things wrong. We heavily subsidize Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, and Nukes. Alternative Energy as a whole gets less than any of the proceeding. And energy storage has little. Instead, we should drop all of our subsidies and offer up 3 limited time subsidies:
any clean electricity.
any clean electricity that is also base load.
Any means of energy storage that creates electricity.
That last one will create a large number of small companies spread around the nation. More importantly, it can be used to power local areas. That will help smooth the demand vs. supply issue, as well as brown-outs. It would also allow us to deal nicely with issues about disasters. Finally, by moving to more of a energy storage approach, it makes a re-design of the grid so that they are smaller and then makes different kinds of electrical production easier.
And you do not need nukes in space until shortly before you elect to use them. Difficult to impossible UNLESS you are the first to use them and then want total domination of the skies.
Well, it will depend on how they built these. USA had to RD the information. Most other nations acquired much of their information from outside sources. For example, Pakistan acquired theirs from outside sources, but had to develop work-arounds for various items, and then forwarded that information to other nations. If you do it on your own, the RD is VERY steep. Likewise, getting to the point of having that first real weapon is steep. Now, once you have the first one, then the price for each will be kind of low. But of course, that depends on environmental controls, security, etc.
Take the example of Israel. They have very tight security on their work. Likewise, Iran has it as well. It took a defector to tell us just a bit about their set-up. It is very doubtful that any moderately high to high ranking scientist will defect from there. Right now, Iran has guards on all of them (allah has ordained it:) ). Then take the example of USA and USSR/Russia systems. We built our power plants based on on uranium to make it easier and cheaper to do both. Yet, it would have been cheaper to do thorium for a reactor. Basically, much of our RD for weapons also goes into commercial systems. Take the case of NIF (national ignition facility). Depending on which group and/or which congressman, NIF can be either about civial or military. The truth is that NIF is about military, but the knowledge gained will help us develop better reactors and fuel. In addition, it may gives us a way to drop our costs in the civilian world.
So, how much does it costs? I seriously doubt that ANYBODY can assign a cost to it in any country due to the RD being so intermixed with civilian for the civilized world, while secrecy keeps us from knowing the costs for the uncivilized nations. But I will point out that nuke aircraft carriers do not costs 200 million. Even a small diesel powered one from say UK will cost.5-1 billion. And America's as well as Russia's cost in the multiple billions. And China has bought 4 of these (3 from russia and 1 from Australia) to figure out how to build one. They will sink a lot more than 200 million for their first one. It will be interesting to see which they go after. Russia and UK have chosen to do smaller ones. They make it easier to scale these up quickly and are less of a target. America does larger ones. It allows for sustained operations esp. when they are nuclear powered. It will say a lot if they take the approach of America or if they decide on doing 2 of these.
Or, you move a significant portion of your nuke forces to Texas, while China and Russia then position boomers in Venezuela and Cuba. ANd then you have speed on your side. Sadly, that is the case right now.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that China is working on offense. In particular, we KNOW that they about to add multiple space stations in orbit. One is 'civilian' in that it will allow other nation's astronauts on-board. However, the PLA is openly saying that the other ones will remain solely under the control of the PLA. ANd they have stated that they will put up multiples of them. In addition, we DO know that they are working on anti-missile systems. The real problem is that China elects to keep quiet about everything. One thing that I liked about USSR was that they, like us, were open about their systems. Not in how they were done, but that they had them. And the USSR and USA were focused on defensive systems, not offensive. Big difference. China is working hard to hide thing. Even their budget is hidden. The proclaimed budget would take care of ONLY their conventional capabilities. Their nuclear force is not in their budget.
You are right that we are fighting an enemy that moves all over. HOWEVER, the nations where they operate at, have assistance from those nations. For example, AQ launched their attack on USA from Afghanistan. There is a very real possibility of AQ launching a biological attack on America, or possibly EU, from Pakistan. Think that we will just sit around and ignore it? If we do not take out Pakistan first and then turn to the other nations and say that you have 24 hours to turn over all AQ criminals, I would be shocked.
First off, America currently has 2,626 warheads while Russia has 4,650. With the new treaty, it will take both Russia and America to 1500 warheads. However, Russia is continuing their development of new nuke techs, though it appears that they have not re-started new warhead development. In addition, American warhead are SMALLER than Russia. The reason is that decided that small, but accurate warheads was more important than larger but inaccurate ones. And USSR's missiles WERE INACCURATE. THey could easily miss by 50 miles, which is why they would send so many larger ones.
OTH, China is known to have AT LEAST 900 warheads and is apparently IN PRODUCTION of NEW AND MORE WARHEADS. How many is either unknown or classified.
So, your argument that America has loads more warheads is patently BS.
Worse, I believe that China's strategy is geared around an OFFENSIVE approach, not the standard DEFENSIVE that both USSR and America had. That encourages a use-it-or-lose-it approach. As such, if and when China feels that they can in fact take out America, I believe that the generals there will. Even now, they are hard are work on Nuclear Ballastic subs (boomers). It appears that they already have 6 of these, with several in the pipeline. They are producing 2-4 new nuke subs each year. OTH, America has 14 boomers, though we have plenty of attack subs.
If this was JUST about Russia and America, I would be extremely happy with bringing down to 1500 warheads. But, with CHina on a massive offensive bent, I really am not comfortable with bringing our warheads down. This will just encourage elements in CHina to attack at the first provocation. MAD kept us out of trouble for nearly 50 years. Without that, it may just put us back in a VERY HOT WAR.
Currently, McCain has it nice and simple. Once he got into office, the stress would have killed him. The CIC job of two wars, along with massive recession (depression?) would wear on anybody. The simple fact is, that since he was a POW in his youth, he was subjected to the worst conditions possible.
And to not ackknowledge that by him, or you, proves stupidity.
What they can do and what they will do are two very different things. If we go after China, then it would likely move many investors off the dollars (hopefully, to the euro). Basically, they would see us as being irresponsible and wanting to get out of the way of 2 nations that are conducting war via economic means. Besides, the fact that Geithner is not forthcoming with the report about fixed money speaks loudly about this admin. I voted them in since I can not say 'president palin' and not see more W/Cheney/neo-con regime with it. BUT, I am not wild about what I see here. Basically, Obama's team is NOT fixing the problem.
It can also be used to add LOTS more monitoring. With narrow pipes, it is easy for all to see the monitoring. With fat pipes, it will be become difficult for the regular ppl to know.
Actually, we had a much better economy and manufacturing back then. In addition, we did not have the kind of hatred that we see today in our politics. Yes, they fought over Johnsons give aways, BUT, overall, politicans represented AMERICA and AMERICANS. Now, politicians represents any company in the world that attaches themselves to the pols zipper and lines their pockets. Look at how W/neo-con regime allowed China to disregard their legal obligations just so that they could invade/occupy Iraq. Now, look at the fact that Obama is not reporting on countries that manipulate their money, of which the WORST is China (fixed at 7 yuans to 1 dollar for quite some time; Many economists think it should be anywhere from 3, or possibly 1, yuan to a dollar). Basically, America, the land of the free and brave, has losts its morals, and its way.
It is a mistake to depend on Russia for this. Right now, we depend on Russia for access to the ISS, and they are now charging 2x what they charge private space. In addition, they are saying that in 2 years, they will double or even triple that price. So, we will pay PER SEAT what it costs to launch 7 SEATS with spaceX.
More importantly, if we are going to go to the moon and set up a base, WE NEED multiple architectures. Not just for lift, but for transportation to the moon. Ideally, we will have different architectures on these bases as well. And we need it to be both private space and international. I have little doubt that we will go back to the moon by 2020. And it will consist of multiple private space companies as well as international partners. Ideally, those partners will be our current ISS and perhaps India, Brazil, and South Korea.
Actually, the shuttle was NEVER seen as a way to lower the costs. It was sold that way. Most inside of NASA KNEW that it was not a lower cost way to launch thing. Hell, everytime you launch, 3/4 of the weight going to orbit is the shuttle. Normally, when launching a regular rocket, the protective containers represent about 1/10 or even 1/20 of the weight. Instead, it was designed to return large packages. Large Spy sats. Sats that we did not own. Ever wonder why USSR built a ground based laser? It was a threat that if we grabbed one of their birds, that they would take out our shuttle.
We have at least one company(spacex) coming on-line with a 7 person-to-leo vehicle. That will allow for not just a replacement for the shuttle (in terms of human), BUT, unlike the shuttle, it can remain in space for 2 years. That allows the ISS to be kicked up in size. In addition, it will also allow Bigelow's private space stations to come on-line.
They have a set of powerful light on the concentrator. That way, the same tube can be used by all.lighting. Otherwise, if adding lights and these, it is too expensive. Though to be fair, I suspect that this really is too expensive.
It is nothing like Programming. It is either high-paid labor, or it is cutting edge math and chemical.
Back in the early 80's, I was working on sequencing DNA using Maxim-Gilbert and the new sanger-nickols (dideoxy) approach while doing my BS. What we did was to follow the papers laid out by others. It was nothing more than a repetitive type work. At the time, I approached my boss at CDC and suggested a different way to sequence: fragment them using the dideoxy approach, and tag with luminosity, and then use HPLC to sequence and of course, use a computer to put the fragments together. At the time, my boss felt that it was not possible. A decade later, the automated machine was done. Of course, it simply automated the lab rat approach lowering costs and improving QA. It did nothing to improve the speeds
The 2006 X prize is now going to get my HPLC approach going. What will it take to design this HPLC approach? SOLID MATH. Why? Because you have to design the columns in different strategies, which will require one to figure out rates on the design of the columns, as well as a shifting binary or possibly terinary solution. The solutions can be simply edged triggered (count off x number of BP, and then increase solution b), but the columns are a whole different thing. They will require several sintering sizes as well as different chemical matrix. This is pretty much the ONLY way that somebody can win that X-Prize.
Calc in high school as soph and junior (graduated early). Had 2 semesters calc in 1979 for BS in micro bio , then in 91-93, did BS in CS. What I found is that in the decade, my learning skills had dropped and I lost information. How do you recover? You do not. What you need more than anything is to focus on learning. you should be 40 or so. You will be slower at picking up info. On the first degree, I never studied for anything and it was all AP. I got a 3.0. On the 2'nd, I studied until 5 am, and had 1 B and that was due to working 30-40 hrs/week and carry 18 credit hours (big mistake: do not do it). For the first semester, I had only 3 classes for a total of 11 credits. And it was calc, and several CS courses. That will allow you to focus on that calc course. Keep in mind that if you were AP, then you were probably brighter than most and likely lazy. As such, you now have to re-develop your learning skills. This is IMPORTANT. THings are NOT going to come easy to you. At this point, the majority of the 20 y.o. have it easier than you do. the only real advantage that you have, is that getting laid and having fun is not a top priority. Focus on your studies.
Oh, absolutely know about the SATELLITE express. But those are relatively easy to do. OTH, this article and conversation is about LANDERS, so the right one to look at is the beagle 2. And I as I correctly pointed out, ESA still has not put one on mars (though apparently into it) or any place that requires something difficult (doing a parachute on titan is not that difficult). still stands (though to be fair, that is UK, not ESA). Basically, ESA has not had a successful lander, just a parachute suspended capsule (very easy to do; in fact, developed in old italy).
Sadly, when the politicians took over NASA, they tried to move things around in various states and helped create the jobs bill approach. Pretty much the same philosophy that ESA and EADS has. After all, they spread all of the work around EU. The issue with EU's approach is that the contracts go to whoever has the most money, not who has the ability to do something. Worse, a lot of ESA money is wasted in politics. Witness Galileo. Even with next to nothing to do in real research (all done for you), it is taking 2x as long. That is Politics.
OTH, America is (hopefully) about to take the approach of having multiple private launchers that are human and cargo rated. Ideally, we will have 2-4 Super heavy launchers available around 2020 (no sooner). That way, we have competition for services. To really lower our costs and get things past the politics, and be able to handle accidents, then we need multiple providers with differing arch. By 2013, we should have 1 human rated launcher, ASSUMING that congress does not screw up like they have for the last 18 years. In addition, we should 2-3 human rated launchers by 2015, possibly 2014, again based on what is expected (though I will admit that I am still shocked by Direct not happening so far).
I have worked for NASA on MGS.
Secondly, I have little doubt that NASA still CAN. In addition, I suspect that NASA will be doing one or more of these missions once OBAMA lays out goals (assuming that it is moon and not mars). In the end, it will not matter. If NASA does not go to the moon directly, they will do so indirectly with private space. IOW, they will help private space to do so. My belief is that once WE (as in America) have private space up and running, then NASA will combine with private space, and likely all of the ISS partners to go to the moon. After all, with water and uranium there, there is now going to be real strong pressures to get there since it will be cheaper and safer to be there for any length of time.
Finally, NASA is OWNED by all Americans. So it is CORRECT for ANY American to refer to WE in this context.
We already did it. With both automated systems and manual. Multiple times. Likewise, we have landed a number of different systems using different approaches on Mars. ESA still has not put one on mars (though apparently into it) or any place that requires something difficult (doing a parachute on titan is not that difficult).
Personally, I would rather that NASA get our CHEAP private space into orbit and help them get multiple destinations for money (via bigelow aerospace private space stations), while working on new approaches on putting a real base on the moon and mars.
With that said, I am glad that ESA is working towards doing a system to actually land on a planet/moon using active systems. It will be a good education for them.
China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads. The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Japan has found Uranium up there, and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel.
Of course the fact that NASA has had actual increases in budget over the last couple of years does not matter.
It was a PROGRAM cut that is occurring. Big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
That last one will create a large number of small companies spread around the nation. More importantly, it can be used to power local areas. That will help smooth the demand vs. supply issue, as well as brown-outs. It would also allow us to deal nicely with issues about disasters. Finally, by moving to more of a energy storage approach, it makes a re-design of the grid so that they are smaller and then makes different kinds of electrical production easier.
while I like wiki, it is always dated.
And you do not need nukes in space until shortly before you elect to use them. Difficult to impossible UNLESS you are the first to use them and then want total domination of the skies.
Well, it will depend on how they built these. USA had to RD the information. Most other nations acquired much of their information from outside sources. For example, Pakistan acquired theirs from outside sources, but had to develop work-arounds for various items, and then forwarded that information to other nations. If you do it on your own, the RD is VERY steep. Likewise, getting to the point of having that first real weapon is steep. Now, once you have the first one, then the price for each will be kind of low. But of course, that depends on environmental controls, security, etc. Take the example of Israel. They have very tight security on their work. Likewise, Iran has it as well. It took a defector to tell us just a bit about their set-up. It is very doubtful that any moderately high to high ranking scientist will defect from there. Right now, Iran has guards on all of them (allah has ordained it :) ).
.5-1 billion. And America's as well as Russia's cost in the multiple billions. And China has bought 4 of these (3 from russia and 1 from Australia) to figure out how to build one. They will sink a lot more than 200 million for their first one. It will be interesting to see which they go after. Russia and UK have chosen to do smaller ones. They make it easier to scale these up quickly and are less of a target. America does larger ones. It allows for sustained operations esp. when they are nuclear powered. It will say a lot if they take the approach of America or if they decide on doing 2 of these.
Then take the example of USA and USSR/Russia systems. We built our power plants based on on uranium to make it easier and cheaper to do both. Yet, it would have been cheaper to do thorium for a reactor. Basically, much of our RD for weapons also goes into commercial systems. Take the case of NIF (national ignition facility). Depending on which group and/or which congressman, NIF can be either about civial or military. The truth is that NIF is about military, but the knowledge gained will help us develop better reactors and fuel. In addition, it may gives us a way to drop our costs in the civilian world.
So, how much does it costs? I seriously doubt that ANYBODY can assign a cost to it in any country due to the RD being so intermixed with civilian for the civilized world, while secrecy keeps us from knowing the costs for the uncivilized nations. But I will point out that nuke aircraft carriers do not costs 200 million. Even a small diesel powered one from say UK will cost
Or, you move a significant portion of your nuke forces to Texas, while China and Russia then position boomers in Venezuela and Cuba. ANd then you have speed on your side. Sadly, that is the case right now.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that China is working on offense. In particular, we KNOW that they about to add multiple space stations in orbit. One is 'civilian' in that it will allow other nation's astronauts on-board. However, the PLA is openly saying that the other ones will remain solely under the control of the PLA. ANd they have stated that they will put up multiples of them. In addition, we DO know that they are working on anti-missile systems. The real problem is that China elects to keep quiet about everything. One thing that I liked about USSR was that they, like us, were open about their systems. Not in how they were done, but that they had them. And the USSR and USA were focused on defensive systems, not offensive. Big difference. China is working hard to hide thing. Even their budget is hidden. The proclaimed budget would take care of ONLY their conventional capabilities. Their nuclear force is not in their budget.
Well, they got obtained some. Maybe it is Omega.
You are right that we are fighting an enemy that moves all over. HOWEVER, the nations where they operate at, have assistance from those nations. For example, AQ launched their attack on USA from Afghanistan. There is a very real possibility of AQ launching a biological attack on America, or possibly EU, from Pakistan. Think that we will just sit around and ignore it? If we do not take out Pakistan first and then turn to the other nations and say that you have 24 hours to turn over all AQ criminals, I would be shocked.
First off, America currently has 2,626 warheads while Russia has 4,650. With the new treaty, it will take both Russia and America to 1500 warheads. However, Russia is continuing their development of new nuke techs, though it appears that they have not re-started new warhead development. In addition, American warhead are SMALLER than Russia. The reason is that decided that small, but accurate warheads was more important than larger but inaccurate ones. And USSR's missiles WERE INACCURATE. THey could easily miss by 50 miles, which is why they would send so many larger ones.
OTH, China is known to have AT LEAST 900 warheads and is apparently IN PRODUCTION of NEW AND MORE WARHEADS. How many is either unknown or classified.
So, your argument that America has loads more warheads is patently BS.
Worse, I believe that China's strategy is geared around an OFFENSIVE approach, not the standard DEFENSIVE that both USSR and America had. That encourages a use-it-or-lose-it approach. As such, if and when China feels that they can in fact take out America, I believe that the generals there will. Even now, they are hard are work on Nuclear Ballastic subs (boomers). It appears that they already have 6 of these, with several in the pipeline. They are producing 2-4 new nuke subs each year. OTH, America has 14 boomers, though we have plenty of attack subs.
If this was JUST about Russia and America, I would be extremely happy with bringing down to 1500 warheads. But, with CHina on a massive offensive bent, I really am not comfortable with bringing our warheads down. This will just encourage elements in CHina to attack at the first provocation. MAD kept us out of trouble for nearly 50 years. Without that, it may just put us back in a VERY HOT WAR.
Currently, McCain has it nice and simple. Once he got into office, the stress would have killed him. The CIC job of two wars, along with massive recession (depression?) would wear on anybody. The simple fact is, that since he was a POW in his youth, he was subjected to the worst conditions possible.
And to not ackknowledge that by him, or you, proves stupidity.
What they can do and what they will do are two very different things. If we go after China, then it would likely move many investors off the dollars (hopefully, to the euro). Basically, they would see us as being irresponsible and wanting to get out of the way of 2 nations that are conducting war via economic means. Besides, the fact that Geithner is not forthcoming with the report about fixed money speaks loudly about this admin. I voted them in since I can not say 'president palin' and not see more W/Cheney/neo-con regime with it. BUT, I am not wild about what I see here. Basically, Obama's team is NOT fixing the problem.
It can also be used to add LOTS more monitoring. With narrow pipes, it is easy for all to see the monitoring. With fat pipes, it will be become difficult for the regular ppl to know.
Actually, we had a much better economy and manufacturing back then. In addition, we did not have the kind of hatred that we see today in our politics. Yes, they fought over Johnsons give aways, BUT, overall, politicans represented AMERICA and AMERICANS. Now, politicians represents any company in the world that attaches themselves to the pols zipper and lines their pockets. Look at how W/neo-con regime allowed China to disregard their legal obligations just so that they could invade/occupy Iraq. Now, look at the fact that Obama is not reporting on countries that manipulate their money, of which the WORST is China (fixed at 7 yuans to 1 dollar for quite some time; Many economists think it should be anywhere from 3, or possibly 1, yuan to a dollar). Basically, America, the land of the free and brave, has losts its morals, and its way.
It is a mistake to depend on Russia for this. Right now, we depend on Russia for access to the ISS, and they are now charging 2x what they charge private space. In addition, they are saying that in 2 years, they will double or even triple that price. So, we will pay PER SEAT what it costs to launch 7 SEATS with spaceX.
More importantly, if we are going to go to the moon and set up a base, WE NEED multiple architectures. Not just for lift, but for transportation to the moon. Ideally, we will have different architectures on these bases as well. And we need it to be both private space and international. I have little doubt that we will go back to the moon by 2020. And it will consist of multiple private space companies as well as international partners. Ideally, those partners will be our current ISS and perhaps India, Brazil, and South Korea.
Actually, the shuttle was NEVER seen as a way to lower the costs. It was sold that way. Most inside of NASA KNEW that it was not a lower cost way to launch thing. Hell, everytime you launch, 3/4 of the weight going to orbit is the shuttle. Normally, when launching a regular rocket, the protective containers represent about 1/10 or even 1/20 of the weight. Instead, it was designed to return large packages. Large Spy sats. Sats that we did not own. Ever wonder why USSR built a ground based laser? It was a threat that if we grabbed one of their birds, that they would take out our shuttle.
We have at least one company(spacex) coming on-line with a 7 person-to-leo vehicle. That will allow for not just a replacement for the shuttle (in terms of human), BUT, unlike the shuttle, it can remain in space for 2 years. That allows the ISS to be kicked up in size. In addition, it will also allow Bigelow's private space stations to come on-line.
They have a set of powerful light on the concentrator. That way, the same tube can be used by all.lighting. Otherwise, if adding lights and these, it is too expensive. Though to be fair, I suspect that this really is too expensive.
It is nothing like Programming. It is either high-paid labor, or it is cutting edge math and chemical.
Back in the early 80's, I was working on sequencing DNA using Maxim-Gilbert and the new sanger-nickols (dideoxy) approach while doing my BS. What we did was to follow the papers laid out by others. It was nothing more than a repetitive type work. At the time, I approached my boss at CDC and suggested a different way to sequence: fragment them using the dideoxy approach, and tag with luminosity, and then use HPLC to sequence and of course, use a computer to put the fragments together. At the time, my boss felt that it was not possible. A decade later, the automated machine was done. Of course, it simply automated the lab rat approach lowering costs and improving QA. It did nothing to improve the speeds
The 2006 X prize is now going to get my HPLC approach going. What will it take to design this HPLC approach? SOLID MATH. Why? Because you have to design the columns in different strategies, which will require one to figure out rates on the design of the columns, as well as a shifting binary or possibly terinary solution. The solutions can be simply edged triggered (count off x number of BP, and then increase solution b), but the columns are a whole different thing. They will require several sintering sizes as well as different chemical matrix. This is pretty much the ONLY way that somebody can win that X-Prize.
Calc in high school as soph and junior (graduated early). Had 2 semesters calc in 1979 for BS in micro bio , then in 91-93, did BS in CS. What I found is that in the decade, my learning skills had dropped and I lost information. How do you recover? You do not. What you need more than anything is to focus on learning. you should be 40 or so. You will be slower at picking up info. On the first degree, I never studied for anything and it was all AP. I got a 3.0. On the 2'nd, I studied until 5 am, and had 1 B and that was due to working 30-40 hrs/week and carry 18 credit hours (big mistake: do not do it). For the first semester, I had only 3 classes for a total of 11 credits. And it was calc, and several CS courses. That will allow you to focus on that calc course. Keep in mind that if you were AP, then you were probably brighter than most and likely lazy. As such, you now have to re-develop your learning skills. This is IMPORTANT. THings are NOT going to come easy to you. At this point, the majority of the 20 y.o. have it easier than you do. the only real advantage that you have, is that getting laid and having fun is not a top priority. Focus on your studies.
Oh, absolutely know about the SATELLITE express. But those are relatively easy to do. OTH, this article and conversation is about LANDERS, so the right one to look at is the beagle 2. And I as I correctly pointed out, ESA still has not put one on mars (though apparently into it) or any place that requires something difficult (doing a parachute on titan is not that difficult). still stands (though to be fair, that is UK, not ESA). Basically, ESA has not had a successful lander, just a parachute suspended capsule (very easy to do; in fact, developed in old italy).
Sadly, when the politicians took over NASA, they tried to move things around in various states and helped create the jobs bill approach. Pretty much the same philosophy that ESA and EADS has. After all, they spread all of the work around EU. The issue with EU's approach is that the contracts go to whoever has the most money, not who has the ability to do something. Worse, a lot of ESA money is wasted in politics. Witness Galileo. Even with next to nothing to do in real research (all done for you), it is taking 2x as long. That is Politics.
OTH, America is (hopefully) about to take the approach of having multiple private launchers that are human and cargo rated. Ideally, we will have 2-4 Super heavy launchers available around 2020 (no sooner). That way, we have competition for services. To really lower our costs and get things past the politics, and be able to handle accidents, then we need multiple providers with differing arch. By 2013, we should have 1 human rated launcher, ASSUMING that congress does not screw up like they have for the last 18 years. In addition, we should 2-3 human rated launchers by 2015, possibly 2014, again based on what is expected (though I will admit that I am still shocked by Direct not happening so far).
I have worked for NASA on MGS.
Secondly, I have little doubt that NASA still CAN. In addition, I suspect that NASA will be doing one or more of these missions once OBAMA lays out goals (assuming that it is moon and not mars). In the end, it will not matter. If NASA does not go to the moon directly, they will do so indirectly with private space. IOW, they will help private space to do so. My belief is that once WE (as in America) have private space up and running, then NASA will combine with private space, and likely all of the ISS partners to go to the moon. After all, with water and uranium there, there is now going to be real strong pressures to get there since it will be cheaper and safer to be there for any length of time.
Finally, NASA is OWNED by all Americans. So it is CORRECT for ANY American to refer to WE in this context.
We already did it. With both automated systems and manual. Multiple times. Likewise, we have landed a number of different systems using different approaches on Mars. ESA still has not put one on mars (though apparently into it) or any place that requires something difficult (doing a parachute on titan is not that difficult).
Personally, I would rather that NASA get our CHEAP private space into orbit and help them get multiple destinations for money (via bigelow aerospace private space stations), while working on new approaches on putting a real base on the moon and mars.
With that said, I am glad that ESA is working towards doing a system to actually land on a planet/moon using active systems. It will be a good education for them.
I gripped that I did not trust solaris because it was given away once already. I said that Sun could do this same stunt AGAIN.
I was put down by MANY of the solaris supporters saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to be brought back in.
More importantly, some of my friends that work in the brromfield operation ASSURED me that it would not happen again.
So, this is really not happening. And yes, MS will not use their patents to go after OSS if we develop mono all because some ppl said so.
China build these for them. And they will be loaded with virus and will destruct at very strange times.
China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads. The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Japan has found Uranium up there, and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel.
He would have incurred LARGE costs on this one.
Of course the fact that NASA has had actual increases in budget over the last couple of years does not matter. It was a PROGRAM cut that is occurring. Big difference.