Space In General

You're right on the fact that these dollars go manufacturers and guess what, there is a term for that e.g. corporate welfare aka crony capitalism as oppose to free market capitalism.

First of all government cannot grow an economy only take from it. If this were the case then everybody in america would be extremely wealthy and no talk economic inequality(even though I don believe in it). That said any form of government "investment" only takes from and destroys a real economy as oppose to stimulating it via spending. I mean Brazil, Japan and the eurozone are prime examples of economic destruction via government spending.

That's a very circular argument. Home-tax-dollars going back into a home-economy is exactly how economies are grown.

Truth is, all of these "NASA innovations" are made possible via external contractors and individual inventors. In fact they've would've still existed even if NASA didn't exist. Sputnik? rocket technology?

So you think that rocket technology hasn't been advanced/reinvented since the days of Werner von Braun? That goes some way to explain the standpoint that you're arguing from... one that doesn't know what it's talking about, in my opinion.

Well done for naming the only two space-programme inventions in history though. Kinda.
 
Please explain weather forecasting and GPS "existing anyway" without satellites and a space program to put them up there.

Those external contractors and individual inventors were working toward specific goals associated with specific missions. Nobody ever though about Velcro until something was needed to keep you (or your tools) attached to the wall/floor/shelf/desk/cabinet without gravity. The fact that toddlers can put their own shoes on with Velcro straps has nothing to do with its development. It exists because NASA needed something that does what it does: Fastens without permanently fastening.
 
TenEightyOne
That's a very circular argument. Home-tax-dollars going back into a home-economy is exactly how economies are grown.

the awesome Dr. Robert P. Murphy disagrees with your argument:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Murphygovernmentcosts.html

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/does-government-spending-boost-the-economy

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/spending-isnt-production/

It should be clear that spending per se doesn’t drive economic growth. It’s true, in a modern economy money plays a crucial role in coordinating our activities, and in that sense spending is an integral part of the story. But from this truism it hardly follows that government spending is all we need right now to “boost the economy.” On the contrary, government spending simply siphons real resources away from the private sector and into politically-chosen channels, where they will be used in inefficient ways. - Dr. Robert P. Murphy



TenEightyOne
So you think that rocket technology hasn't been advanced/reinvented since the days of Werner von Braun? That goes some way to explain the standpoint that you're arguing from... one that doesn't know what it's talking about, in my opinion.

Well done for naming the only two space-programme inventions in history though. Kinda.

The thing is these inventions where conceived privately(either by groups or individuals) before their application in either a program like NASA or the military. A reversal would be like saying the military invented the machine gun as oppose to Helge Palmcrantz.
 
The thing is these inventions where conceived privately(either by groups or individuals) before their application in either a program like NASA or the military. A reversal would be like saying the military invented the machine gun as oppose to Helge Palmcrantz.

Well, technically you might have made a point worth discussing in an advanced economics course.
Hey, look at this weird mountain in a moat on Charon!
nh-charon-inset.jpg
 
It should be clear that spending per se doesn’t drive economic growth. It’s true, in a modern economy money plays a crucial role in coordinating our activities, and in that sense spending is an integral part of the story. But from this truism it hardly follows that government spending is all we need right now to “boost the economy.” On the contrary, government spending simply siphons real resources away from the private sector and into politically-chosen channels, where they will be used in inefficient ways. - Dr. Robert P. Murphy

Your own quote says that spending doesn't drive growth. But it goes on to say it's integral. Do you understand the subtlety he's expressing? You kind of contradicted exactly what you were trying to say. Do you realise why a well-known Libertarian Economist is against government spending?
 
Last edited:
So, I have an awesome cartoon related to Pluto, but results in inappropriate hand gestures (no words). I stray too cautious on the AUP to dare post it.

Like science space is awesome,
Yes, and it is the science space part everyone is enjoying. No need for you to drop a Cleveland steamer on the fun. Want to discuss American debt, there's an America thread.


I love a good Hayak vs. Keynes, Austrian vs. Keynesian debate, quoting Mises, Bastiat, and so forth, but this is not the place for it. The money was spent long ago. Whether you think that was good or bad, this is still a great achievement for the scientific community.
 
I'd still rather visit Pluto.

Here's a great image of the New Horizons team reviewing images for the first time...

2746.jpg


"OK, let's have a look at Steve's browser history..."

Ahahah! Great picture! :)


Just finished watching this video. Waiting for the next one (it was live a few hours ago but not broadcasted to Germany).

 
SpaceX preliminary findings on the CRS-7 failure.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-update

To sum it up:

Preliminary analysis suggests the overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank was initiated by a flawed piece of support hardware (a “strut”) inside the second stage. Several hundred struts fly on every Falcon 9 vehicle, with a cumulative flight history of several thousand. The strut that we believe failed was designed and material certified to handle 10,000 lbs of force, but failed at 2,000 lbs, a five-fold difference. Detailed close-out photos of stage construction show no visible flaws or damage of any kind.

In the case of the CRS-7 mission, it appears that one of these supporting pieces inside the second stage failed approximately 138 seconds into flight. The pressurization system itself was performing nominally, but with the failure of this strut, the helium system integrity was breached. This caused a high pressure event inside the second stage within less than one second and the stage was no longer able to maintain its structural integrity.

Despite the fact that these struts have been used on all previous Falcon 9 flights and are certified to withstand well beyond the expected loads during flight, SpaceX will no longer use these particular struts for flight applications. In addition, SpaceX will implement additional hardware quality audits throughout the vehicle to further ensure all parts received perform as expected per their certification documentation.
 
There is evidence that Pluto itself was geologically active up until relatively recently (in cosmic terms at least), its moons are too small to have ever been geologically active.
 
DCP
Is it true that pluto and it's moons are still active?
They don't know for sure, but it does seem quite possible Pluto is still active. Same goes for Charon, as it too has smooth regions which lack craters.

The Big Mystery is where Pluto gets the energy for the activity of renewing its surface in such complete and dramatic fashion with mountain building and all. They've ruled out tidal heating, and at the moment are reduced to muttering about radioactivity.

It's hard to believe Pluto is losing nitrogen at the rate of 500 tons every hour for the 4.5 billion years since the solar system was formed. IMO, Pluto may be much younger than that.
 
They've ruled out tidal heating
I'm sure that the NH team are many orders of magnitude smarter than I am, more so in this field of study, but this causes my eyebrow to raise every time I see it.

Pluto is orbitally locked with a body that is a significant proportion of its size and mass to the point of the orbital pivot ("barycentre") being between the two bodies rather than entirely within the volume of the larger one. That is to say that Charon is so large and massive that rather than orbiting Pluto in the same manner that the Moon orbits the Earth, both Charon and Pluto orbit the same point in space.

The Earth:Moon mass ratio is about 80:1. The Pluto:Charon mass ratio is about 9:1. The Moon causes the Earth to wobble about the pivot and bulge with tidal stresses. Charon causes Pluto to orbit the pivot - but it doesn't cause Pluto to bulge with tidal stresses? This is a system roughly equivalent to the Earth having a Moon 9 times larger than it is and 10 times closer...
 
I'm sure that the NH team are many orders of magnitude smarter than I am, more so in this field of study, but this causes my eyebrow to raise every time I see it.

Pluto is orbitally locked with a body that is a significant proportion of its size and mass to the point of the orbital pivot ("barycentre") being between the two bodies rather than entirely within the volume of the larger one. That is to say that Charon is so large and massive that rather than orbiting Pluto in the same manner that the Moon orbits the Earth, both Charon and Pluto orbit the same point in space.

The Earth:Moon mass ratio is about 80:1. The Pluto:Charon mass ratio is about 9:1. The Moon causes the Earth to wobble about the pivot and bulge with tidal stresses. Charon causes Pluto to orbit the pivot - but it doesn't cause Pluto to bulge with tidal stresses? This is a system roughly equivalent to the Earth having a Moon 9 times larger than it is and 10 times closer...
I entirely agree with everything you said. Surely tidal heating is a source of energy for Pluto - but is it enough?

Another obvious source of energy is its inclined and elliptical orbit, much like a comet, which will impart energy to Pluto much as it does to comets which spout tails and comas as they near perihelion.
 
Another obvious source of energy is its inclined and elliptical orbit, much like a comet, which will impart energy to Pluto much as it does to comets which spout tails and comas as they near perihelion.
I disagree that either the shape of the orbit or its eccentricity would impart any energy to Pluto. Comet tails and comas are caused by heat from the sun when they get close to it, much closer than Pluto ever does.
 
I disagree that either the shape of the orbit or its eccentricity would impart any energy to Pluto. Comet tails and comas are caused by heat from the sun when they get close to it, much closer than Pluto ever does.
Even so, Pluto has a coma and a tail. Which will probably shrink as its orbit takes it back out beyond Neptune. I believe Michio Kaku once described Pluto as a comet.
 
That is to say that Charon is so large and massive that rather than orbiting Pluto in the same manner that the Moon orbits the Earth, both Charon and Pluto orbit the same point in space.

Technically the Earth and Moon orbit the same point in space (barycenter) as well, it's just that that point in space is inside the Earth.

As a graduate project at one point I had to calculate the masses and initial conditions to get 3 bodies to orbit in a constant equilateral triangle at fixed distance from each other around an empty point in space.
 
Last edited:
Technically the Earth and Moon orbit the same point in space (barycenter) as well, it's just that that point in space is inside the Earth.

Pluto is orbitally locked with a body that is a significant proportion of its size and mass to the point of the orbital pivot ("barycentre") being between the two bodies rather than entirely within the volume of the larger one.
:mischievous:
 
They can find exoplanets due to the wobble their parent star makes as the planet tuggs on it.
 

Pluto is orbitally locked with a body that is a significant proportion of its size and mass to the point of the orbital pivot ("barycentre") being between the two bodies rather than entirely within the volume of the larger one.

I don't see anything special about Pluto's and Charon's orbits:confused:

My town has three bars, and on most weekends, many of our town's citizens can be seen orbiting around these three bars (usually bar-centered on JJ's Sports Bar & Grill).:D Many of these patrons start to exhibit a pronounced orbital wobble as the night falls.:lol:

:cheers:
GTsail
 
Back