U do realize that most r&d in this arena originated in america. Right?
And that america continues to outspend both Europe and China on it?
Where america is screwing up, is letting our r&d go to nations like china.
You do realize that america is already emitting LESS than what we did in the 90s. Right? And that we have actually exceeded what we agreed to in Kyoto? In addition, we continue to drop, while nations like Germany and Japan are actually building new coal plants?
First off, per capita is WORTHLESS. The reason is that emissions has NOTHING to do with the number of ppl. It has EVERYTHING to do with GDP and choices made by businesses.
Secondly, America's 2013 per capita emissions was in 15, not 18. Heck, in this written for 2012, , they show that America was at 16.4, while EU was 7.4, and china was at 7.1.
In 2013, America's per capita went down into the 15, while China went up to 8's and EU edged upwards. So, total BS from you.
Third, I notice no links from you. I have seen you post this BS over and over, and always NEVER with links. "
Fourth, GDP emissions is outrageous from China. One of the worst in the world. And it continues to get bad. This is what has to stop.
If you think that I believe that this is just neo-con/tea* issue, OR that this is just rep/dem, then you obvious did not read my posting. Or have little comprehension.
and both deserve it.
Back in the 40-70s, we were a nation that worked together. Now, we have become a nation that is almost in a civil war.
HOWEVER, that is America.
When it comes to CO2 emissions, this is a world wide problem in which everybody wants to point to others to fix this, while they continue down their easy path. Even in America, we have coal industry fighting making changes, and yet, they could actually grow, while cutting CO2, by simply switching to converting CO2=>methane.
This idea of talking about solving these issues at top level is the WORST idea.
Instead, what is needed, is having the top levels (i.e. federal gov) provide taxation on goods predicate on where it comes from and the CO2 that went into the production.
From there, let the local communities decide. For example, each state in America has different reasons for their emissions. For us in the western states, most of ours are vehicles as well as coal plants. For states like virginia, it is coal plants. For illinois, which has HEAVY nuke plants (and less coal), it will be vehicles.
Likewise, China needs to decide how to solve their issues. Ideally, it would be at a state/province level.
It is NOT the UN that is doing that. It is the liberals in groups like 350 that do that. The UN speaks about it, but has done nothing.
THe ONLY way to solve this, is to involve all nations fairly, and the only way to solve that, is to have nations tax goods predicated on where the good and parts come from. And the normalization can not be per capita since CO2 is NOT correlated with ppl, but with GDP. As such, we should be focusing on emissions / GDP.
For starters, China, russia, India, and South Africa continue to build out massive new coal plants. They have NO intention of shutting these down for the next 50-70 years.
The fact is that China ALONE accounts for 30% of all emissions. Their per capita is above most of Europes (not Germany and eastern europe), and will exceed America in the next 3 years.
Likewise, Russian, India, and South Africa are building massive new coal plants that will exists for decades to come.
The ones that need to make changes is ALL OF US. And the hardest one will not be the west, but China, India, Russia, and South Africa.
No, it will not. This is just more of the same that has been reported. If ANY of the liberals cared, they would focus on getting ALL NATIONS to drop emissions, not just America.
Seriously, this group continues to scream that America is the biggest determent to changing this. They grip about the amount that America produces per capita.
Yet, America as a whole, produces less than 15% of the CO2. Likewise, our per capita is less than 16.
BUT, what is most important, is the fact that our production and per capita are dropping each and every year for the last 7 years.
How does this compare to other nations? Well, China, who is given a pass by these groups, now account for more than 33% of yearly CO2 production. In addition, their per capita is now above most of Europe's and will beat America's within 3 years.
At this time, most of the west continues to drop their CO2 though Germany's is back on the rise since they shut down their nuke plants and are replacing them with new coal plants. America has shut down massive numbers of coal plants over the last 6 years due to economics, will not be building new coal plants, and is about to shut down many older coal plants due to EPA finally bringing fourth new regs.
BUT, China, India, South Africa, Russia, etc. continue to build massive new coal plants. These will exists for the next 25-50 years. They will NOT be shutdown. And all of them want to follow China's lead in leaving pollution control off, which will lead to massive new mercury/lead/etc emissions.
The neo-cons/tea* types will not be making changes. They will not look at science and admit that man is causing this. I suspect that they are simply lying to themselves, but at the least, it indicates a real lack of intelligence.
HOWEVER, when the liberals acknowledge that there is a problem and then focus not only a relatively small player, but ignore the major emitter and the fact that 3rd world nations are building new plants at a rate that is mind blowing, well, it shows that liberals are just as foolish, if not worse, than the above neo-cons/tea*.
re-purposed? As in, they were used to fly a rocket, while the original ones on N-1 was not?
The fact is, that these are the EXACT engines from the N-1, that were in storage, and re-stored by Russia. Then they were built into a first stage by Ukraine.
There is NOTHING that is BS about my post, or about this.
The fact that Russia and Ukraine continue to have regular failures on their current launch vehicles points to QA issues.
Fukushima operated exactly within the issues for which it was designed for. Because some MBA decided to skip the generators, disaster set in.
BUT, protection/storage of radioactive product is radically different.
Because Beck_Neard looked at only 1 of their lines of launch systems. They have multiple, with antares, being the latest.
However, 3 out of 19 is NOT a good record, esp. since it is not at the start of the line. It indicates that OSC has no decent QA controls. And considering that they produce none of this, that is why.
It will be 6-12 months before they launch Antares. BUT, they have 3 other launch systems, even though they also have issues. IOW, they will be launching soon enough.
However, with this many failures, esp. of late, I suspect that they will lose DOD AND NASA backing.
So, that means 3 losses out of 19 launches. BUT, what is really missing is that only 1 of these failures was in a new system.
SpaceX has launched 13 over the last 4 years with no losses. And in 1 more year, they should around 25-30 launches total.
OSC does NOT have a strong program. The fact is, that Antonio has continued to give up all of the design and construction to others. OSC owns less of this rocket, than ULA owns of their atlas first stage.
Go look at Pegasus and the various Minotaurs/Taurus launch systems and you will see that they do NOT have a great track record.
SpaceX has zero losses on their F9. It is one of the best records that have been seen by a new system.
OSC lost this because they control NOTHING. All of the QA on this is from Russia, Ukraine, Europe, etc. OSC has no real QA on it.
And considering that NASA lost a shuttle just 10 years ago, I would have to say that it makes your diatribe total BS.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...">
Antares will launch less than 20 times in its lifetime. In fact, probably less than another 5. NASA is not likely going to use them to provide goods for the ISS since they are expensive for what they bring.
OSC is a company that really has NO control of its systems. Basically, it farms out most everything, so it must depend on all others. Even now, the Antares uses old Russian engines, and counted on Russia to do the quality control.
Until OSC controls all aspects of its systems, similar to how SpaceX works, they will NEVER be able to do a launch system reliably.
Antares will launch less than 20 times in its lifetime. In fact, probably less than another 5. NASA is not likely going to use them to provide goods for the ISS since they are expensive for what they bring.
Slashdot Mirror
U do realize that most r&d in this arena originated in america. Right? And that america continues to outspend both Europe and China on it? Where america is screwing up, is letting our r&d go to nations like china.
You do realize that america is already emitting LESS than what we did in the 90s. Right? And that we have actually exceeded what we agreed to in Kyoto? In addition, we continue to drop, while nations like Germany and Japan are actually building new coal plants?
First off, per capita is WORTHLESS. The reason is that emissions has NOTHING to do with the number of ppl. It has EVERYTHING to do with GDP and choices made by businesses.
Secondly, America's 2013 per capita emissions was in 15, not 18. Heck, in this written for 2012, , they show that America was at 16.4, while EU was 7.4, and china was at 7.1.
In 2013, America's per capita went down into the 15, while China went up to 8's and EU edged upwards. So, total BS from you.
Third, I notice no links from you. I have seen you post this BS over and over, and always NEVER with links.
" Fourth, GDP emissions is outrageous from China. One of the worst in the world. And it continues to get bad. This is what has to stop.
Kyoto gave the majority of nations a pass, except for the west. As such, it is WORTHLESS.
If you think that I believe that this is just neo-con/tea* issue, OR that this is just rep/dem, then you obvious did not read my posting. Or have little comprehension.
and both deserve it.
Back in the 40-70s, we were a nation that worked together. Now, we have become a nation that is almost in a civil war.
HOWEVER, that is America.
When it comes to CO2 emissions, this is a world wide problem in which everybody wants to point to others to fix this, while they continue down their easy path. Even in America, we have coal industry fighting making changes, and yet, they could actually grow, while cutting CO2, by simply switching to converting CO2=>methane.
This idea of talking about solving these issues at top level is the WORST idea.
Instead, what is needed, is having the top levels (i.e. federal gov) provide taxation on goods predicate on where it comes from and the CO2 that went into the production.
From there, let the local communities decide. For example, each state in America has different reasons for their emissions. For us in the western states, most of ours are vehicles as well as coal plants. For states like virginia, it is coal plants. For illinois, which has HEAVY nuke plants (and less coal), it will be vehicles.
Likewise, China needs to decide how to solve their issues. Ideally, it would be at a state/province level.
And the fact that China accounts for 33% of CO2 emissions has NOTHING to do with facts. Right?
Dealing with politics, is totally different than saying that you believe or not. Hell, they adjust these to try and deal with you neo-cons/tea* types.
It is NOT the UN that is doing that. It is the liberals in groups like 350 that do that. The UN speaks about it, but has done nothing.
THe ONLY way to solve this, is to involve all nations fairly, and the only way to solve that, is to have nations tax goods predicated on where the good and parts come from. And the normalization can not be per capita since CO2 is NOT correlated with ppl, but with GDP. As such, we should be focusing on emissions / GDP.
For starters, China, russia, India, and South Africa continue to build out massive new coal plants. They have NO intention of shutting these down for the next 50-70 years.
as developed.
The fact is that China ALONE accounts for 30% of all emissions. Their per capita is above most of Europes (not Germany and eastern europe), and will exceed America in the next 3 years.
Likewise, Russian, India, and South Africa are building massive new coal plants that will exists for decades to come.
The ones that need to make changes is ALL OF US. And the hardest one will not be the west, but China, India, Russia, and South Africa.
No, it will not. This is just more of the same that has been reported. If ANY of the liberals cared, they would focus on getting ALL NATIONS to drop emissions, not just America.
Seriously, this group continues to scream that America is the biggest determent to changing this. They grip about the amount that America produces per capita.
Yet, America as a whole, produces less than 15% of the CO2. Likewise, our per capita is less than 16.
BUT, what is most important, is the fact that our production and per capita are dropping each and every year for the last 7 years.
How does this compare to other nations? Well, China, who is given a pass by these groups, now account for more than 33% of yearly CO2 production. In addition, their per capita is now above most of Europe's and will beat America's within 3 years.
At this time, most of the west continues to drop their CO2 though Germany's is back on the rise since they shut down their nuke plants and are replacing them with new coal plants. America has shut down massive numbers of coal plants over the last 6 years due to economics, will not be building new coal plants, and is about to shut down many older coal plants due to EPA finally bringing fourth new regs.
BUT, China, India, South Africa, Russia, etc. continue to build massive new coal plants. These will exists for the next 25-50 years. They will NOT be shutdown. And all of them want to follow China's lead in leaving pollution control off, which will lead to massive new mercury/lead/etc emissions.
The neo-cons/tea* types will not be making changes. They will not look at science and admit that man is causing this. I suspect that they are simply lying to themselves, but at the least, it indicates a real lack of intelligence.
HOWEVER, when the liberals acknowledge that there is a problem and then focus not only a relatively small player, but ignore the major emitter and the fact that 3rd world nations are building new plants at a rate that is mind blowing, well, it shows that liberals are just as foolish, if not worse, than the above neo-cons/tea*.
re-purposed? As in, they were used to fly a rocket, while the original ones on N-1 was not?
The fact is, that these are the EXACT engines from the N-1, that were in storage, and re-stored by Russia. Then they were built into a first stage by Ukraine.
There is NOTHING that is BS about my post, or about this.
The fact that Russia and Ukraine continue to have regular failures on their current launch vehicles points to QA issues.
Fukushima operated exactly within the issues for which it was designed for. Because some MBA decided to skip the generators, disaster set in.
BUT, protection/storage of radioactive product is radically different.
Because Beck_Neard looked at only 1 of their lines of launch systems. They have multiple, with antares, being the latest.
However, 3 out of 19 is NOT a good record, esp. since it is not at the start of the line. It indicates that OSC has no decent QA controls. And considering that they produce none of this, that is why.
It will be 6-12 months before they launch Antares. BUT, they have 3 other launch systems, even though they also have issues. IOW, they will be launching soon enough.
However, with this many failures, esp. of late, I suspect that they will lose DOD AND NASA backing.
Robert,
OSC's record leaves a LOT to be desired. for the last 5 years:
Here they did 0 of 2 sats.
Here we see 4 out of 5.
Now we see 2 out of 2 for pegasus.
And here is 10 out of 10
So, that means 3 losses out of 19 launches. BUT, what is really missing is that only 1 of these failures was in a new system.
SpaceX has launched 13 over the last 4 years with no losses. And in 1 more year, they should around 25-30 launches total.
OSC's record really is not that good.
OSC does NOT have a strong program. The fact is, that Antonio has continued to give up all of the design and construction to others. OSC owns less of this rocket, than ULA owns of their atlas first stage.
Go look at Pegasus and the various Minotaurs/Taurus launch systems and you will see that they do NOT have a great track record.
SpaceX has zero losses on their F9. It is one of the best records that have been seen by a new system.
OSC lost this because they control NOTHING. All of the QA on this is from Russia, Ukraine, Europe, etc. OSC has no real QA on it.
And considering that NASA lost a shuttle just 10 years ago, I would have to say that it makes your diatribe total BS.
Would not matter. Anything that is radioactive is in containers designed to withstand such blasts.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p..."> Antares will launch less than 20 times in its lifetime. In fact, probably less than another 5. NASA is not likely going to use them to provide goods for the ISS since they are expensive for what they bring.
OSC is a company that really has NO control of its systems. Basically, it farms out most everything, so it must depend on all others. Even now, the Antares uses old Russian engines, and counted on Russia to do the quality control.
Until OSC controls all aspects of its systems, similar to how SpaceX works, they will NEVER be able to do a launch system reliably.
Antares will launch less than 20 times in its lifetime. In fact, probably less than another 5. NASA is not likely going to use them to provide goods for the ISS since they are expensive for what they bring.
take hold of your gov. Science goes out the door and indoctrination takes hold.