By the way, I'm fairly certain that the current proposals only mean "outsourcing" in the sense of outsourcing to private US companies, rather than companies based elsewhere. In fact, much of the reason for doing this is to prevent a reliance on Russia. Oh, I am sure that is being driven by Augustine's committe. BUT, the real problem is that many in NASA (and some in congress such as Shelby; bless that man's black heart and tiny head) would rather see us depend on Russia and China then to allow us to use private companies. So, I would like it written in there that NASA HAS NO CHOICE on this down the road. I do not want to see another time down the road where the Shelby's can redirect money away for their own personal gain over that of our nation.
I hope that you are kidding
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You should know better. Much of America's space hardware is built in various locations. For example, MGS was from l-mart in Denver. Likewise, there are plenty of companies that are fully capable of building the rover. With that said, NASA's new missions will be to continue building rovers for mars and other planets UNTIL it becomes methodical. Then it would be handed off to private to do. Though think about this. If USA can fire up multiple companies here that are space and lunar bound, we will get an infrastructure that can move to other worlds. That is what we need. NASA will take us there. They will be at the leading edge on all of it. BUT, to allow companies to take over what should be mundane only makes sense.
Outsourcing is NOT the problem
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Look, when you are doing the SAME REPETITIVE ITEM, then a free fair competitive marketplace makes sense to handle it. The problem comes when it is NOT fair, nor competitive. For example, the feds outsourcing a number of items to private workers in America was not the problem. The problems came when companies shifted the work to places like China and India who have only one-way trade, have no real requirements about pollution, and most of all, have their money fixed against ours. OTH, if trade barriers are dropped and money allowed to float freely, then economies adjust. If NASA does this right, they will focus on advanced tech rather than doing the mundane. They will also work with our local companies to get them thinking of different solutions to the same problem.
Keep it competitive. That means that we need at least 2 companies the provide a service. Ideally, it will be at least 3.
National Security MUST come first. That means that at least 1 of each categories MUST be American. That does not mean that ALL of the win must go to Americans. There is a lot to like about the idea of having our partners provide part of the system.
Keep it fair. If the nation has trade barriers and/or has their fixed against ours and/or has the gov subsidizing the bid, then it should not be allowed in. That would mean that China and India are absolutely out of any part of this. OTH, Brazil might be (not sure of their status).
Anything developed for NASA and making use of NASA/US proprietary tech needs to STILL be limited to friendly countries.
Go NASA go. Once the infrastructure is in place for LEO/GEO/Lunar, then it should be possible to focus on NASA's true purpose; pushing the tech and science of space.
When there are more sunspots, the surface of the Sun is hotter. This makes it radiate more heat than when there are less sunspots. With the increase in GreenHouse gases by man, it absorbs MUCH more of the solar energy, rather than reflect it. In essence, Man's contribution to CO2, Ch4, etc, have caused a much larger increase in temperature then would normally happen.
When there are less sunspots, the surface of the sun is cooler. When the sun radiates more heat, the Earth heats up. When the sun radiates less heat, the Earth cools down. If this happens, then man will be able to easily generate lots of CO2 and Ch4 to increase the efficiency of trapping energy, rather than allow it to be naturally radiated out to space.
I believe that is what is being looked for by a scientists, not by a politician or oil man.
Look, back in the 70/80, we did the kind of decriminalization on pot. I was part of that. My dorm floor was bringing in a BALE of pot a week at NIU and selling it . Why? Because the price DOUBLED overnight to450 for a lb of maui wowie, when police announced that they would not pursue small amounts. we could easily hide the bail. All that was needed was to test for paraquat. What will happen now, is that Mexican gang will get MORE MONEY, so they will expand efforts in Mexico making things wore. Decriminalization is the WORSE thing that they can do. It should legalized.
correlation != causation. As it is, we have a STRONG CORRELATION of man's interaction causing global warming, and likewise, there is a strong correlation of lack of sunspot to global cooling, BUT, can it be PROVEN? Nope.
The real sad item is that the anti GW are almost certainly the ones that will push GW if sunspots disappear and temps start dropping. IOW, these ppl will buy into GW and insist that we burn coal for energy as well as oil and natural gas. And they will be there to sell it.
This will increase demand, while not allowing legal supply to increase. It WILL be filled by gangs.
If we really want to stop drug abuse, either crack down (and it WILL require a major cost increase; read lots more taxes) OR legalize it and tax it JUST LIKE WE DID BOOZE. Heck, back in the 1981, I use to buy a gallon of ethanol for under a 1.5. How? For our chem lab. It had ZERO tax against it (and just a tiny amount of methanol to poisin it). OTH, at that time, simple everclear cost 20/gal, the majority being tax. It should be that same way for drugs.
that is NOT my rant. My rant is that illegals are a major part of why America no longer invests into Automation. At one time, America was at the forefront of automation, now, we are falling WAY behind esp. in Ag..
Look, illegals do pull services that they are not suppose to have and others that do not pay their taxes. So what? There are others that pay into the system and will not be able to pull from it (Unemployment and SS comes to mind). BUT, I DO object to the hit on the long term economic impact that IS happening because of illegals. Their is no way to counteract it EXCEPT by removing those jobs from them.
In most of those cases, it was better and lower costs business. In the last (china/India vs. USA), it is illegal manipulation of the money, combined with trade barriers in the other two.
actually, before 9/11, it was trivial to apply AND fairly easy to get in. We were one of the easiest ones to get in. Since 9/11, I know that it has tightened, but not sure how much. Therefore, I think that the words that you are grasping for, is if MORE were allowed in, or perhaps if we lowered our standards of what we were looking for. As it is, I believe that we are one of the largest in shear numbers, and even rank up there in terms of percentage. That includes countries such as Russia and Brazil who have much lower population densities than we do.
Personally, I seriously doubt that it will matter. As long as we allow anybody that lives here to grab a job, it will continue to be an issue. Only once we follow the rest of the west and insist that everybody who has a job be LEGALLY able to work there, will this change.
At the least, you 2 should acknowledge that illegals HAVE been crossing the borders with diseases. A MAJOR part of controlling the borders was to prevent entry by those carrying diseases. In the past, when somebody applied, if they did not pass physicals, then they were not allowed on the boat. Once they got here, if we found out that they were sick, we either treated them, or isolated them. Either way, a major part of our controlling diseases was by controlling the ppl coming for either visits or for residency. Likewise, until reagan, we worked hard to stop illegals (who come from just about EVERY nation). Since then, W was a total disaster WRT to illegals. He weakened ICE until 2006. After neo-cons lost big, then and only then, did they start to do something. Dems have always said that they love illegals and will likely grant amnesty to all (total BS). EU has kept the right idea, while we have gone insane. It is OK to immigrate, BUT, you want it controlled and you do not want disease being brought in. We absolutely need to control our borders. Heck, even CANADA is gripping that they are getting overwhelmed with illegals.
the deal that Clinton made with China was MFN IFF they dropped their trade barriers sometime before 2004 AND they freed their money (not a basket that is controlled by the chinese gov, but a true free exchange in which the private market decides). Well, NEITHER has happened. W just allowed it to continue. I had HIGH HIGH hopes that Obama would do the right thing. So far, absolutely NOTHING.
OTH, India does not have an agreement with us, so I do not hold it against them. Problem is, that their deciding to steal the IP for drugs and make their own (as well as export it) is directly related to this. Their carp is that the drugs are too expensive. BUT it is their having the money tied at 48 rupee to a dollar (according to most economist, the real value would be in the range of 12-24 rupee's to a dollar), AND they have tariffs on the drugs. INSANE.
Dems, and even more so, neo-con, have chosen to not just look the other way, but actively encouraged ILLEGAL ALIENS, which is where this coming from. Totally insane. Most of the west spent the 50's and 60's and 70's eradicating a number of disease from our shores. Now, America, and increasingly other western nations will see the ravages and economic implications from this because of bad leadership.
While much of what you say is CURRENTLY true, India has a number of things in their favor, with several being foolish on our part:
The biggest is India's money is fixed against the dollar and we are not screaming that it should be freed. Without a true free market, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for conditions to adjust. This is the worse thing that is happening.
India has trade barriers against the west (interestingly, they allow most other nations to have free trade). With those barriers in place, free market can not adjust.
A number of my Indian friends have told me about the schools there. Apparently, they are still well below Western schools. BUT, given enough time, that will change. I have had several former school mates that I respected go back to take teaching jobs in India. If India continues to recruit ppl like these back to there, the education system WILL improve.
India DOES need to push for more start-ups. At this time, they push to support large companies similar to the way that W and reagan did. I believe with some of your leaders that it will change.
Links please? Just several years ago, IBM was still getting more than 70% of their revenue from USA. I find it REAL difficult to believe that IBM has shifted that much away.
Both China and India are starting to respect and push laws for IP that is CREATED AND OWNED by THEIR respective nations. BUT, NEITHER of them will respect IP created in the west (and possibly in other nations). We are still in a COLD WAR.
In particular, India and China having their money fixed to ours. If not, then why not Europe or Russia? The simple fact is that IBM, GE, and others are exploiting the fixed money difference and the west is allowing itself to be destroyed. Unless the WEST decides to work together to stop these nations from having an unfair advantage, then there will NOT be a fair competitive market. And without that, more and more IP will simply flow to these nations. Keep in mind that BOTH china and India are pushing to obtain all of our IP related to tech (such as nukes or military or tech or pollution control, etc) and are simply stealing it if they do not feel like paying for it.
What many are suggesting NASA do (including the White House's Augustine Committee) is purchase from the commercial sector for sending cargo (and eventually people) to orbit instead of building its own transportation system, so that NASA can use the money to focus on actual science and exploration beyond LEO.
Perhaps more important is having MULTIPLE sources of launching, living, lunar access, etc. Ideally, we need to limit monopolies and count on competition to work. And this can actually LOWER the costs all around. For starters, once SpaceX is launching regularly, hopefully, it will be half the price to launch a solar bound sat. That will lead to ULA and other to provide even lower cost launchers. I fully expect Scaled/Northup to get a CHEAP launcher for humans followed by cheap launching of cargo (much smaller amounts, but a nice way to send up sats that can be moved around by a tug).
Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).
We had 5 long years in which W and 3 years of neo-cons, as well as 2 years of both parties elected to underfund NASA. Now that we are in SERIOUS economic jepordy, we need to decide WHO we want to meet on the moon; The Chinese OR one of our companies. With Chinese military putting multiple space stations up there (and 1 civilian spacecraft), I think I would rather meet western companies. I have been saying for a long time that we must provide more funding for these companies ESP. Bigelow as well as Armadillo and blue origin. Bigelow is able to provide not just a local space station, but also a living quarters to move between here and the moon. All that it needs it a tug. Likewise, it can provide living quarters on the moon. Importantly, Bigelow WANTS to do this and is funding it. Armadillo and Blue origin have the PERFECT crafts for working on the moon. If we really want to get there SOONER, rather than latter, we will have to have the gov work with private enterprise to build these. That means that we need 1-2 billion to flow to these companies NOW. Fortunately, Augustine sees this and will be pushing it.
So, what do we need?
First, spend some more money on getting launchers into space. We need it for cargo AND humans.
Once started, they need a place to go in addition, to NASA to make money. That means that we need to get another space station or two up there. Buy a bigelow sundancer and attach it to the ISS, followed by a BA-330. Use the Sundancer for storage. This will allow Bigelow to start the production line.
To get to the moon as well as GEO cheaply and constantly, we need a tug and fuel depot. Come up with specs for tugs that can work our orbit and another for lunar work (perhaps the same, but I do not think so). The orbital tugs can clean up OUR junk in orbit. Ideally, other nations and companies will pay to clean up their junk.
Pay Armadillo and Blue origin to get working systems to land and take off from the moon. That should be far less than what we paid for COTs.
Basically, with 1-2 Billion NOW, we can be back on the moon BEFORE 2015.
If the reactor chews through its fuel in a few years instead of a decade, that's going to cost a pretty chunk of change. Uranium is cheap compared to oil. And oil is about go over 100/bar this winter. If we had this working, it might enable the navy to avoid having to do fuel tenders. It would be fairly easy and cheap to fly in food and misc supplies to the carriers, esp. if we head towards a railgun future. In fact, the more that I think about it, something like this would allow the navy to better predict their costs. Besides war break-outs and endings, the single largest variable costs is fuel.
After all, for civilian use a nuclear bomb would be a very costly and inefficient way of clearing a large chunk of land, whereas for the military it's quite effective. Actually, that time will come again. We have used a nuke in Colorado to loosen up oil from the shale, but found out that there was radiation. The time will come when we can create a minimal radiation and this will happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps the best aircraft would be some old USSR or Chinese aircraft.
By the way, I'm fairly certain that the current proposals only mean "outsourcing" in the sense of outsourcing to private US companies, rather than companies based elsewhere. In fact, much of the reason for doing this is to prevent a reliance on Russia.
Oh, I am sure that is being driven by Augustine's committe. BUT, the real problem is that many in NASA (and some in congress such as Shelby; bless that man's black heart and tiny head) would rather see us depend on Russia and China then to allow us to use private companies. So, I would like it written in there that NASA HAS NO CHOICE on this down the road. I do not want to see another time down the road where the Shelby's can redirect money away for their own personal gain over that of our nation.
You should know better. Much of America's space hardware is built in various locations. For example, MGS was from l-mart in Denver. Likewise, there are plenty of companies that are fully capable of building the rover. With that said, NASA's new missions will be to continue building rovers for mars and other planets UNTIL it becomes methodical. Then it would be handed off to private to do. Though think about this. If USA can fire up multiple companies here that are space and lunar bound, we will get an infrastructure that can move to other worlds. That is what we need. NASA will take us there. They will be at the leading edge on all of it. BUT, to allow companies to take over what should be mundane only makes sense.
Look, when you are doing the SAME REPETITIVE ITEM, then a free fair competitive marketplace makes sense to handle it. The problem comes when it is NOT fair, nor competitive. For example, the feds outsourcing a number of items to private workers in America was not the problem. The problems came when companies shifted the work to places like China and India who have only one-way trade, have no real requirements about pollution, and most of all, have their money fixed against ours. OTH, if trade barriers are dropped and money allowed to float freely, then economies adjust. If NASA does this right, they will focus on advanced tech rather than doing the mundane. They will also work with our local companies to get them thinking of different solutions to the same problem.
Go NASA go. Once the infrastructure is in place for LEO/GEO/Lunar, then it should be possible to focus on NASA's true purpose; pushing the tech and science of space.
When there are more sunspots, the surface of the Sun is hotter. This makes it radiate more heat than when there are less sunspots. With the increase in GreenHouse gases by man, it absorbs MUCH more of the solar energy, rather than reflect it. In essence, Man's contribution to CO2, Ch4, etc, have caused a much larger increase in temperature then would normally happen.
When there are less sunspots, the surface of the sun is cooler. When the sun radiates more heat, the Earth heats up. When the sun radiates less heat, the Earth cools down. If this happens, then man will be able to easily generate lots of CO2 and Ch4 to increase the efficiency of trapping energy, rather than allow it to be naturally radiated out to space.
I believe that is what is being looked for by a scientists, not by a politician or oil man.
Look, back in the 70/80, we did the kind of decriminalization on pot. I was part of that. My dorm floor was bringing in a BALE of pot a week at NIU and selling it . Why? Because the price DOUBLED overnight to450 for a lb of maui wowie, when police announced that they would not pursue small amounts. we could easily hide the bail. All that was needed was to test for paraquat. What will happen now, is that Mexican gang will get MORE MONEY, so they will expand efforts in Mexico making things wore. Decriminalization is the WORSE thing that they can do. It should legalized.
correlation != causation. As it is, we have a STRONG CORRELATION of man's interaction causing global warming, and likewise, there is a strong correlation of lack of sunspot to global cooling, BUT, can it be PROVEN? Nope.
The real sad item is that the anti GW are almost certainly the ones that will push GW if sunspots disappear and temps start dropping. IOW, these ppl will buy into GW and insist that we burn coal for energy as well as oil and natural gas. And they will be there to sell it.
This will increase demand, while not allowing legal supply to increase. It WILL be filled by gangs.
If we really want to stop drug abuse, either crack down (and it WILL require a major cost increase; read lots more taxes) OR legalize it and tax it JUST LIKE WE DID BOOZE. Heck, back in the 1981, I use to buy a gallon of ethanol for under a 1.5. How? For our chem lab. It had ZERO tax against it (and just a tiny amount of methanol to poisin it). OTH, at that time, simple everclear cost 20/gal, the majority being tax. It should be that same way for drugs.
that is NOT my rant. My rant is that illegals are a major part of why America no longer invests into Automation. At one time, America was at the forefront of automation, now, we are falling WAY behind esp. in Ag..
Look, illegals do pull services that they are not suppose to have and others that do not pay their taxes. So what? There are others that pay into the system and will not be able to pull from it (Unemployment and SS comes to mind). BUT, I DO object to the hit on the long term economic impact that IS happening because of illegals. Their is no way to counteract it EXCEPT by removing those jobs from them.
In most of those cases, it was better and lower costs business. In the last (china/India vs. USA), it is illegal manipulation of the money, combined with trade barriers in the other two.
actually, before 9/11, it was trivial to apply AND fairly easy to get in. We were one of the easiest ones to get in. Since 9/11, I know that it has tightened, but not sure how much.
Therefore, I think that the words that you are grasping for, is if MORE were allowed in, or perhaps if we lowered our standards of what we were looking for. As it is, I believe that we are one of the largest in shear numbers, and even rank up there in terms of percentage. That includes countries such as Russia and Brazil who have much lower population densities than we do.
Personally, I seriously doubt that it will matter. As long as we allow anybody that lives here to grab a job, it will continue to be an issue. Only once we follow the rest of the west and insist that everybody who has a job be LEGALLY able to work there, will this change.
At the least, you 2 should acknowledge that illegals HAVE been crossing the borders with diseases. A MAJOR part of controlling the borders was to prevent entry by those carrying diseases. In the past, when somebody applied, if they did not pass physicals, then they were not allowed on the boat. Once they got here, if we found out that they were sick, we either treated them, or isolated them. Either way, a major part of our controlling diseases was by controlling the ppl coming for either visits or for residency. Likewise, until reagan, we worked hard to stop illegals (who come from just about EVERY nation). Since then, W was a total disaster WRT to illegals. He weakened ICE until 2006. After neo-cons lost big, then and only then, did they start to do something. Dems have always said that they love illegals and will likely grant amnesty to all (total BS). EU has kept the right idea, while we have gone insane. It is OK to immigrate, BUT, you want it controlled and you do not want disease being brought in. We absolutely need to control our borders. Heck, even CANADA is gripping that they are getting overwhelmed with illegals.
the deal that Clinton made with China was MFN IFF they dropped their trade barriers sometime before 2004 AND they freed their money (not a basket that is controlled by the chinese gov, but a true free exchange in which the private market decides). Well, NEITHER has happened. W just allowed it to continue. I had HIGH HIGH hopes that Obama would do the right thing. So far, absolutely NOTHING.
OTH, India does not have an agreement with us, so I do not hold it against them. Problem is, that their deciding to steal the IP for drugs and make their own (as well as export it) is directly related to this. Their carp is that the drugs are too expensive. BUT it is their having the money tied at 48 rupee to a dollar (according to most economist, the real value would be in the range of 12-24 rupee's to a dollar), AND they have tariffs on the drugs. INSANE.
Dems, and even more so, neo-con, have chosen to not just look the other way, but actively encouraged ILLEGAL ALIENS, which is where this coming from. Totally insane. Most of the west spent the 50's and 60's and 70's eradicating a number of disease from our shores. Now, America, and increasingly other western nations will see the ravages and economic implications from this because of bad leadership.
Links please? Just several years ago, IBM was still getting more than 70% of their revenue from USA. I find it REAL difficult to believe that IBM has shifted that much away.
Both China and India are starting to respect and push laws for IP that is CREATED AND OWNED by THEIR respective nations. BUT, NEITHER of them will respect IP created in the west (and possibly in other nations). We are still in a COLD WAR.
In particular, India and China having their money fixed to ours. If not, then why not Europe or Russia? The simple fact is that IBM, GE, and others are exploiting the fixed money difference and the west is allowing itself to be destroyed. Unless the WEST decides to work together to stop these nations from having an unfair advantage, then there will NOT be a fair competitive market. And without that, more and more IP will simply flow to these nations. Keep in mind that BOTH china and India are pushing to obtain all of our IP related to tech (such as nukes or military or tech or pollution control, etc) and are simply stealing it if they do not feel like paying for it.
What many are suggesting NASA do (including the White House's Augustine Committee) is purchase from the commercial sector for sending cargo (and eventually people) to orbit instead of building its own transportation system, so that NASA can use the money to focus on actual science and exploration beyond LEO.
Perhaps more important is having MULTIPLE sources of launching, living, lunar access, etc. Ideally, we need to limit monopolies and count on competition to work. And this can actually LOWER the costs all around. For starters, once SpaceX is launching regularly, hopefully, it will be half the price to launch a solar bound sat. That will lead to ULA and other to provide even lower cost launchers. I fully expect Scaled/Northup to get a CHEAP launcher for humans followed by cheap launching of cargo (much smaller amounts, but a nice way to send up sats that can be moved around by a tug).
We had 5 long years in which W and 3 years of neo-cons, as well as 2 years of both parties elected to underfund NASA. Now that we are in SERIOUS economic jepordy, we need to decide WHO we want to meet on the moon; The Chinese OR one of our companies. With Chinese military putting multiple space stations up there (and 1 civilian spacecraft), I think I would rather meet western companies. I have been saying for a long time that we must provide more funding for these companies ESP. Bigelow as well as Armadillo and blue origin. Bigelow is able to provide not just a local space station, but also a living quarters to move between here and the moon. All that it needs it a tug. Likewise, it can provide living quarters on the moon. Importantly, Bigelow WANTS to do this and is funding it. Armadillo and Blue origin have the PERFECT crafts for working on the moon. If we really want to get there SOONER, rather than latter, we will have to have the gov work with private enterprise to build these. That means that we need 1-2 billion to flow to these companies NOW. Fortunately, Augustine sees this and will be pushing it.
So, what do we need?
Basically, with 1-2 Billion NOW, we can be back on the moon BEFORE 2015.
But that is it. That is ALL IT IS. So, why do you claim that dotyenergy is brilliant, while the navy is nothing by idiots?
I doubt that anybody is, but typically, ppl prefer that best tech be used, rather than what is pushed by oil companies and fools.
If the reactor chews through its fuel in a few years instead of a decade, that's going to cost a pretty chunk of change.
Uranium is cheap compared to oil. And oil is about go over 100/bar this winter. If we had this working, it might enable the navy to avoid having to do fuel tenders. It would be fairly easy and cheap to fly in food and misc supplies to the carriers, esp. if we head towards a railgun future. In fact, the more that I think about it, something like this would allow the navy to better predict their costs. Besides war break-outs and endings, the single largest variable costs is fuel.
After all, for civilian use a nuclear bomb would be a very costly and inefficient way of clearing a large chunk of land, whereas for the military it's quite effective.
Actually, that time will come again. We have used a nuke in Colorado to loosen up oil from the shale, but found out that there was radiation. The time will come when we can create a minimal radiation and this will happen again.