| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" 15:41 - Apr 20 with 2935 views | Vic |
I guess that’s one way to describe an almighty explosion! |  |
| |  |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:15 - Apr 21 with 615 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:47 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
Why can't we do both?
You're essentially saying scientific research should be scrapped, possibly one of the worst stances I've ever heard on here.
SB |
It is a question of focus and order; conservation, environmental science and ecology are all woefully underfunded and given far too low a profile (but thank goodness there are so many dedicated scientists who put up with the poor pay and often terrible conditions - I doubt whether many of the geeks in the SpaceX control room spend their entire day with cold wet feet) compared with the money thrown at 'sexy' high profile rocket launches and the disparity between the scant reporting of the vital work that field workers do to try and maintain balanced nature that will sustain us in the future and the media blitz that Musk has received for a failed launch that looks to many of us as ill conceived is scandalous. Future generations will regard these times in much the same way as we scoff at alchemists from the Middle Ages trying to turn base metal into gold. |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:18 - Apr 21 with 601 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:15 - Apr 21 by WeWereZombies |
It is a question of focus and order; conservation, environmental science and ecology are all woefully underfunded and given far too low a profile (but thank goodness there are so many dedicated scientists who put up with the poor pay and often terrible conditions - I doubt whether many of the geeks in the SpaceX control room spend their entire day with cold wet feet) compared with the money thrown at 'sexy' high profile rocket launches and the disparity between the scant reporting of the vital work that field workers do to try and maintain balanced nature that will sustain us in the future and the media blitz that Musk has received for a failed launch that looks to many of us as ill conceived is scandalous. Future generations will regard these times in much the same way as we scoff at alchemists from the Middle Ages trying to turn base metal into gold. |
Very well put. The Earth stuff just isn't sexy is it! |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:35 - Apr 21 with 583 views | stonojnr |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:15 - Apr 21 by WeWereZombies |
It is a question of focus and order; conservation, environmental science and ecology are all woefully underfunded and given far too low a profile (but thank goodness there are so many dedicated scientists who put up with the poor pay and often terrible conditions - I doubt whether many of the geeks in the SpaceX control room spend their entire day with cold wet feet) compared with the money thrown at 'sexy' high profile rocket launches and the disparity between the scant reporting of the vital work that field workers do to try and maintain balanced nature that will sustain us in the future and the media blitz that Musk has received for a failed launch that looks to many of us as ill conceived is scandalous. Future generations will regard these times in much the same way as we scoff at alchemists from the Middle Ages trying to turn base metal into gold. |
There wouldn't be any environmental science without space launches and satellites monitoring earth's climate, we'd never have known about the hole in the ozone layer without the NOAA satellite that saw it.
All of climate science is currently based on the space programme, going back to the Earth rise blue marble photo of Apollo 8, or the blue dot from the Voyager mission.
We learn how precious our planet is in the cosmos by exploring beyond it. |  | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:04 - Apr 21 with 553 views | Kievthegreat |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:14 - Apr 21 by stonojnr |
I know what he's saying, and Scott knows what he's talking about, but once you get to a certain speed aero surfaces really don't play any part in control, you have to use steering on the engines, and thrusters, essentially you can have a flying brick if its being pushed fast enough forward
And the moon version of Starship won't have any fins, plus they've been looking at smaller versions already, so any changes you see might not be as a result of this. |
I don't think he's talking about the impact of the aero control surfaces rather the aero forces on the whole rocket. The rocket is inherently unstable and once it starts flipping, it wants to flip even more. As you point out, the rocket engines are adjusted as required to maintain control during launch and course correct.
However they lost multiple engines on launch and I believe a couple of extra in flight. I believe that Scott is suggesting the rocket reached a point where it could no longer counteract the Aerodynamic forces, hence it flipping while the Stage 1 rocket motors were still firing. Now the this rocket I believe is meant to flip at separation, but the stage 1 motors should have cut out by then, but they clearly didn't here. |  | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:13 - Apr 21 with 552 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:15 - Apr 21 by WeWereZombies |
It is a question of focus and order; conservation, environmental science and ecology are all woefully underfunded and given far too low a profile (but thank goodness there are so many dedicated scientists who put up with the poor pay and often terrible conditions - I doubt whether many of the geeks in the SpaceX control room spend their entire day with cold wet feet) compared with the money thrown at 'sexy' high profile rocket launches and the disparity between the scant reporting of the vital work that field workers do to try and maintain balanced nature that will sustain us in the future and the media blitz that Musk has received for a failed launch that looks to many of us as ill conceived is scandalous. Future generations will regard these times in much the same way as we scoff at alchemists from the Middle Ages trying to turn base metal into gold. |
Evening Zombers.
That's a very emotive reply and I understand why that is the case but I have to disagree. There are a number of things to unpack in there.
Science for science sake is never wrong, in fact many of our advances have come from that attitude even if the research was originally for another purpose. My reply to BDS was around the James Webb and space exploration, absolutely worthwhile projects which he totally dismissed with what I consider an extremely short-sighted view. I totally disagree that it'll be looked back on in the way you have described.
I agree with your point that many fields of science are woefully underfunded but that doesn't mean space research should be scuppered, more that other fields deserve more funding. You should be directing your criticism to governments who underfund research and decide where contracts are given. The lack funding for climate research is ridiculous and scandalous and something the populace should be pushing governments on.
I also think you've picked the wrong target here. It's not SpaceX (like the or loathe them) fault they are given contracts or that the media reports on their launches, some of your venom should be directed to the sources of those concerns rather than the company. Without heavy launch vehicles we wouldn't have climate monitoring or modelling or many other vital things we are going to need in order to combat the mess that the climate is in.
Could you explain why the launch was "ill conceived is scandalous"? Having a reusable heavy launch rocket is going to be far better for the environment over the longer term than something like NASA SLS which has to be rebuilt from scratch every launch.
This isn't about Musk, he's an idiot and his ideas are ridiculous, I fully understand hate directed towards him. It's a about a vital cog in our scientific development and I think it's important to separate the two.
SB [Post edited 21 Apr 2023 23:18]
|  | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:46 - Apr 21 with 509 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:13 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
Evening Zombers.
That's a very emotive reply and I understand why that is the case but I have to disagree. There are a number of things to unpack in there.
Science for science sake is never wrong, in fact many of our advances have come from that attitude even if the research was originally for another purpose. My reply to BDS was around the James Webb and space exploration, absolutely worthwhile projects which he totally dismissed with what I consider an extremely short-sighted view. I totally disagree that it'll be looked back on in the way you have described.
I agree with your point that many fields of science are woefully underfunded but that doesn't mean space research should be scuppered, more that other fields deserve more funding. You should be directing your criticism to governments who underfund research and decide where contracts are given. The lack funding for climate research is ridiculous and scandalous and something the populace should be pushing governments on.
I also think you've picked the wrong target here. It's not SpaceX (like the or loathe them) fault they are given contracts or that the media reports on their launches, some of your venom should be directed to the sources of those concerns rather than the company. Without heavy launch vehicles we wouldn't have climate monitoring or modelling or many other vital things we are going to need in order to combat the mess that the climate is in.
Could you explain why the launch was "ill conceived is scandalous"? Having a reusable heavy launch rocket is going to be far better for the environment over the longer term than something like NASA SLS which has to be rebuilt from scratch every launch.
This isn't about Musk, he's an idiot and his ideas are ridiculous, I fully understand hate directed towards him. It's a about a vital cog in our scientific development and I think it's important to separate the two.
SB [Post edited 21 Apr 2023 23:18]
|
Technofixer's gonna technofix. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:51 - Apr 21 with 507 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:46 - Apr 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Technofixer's gonna technofix. |
When you've grown up enough to have an adult debate with all the nuances involved in that then please let me know.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 07:48 - Apr 22 with 458 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:51 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
When you've grown up enough to have an adult debate with all the nuances involved in that then please let me know.
SB |
"There wouldn't be any environmental science without space launches and satellites monitoring earth's climate..."
"All of climate science is currently based on the space programme.."
Says the man who upvotes this! Confirmation bias? There were plenty of cultures who realised we needed to live in balance and harmony with our planet long before those of a certain mindset imposed their will to conquer foreign lands and eventually space. It's the mindset that we need to change not to believe that more of the same is required.
Anyway, you like space and rockets 🚀, I get it. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 08:50 - Apr 22 with 435 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 07:48 - Apr 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
"There wouldn't be any environmental science without space launches and satellites monitoring earth's climate..."
"All of climate science is currently based on the space programme.."
Says the man who upvotes this! Confirmation bias? There were plenty of cultures who realised we needed to live in balance and harmony with our planet long before those of a certain mindset imposed their will to conquer foreign lands and eventually space. It's the mindset that we need to change not to believe that more of the same is required.
Anyway, you like space and rockets 🚀, I get it. |
What you've outlined is a philosophy, not climate science. There is a difference. His point on satellite monitoring was correct. Certainly we should do more with regards to our attitudes to the environment.
Why have you taken issue with an upvote I made rather than address the points in my actual posts?
You don't like science and want to return to the 1400s with people living in villages and dying from preventable diseases without centralised healthcare, we get it. See, I can be flippant as well but it really isn't grown up debating.
To call out others for confirmation bias is unbelievable given all your posts are narrative driven rather than addressing the points made. I sometimes wonder if you even read the posts before replying. This debate was about science, not specifically rockets but that was completely lost on you it seems.
This is why I barely post any science related stuff anymore, I can't be bothered to deal with this type of nonsense.
SB [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 8:52]
| | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:35 - Apr 22 with 408 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:13 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
Evening Zombers.
That's a very emotive reply and I understand why that is the case but I have to disagree. There are a number of things to unpack in there.
Science for science sake is never wrong, in fact many of our advances have come from that attitude even if the research was originally for another purpose. My reply to BDS was around the James Webb and space exploration, absolutely worthwhile projects which he totally dismissed with what I consider an extremely short-sighted view. I totally disagree that it'll be looked back on in the way you have described.
I agree with your point that many fields of science are woefully underfunded but that doesn't mean space research should be scuppered, more that other fields deserve more funding. You should be directing your criticism to governments who underfund research and decide where contracts are given. The lack funding for climate research is ridiculous and scandalous and something the populace should be pushing governments on.
I also think you've picked the wrong target here. It's not SpaceX (like the or loathe them) fault they are given contracts or that the media reports on their launches, some of your venom should be directed to the sources of those concerns rather than the company. Without heavy launch vehicles we wouldn't have climate monitoring or modelling or many other vital things we are going to need in order to combat the mess that the climate is in.
Could you explain why the launch was "ill conceived is scandalous"? Having a reusable heavy launch rocket is going to be far better for the environment over the longer term than something like NASA SLS which has to be rebuilt from scratch every launch.
This isn't about Musk, he's an idiot and his ideas are ridiculous, I fully understand hate directed towards him. It's a about a vital cog in our scientific development and I think it's important to separate the two.
SB [Post edited 21 Apr 2023 23:18]
|
I was watching an interview with Jim Green, former scientific director of NASA, the other day and was struck by how much he seemed to be in thrall to Musk and the like. It seemed to me that the NASA which worked as a team to get Voyagers One and Two launched and then communicated with is gone and a NASA that merely helps rich people play with toys is here (yes, I know, too emotive and there are checks and balances that will, at least, allow the gullible to believe everything is OK.) To articulate things a little further, whatever is launched now and probably within the next twenty years is not going to catch up with the Voyagers - and they are craft doing the confirmation of theory at the uttermost limit.
So to put so much effort into rockets launches that, to me, seemed at best rushed when the pressing problem is survival of our and many other species is as about unscientific as you can get in terms of applying logic. By all means continue the research and look for better ways, continue the scale up once tests have been successful at prototype level. But pour the big money into attracting and developing this generation and the coming ones of climate and conservation scientists. And all the ancillary disciplines too because I can tell you from bitter personal experience that the soft science side of the environment can be anything but soft. The task in hand to spread the agreements and disagreements between environmentalists, conservationists, animal rights activists, ecologists, climatologists and a host of other enthused but often not fully informed individuals has a complexity and scientific development structure that is a challenge to anyone (just listen to geneticist Steve Jones on this week's 'In Our Time' to get a flavour on the problems in just one corner of this intellectual pub fight.) [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 11:41]
| |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:53 - Apr 22 with 402 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:35 - Apr 21 by stonojnr |
There wouldn't be any environmental science without space launches and satellites monitoring earth's climate, we'd never have known about the hole in the ozone layer without the NOAA satellite that saw it.
All of climate science is currently based on the space programme, going back to the Earth rise blue marble photo of Apollo 8, or the blue dot from the Voyager mission.
We learn how precious our planet is in the cosmos by exploring beyond it. |
There absolutely would be environmental science without space launches and satellites but it would be different, not that I am arguing against man made satellites - although I am of the opinion that there are far too many and they are insufficiently monitored, maintained and decommissioned. Also, a key part of identifying the hole in the Ozone Layer was done from the ground by the British Antarctic Survey and hardy souls at the research station in Antarctica - a set up that predates the Space Age. This is how data becomes information, those drunk on technology have to be given guidance by informed and reasoning individuals who observe the causes and effects, and they in turn are the best placed people to engage a wider polity. Otherwise we just become a crowd of numpties hauled out to pump up the attentance at an overblown fireworks display. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 12:16]
| |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:55 - Apr 22 with 401 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:35 - Apr 22 by WeWereZombies |
I was watching an interview with Jim Green, former scientific director of NASA, the other day and was struck by how much he seemed to be in thrall to Musk and the like. It seemed to me that the NASA which worked as a team to get Voyagers One and Two launched and then communicated with is gone and a NASA that merely helps rich people play with toys is here (yes, I know, too emotive and there are checks and balances that will, at least, allow the gullible to believe everything is OK.) To articulate things a little further, whatever is launched now and probably within the next twenty years is not going to catch up with the Voyagers - and they are craft doing the confirmation of theory at the uttermost limit.
So to put so much effort into rockets launches that, to me, seemed at best rushed when the pressing problem is survival of our and many other species is as about unscientific as you can get in terms of applying logic. By all means continue the research and look for better ways, continue the scale up once tests have been successful at prototype level. But pour the big money into attracting and developing this generation and the coming ones of climate and conservation scientists. And all the ancillary disciplines too because I can tell you from bitter personal experience that the soft science side of the environment can be anything but soft. The task in hand to spread the agreements and disagreements between environmentalists, conservationists, animal rights activists, ecologists, climatologists and a host of other enthused but often not fully informed individuals has a complexity and scientific development structure that is a challenge to anyone (just listen to geneticist Steve Jones on this week's 'In Our Time' to get a flavour on the problems in just one corner of this intellectual pub fight.) [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 11:41]
|
I don't think that is the future of NASA though. There is no point them having a launch capacity when it can be done better and cheaper by the private sector. Not having that allows them to free up much more money to make probes such as Voyager (although I also disagree with your assessment of Voyagers current scientific value compared to other missions). NASA should focus on the science and leave the "routine" science of launches to someone else - it will produce far better scientific results in the long run and that is why the pivot is being made.
"So to put so much effort into rockets launches that, to me, seemed at best rushed when the pressing problem is survival of our and many other species is as about unscientific as you can get in terms of applying logic. By all means continue the research and look for better ways, continue the scale up once tests have been successful at prototype level."
It was a private enterprise, it's a huge distinction that you aren't really factoring in. I wouldn't say it was rushed, these things require a lot of testing and a lot of failures. The first stage of Starship has been successful at a prototype level including multiple launches and landings, the testing of the engines of the second stage has been successful at a prototype level, this was the first prototype launch of the entire system - they were doing what you said they should do which is ramp up in small steps. Very few people expect the first test of something complicated to work flawlessly.
As I said previously, I totally agree that other fields should get more funding but I think you're conflating to very separate issues. Just because their isn't enough funding for environmental sciences doesn't mean there shouldn't be funding for space sciences or that private industries shouldn't spend their own money on space development.
Science funding should be all encompassing, not just space and not just environmental as most disciplines are linked at some level and research from different subjects is often combined to get to the actual solutions.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 12:00 - Apr 22 with 398 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:53 - Apr 22 by WeWereZombies |
There absolutely would be environmental science without space launches and satellites but it would be different, not that I am arguing against man made satellites - although I am of the opinion that there are far too many and they are insufficiently monitored, maintained and decommissioned. Also, a key part of identifying the hole in the Ozone Layer was done from the ground by the British Antarctic Survey and hardy souls at the research station in Antarctica - a set up that predates the Space Age. This is how data becomes information, those drunk on technology have to be given guidance by informed and reasoning individuals who observe the causes and effects, and they in turn are the best placed people to engage a wider polity. Otherwise we just become a crowd of numpties hauled out to pump up the attentance at an overblown fireworks display. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 12:16]
|
That discovery did use ground data which was excellent but it didn't predate the space age it was concurrent, although that doesn't change the validity of your point.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/the-ozone-layer/#:~:text=The%20d
The actually confirmation wasn't until 1985 after nearly 30 years of monitoring.
I really think you have this wrong, it's not a big fireworks display, it's an avenue of science which is vital to furthering our understanding of our planet and the universe via missions outside of our atmosphere.
I don't think we are going to agree on this which is fine.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 12:13 - Apr 22 with 393 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:55 - Apr 22 by StokieBlue |
I don't think that is the future of NASA though. There is no point them having a launch capacity when it can be done better and cheaper by the private sector. Not having that allows them to free up much more money to make probes such as Voyager (although I also disagree with your assessment of Voyagers current scientific value compared to other missions). NASA should focus on the science and leave the "routine" science of launches to someone else - it will produce far better scientific results in the long run and that is why the pivot is being made.
"So to put so much effort into rockets launches that, to me, seemed at best rushed when the pressing problem is survival of our and many other species is as about unscientific as you can get in terms of applying logic. By all means continue the research and look for better ways, continue the scale up once tests have been successful at prototype level."
It was a private enterprise, it's a huge distinction that you aren't really factoring in. I wouldn't say it was rushed, these things require a lot of testing and a lot of failures. The first stage of Starship has been successful at a prototype level including multiple launches and landings, the testing of the engines of the second stage has been successful at a prototype level, this was the first prototype launch of the entire system - they were doing what you said they should do which is ramp up in small steps. Very few people expect the first test of something complicated to work flawlessly.
As I said previously, I totally agree that other fields should get more funding but I think you're conflating to very separate issues. Just because their isn't enough funding for environmental sciences doesn't mean there shouldn't be funding for space sciences or that private industries shouldn't spend their own money on space development.
Science funding should be all encompassing, not just space and not just environmental as most disciplines are linked at some level and research from different subjects is often combined to get to the actual solutions.
SB |
Stokie, there are only so many resources on this planet, they are finite. All life is judgement and we usually get our judgements wrong to some extent, perhaps that is why we all find football so fascinating...at times. So yes, when scientists set our for their day at NASA they do not build their own car first, they get in a tried and tested one that hs been bought from a dealer...or more likely, knowing scientists, a mate who they know has looked after the motor quite well.
So the point I am trying to get home here is about an acceptable level of control, an avoidance of foul up. At a national level, in the case of NASA, or an assemblage of nations in the case of ESA, there should be a decent level of organisational responsibility to prevent space clutter and wasted resource. There so evidently is not at present and this does not even start to tackle the arms race mentality that pervades with the inclusion of Russia, China, India and Israel into the picture. But scientists do sometimes operate at a global level to cooperate, the International Space Station being one example. Allowing commercial enterprises too much involvement in an already complex scenario, is in my opinion a grave mistake. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 12:53 - Apr 22 with 373 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 12:13 - Apr 22 by WeWereZombies |
Stokie, there are only so many resources on this planet, they are finite. All life is judgement and we usually get our judgements wrong to some extent, perhaps that is why we all find football so fascinating...at times. So yes, when scientists set our for their day at NASA they do not build their own car first, they get in a tried and tested one that hs been bought from a dealer...or more likely, knowing scientists, a mate who they know has looked after the motor quite well.
So the point I am trying to get home here is about an acceptable level of control, an avoidance of foul up. At a national level, in the case of NASA, or an assemblage of nations in the case of ESA, there should be a decent level of organisational responsibility to prevent space clutter and wasted resource. There so evidently is not at present and this does not even start to tackle the arms race mentality that pervades with the inclusion of Russia, China, India and Israel into the picture. But scientists do sometimes operate at a global level to cooperate, the International Space Station being one example. Allowing commercial enterprises too much involvement in an already complex scenario, is in my opinion a grave mistake. |
If you're going to switch to resource usage then I think I disagree even more. Resource usage for rocket development by a private company is utterly insignificant compared to the resources used to create endless tat which is sold globally on a daily basis. At least these resources were being put to use in a scientific endeavour which should ultimately produce a benefit rather than a glow-in-the-dark octopus made for slave wages and sold to kids in this country.
I don't really understand your car analogy as this is far from their first rocket and the others have worked incredibly well. They had over 40 landings and reuses last year - NASA has never had a fully reusable launch system.
Totally agree on space clutter but there was no clutter caused here and they had gone through all the prototype stages, you're ignoring that there has been a full development cycle before this launch and keep saying there hasn't - it's simply not true.
On space clutter - China is by far the biggest cultprit here, especially with their unregulated re-entries and their testing of missiles on satellites.
On the ISS - Russia has now refused to take part and China were never involved so there was never any global cooperation there.
I fundamentally disagree, if a private company can prove they can do the donkey work and allow international cooperation by space agencies and more funding for actual missions then it's absolutely the correct model to follow. You've not really outlined why it isn't past scaremongering and incorrect assumptions about the development processes.
We clearly agree on the lack of funding for many areas but clearly disagree on other aspects on what is important science and how existing funding should be spent - I think I'll leave it there but nice chatting as always.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:11 - Apr 23 with 319 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 12:53 - Apr 22 by StokieBlue |
If you're going to switch to resource usage then I think I disagree even more. Resource usage for rocket development by a private company is utterly insignificant compared to the resources used to create endless tat which is sold globally on a daily basis. At least these resources were being put to use in a scientific endeavour which should ultimately produce a benefit rather than a glow-in-the-dark octopus made for slave wages and sold to kids in this country.
I don't really understand your car analogy as this is far from their first rocket and the others have worked incredibly well. They had over 40 landings and reuses last year - NASA has never had a fully reusable launch system.
Totally agree on space clutter but there was no clutter caused here and they had gone through all the prototype stages, you're ignoring that there has been a full development cycle before this launch and keep saying there hasn't - it's simply not true.
On space clutter - China is by far the biggest cultprit here, especially with their unregulated re-entries and their testing of missiles on satellites.
On the ISS - Russia has now refused to take part and China were never involved so there was never any global cooperation there.
I fundamentally disagree, if a private company can prove they can do the donkey work and allow international cooperation by space agencies and more funding for actual missions then it's absolutely the correct model to follow. You've not really outlined why it isn't past scaremongering and incorrect assumptions about the development processes.
We clearly agree on the lack of funding for many areas but clearly disagree on other aspects on what is important science and how existing funding should be spent - I think I'll leave it there but nice chatting as always.
SB |
Just to clarify a couple f things, I did know that the on the ground observation on the Ozone Layer by BAS in the Antarctic was well into the Space Age, my point was that research by them started during the Second World War (when they were known as the Falkland Islands Dependence Survey.) The Scott Polar Research Institute has been going even longer, since 1920, so they definitely did not rely on rockets and satellites to get them started, but then again neither did Darwin, Freud, Linnaeus, Liebniz, Newton, Roger Bacon, Aristotle and any number of ancient Greeks who wondered why we get electric shocks off some fish...
The going to work in NASA by a car bought rather than self built was just a riff on make or buy in decisions. The point being that even if it is more economic to buy in the payload part of a rocket it is advisable from a security and public policy viewpoint to keep the manufacture in house. The link to limiting space junk is, admittedly, tenuous as the Chinese, as you pointed out, do seem to make the most satellite crap even though the current regime are total control freaks. But that is more an indicator of bad decision making at a high level and an insular mindset, going commercial wouldn't change that.
Finally, it did amuse me that you posted that Bankster had a narrative. We all have a narrative, even you. The trick is to realise that we do and read our posts and the replies back to them with this in mind. However, the downvote you received for your last post did have me wondering whether Bankster was behind those DaveU downvotes that appeared a while back... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
