and the SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon vehicle are both scheduled for 2017, again giving a six year gap in US crewed orbital capability (SLS/Orion is a deep space capability to follow a few years later). But, I don't recall the enormous wailing and hand wringing about the USA losing its abilities in space back during the gap in the 70's like there is today.
Factually as related to the crewed space program I don't think your conclusion holds up. After the Apollo 1 fatal accident in January 1967, the first crewed flight of Apollo was delayed from its scheduled February 1967 to October 1968, a delay of 20 months. After the Challenger fatal accident in January 1986, the next STS launch was delayed until September 1988, a delay of 32 months. After the Columbia fatal accident in January 2003, the next STS launch was delayed until July 2005, a delay of 30 months.
The difference between a 20 month program delay after a fatal accident and a 30 month delay doesn't seem to qualify as "lost its collective balls".
And as for the manned space program in the 1960's, Alan Shepard aboard Mercury-Redstone 3 would have beaten Yuri Gagarin and been the first human into space if the previous Mercury-Redstone 2 had not exhibited some anomalies (which the chimpanzee aboard survived fine) and influenced NASA to add another test flight before launching Shepard. So NASA was not quite as "ballsy" back then as the legends have it.
This is pretty bold (not really the right word) of Pfizer to move overseas, considering that they, along with the rest of big Pharma are the ones who lobbied to make it illegal for Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs. Maybe Pfizer should be required to sell their drugs in the USA for the price they charge in Ireland.
I need to pile on here since as a hot rodder and muscle car aficionado this is a pet peeve. NASCAR used to be on the cutting edge of automotive technology as it applied to the modifications possible on factory built consumer cars, back in the 60's, and many of those mods found their way onto the street as factory products. The Chrysler 426 Hemi engine came directly out of NASCAR racing and so did (somewhat indirectly) the big-block Chevrolet V8 of the times (the 396, 427 and 454 CID big blocks). NASCAR cars were based on street cars and the mods allowed from the streetable versions were limited. Somewhere in the 70's NASCAR lost its way and NASCAR cars became tube-framed specially built race cars with only a passing familiarity to the street cars. At this time NASCAR also became inmeshed in rules which severely limited technical development on their cars -- a restriction to carburetors only is the prime example. The factory stock street cars then rapidly advanced beyond NASCAR with fuel injection, computer engine controls, traction control, etc. NASCAR became a backwater in automotive technology; they have a longs ways to go to catch back up, if they has any desire to.
Slashdot Mirror
I live just outside of Austin and couldn't vote on this but would have voted against Prop 1 (against Uber an Lyft) just because of the annoying radio ads constantly running against it -- the ads with the hushed, concerned female voice saying things like, "Did you know that the city will take over background checks, at taxpayers expense?" Combine that with the threats to leave the market... After enough of those I wasn't even interested in looking into the merits of the arguments on both sides. Good riddance, although Uber and Lyft will probably run to the state government and get some State Rep from Bumscrew, West Texas to sponsor a bill overturning all local elections/ordinances preventing "consumer ride choice freedom".
Ok, this may sound like a troll answer but it is intended seriously. We shouldn't care about what happens to the waste in 1000 years and probably much sooner for a couple of reasons. Reason #1: At the rates of technological, societal, and environmental change we have seen since the Industrial Revolution and especially since the turn of the 20th century, humanity is going to face much worse existential threats in the next few hundred years than a few repositories of decaying nuclear wastes. Reason #2: If our descendants in much less than a thousand years can't go in and transmute that waste into whatever they want then somewhere along the way humans got lazy and stopped bothering to advance themselves -- then I say screw 'em, just let them designate any waste contaminated areas as cursed "no-go" zones like in 'Planet of the Apes'. So as a practical matter we only need to design safe storage of those wastes for at most a few hundred years, after that it won't matter for one reason or another.
Thanks for the interesting correction on the assembly location. I knew that the Laser was the less popular third sibling in the Eclipse/Talon/Laser trio, but I've never seen one of the high performance Lasers on the street, or at least didn't know it when I did.
True, but they sent at least two good ones over here, the first generation (1990-94) Eclipse GSX, all-wheel drive turbo, and the Lancer Evolution also an all-wheel drive turbo tuner edition. The boy racer in me would love to have either. The Eclipse GSX was also imported by Chrysler and rebadged as the Eagle Talon TSI, one of the baddest-ass car names ever, and the car could back it up.
What I've observed (and I have a BA in Math and a MS in Electrical Engineering) is that Common Core attempts to teach the concepts of math and not necessarily the most efficient algorithms for calculating an answer. And I may be a bit uncharitable here, but the complaints I generally see about Common Core seem to be from people who are either not so good at math so they can't see doing arithmetic any way other than how they were taught, or people who are good enough at math but see it as a tool rather than a study in itself. Most engineers seem to fall into the later category. With my mathematician hat on, I personally fully endorse the Common Core math that I have seen, with the caveat that just maybe some of the concepts are too abstract, too soon, for some kids. I've seen several posts about Common Core which start out as, "I'm an engineer and Common Core math sucks...". There is always at least one in every discussion of Common Core. I've never seen a post which starts out as, "I'm a mathematician and Common Core math sucks..." Maybe it depends on what you are learning the math for and how far you intend to go with it.
Third sentence is wrong. Nixon didn't get prosecuted for anything. But he did get a pardon for "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974".
You say that SLS payload is 130 tons to LEO like it is already built. It's not. The Falcon 9 Heavy is a lot closer to operational capability with a payload of 53 tons to LEO. The best estimates of launch dates I can find for both vehicles are: SLS -- Nov 2018, Falcon 9 Heavy -- late 2016. By the time SLS flies its first test flight it is very likely that Space X will indeed have an operational super heavy lift launch vehicle.
Chutes were used on all the missions for some of the deceleration but rockets were also needed after the chutes for final deceleration. Mars Pathfinder also had bouncy balls (airbags) for the very end. Mars is tough to get anything heavy onto (in one piece) because the atmosphere is too thin to use a parachute all the way down, but it is thick enough to cause problems with lighting landing rockets at supersonic entry speeds (that last, about the rockets, I was told and don't have a handy reference).
I asked just that question of some people who build scientific spacecraft. They told me that building the second copy doesn't cost much less than the first one -- the second costs about 70% of the cost of the first was their guess. Economies of scale don't kick in for just a couple or few units. And you have to consider that these things seem to usually run over budget so any extra funds for a second spacecraft will be eaten up by overruns on the first unit. As far as building more than a few copies, by the time a science spacecraft actually gets built and launched the design is pretty old and the investigators would want to move on to the next generation rather than repeat capabilities. There have been times when twin spacecraft were built (Mariners 1&2, Mariners 3 Mariners 6&7, Mariners 8&9, Voyager 1&2, Viking 1&2) but those were a long time ago when launch vehicles were less reliable (Mariners 1, 3, and 8 were all lost to launch vehicle failures) and in those cases the second vehicle complemented the first rather than just providing redundancy.
How many people can write songs, stories, or poems which meet human standards for quality and originality? Machines can now do all three, poorly, which makes them just as good at those tasks as the majority of humanity.
To be honest, I plagiarized this answer. In the movie "I, Robot" (which the Slashdotariat hates, but was not bad), the robot lead was confronted with just that question by a human. The exact exchange is,
"Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?
Sonny (the robot): Can *you*?"
No mission for it going forward anytime soon. NERVA was only needed for big interplanetary payloads. A crewed Mars mission was going to require Apollo style funding for another decade and by 1970 it was clear that the country wasn't interested. Von Braun wrote up a plan in the mid-60s to use NERVA to go to Mars, but national interest and funding didn't happen.
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
The F-111 got a bad reputation early on because it didn't work out for the Navy mission, but it turned out to be a heck of a medium bomber for the Air Force, both USAF and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was fast, carried a big bomb load, and long ranged; in service with the USAF until 1998 and the RAAF until 2010. Designed as a tactical bomber, the Strategic Air Command had some built for the strategic bomber role to fill the gap in capability from the B-52 until the B-1 and B-2 came on line. The USAF used in various combat actions, notably very effectively in the 1991 Gulf War. This is a quote about the Australian Air Force F-111s from Wikipedia, "The purchase proved to be highly successful for the RAAF. Although it never saw combat, the F-111C was the fastest, longest ranged combat aircraft in Southeast Asia.[74] Aviation historian Alan Stephens has written that they were "the preeminent weapons system in the Asia-Pacific region" throughout their service and provided Australia with "a genuine, independent strike capability" The whole wikipedia article is worth a read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The F-111 is probably the most unfairly maligned combat aircraft ever built.
"But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street." I already can't choose if drunks, teenagers, and idiots are on the street with me -- I'll take self-driving cars over at least half the drivers I see every day. Self driving cars would be easy to be on the road with -- predictable, not distracted, and no road rage.
I'd say there is a chance (never thought I'd defend cold fusion) because muon catalyzed fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion) almost works, though I mean 'almost' in the sense that if the physics of muons were a little bit different then it would work, not that it can be made to work with just a little more trying on our part. If muon catalyzed fusion almost works then maybe there is something else out there that does, but that's a big 'maybe'.
One reason, and I'm sure there are others, is that the thermal load from the sun at Venus is greater than at Earth or Mars (nearly 2x the solar flux at Venus as at Earth) and the spacecraft would need at least a partial redesign and some added thermal control items (sunshades or increased heating tolerances) to accommodate it. If the spacecraft was planned for launch in March 2016, the final design is already done. Venus flybys have been used before but not for schedule convenience, only when the spacecraft just wouldn't make it to the destination without a Venus assist, or for Mercury missions where the solar flux at Venus is not the limiting factor.
"currently there is no significant difference between russia or usa" -- yeah, that's why all the refugees and economic migrants are beating down the border gates to get in to Russia. It's called "voting with your feet".
A Soyuz launched mission failed just last April, carrying a Progress 27M spacecraft meant for a resupply mission to the ISS.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015...
"Roscosmos said in a statement Wednesday that mission control lost communications with the Progress spacecraft 1.5 seconds before the cargo carrier’s planned separation from the third stage of its Soyuz launcher."
"A report by Russia’s Tass news agency Wednesday claimed the RD-0110 engine burned longer than designed during Tuesday’s launch, citing a source from the engine’s manufacturer."
It's hard to decipher what snark the AC parent is trying to say, but the Atlas which ULA provided for this launch uses Russian engines in the first stage so he needs to revise his second witty remark to make even a semblance of sense.
Von Braun was a big proponent of Earth orbit rendezvous and had to be brought around to lunar orbit rendezvous, like almost all of the rest of NASA. But the engineering studies said that LOR was the only way to make it by the deadline which Kennedy had set. NASA was under orders from the politicians, the ones who were writing the checks. If Earth orbit rendezvous had been adopted and the possible lunar landing had slipped into the mid-late 70s, no one knows if the money for the lunar landing would have come along and the Apollo-Saturn hardware would have been abandoned in the 70's anyway. By 1969 interest among the politicians and citizens in spending the money it took to keep the Apollo-Saturn ecosystem going was already on the wane.
Your point that the SLS is a bad way to get back into space is a good one and I agree, especially given the low launch frequency. We may never build more than a couple of them, like the Soviet Energia. My optimism going forward is based on the Falcon9/Dragon and (less so) on the Atlas5/CST-100, and maybe that Atlas follow-on which ULA is working on as a competitor to the Falcons. My original discussion point with the OP is that the US has not abandoned crewed space, especially with (at least) three vehicle combinations available in the next few years. But, I'll close by completely seconding your point that the SLS is not the way to do it, especially with the heavy versions of the Falcon 9 in the works.
Well, in 1975 we abandoned our existing orbital (and deep space) capability and put all our leftover Apollo/Saturn vehicles in museums. Then we had a six year gap in crewed space capability until STS-1 in 1981. Now, the first crewed missions for the Boeing Atlas/CST-100 vehicle and the SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon vehicle are both scheduled for 2017, again giving a six year gap in US crewed orbital capability (SLS/Orion is a deep space capability to follow a few years later). But, I don't recall the enormous wailing and hand wringing about the USA losing its abilities in space back during the gap in the 70's like there is today.
Factually as related to the crewed space program I don't think your conclusion holds up.
After the Apollo 1 fatal accident in January 1967, the first crewed flight of Apollo was delayed from its scheduled February 1967 to October 1968, a delay of 20 months.
After the Challenger fatal accident in January 1986, the next STS launch was delayed until September 1988, a delay of 32 months.
After the Columbia fatal accident in January 2003, the next STS launch was delayed until July 2005, a delay of 30 months.
The difference between a 20 month program delay after a fatal accident and a 30 month delay doesn't seem to qualify as "lost its collective balls".
And as for the manned space program in the 1960's, Alan Shepard aboard Mercury-Redstone 3 would have beaten Yuri Gagarin and been the first human into space if the previous Mercury-Redstone 2 had not exhibited some anomalies (which the chimpanzee aboard survived fine) and influenced NASA to add another test flight before launching Shepard. So NASA was not quite as "ballsy" back then as the legends have it.
This is pretty bold (not really the right word) of Pfizer to move overseas, considering that they, along with the rest of big Pharma are the ones who lobbied to make it illegal for Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs. Maybe Pfizer should be required to sell their drugs in the USA for the price they charge in Ireland.
I need to pile on here since as a hot rodder and muscle car aficionado this is a pet peeve. NASCAR used to be on the cutting edge of automotive technology as it applied to the modifications possible on factory built consumer cars, back in the 60's, and many of those mods found their way onto the street as factory products. The Chrysler 426 Hemi engine came directly out of NASCAR racing and so did (somewhat indirectly) the big-block Chevrolet V8 of the times (the 396, 427 and 454 CID big blocks). NASCAR cars were based on street cars and the mods allowed from the streetable versions were limited. Somewhere in the 70's NASCAR lost its way and NASCAR cars became tube-framed specially built race cars with only a passing familiarity to the street cars. At this time NASCAR also became inmeshed in rules which severely limited technical development on their cars -- a restriction to carburetors only is the prime example. The factory stock street cars then rapidly advanced beyond NASCAR with fuel injection, computer engine controls, traction control, etc. NASCAR became a backwater in automotive technology; they have a longs ways to go to catch back up, if they has any desire to.