No, I prefer to have a large number of launch vehicles available, then to leave it to the whims of a bunch of DOD companies that are rapping and pillaging.
Look, back in the 60's, we had a large number of companies that competed. Now, they find it far more profitable to work together and keep the price up high.
And no, the SLS is NOT an option. We really already have muttiple options. We have Falcon 9, shortly to have Falcon Heavy. We have Atlas V, though that is about to stop. We have Delta IV. We have OSC with multiple rockets. And if we kill the SLS now, we can have a new COTS for say 2 SHLVs (realy SHs at say 150 tonnes, not this 70 tonne joke).
In addition, both Europe and Japan have launch systems. So, building the SLS does not buy us a thing. In fact, it simply is a waste of money.
Actually, if house republicans will quit gutting private space funding, and even increase it a bit, SpaceX can be ready to launch before the end of this year. And with just 1-2 months worth of work, they can be used as a return vehicle.
Of course, it all depends on funding.
Yes, we used to do things similar to how Western Europe and Russia does things. That is long over. Iraq is NOT friendly with America. Nor is the Afghanistan gov.
First off, there are several issues with Iraq:
1) W/neo-cons DID invade Iraq wrongly. OTOH, the Iraqi's were happy to have us do it and rid themselves of him.
2) The real issue is that W/neo-cons basically occupied Iraq and was attempting to steal their oil.
3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).
Russia's issues are very different:
1) Putin/Russia invaded Crimea and took control of it. In addition, they are anexxing it back into Russia. Considering that Crimea has historically been Russian (200 years worth until around 1960), I have less issues about this.
2) Putin/Russia are waiting to invade Ukraine. These is all territory that has ALWAYS been Ukraine. The Russians that are living there now, come in with the USSR. IOW, they were transplanted there.
3) the areas that Putin/Russia wants, are all related to oil, nat gas, and piplines. Think that there is a reason for it?
They are somewhat similar, but Putin/Russia IS far worse because it is a grab for oil/gas. This is leading to them wanting to control this so as to control Western Europe.
In addition, if it happens, Russia is counting on nations like Germany and Italy to do NOTHING since they both depend heavily on Russian energy.
I think that killing the SLS makes the most sense. Spending 3B/year for another 10 years just to get a system taht will costs us 1-3B PER LAUNCH for 70 tonnes is nothing less than insane.
In the house, Shelby, Coffman, Wolf, Hatch, Lamar Smith, Hall, granger, Sessions, Bill Young, Connie Mack, come to mind
In the senate Hutchinson and Cornyn come quickly to mind.
And from a national security POV, we need private space since it is much cheaper and safer to have 3 companies that can deliver humans and cargo to space. Sadly, the above and many other neo-cons/tea* prefer the communist approach to space of paying off large companies to do this. And yes, paying L-Mart, Boeing, Ball, Gaumen, etc 3B/year for 20-30 years, Rather than paying a total of 3B for 3 different companies to do the work strikes me as being smart.
Sadly, you neo-cons/tea* woudl much rather destroy America and Capitalism and send money to your definition of 'enemies', then to actually make successful companies here. And I can understand why you remain AC.
The good news is that SpaceX can actually be ready to send man up there within 1 year (6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year). And we can actually bring ppl down in less than 1 month. Issue solved.
What is odd is that the house neo-cons/tea* have been the ones blocking development of human launchers, because they were afraid that it would stop funding to their SLS. In fact, they even gave more money to the Russians, than what they have approved to go to private space funding here.
And now, those traitor's actions are coming to haunt America. What do you bet that they will scream that we instead need to increase SLS spending to 10B/year and finish it by 2020, rather than simply spend less than 1B and have systems available next year?
Flame away neo-cons/tea*. Never take responsibility for your leader's actions.
The issue with economics is NOT the fact that it is nuclear. The issue is that companies such as GE and others want to build massive on-site reactors where they get 5-10 B for it, rather than only.5B for a small reactor.
In addition, much of the issues is the initial starting price which is typically doubled due to opposition.
What is needed is to require that once a license is approved, then it is over for protests.
In addition, building a massive nuke reactor in place is the WRONG way to do it. By going with smaller ones that are pretty much shipped via rail and then dropped into the ground, makes it dirt cheap.
Seriously, it is far better to use the 600 million to get new mPower reactors, and continue this with CHEAPER energy. In addition, ideally, some money from these plants will be used to get thorium reactors going that can burn up the old nuke waste.
Regardless, while having new cheap reactors running on-site, you can then slowly dismantle the old reactors, while using the rest of the equipment.
Well, the problem is that a family can bring a LOT more than just their immediate family. They are actually able to get the parents who can then sponsor THEIR kids (i.e. brothers/sisters of the original person). In addition, the original spouse, who may not have a job, is able to bring his/her parents, which leads to other motions.
And none of those ppl are required to speak english or have marketable skills.
Instead, we need to limit it to the immediate family of the person that is working. In addition, the kids can only come if they are below say age 16. After that age, they should be able to apply for themselves, etc (takes longer than 2 years to get here).
If you want to bring a brother/sister here, then find them a company that is in need of their skills and there are no Americans able to take the job at the prevailing wage rate (i.e. no using this to gut the wages).
I agree with you about the drug addicts. No doubt about it. And as you said, there is a BUT. BUT, they will do it regardless of legal or not.
As such, we should NOT allow Ads for the stores, no using it in public (i.e. ONLY AT HOME), no driving, etc. In addition, strict laws for adults buying it from illegal source ( 5 years prison with no plea bargins ), stricter laws for selling it (10 years), and even more if it involves underage.
The point is to stop the flow of drugs into our nation is only possible by legalizing it and putting up hard blocks against gangs/drug lords. Also, we need to offer a helping hand to those that want off the drugs. And it can all be funded by taxes on these.
Seriously, we need to legalize all drugs, BUT, require that NONE cross state borders. In addition, all production will obviously be limited to the state where it is consumed, and heavily regulated. Finally, we then focus on keeping the drugs our of those under age 21.
By doing this, it remove the money from the drug lords and the gangs. Right now, there is plenty of money for them to share. BUT, if we do the above, they will kill each other, rather than innocent bystanders.
However, he is correct that the system is fucked up. We desperately need to change our immigration laws back to allowing only talented ppl (i.e. skills that we need), their immediate family (spouse and kids), and kill off the H1-Bs.
no. The cree 60 watt is $5.
And yeah, I am bummed out because I replaced a number of our bulbs when they were 9.97. But, at $5, I am now replacing the CFLs as well and then will give those to my in-laws or battered womens shelter.
I own one of the phillips. BUT, at 30/bulb, the return is a LONG TIME. I DID notice that HD just brought the price down to 9/bulb.
However, just looking at it, at HD, the phillips is not as good. It is 76 lumens for watts and 5 year warrenty, while Cree is is not only half the price, but guarenteed 10 years, and is doing 84 lumens per watt.
And the crees are made in America using Cree LEDs (widely considered the best). The dimmer capability on the cree is also considered the best. Pretty much works with any dimmer without sound. The Phillips WILL make sounds or not properly dim if the dimmer is not a special one.
Switch and Cree make 100 watt bulbs. BUT, they are far more expensive ($20-30). With a $5 cree 65 watt light bulb, there are plenty of places for one to put these in and have them pay off within 6 months. Even the $9 BR-30s are paying for themselves within 1 year in most places.
Or you can do mixes. For example, I use a single 60 w incadescent in my bathroom mirror that needs 3 bulbs. The other 2 are the crees. As such, I burn up 80 watts instead of 180, and the light is more than good enough. And yes, you get use to it quickly.
Actually, the cree's 60W soft white A19 -at your local home depots are $5.
The cree 65 BW BR-30 soft white can light are 10.
Cree is also offering a number of other bulbs, but, they are in the high teens range.
Regardless, at 5/bulb, with 9 watts, it will pay for itself at just about every single regular bulb that you replace (save maybe ones in a crawlspace) within 6 months to 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I prefer to have a large number of launch vehicles available, then to leave it to the whims of a bunch of DOD companies that are rapping and pillaging.
Look, back in the 60's, we had a large number of companies that competed. Now, they find it far more profitable to work together and keep the price up high.
And no, the SLS is NOT an option. We really already have muttiple options. We have Falcon 9, shortly to have Falcon Heavy. We have Atlas V, though that is about to stop. We have Delta IV. We have OSC with multiple rockets. And if we kill the SLS now, we can have a new COTS for say 2 SHLVs (realy SHs at say 150 tonnes, not this 70 tonne joke).
In addition, both Europe and Japan have launch systems. So, building the SLS does not buy us a thing. In fact, it simply is a waste of money.
Actually, if house republicans will quit gutting private space funding, and even increase it a bit, SpaceX can be ready to launch before the end of this year. And with just 1-2 months worth of work, they can be used as a return vehicle.
Of course, it all depends on funding.
LOL. We bought Alaska from Russia. Florida wanted to join the US. About the ONLY one that has issues would be Hawaii.
Yes, we used to do things similar to how Western Europe and Russia does things. That is long over. Iraq is NOT friendly with America. Nor is the Afghanistan gov.
First off, there are several issues with Iraq:
1) W/neo-cons DID invade Iraq wrongly. OTOH, the Iraqi's were happy to have us do it and rid themselves of him.
2) The real issue is that W/neo-cons basically occupied Iraq and was attempting to steal their oil.
3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).
Russia's issues are very different:
1) Putin/Russia invaded Crimea and took control of it. In addition, they are anexxing it back into Russia. Considering that Crimea has historically been Russian (200 years worth until around 1960), I have less issues about this.
2) Putin/Russia are waiting to invade Ukraine. These is all territory that has ALWAYS been Ukraine. The Russians that are living there now, come in with the USSR. IOW, they were transplanted there.
3) the areas that Putin/Russia wants, are all related to oil, nat gas, and piplines. Think that there is a reason for it?
They are somewhat similar, but Putin/Russia IS far worse because it is a grab for oil/gas. This is leading to them wanting to control this so as to control Western Europe.
In addition, if it happens, Russia is counting on nations like Germany and Italy to do NOTHING since they both depend heavily on Russian energy.
You mean the ones that are being interviewed want it? Or do you mean that ones that live there? Because they are 2 very different groups.
Hmmm. 100% success with their F9. Russia does not even come close.
I think that killing the SLS makes the most sense. Spending 3B/year for another 10 years just to get a system taht will costs us 1-3B PER LAUNCH for 70 tonnes is nothing less than insane.
Care to rethink your logic?
In the house, Shelby, Coffman, Wolf, Hatch, Lamar Smith, Hall, granger, Sessions, Bill Young, Connie Mack, come to mind
In the senate Hutchinson and Cornyn come quickly to mind.
And from a national security POV, we need private space since it is much cheaper and safer to have 3 companies that can deliver humans and cargo to space. Sadly, the above and many other neo-cons/tea* prefer the communist approach to space of paying off large companies to do this. And yes, paying L-Mart, Boeing, Ball, Gaumen, etc 3B/year for 20-30 years, Rather than paying a total of 3B for 3 different companies to do the work strikes me as being smart.
Sadly, you neo-cons/tea* woudl much rather destroy America and Capitalism and send money to your definition of 'enemies', then to actually make successful companies here. And I can understand why you remain AC.
uh, no.
No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care.
The good news is that SpaceX can actually be ready to send man up there within 1 year (6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year). And we can actually bring ppl down in less than 1 month. Issue solved.
no more human flights to the ISS.
What is odd is that the house neo-cons/tea* have been the ones blocking development of human launchers, because they were afraid that it would stop funding to their SLS. In fact, they even gave more money to the Russians, than what they have approved to go to private space funding here.
And now, those traitor's actions are coming to haunt America. What do you bet that they will scream that we instead need to increase SLS spending to 10B/year and finish it by 2020, rather than simply spend less than 1B and have systems available next year?
Flame away neo-cons/tea*. Never take responsibility for your leader's actions.
The issue with economics is NOT the fact that it is nuclear. The issue is that companies such as GE and others want to build massive on-site reactors where they get 5-10 B for it, rather than only .5B for a small reactor.
In addition, much of the issues is the initial starting price which is typically doubled due to opposition.
What is needed is to require that once a license is approved, then it is over for protests.
In addition, building a massive nuke reactor in place is the WRONG way to do it. By going with smaller ones that are pretty much shipped via rail and then dropped into the ground, makes it dirt cheap.
Seriously, it is far better to use the 600 million to get new mPower reactors, and continue this with CHEAPER energy. In addition, ideally, some money from these plants will be used to get thorium reactors going that can burn up the old nuke waste.
Regardless, while having new cheap reactors running on-site, you can then slowly dismantle the old reactors, while using the rest of the equipment.
Well, the problem is that a family can bring a LOT more than just their immediate family. They are actually able to get the parents who can then sponsor THEIR kids (i.e. brothers/sisters of the original person). In addition, the original spouse, who may not have a job, is able to bring his/her parents, which leads to other motions.
And none of those ppl are required to speak english or have marketable skills.
Instead, we need to limit it to the immediate family of the person that is working. In addition, the kids can only come if they are below say age 16. After that age, they should be able to apply for themselves, etc (takes longer than 2 years to get here).
If you want to bring a brother/sister here, then find them a company that is in need of their skills and there are no Americans able to take the job at the prevailing wage rate (i.e. no using this to gut the wages).
I agree with you about the drug addicts. No doubt about it. And as you said, there is a BUT. BUT, they will do it regardless of legal or not.
As such, we should NOT allow Ads for the stores, no using it in public (i.e. ONLY AT HOME), no driving, etc. In addition, strict laws for adults buying it from illegal source ( 5 years prison with no plea bargins ), stricter laws for selling it (10 years), and even more if it involves underage.
The point is to stop the flow of drugs into our nation is only possible by legalizing it and putting up hard blocks against gangs/drug lords. Also, we need to offer a helping hand to those that want off the drugs. And it can all be funded by taxes on these.
hmmm. Well, will they go after my ex?
Seriously, we need to legalize all drugs, BUT, require that NONE cross state borders. In addition, all production will obviously be limited to the state where it is consumed, and heavily regulated. Finally, we then focus on keeping the drugs our of those under age 21.
By doing this, it remove the money from the drug lords and the gangs. Right now, there is plenty of money for them to share. BUT, if we do the above, they will kill each other, rather than innocent bystanders.
However, he is correct that the system is fucked up. We desperately need to change our immigration laws back to allowing only talented ppl (i.e. skills that we need), their immediate family (spouse and kids), and kill off the H1-Bs.
no. The cree 60 watt is $5.
And yeah, I am bummed out because I replaced a number of our bulbs when they were 9.97. But, at $5, I am now replacing the CFLs as well and then will give those to my in-laws or battered womens shelter.
I own one of the phillips. BUT, at 30/bulb, the return is a LONG TIME. I DID notice that HD just brought the price down to 9/bulb.
However, just looking at it, at HD, the phillips is not as good. It is 76 lumens for watts and 5 year warrenty, while Cree is is not only half the price, but guarenteed 10 years, and is doing 84 lumens per watt.
And the crees are made in America using Cree LEDs (widely considered the best). The dimmer capability on the cree is also considered the best. Pretty much works with any dimmer without sound. The Phillips WILL make sounds or not properly dim if the dimmer is not a special one.
Switch and Cree make 100 watt bulbs. BUT, they are far more expensive ($20-30). With a $5 cree 65 watt light bulb, there are plenty of places for one to put these in and have them pay off within 6 months. Even the $9 BR-30s are paying for themselves within 1 year in most places.
Or you can do mixes. For example, I use a single 60 w incadescent in my bathroom mirror that needs 3 bulbs. The other 2 are the crees. As such, I burn up 80 watts instead of 180, and the light is more than good enough. And yes, you get use to it quickly.
same here. I do not like how long they take to warm up, nor their light. The crees are fairly decent.
Actually, the cree's 60W soft white A19 -at your local home depots are $5.
The cree 65 BW BR-30 soft white can light are 10.
Cree is also offering a number of other bulbs, but, they are in the high teens range.
Regardless, at 5/bulb, with 9 watts, it will pay for itself at just about every single regular bulb that you replace (save maybe ones in a crawlspace) within 6 months to 2 years.