No, I made equipment and designed code. In addition, the ONLY ppl being spied on, are those with connections to spies or terrorists and with a warrant.
Sadly, lots of assholes have made loads of assumptions and accusations without a single bit of intelligence behind it.
You can blame me, but i was a software engineer running some interesting equipment.
In addition, when the BS over Snowden is done, I think that we will find that not only is this legal, but the way that it is being conducted is legal. And to be honest, we needed this. To the best of my knowledge, unauthorized spying on Americans was not going on. So, what made it authorized? When somebody is talking actively to a terrorists, OR to a somebody that is talking to a terrorists (or spy). I will say that for the first 2 years, I read some interesting things in the press that made me think of this (and leads me to believe that it WAS being abused). However, I have not seen anything interesting since.
The usefulness of this against terrorist (and spies) is now debatable. Hopefully, snowden burns in hell, since he has really harmed the NSA.
Uh, no,
W started constellation, which consisted of 4 main parts:
1) a human launch vehicle. Ares I. It was designed to take 25 tonnes to LEO
2) a human-rated capsule. Orion. It was designed to take 7 ppl to LEO, or 4 ppl to the moon.
3) a large cargo , Ares V. It was designed originally to carry 188 tonnes to LEO.
4) a lunar lander.
We spent 5B on Orion and it still needed a couple of more billion.
Ares I was the launcgher that was to be ready by 2013, then kept slipping. Just before cancellation, it had slipped to 2017.
Ares V was originally to be ready by 2019, and according to Agustine's committee, it would not be ready until 2030, and that assumed that we would spend another 30B on JUST THAT.
Constellation was another fuck-up by you neo-cons, just like the SLS.
We need private space to do this so that you ppl can not kill any more space programs.
BTW, Orion was morphed into Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which is still on-going.
Thats because you are wrong with your 'facts'.
First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won.
Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x. Russia said that they would spend X amount, but, in small print, it came out that it was over a very long time. IIRC, Roscomos will spend ~170 billion rubles (about $5.5B). In 2015, they will have raised it to around 200 b rubles (less than $7B).
To be fair, that is a lot of money for Russia. However, it still does not approach what we will Spend. In addition, Russia wants to stay as a partner with us for going to the moon. So do the other ISS partners. And since private space is going, hopefully, we will see loads of work on-going in about 2 years.
OTOH, you have every right to be concerned about China. China's space program is a PURE MILITARY project. In addition, they are working hard to keep it all closed.
While I fully support NASA going to an asteroid, the US will be back on the moon around 2020. Count on it.
Bigelow Aerospace is working with NASA on this. And instead of wasting 20B building the SLS (which will not be ready until 2022 or later), SpaceX and BA will humans launching to a space station no later than 2016. Then another second space station around 2018, and finally a mission to the moon, with putting a new base on it. How much will it costs NASA? Probably about 2B spread out over 5 years.
Sigh.
It is neo-cons like yourself that are attached to W's zipper that are destroying America. We are busy having this discussion about the SLS and private space and politicians. I point out that the neo-cons that control the republican party are the ones pushing the SLS, and trying hard to kill off private space. OTOH, you would rather attack me personally, than acknowledge that those ppl are doing the damage.
Get your GD mouth off W's zipper. Then you will be able to see around you.
BTW, on a side note, I can tell you that there is a LOT of difference between O and W. I do not agree with either, BUT, as one that has worked on various TLA's projects, there is one hell of a difference.
And even now, looking at NASA and what both O/W did, again, a big difference.
First off, please show me where NASA's primary mission is outreach to Muslims.
And how much money has been spent on that program?
And so far, I have not seen any scandal, just a bunch of wild neo-con accusations that are no different than the birther and all of the rest of your accusations.
You do realize that we are talking about the spending on the SLS vs. private space, and not about your political views?
Please explain why we should support you neo-cons to blow 20B on the SLS, rather than 2B for 3 launch systems.
Even if we could beam all of that energy, I suspect that would be the last thing that we want to do. Adding more energy to the earth, will raise temps VERY quickly.
Exactly right. My believe is that the best way to do that, is to have a panel with 15 ppl on it. These ppl would then run for 15 years, but staggered so that each year, one person would run out (that also means that when initially set-up, all of them would have a different time-frame.
The reason for this, is to have the president appoint, and Senate approve that person. Ideally, they would be pre-approved (say, up to 1 year before, as long as same president is in office), so that we do not have the same situation that we have today.
BTW, the same should occur with our all of our sciences. It is insane that politcial parties are in control of all of this. To this day, I will not understand why Clinton did not do more to stop the IFR shutdown. Horrible mistake.
One of the nice things about private space, is that they are far far cheaper than what you neo-cons develop. Your ghoulash SLS will costs us taxpayers 20B to develop and 1.5-3B per launch to send 70 tonnes into LEO. OTOH, falcon heavy will be ready early next year and will send 54 tonnes to leo for.1B. In addition, dragon rider will be ready in under 2 years, and it will cost.13B to send 7 ppl into space. SO, for a fraction of the costs of 1 SLS launch, we can send up over 100 tonnes and 7 ppl.
Likewise, private space IS going to the moon and mars. The difference is that they will be getting money from many different companies, though the hope is that NASA will be a big one. And for less money than what a single launch of the SLS (and only going to LEO) costs, private space, can put 3-5 ppl ON THE MOON.
I prefer for us to NOT waste money, but we have to contend with those who INSIST that we throw good money after bad. And it looks like you are one of them.
Actually, I am Libertarian. I despise both libs and you neo-cons (and yes, I have flipped through your answers; you are a lover of the current republican leadership which are the neo-cons). The difference is that we are currently talking about SPACE, not other issues. You neo-cons are pushing for SLS that will cost 20B for 1 launch vehicle, while Obama, dems, and tea* are pushing for private space that will cost us around 2B for 3.
Yet, we continue to see you and others try to confuse the issues.
BTW, if you look through my postings here from about 8-10 years ago, you will see that I worked on the USA PATRIOT act. I have seen abuses. What is happening today, is NOT abuses. What happened when some of the initial work was done, WAS abuse. Back in 2005.
Actually, no. We can send man back to the moon, and it will help. However, there is no reason why NASA has to do it all. Bigelow and SpaceX intend to be there by 2020. The problem is that neo-cons want the money to flow into their districts for a job's bill. We have WT like Shelby, Wolf, Hatch, Hutchinson, and my wonderful rep, Coffman, that are fighting against private space, even though it would cost us a FRACTION of the money to go to the moon, all because they want to flow the jobs to their areas.
Those ppl are nearly as damaging as Snowden and Manning are to America.
pretty much. The problem with the neo-cons that currently control the republican party is that they object to DEM's spending. The vast majority of debt has been incurred by these same neo-cons. We desperately need to clean up CONgress. That is why I continue to support root strikers.
It happens all the time. Part of me wishes that ACs were forbidden. If somebody is going to speak up, then they should have the courage to at least use a single login, rather than be all over the place.
First off, this nightmare that is ongoing with NASA, is NOT NASA's fault, but the fault, of the God Damn neo-cons that are running the house.
The majority of those shits are looking to keep NASA as a Job's bill. They do not care whether we go to the moon or not. THey want to spending our money on SLS which is mostly situated in neo-con districts( I note that a few dems back this as well, but they are pushing for both SLS and private space; spend, spend, spend).
So, what is insane about this? We will spend 20B for a launch vehicle that is mostly based on 60's/70's technology and design and will give us exactly ONE launch vehicle (though with several different designs). Since this vehicle will launch so infrequently, it will cost us 1.5-3B PER LAUNCH. Yes, it will cost as much or more than the shuttle did ( 1.5B per launch was the final price that we paid to send 7 ppl and 24.5 tonnes into LEO; that included the.750B per launch and then another.750B rebuilding the craft for another launch ). It is INSANE that we spend that kind of money.
So, what is the sane Alternative? The one that Obama, dems, and even the tea-party is pushing: We need PRIVATE SPACE.
If we spend less than 2B over the next 2-3 years, we can have 3 launchers that will carry 7 ppl into leo (dragon rider/f9, atlas V with either cst-100 or dreamchaser). With this, we are guaranteed that we will NEVER lose cargo or human access to space again.
BUT, it gets better. Bigelow Aerospace has a SSA with NASA that both are working on getting private space to the moon BY 2020. It will costs less than the 20B that neo-cons are trying to force on NASA. Most importantly, by allowing NASA to pursue the asteroid AND help private space, we gain:
1) multiple launch vehicles so that we never lose space access again.
2) multiple tugs/fuel depots, that will include electric tugs (suitable for moving equipment/sats) and chemical tugs (suitable for moving ppl, or starting missions to extra solar).
3) multiple space stations at various altitudes in orbit, along with friendly nations helping to fund this.
4) a lunar base by 2020, again, with friendly nations helping to fund this (by paying the private companies money to put ppl on the surface).
5) Man on Mars by 2025.
6) learning on how to move asteroids around, and hopefully, prevent a large impact on earth. In addition, this technology will then allow private space to mine other asteroids.
And if we do this smart, we will then create a COTS-SHLV, in which we hold a contest for 2 launch systems to carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO, for which we give 5B each to develop it. In addition, later one, we offer up 2 competitive contracts in which company will carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO for no more than.5B / launch, and they will get 2 launches/ year for 3 years. Also, whoever has the lower amount will get 3 launches/ year. IOW, you can get 50% more launches by being a GOOD low bidder (i.e. has to be realistic). You will note that we will spend 2.5B/year on sending up equipment for 3 years.
You will note that the above spends just about the same as what the neo-cons want to spend on just building a rocket. BUT, if we do the above correctly, we will have NASA focus on just going to an asteroid, but also helping private space get BEO, and hopefully, NASA will be able to R&D new tech, such as nuke engines (we lead the world on this and our tech from the 60s is STILL ahead of what everybody else has).
With above approach, we convert NASA back into what it was before neo-cons turned them into a jobs program for themselves, get private space from being a cost center into a taxable item, and get ourselves BEO.
BUT, these god-for-saken neo-cons need to be stopped.
Well, that will depend.
If there were abuses on this, and he can prove it, then yes, he is a whistleblower.
HOWEVER, if there was no proof of abuses, and no spying on our calls without a warrent and all he did was announce about some of our core capabilities, then he is a traitor.
At this time, I hope that he is a traitor. And to be honest, it looks like he is. So far, he has not produced proof that the US gov. was actually listening in on calls without warrents etc.
That is false. The site is a long ways away from a dead fault.
Regardless, if they use say B&W mPower reactors, or GE-PRISM, or one of the thorium reactors, all are designed to be built in a factory and transported. They will be able to withstand any earthquake, as long as it does not actually shear the reactor. In addition, these would not have an issue with happened in Japan. All of these can handle outages.
The point is, that it makes GREAT sense to bring in new smaller reactors that will burn up the old fuel, while tearing down the old reactors.
Note, that with approach, SONGS probably has over 1000 tonnes of 'spent fuel'. That would take a number of train trips and a lot of waste. OTOH, if burned up, it would leave less than 50 tonnes, which would be taken out in a just a few train trips, and the TRUE waste, would then need less than 200 years, rather than 20,000 years.
You have a plant that has land, cooling, transmission towers, generators, loads of 'spent fuel' and 2 reactors that kind of sux.
Do not get rid of the plant. Get rid of the reactors.
Instead, replace those with thorium reactors, OR GE-PRISM and make use of all that is useful there. While those are working, then pull down the old generators.
With this approach, it keeps electricity, makes it cheaper, deals with 95% of the spent fuel, and provides a profit to the company while they tear down old gen II reactors.
Slashdot Mirror
By being open about this program, or any others, it shoots down the usefulness of these. As it is, I suspect that this one has been massively harmed.
No, I made equipment and designed code. In addition, the ONLY ppl being spied on, are those with connections to spies or terrorists and with a warrant.
Sadly, lots of assholes have made loads of assumptions and accusations without a single bit of intelligence behind it.
You can blame me, but i was a software engineer running some interesting equipment.
In addition, when the BS over Snowden is done, I think that we will find that not only is this legal, but the way that it is being conducted is legal. And to be honest, we needed this. To the best of my knowledge, unauthorized spying on Americans was not going on. So, what made it authorized? When somebody is talking actively to a terrorists, OR to a somebody that is talking to a terrorists (or spy). I will say that for the first 2 years, I read some interesting things in the press that made me think of this (and leads me to believe that it WAS being abused). However, I have not seen anything interesting since.
The usefulness of this against terrorist (and spies) is now debatable. Hopefully, snowden burns in hell, since he has really harmed the NSA.
good point. Still it gets old with some of these posters.
Uh, no,
W started constellation, which consisted of 4 main parts:
1) a human launch vehicle. Ares I. It was designed to take 25 tonnes to LEO
2) a human-rated capsule. Orion. It was designed to take 7 ppl to LEO, or 4 ppl to the moon.
3) a large cargo , Ares V. It was designed originally to carry 188 tonnes to LEO.
4) a lunar lander.
We spent 5B on Orion and it still needed a couple of more billion.
Ares I was the launcgher that was to be ready by 2013, then kept slipping. Just before cancellation, it had slipped to 2017.
Ares V was originally to be ready by 2019, and according to Agustine's committee, it would not be ready until 2030, and that assumed that we would spend another 30B on JUST THAT.
Constellation was another fuck-up by you neo-cons, just like the SLS.
We need private space to do this so that you ppl can not kill any more space programs.
BTW, Orion was morphed into Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which is still on-going.
Thats because you are wrong with your 'facts'.
First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won.
Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x. Russia said that they would spend X amount, but, in small print, it came out that it was over a very long time. IIRC, Roscomos will spend ~170 billion rubles (about $5.5B). In 2015, they will have raised it to around 200 b rubles (less than $7B).
To be fair, that is a lot of money for Russia. However, it still does not approach what we will Spend. In addition, Russia wants to stay as a partner with us for going to the moon. So do the other ISS partners. And since private space is going, hopefully, we will see loads of work on-going in about 2 years.
OTOH, you have every right to be concerned about China. China's space program is a PURE MILITARY project. In addition, they are working hard to keep it all closed.
While I fully support NASA going to an asteroid, the US will be back on the moon around 2020. Count on it.
Bigelow Aerospace is working with NASA on this. And instead of wasting 20B building the SLS (which will not be ready until 2022 or later), SpaceX and BA will humans launching to a space station no later than 2016. Then another second space station around 2018, and finally a mission to the moon, with putting a new base on it. How much will it costs NASA? Probably about 2B spread out over 5 years.
I seriously doubt that NSA knows or even cares what you are thinking. The only way is if you are connected with terrorism.
Sigh.
It is neo-cons like yourself that are attached to W's zipper that are destroying America. We are busy having this discussion about the SLS and private space and politicians. I point out that the neo-cons that control the republican party are the ones pushing the SLS, and trying hard to kill off private space. OTOH, you would rather attack me personally, than acknowledge that those ppl are doing the damage.
Get your GD mouth off W's zipper. Then you will be able to see around you.
BTW, on a side note, I can tell you that there is a LOT of difference between O and W. I do not agree with either, BUT, as one that has worked on various TLA's projects, there is one hell of a difference.
And even now, looking at NASA and what both O/W did, again, a big difference.
First off, please show me where NASA's primary mission is outreach to Muslims.
And how much money has been spent on that program?
And so far, I have not seen any scandal, just a bunch of wild neo-con accusations that are no different than the birther and all of the rest of your accusations.
You do realize that we are talking about the spending on the SLS vs. private space, and not about your political views?
Please explain why we should support you neo-cons to blow 20B on the SLS, rather than 2B for 3 launch systems.
Nor would it be in our best interest to tap it all and then use it for energy.
Even if we could beam all of that energy, I suspect that would be the last thing that we want to do. Adding more energy to the earth, will raise temps VERY quickly.
Exactly right. My believe is that the best way to do that, is to have a panel with 15 ppl on it. These ppl would then run for 15 years, but staggered so that each year, one person would run out (that also means that when initially set-up, all of them would have a different time-frame.
The reason for this, is to have the president appoint, and Senate approve that person. Ideally, they would be pre-approved (say, up to 1 year before, as long as same president is in office), so that we do not have the same situation that we have today.
BTW, the same should occur with our all of our sciences. It is insane that politcial parties are in control of all of this. To this day, I will not understand why Clinton did not do more to stop the IFR shutdown. Horrible mistake.
One of the nice things about private space, is that they are far far cheaper than what you neo-cons develop. Your ghoulash SLS will costs us taxpayers 20B to develop and 1.5-3B per launch to send 70 tonnes into LEO. OTOH, falcon heavy will be ready early next year and will send 54 tonnes to leo for .1B. In addition, dragon rider will be ready in under 2 years, and it will cost .13B to send 7 ppl into space. SO, for a fraction of the costs of 1 SLS launch, we can send up over 100 tonnes and 7 ppl.
Likewise, private space IS going to the moon and mars. The difference is that they will be getting money from many different companies, though the hope is that NASA will be a big one. And for less money than what a single launch of the SLS (and only going to LEO) costs, private space, can put 3-5 ppl ON THE MOON.
I prefer for us to NOT waste money, but we have to contend with those who INSIST that we throw good money after bad. And it looks like you are one of them.
Actually, I am Libertarian. I despise both libs and you neo-cons (and yes, I have flipped through your answers; you are a lover of the current republican leadership which are the neo-cons). The difference is that we are currently talking about SPACE, not other issues. You neo-cons are pushing for SLS that will cost 20B for 1 launch vehicle, while Obama, dems, and tea* are pushing for private space that will cost us around 2B for 3.
Yet, we continue to see you and others try to confuse the issues.
BTW, if you look through my postings here from about 8-10 years ago, you will see that I worked on the USA PATRIOT act. I have seen abuses. What is happening today, is NOT abuses. What happened when some of the initial work was done, WAS abuse. Back in 2005.
Actually, no. We can send man back to the moon, and it will help. However, there is no reason why NASA has to do it all. Bigelow and SpaceX intend to be there by 2020. The problem is that neo-cons want the money to flow into their districts for a job's bill. We have WT like Shelby, Wolf, Hatch, Hutchinson, and my wonderful rep, Coffman, that are fighting against private space, even though it would cost us a FRACTION of the money to go to the moon, all because they want to flow the jobs to their areas.
Those ppl are nearly as damaging as Snowden and Manning are to America.
Between Chinese gymnast, Chinese female swimmers, and American Bicyclists, new records are being set all the time.
pretty much. The problem with the neo-cons that currently control the republican party is that they object to DEM's spending. The vast majority of debt has been incurred by these same neo-cons. We desperately need to clean up CONgress. That is why I continue to support root strikers.
It happens all the time. Part of me wishes that ACs were forbidden. If somebody is going to speak up, then they should have the courage to at least use a single login, rather than be all over the place.
First off, this nightmare that is ongoing with NASA, is NOT NASA's fault, but the fault, of the God Damn neo-cons that are running the house. .750B per launch and then another .750B rebuilding the craft for another launch ). It is INSANE that we spend that kind of money.
.5B / launch, and they will get 2 launches/ year for 3 years. Also, whoever has the lower amount will get 3 launches/ year. IOW, you can get 50% more launches by being a GOOD low bidder (i.e. has to be realistic). You will note that we will spend 2.5B/year on sending up equipment for 3 years.
The majority of those shits are looking to keep NASA as a Job's bill. They do not care whether we go to the moon or not. THey want to spending our money on SLS which is mostly situated in neo-con districts( I note that a few dems back this as well, but they are pushing for both SLS and private space; spend, spend, spend).
So, what is insane about this? We will spend 20B for a launch vehicle that is mostly based on 60's/70's technology and design and will give us exactly ONE launch vehicle (though with several different designs). Since this vehicle will launch so infrequently, it will cost us 1.5-3B PER LAUNCH. Yes, it will cost as much or more than the shuttle did ( 1.5B per launch was the final price that we paid to send 7 ppl and 24.5 tonnes into LEO; that included the
So, what is the sane Alternative? The one that Obama, dems, and even the tea-party is pushing: We need PRIVATE SPACE.
If we spend less than 2B over the next 2-3 years, we can have 3 launchers that will carry 7 ppl into leo (dragon rider/f9, atlas V with either cst-100 or dreamchaser). With this, we are guaranteed that we will NEVER lose cargo or human access to space again.
BUT, it gets better. Bigelow Aerospace has a SSA with NASA that both are working on getting private space to the moon BY 2020. It will costs less than the 20B that neo-cons are trying to force on NASA. Most importantly, by allowing NASA to pursue the asteroid AND help private space, we gain:
1) multiple launch vehicles so that we never lose space access again.
2) multiple tugs/fuel depots, that will include electric tugs (suitable for moving equipment/sats) and chemical tugs (suitable for moving ppl, or starting missions to extra solar).
3) multiple space stations at various altitudes in orbit, along with friendly nations helping to fund this.
4) a lunar base by 2020, again, with friendly nations helping to fund this (by paying the private companies money to put ppl on the surface).
5) Man on Mars by 2025.
6) learning on how to move asteroids around, and hopefully, prevent a large impact on earth. In addition, this technology will then allow private space to mine other asteroids.
And if we do this smart, we will then create a COTS-SHLV, in which we hold a contest for 2 launch systems to carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO, for which we give 5B each to develop it. In addition, later one, we offer up 2 competitive contracts in which company will carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO for no more than
You will note that the above spends just about the same as what the neo-cons want to spend on just building a rocket. BUT, if we do the above correctly, we will have NASA focus on just going to an asteroid, but also helping private space get BEO, and hopefully, NASA will be able to R&D new tech, such as nuke engines (we lead the world on this and our tech from the 60s is STILL ahead of what everybody else has).
With above approach, we convert NASA back into what it was before neo-cons turned them into a jobs program for themselves, get private space from being a cost center into a taxable item, and get ourselves BEO.
BUT, these god-for-saken neo-cons need to be stopped.
LOL. ROFL. I just find ppl like you amazing
No doubt that you are a neo-cons that backs reagan and W.
Well, that will depend.
If there were abuses on this, and he can prove it, then yes, he is a whistleblower.
HOWEVER, if there was no proof of abuses, and no spying on our calls without a warrent and all he did was announce about some of our core capabilities, then he is a traitor.
At this time, I hope that he is a traitor. And to be honest, it looks like he is. So far, he has not produced proof that the US gov. was actually listening in on calls without warrents etc.
That is false. The site is a long ways away from a dead fault.
Regardless, if they use say B&W mPower reactors, or GE-PRISM, or one of the thorium reactors, all are designed to be built in a factory and transported. They will be able to withstand any earthquake, as long as it does not actually shear the reactor. In addition, these would not have an issue with happened in Japan. All of these can handle outages.
The point is, that it makes GREAT sense to bring in new smaller reactors that will burn up the old fuel, while tearing down the old reactors.
Note, that with approach, SONGS probably has over 1000 tonnes of 'spent fuel'. That would take a number of train trips and a lot of waste. OTOH, if burned up, it would leave less than 50 tonnes, which would be taken out in a just a few train trips, and the TRUE waste, would then need less than 200 years, rather than 20,000 years.
You have a plant that has land, cooling, transmission towers, generators, loads of 'spent fuel' and 2 reactors that kind of sux.
Do not get rid of the plant. Get rid of the reactors.
Instead, replace those with thorium reactors, OR GE-PRISM and make use of all that is useful there. While those are working, then pull down the old generators.
With this approach, it keeps electricity, makes it cheaper, deals with 95% of the spent fuel, and provides a profit to the company while they tear down old gen II reactors.