Oil industries write off all of their loses. Far more than any other industry. And that is just for starters. As it is, oil industry gets about 8 billion a year and that does not include the pollution that we all subsidize via higher medical costs. In the meantime, solar get less than 1/8 of what the Oil industry gets. Heck we pay more for Coal's health care (miners have a seperate program) than we pay for wind and solar COMBINED. And that is EACH YEAR.
Yup, starting with reagan, only two president did something about our debt and that was Poppa Bush for one year and Clinton for all 8. For some odd reason, Dems can be far more responsible than neo-cons.
Wrong. The amount of railroads around the nation was a spit in the bucket, compared to other nations. Then we VERY heavily subsidized them to get them off the ground. The feds and states gave all sorts of lands and even money to them to build on. We are not talking just ROW. They GAVE large lands to them. Many of the ranches here in the west were originally railroad owned. They then sold those to get funding for building out more of their railroads.
In fact, the US and state govs have done that with the vast majority of our industries. Power? Feds and States. Telephones? Direct subsidies, and allowed ATT to become a monopoly. Aviation? WD bought loads of these to subsidize them. Cars? States built roads to bring in cars. some states gave direct subsidies to car dealers and garages to set-up in various locations esp. in rural areas. Ships? WD/DOD bought loads of them. Hell, they produced a nuclear civilian ship and ran it for a time. Electronics? NASA and DOD have heavily subsidized our electronics (sadly, we have given up, but need to change that; in particular for moving to cell-phone communications, we absolutely should require that all parts come from western nation, ideally America ). the list goes on and on. We have subsidized many of our industries into being.
Depends on what state and what areas. We have a mix of Subsidies (on-going money paid on a PER KW basis) and rebates( one-time money paid upon install).
Here in Highlands Ranch, Colorado (far suburb of Denver), we can get Federal, state, and utility.
If you live in Boulder, Colorado, you also get a city and I believe even a county money. Here is a write-up on Boulder. Note that roughly 2/3 of the installed costs is done in rebates. Then the electric company has to buy any excess energy from you. It is at a rate less than what they charge customers, but still substantial. IIRC, it is around $.03/KW, and they charge.1/KW. Now, if the feds would just get electric storage down in costs then it makes it worthwhile to have solar and wind.
Actually, I think that it is a damn good measure of efficiency. The more jobs shows that it is currently INEFFICIENT. The idea is to have the LEAST amount of jobs / MW, along with the least amount of emissions. We need to quit thinking like a 3rd world nation and return to thinking of how to lower the costs (which would be lower the number of jobs) required to get the job done.
Re-read the article. It is RUSSIANS that made the statement. Besides, ZERO chance that it will be de-orbited. Assuming that we can stop the communist Republicans in CONgress, we will send up a BA-330 and check it out around 2013-2014. IOW, it is ideal for testing our equipment.
USOS provides power. In addition, USOS has all of the life support to sustain the current ISS. The majority of the volume is in the west. The only thing missing is the ability to push this. However, we are suppose to add a VASIMR unit next year. Once that is added, then we have it.
I seriously doubt that Russia will pull their units off and ditch them. Assuming that they are mad at us and want to pull out, they will simply move it to Chinese, though again, I doubt that they will do that.
Instead, I think that with the west having private space stations (namely Bigelows) and multiple human-rated launchers in the next 3 years, Russia will continue to work with the West. I suspect that an idiot simply misspoke.
Go to Voddler and you will see that it is 37SEK for a 24 hour movie rental. That is $6 to rent a movie vs. $9 to rent unlimited monthly streaming on netflix. m2vq is spamming.
Its not. It costs $6 just to rent a single movie and their free movies are lame. So, for what it costs for netflix streaming, for 1 month, voddler will allow you 1.5 movies. And for netflix streaming and 1 DVD/Blue-ray, it is like 3 movies from voddler. I will stick with Netflix.
zero chance. In fact, the goal here is for private space to take on launches to LEO and multiple LEO space stations. Before 2020, Bigelow wants to be back on the moon. However, it will not be private space that puts man on asteroid or crosses the void to mars, first. It will be NASA. However, once done, it will be private space that will commercialize it and make it CHEAP for all.
It is for those reasons that I reject arguments from ppl that pit private space against NASA. BOTH ARE NEEDED. NASA does the true cutting edge work. But going to leo, living in LEO, and even going/living on the moon is no longer cutting edge. The fact is, that if you can have a station that works in space and underground on earth, then it will do just fine on the moon.
Actually, the bulk of the costs IS the rocket and the support crew, not the rest. SpaceX has the SMALLEST number of ground crew. And if they manage to put up 6 F9s without issues, I think that we will see insurance costs plummet on both the F9 and FH. And comm is not that much of the mission.
It is the neo-cons, not the republicans, that are attacking private space. Even now, they are attempting to get funding cut to any private space, but esp. to SpaceX. This includes Shelby(R), Hatch(R), wolf(R), Coffman(R), Hutchinson(R), and others that are pushing to stop this funding. Oddly, they argue that by moving about 800 million over to their SLS (which will costs 10-20 billion or more) that it will be able to launch in under 7 years. 800 million will not matter to the SLS, but with private space, it means that we will have 2-3 systems ready by 2014, and 3-4 by 2015.
nope. It has doing an out in the open attack on expensive launch systems. Right now, the process that SpaceX is going through is similar to what OSS has gone through with MS and other companies.
In the end it will cost more than if NASA just had their own vehicle.
Really? What do you base that on? Costs for JUST THE ARES I was 9 billion and it still had a ways to go. The Orion was over 5 Billion. The Ares V was expected to cost around 20-25 billion and would not be available until 2025-2030. The launch costs for the Ares V would be similar to the shuttle (same critter; just a vertical stack instead of a side stack; same costs to launch). So, to send up 150 tonnes to leo would 1.5-3 billion (in 2011 $). OTH, the FH will take up 1/3 of the Ares V, and only costs 100 million.
So, please provide evidence that a NASA vehicle would costs less.
Well, lets see. The shuttle launchs 7 ppl into orbit for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The falcon 9 will launch 7 in less than 3 years for less than $150 million.
The shuttle launches 24,500 KG to LEO for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy will launch 54,500 KG to LEO in 2 years for 100 million.
The shuttle has a 2 week lifetime in orbit. The Falcon 9 is for no less than 30 weeks, and has claimed 104 weeks.
The shuttle can go to LEO. The Falcon Heavy can go to the moon and mars.
The shuttle CAN take up 7 ppl and the 24,500 in one launch for 1.5-3 billion. The falcon 9 can rendezvous with a BA unit to provide 10x the living and work room for less than 500 million.
I would say that the shuttle being based on late 60s tech was great in the 70s, but loses in the 2010s.
So, if a woman goes to bed WILLINGLY and HAPPILY with you in which
1) everybody at the bar saw this,
2) the next day told her friends what a wonderful time you had,
3) You continue a happy relationship for 3 years
and then shortly after attending some religious revival, she can declare that you raped her 4 years ago?
MS used to push stealing from them. As they said, a stolen item from me robs my competitor of money. This was how they destroyed Borland. Now, where life gets interesting is how will the courts see this? Sun was NOT out to illegally destroy a competitor. They were happy to have Google use it. Hopefully, this destroys Oracle's lawsuit, while still allowing Google''s counter claims to continue forward.
I wish that they would put this on the edge of the crater, rather than in it. If Mars has water, where would it be? Not high. It would be in the ice and at the bottom of craters. At the least, I would rather that we put it there around winter.
Then I want the right to allow me to scream FIRE in a theater. I think that the two are VERY similar, so the same logical argument can be made for my right as well. In both cases, it incites a negative situation.
Only fools do not know the difference between Natural Selection and evolution. Natural selection is a process where by losers are dropped from the eco system (and why are you still here? We have to re-instate natural selection for ppl like you). OTH, evolution is the process by which a living entity slowly changes to deal with its environment and pressure points. Well, when one type of bacteria acquires a gene from another bacteria that confers anti-biotic resistance, THAT is evolution. The fact that bacteria ARE changing is evolution. And we see the same in birds, reptiles, and even mammals, though much slower. Troll indeed. Hey, I have heard that if you lick the yellow line in the middle of the road esp. on the highways that it is lime-flavored coke meant for ppl like you. Why not try it?
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, it was likely some GD stupid neo-con that modded him up. A libtard would have simply modded him down.
Oil industries write off all of their loses. Far more than any other industry. And that is just for starters. As it is, oil industry gets about 8 billion a year and that does not include the pollution that we all subsidize via higher medical costs. In the meantime, solar get less than 1/8 of what the Oil industry gets. Heck we pay more for Coal's health care (miners have a seperate program) than we pay for wind and solar COMBINED. And that is EACH YEAR.
Yup, starting with reagan, only two president did something about our debt and that was Poppa Bush for one year and Clinton for all 8. For some odd reason, Dems can be far more responsible than neo-cons.
Wrong.
The amount of railroads around the nation was a spit in the bucket, compared to other nations. Then we VERY heavily subsidized them to get them off the ground. The feds and states gave all sorts of lands and even money to them to build on. We are not talking just ROW. They GAVE large lands to them. Many of the ranches here in the west were originally railroad owned. They then sold those to get funding for building out more of their railroads.
In fact, the US and state govs have done that with the vast majority of our industries. Power? Feds and States. Telephones? Direct subsidies, and allowed ATT to become a monopoly. Aviation? WD bought loads of these to subsidize them. Cars? States built roads to bring in cars. some states gave direct subsidies to car dealers and garages to set-up in various locations esp. in rural areas. Ships? WD/DOD bought loads of them. Hell, they produced a nuclear civilian ship and ran it for a time. Electronics? NASA and DOD have heavily subsidized our electronics (sadly, we have given up, but need to change that; in particular for moving to cell-phone communications, we absolutely should require that all parts come from western nation, ideally America ). the list goes on and on. We have subsidized many of our industries into being.
Depends on what state and what areas. We have a mix of Subsidies (on-going money paid on a PER KW basis) and rebates( one-time money paid upon install). Here in Highlands Ranch, Colorado (far suburb of Denver), we can get Federal, state, and utility. If you live in Boulder, Colorado, you also get a city and I believe even a county money. .1/KW. Now, if the feds would just get electric storage down in costs then it makes it worthwhile to have solar and wind.
Here is a write-up on Boulder. Note that roughly 2/3 of the installed costs is done in rebates. Then the electric company has to buy any excess energy from you. It is at a rate less than what they charge customers, but still substantial. IIRC, it is around $.03/KW, and they charge
Actually, I think that it is a damn good measure of efficiency. The more jobs shows that it is currently INEFFICIENT. The idea is to have the LEAST amount of jobs / MW, along with the least amount of emissions. We need to quit thinking like a 3rd world nation and return to thinking of how to lower the costs (which would be lower the number of jobs) required to get the job done.
Re-read the article. It is RUSSIANS that made the statement. Besides, ZERO chance that it will be de-orbited. Assuming that we can stop the communist Republicans in CONgress, we will send up a BA-330 and check it out around 2013-2014. IOW, it is ideal for testing our equipment.
USOS provides power. In addition, USOS has all of the life support to sustain the current ISS. The majority of the volume is in the west. The only thing missing is the ability to push this. However, we are suppose to add a VASIMR unit next year. Once that is added, then we have it.
I seriously doubt that Russia will pull their units off and ditch them. Assuming that they are mad at us and want to pull out, they will simply move it to Chinese, though again, I doubt that they will do that.
Instead, I think that with the west having private space stations (namely Bigelows) and multiple human-rated launchers in the next 3 years, Russia will continue to work with the West. I suspect that an idiot simply misspoke.
Go to Voddler and you will see that it is 37SEK for a 24 hour movie rental. That is $6 to rent a movie vs. $9 to rent unlimited monthly streaming on netflix. m2vq is spamming.
Its not. It costs $6 just to rent a single movie and their free movies are lame. So, for what it costs for netflix streaming, for 1 month, voddler will allow you 1.5 movies. And for netflix streaming and 1 DVD/Blue-ray, it is like 3 movies from voddler. I will stick with Netflix.
zero chance. In fact, the goal here is for private space to take on launches to LEO and multiple LEO space stations. Before 2020, Bigelow wants to be back on the moon. However, it will not be private space that puts man on asteroid or crosses the void to mars, first. It will be NASA. However, once done, it will be private space that will commercialize it and make it CHEAP for all.
It is for those reasons that I reject arguments from ppl that pit private space against NASA. BOTH ARE NEEDED. NASA does the true cutting edge work. But going to leo, living in LEO, and even going/living on the moon is no longer cutting edge. The fact is, that if you can have a station that works in space and underground on earth, then it will do just fine on the moon.
fuel costs on all liquid rockets amounts to less than .2% of the total costs. THat is true whether it is kerolox or hydrolox.
Actually, the bulk of the costs IS the rocket and the support crew, not the rest. SpaceX has the SMALLEST number of ground crew. And if they manage to put up 6 F9s without issues, I think that we will see insurance costs plummet on both the F9 and FH. And comm is not that much of the mission.
It is the neo-cons, not the republicans, that are attacking private space. Even now, they are attempting to get funding cut to any private space, but esp. to SpaceX. This includes Shelby(R), Hatch(R), wolf(R), Coffman(R), Hutchinson(R), and others that are pushing to stop this funding. Oddly, they argue that by moving about 800 million over to their SLS (which will costs 10-20 billion or more) that it will be able to launch in under 7 years. 800 million will not matter to the SLS, but with private space, it means that we will have 2-3 systems ready by 2014, and 3-4 by 2015.
nope. It has doing an out in the open attack on expensive launch systems. Right now, the process that SpaceX is going through is similar to what OSS has gone through with MS and other companies.
In the end it will cost more than if NASA just had their own vehicle.
Really? What do you base that on? Costs for JUST THE ARES I was 9 billion and it still had a ways to go. The Orion was over 5 Billion. The Ares V was expected to cost around 20-25 billion and would not be available until 2025-2030. The launch costs for the Ares V would be similar to the shuttle (same critter; just a vertical stack instead of a side stack; same costs to launch). So, to send up 150 tonnes to leo would 1.5-3 billion (in 2011 $). OTH, the FH will take up 1/3 of the Ares V, and only costs 100 million.
So, please provide evidence that a NASA vehicle would costs less.
sigh. The dragon is a capsule. The falcon is the rocket. The rocket launches the capsule into space. recollection may be a bit fuzzy.
Well, lets see. The shuttle launchs 7 ppl into orbit for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The falcon 9 will launch 7 in less than 3 years for less than $150 million.
The shuttle launches 24,500 KG to LEO for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy will launch 54,500 KG to LEO in 2 years for 100 million.
The shuttle has a 2 week lifetime in orbit. The Falcon 9 is for no less than 30 weeks, and has claimed 104 weeks.
The shuttle can go to LEO. The Falcon Heavy can go to the moon and mars.
The shuttle CAN take up 7 ppl and the 24,500 in one launch for 1.5-3 billion. The falcon 9 can rendezvous with a BA unit to provide 10x the living and work room for less than 500 million.
I would say that the shuttle being based on late 60s tech was great in the 70s, but loses in the 2010s.
nope. That was reported right away, not 4 years later and with a very happy relationship going. Big difference.
So, if a woman goes to bed WILLINGLY and HAPPILY with you in which
1) everybody at the bar saw this,
2) the next day told her friends what a wonderful time you had,
3) You continue a happy relationship for 3 years
and then shortly after attending some religious revival, she can declare that you raped her 4 years ago?
And yes, my analogy is about the right one.
MS used to push stealing from them. As they said, a stolen item from me robs my competitor of money. This was how they destroyed Borland. Now, where life gets interesting is how will the courts see this? Sun was NOT out to illegally destroy a competitor. They were happy to have Google use it. Hopefully, this destroys Oracle's lawsuit, while still allowing Google''s counter claims to continue forward.
I wish that they would put this on the edge of the crater, rather than in it. If Mars has water, where would it be? Not high. It would be in the ice and at the bottom of craters. At the least, I would rather that we put it there around winter.
Then I want the right to allow me to scream FIRE in a theater. I think that the two are VERY similar, so the same logical argument can be made for my right as well. In both cases, it incites a negative situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Only fools do not know the difference between Natural Selection and evolution. Natural selection is a process where by losers are dropped from the eco system (and why are you still here? We have to re-instate natural selection for ppl like you). OTH, evolution is the process by which a living entity slowly changes to deal with its environment and pressure points. Well, when one type of bacteria acquires a gene from another bacteria that confers anti-biotic resistance, THAT is evolution. The fact that bacteria ARE changing is evolution. And we see the same in birds, reptiles, and even mammals, though much slower.
Troll indeed. Hey, I have heard that if you lick the yellow line in the middle of the road esp. on the highways that it is lime-flavored coke meant for ppl like you. Why not try it?