Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Science, Technology and Futurism Thread
A[quote name="Overlord" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1800#post_4472834"]
For the same reason the government relying entirely on third parties/private industries is almost always a bad idea.

Same reason we shouldn't subcontract military duties to mercenaries.[/quote]

I guess I don't see those scenarios as directly comparable. How do you feel about something like how the DOD secures airframes? Hold a competition, pit a few companies against each other, choose the winner and then "own" the product even though 100% of the development and maintenance is being provided through a private company. Though I'd note ALL of those contracts are cost-plus which is why we're paying half a trillion dollars for a plane that can't turn, can't climb, can't fight, and can't see.

I guess I just don't like my choices. Give me an option for a fully NASA owned and operated heavy lift vehicle that doesn't cost $20 billion and I'm all over it, but the political reality just isn't there. And I think that's my real problem: $20 Billion isn't a lot of money! Compared to the other shit we spend money on? It's a steal! But for space it's seen as exorbitant. Hence the need for a new approach.
Reply
ADOD purchases the planes and then owns the I.P. along with the planes, does it not?
Reply
A[quote name="Overlord" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1800#post_4472837"]DOD purchases the planes and then owns the I.P. along with the planes, does it not?[/quote]

That's a great question, I'm not sure. F-35 I thought was a Lockheed I.P., but I could be wrong.

This goes to a bigger question of, whether you go fixed-cost or cost-plus, you should buy hardware, or buy capability. If you buy hardware, it's obsolete the second the ink is dry. Buying capability allows for what SpaceX is trying to do (but, notably, Boeing is not): trying to develop new capabilities (powered descent, reusability) that they can then turn around and market to us later.

It doesn't need to be 100% one or the other, and operating at cost-plus airframe purchasing, whether they own the IP or not, has certainly allowed for Skunkworks and the like to keep operating - my point is that no one is (to our knowledge) putting any money into breakthrough technology R&D, which purchasing "capability" rather than "this piece of metal" could encourage.

SpaceX is working on readability and powered descent specifically because we didn't purchase a specific rocket. We purchased access to LEO by any means. The latitude that comes with that money is basically a backdoor investment in primary research, which I find is hard to knock.
Reply
AAlso: asking a company to provide a plane is not the same thing as providing an air force. Product vs services.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

This goes to a bigger question of, whether you go fixed-cost or cost-plus, you should buy hardware, or buy capability. If you buy hardware, it's obsolete the second the ink is dry. Buying capability allows for what SpaceX is trying to do (but, notably, Boeing is not): trying to develop new capabilities (powered descent, reusability) that they can then turn around and market to us later.


This is a complete oversimplification.



In 1969 a NASA rocket put a man on the moon.  Right now, it has no independent launch capabilities whatsoever.  This has been the case for the last six years (shuttle retirement). It's worrisome that the hasty timeline drawn up when the Shuttle was retired appears to have undershot the mark by a factor of 300+% in terms of a replacement.



Meanwhile, SpaceX has created the second most powerful launch rocket of all time (Falcon Heavy).  You mention budget repeatedly in this thread.  Well ... Falcon Heavy has emerged in a fraction of the development time.  And the budget?  In comparison to NASA, Musk built it in a cave with a box of scraps.  NASA has accomplished great things over the past few decades, don't get me wrong, but it's hard not to look at the rocket program, compare it to private industry, and go "what the hell happened?"



**Why are human certification standards for manned missions so intense now?  Has any human-spaceflight aircraft in history ever fallen within the current tolerances?  It's a risky business.  Asking for a 1 in 200+ success rate for a mission to Mars seems like an insanely high standard.

Reply
A[quote name="Overlord" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1800#post_4472858"]
This is a complete oversimplification.

In 1969 a NASA rocket put a man on the moon.  Right now, it has no independent launch capabilities whatsoever.  This has been the case for the last six years (shuttle retirement). It's worrisome that the hasty timeline drawn up when the Shuttle was retired appears to have undershot the mark by a factor of 300+% in terms of a replacement. 

Meanwhile, SpaceX has created the second most powerful launch rocket of all time (Falcon Heavy).  You mention budget repeatedly in this thread.  Well ... Falcon Heavy has emerged in a fraction of the development time.  And the budget?  In comparison to NASA, Musk built it in a cave with a box of scraps.  NASA has accomplished great things over the past few decades, don't get me wrong, but it's hard not to look at the rocket program, compare it to private industry, and go "what the hell happened?" 

**Why are human certification standards for manned missions so intense now?  Has any human-spaceflight aircraft in history ever fallen within the current tolerances?  It's a risky business.  Asking for a 1 in 200+ success rate for a mission to Mars seems like an insanely high standard. 
[/quote]

*Big caveat on Falcon Heavy: it's only certified for payloads, and the schedule/cost to meet Crew standards are unknown. There's tons of rockets out there from different companies, no need to focus on SpaceX. Anyone can build a rocket. The thing is, none of them can launch PEOPLE.

The short answer is we'd have had a replacement in less than half this time if we hadn't started on one program (X-38), had it canceled, started on another (Constellation), had it canceled, and then started on a third (Commercial Crew) with neither vendor having built a capsule before. This is like the budget for Superman Returns - the money isn't on the screen.

The reason we were able to go from zero to the moon in 10 years is two-fold:

NASA's budget during the Apollo years would be $65 billion/year in 2016 dollars. It's now $19. And that $65 Billion was for one, sole purpose.

Our $19 billion is currently divided between:
-ISS
-Commercial Crew (so Elon and Boeing are getting a slice)
-The James Webb
-All of our deep space probes
-All of our rovers both deployed and in development,
-All of our Earth monitoring satellites,
-All of our solar monitoring satellites,
-All of JPL
-All of Ames, Glenn, Huntsville, Goddard, and Johnson
-the SLS
-and Orion.

The second reason is to your last point: we currently have a standard set for new vehicles that, for ferrying crew to ISS, we ask that they not kill people more often than one out of every 270 missions. Apollo didn't know how to even estimate those risks.

Considering Shuttle lost 2/135 killing 14 people, and Soyuz has lost 2/137 killing 6, yes we're asking for a tighter risk envelope on the new vehicles. The counterpoint to that is 1/270 is still hardly what I'd call "risk averse," and all it takes is looking at the devastating effect of both Challenger and Columbia on American spaceflight to argue that more safety margin will save time and money long term if we can avoid the cost that comes with a LOC event.

The only analog risk acceptance I can think of would be in military deployments, with the difference being when they lose a piece of hardware and an air or ground crew, it's one of a few thousand pieces of identical hardware and the crew are among thousands of identically trained crews. I've got a handful of vehicles and only 50-odd astronauts.

Now, I'd still be supportive of an acceptance of greater risk. As Kirk said, "Risk is our business!" And I think when it comes to deciding how we're going to square the radiation exposure of a Mars or other deep space mission with our lifetime cancer risk rules (for one example) we're just going to have to accept more. But when it comes to the rockets or capsules themselves, I think the front cost of learning how to make safer vehicles is the correct place to push back on the pressure to simply lower the safety threshold to meet schedule, especially when we have a sliver of the funding Apollo had to play with.
Reply
A
Quote:*Big caveat on Falcon Heavy: it's only certified for payloads . . .

It is, however, currently certified for actually existing.

Wink

Quote:The short answer is we'd have had a replacement in less than half this time [EXCUSES]

MUSK BUILT THE FALCON HEAVY IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!

Quote:The reason we were able to go from zero to the moon in 10 years is two-fold:

NASA's budget during the Apollo years would be $65 billion/year in 2016 dollars. It's now $19. And that $65 Billion was for one, sole purpose.

Yeah ... but that already happened. Did that money buy nothing in terms of ongoing technology? You're telling me the job is a lot harder now than it was in 1969?

I'm being somewhat facetious, of course, but there were decades for NASA to get ready for the shuttle retirement, I was super excited about developments such as the SLS, and right now it's looking like we're still 10+ years away from a NASA crewed flight. I was totally with the budget argument ... until Musk accomplished a big chunk of the job in a cave. With a box of scraps.

**When Musk certifies for manned space flight, would he even use NASA personnel to crew it?
Reply

SLS and Orion are huge moneysinks is the problem there. Doesn't make a lot of sense to throw so many resources at replicating capabilities we had decades ago. But that's what happens when every administration comes in and fucks with all the priorities (cancelling Constellation, now we're going to the Moon, but also Mars, blah blah blah).



Its not a NASA problem, its a politics problem.

Reply

Interesting Q and A with Spielberg's Close Encounters-influenced data scientist Jacques Vallee on his theories of the UFO phenomena:



https://futurism.media/jacques-vallee-interview

Reply
A[quote name="Zhukov" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1800#post_4473824"]SLS and Orion are huge moneysinks is the problem there. Doesn't make a lot of sense to throw so many resources at replicating capabilities we had decades ago. But that's what happens when every administration comes in and fucks with all the priorities (cancelling Constellation, now we're going to the Moon, but also Mars, blah blah blah). 

Its not a NASA problem, its a politics problem.
[/quote]

Orion isn't that over-priced, all things considered. Total out-the-door cost is going to be around $20 billion, or just over a single year's total NASA budget. It's a capsule with enough radiation hardening to both crew compartment and avionics to loiter around the Moon for a few years if we need it to, and that just isn't cheap. They were also smart enough to make it rocket-agnostic, so we can stick her on any man-rated rocket we like. SLS I agree on.

Of all the things I HAAAATE John Cornyn for, one of the good things he tried to do was get NASA funded in 10-year cycles like the FBI and other lettered agencies, which would insulate the mission from the political whiplash a bit. Never got passed.
Reply
Quote:

*Big caveat on Falcon Heavy: it's only certified for payloads . . .

It is, however, currently certified for actually existing. < CHUD's Overlord.



Musk got all his R&D and designs from his "predecessors" AKA NASA and Soviet Union Space Scientists.



Just sayin'

Reply
AAnd they got all their R&D and designs from the Nazis. Engineering on that scale is iterative by necessity.
Reply

For Zhukov:



http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2...sland.html

Reply

Green-blue seems kind of like a rare thing, no?


Quote:
 But all agreed it was an unusual sight much larger than a typical meteor.

...


"It looked like it changed colours, that’s why we thought meteor," Ruiz tweeted. "Or something big entering the atmosphere. Definitely not just a shooting star. Crazy."


That was my thinking as well. Shit looked crazy, and I'm glad I'm not the only person experiencing that. Giant blue-green meteors!!




Anyway, I was thinking about how fantastic the necessary book about these contemporary ROCKET WARS will be.

Reply

...the chances of anything coming from Mars...

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Green-blue seems kind of like a rare thing, no?



That was my thinking as well. Shit looked crazy, and I'm glad I'm not the only person experiencing that. Giant blue-green meteors!!






There was a major "meme" in the 1970's through the 90's about "mysterious green fireballs" seen frequently in Arizona and New Mexico.


The UFO guys were convinced they were...well you know.

Reply

Wow, that's way more involved that I would have thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs

Reply
Quote:

Edward J. Ruppelt, director of the USAF Project Blue Book UFO study, stated he visited the Los Alamos National Laboratory in early 1952 and spoke to various scientists and technicians there, all of whom had experienced green fireball sightings. None of them believed they had a conventional explanation, such as a new natural phenomenon, secret government project, or psychologically enlarged meteors. Instead, the scientists speculated that they were extraterrestrial probes "projected into our atmosphere from a 'spaceship' hovering several hundred miles above the earth." Ruppelt commented, "Two years ago I would have been amazed to hear a group of reputable scientists make such a startling statement. Now, however, I took it as a matter of course. I'd heard the same type of statement many times before from equally qualified groups."


Umm I would like to amend my previous statements, and say I'm sticking with aliens.



Like, I very seriously see why this was a question. I'm accepting of the scientific explanations I have received, but I am also cognizant of the fact I saw a phase of this fireball that is not really consistent with anything else.

Reply

I'll say Zhukov, the meteor I saw was flying through the atmosphere slower than I would have anticipated, but I had always considered it a meteor due to the tail.  I did, the instant seeing it, initially think UFO, but that's par for the course.

Reply

LIFEFORCE Aliens!

Reply

We can only hope



Reply
A[quote name="Somewhere" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1830#post_4476760"]We can only hope



[/quote]

Lifeforce, or Starship Invasions?

[Image: 600]
Reply
AThat rock came from Klendathu!
Reply

The Mount Sinabung volcano has erupted in Indonesia:





More here:



https://gizmodo.com/indonesias-mt-sinabu...D=ref_fark

Reply

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/...used-once/



Not great!

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Wow, that's way more involved that I would have thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs



Shit! Had no idea they dated from the 1940's.


The "Nuke" theory is interesting and scary.


There's another theory that many UFO sightings that take place before/during/after earthquakes are actually caused by said earthquakes.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light

Reply
A[quote name="Cylon Baby" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1830#post_4475785"]

It is, however, currently certified for actually existing. < CHUD's Overlord.

Musk got all his R&D and designs from his "predecessors" AKA NASA and Soviet Union Space Scientists. 

Just sayin'
[/quote]

Why reinvent the wheel? Is that supposed to be a positive?

[quote name="Zhukov" url="/community/t/115890/the-science-technology-and-futurism-thread/1800#post_4477202"]https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/...used-once/

Not great!
[/quote]

YEAH, BUT IT WILL BE CERTIFIED FOR HUMAN USE!*

*once the SLS is certified as actually existing
Reply
ASaw this neat little article today. An amature astronomer pointed his telescope at a distant galaxy, took some pictures and happens to be one of the few people (maybe the first?) ever to capture the beginning of a supernova. It little more than a dot in the lower center of the gif in the article, but very cool none the less.

https://gizmodo.com/amateur-astronomer-s...1823192936
Reply
Woah:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...t=20180604

Quote:Doctors at the National Institutes of Health say they've apparently completely eradicated cancer from a patient who had untreatable, advanced breast cancer.

The case is raising hopes about a new way to harness the immune system to fight some of the most common cancers. The methods and the patient's experience are described Monday in a paper published in the journal Nature Medicine.

"We're looking for a treatment — an immunotherapy — that can be broadly used in patients with common cancers," says Dr. Steven Rosenberg, an oncologist and immunologist at the National Cancer Institute, who has been developing the approach.

Rosenberg's team painstakingly analyzes the DNA in a sample of each patient's cancer for mutations specific to their malignancies. Next, scientists sift through tumor tissue for immune system cells known as T cells that appear programmed to home in on those mutations.

But Rosenberg and others caution that the approach doesn't work for everyone. In fact, it failed for two other breast cancer patients. Many more patients will have to be treated — and followed for much longer — to fully evaluate the treatment's effectiveness, the scientists say.

Still, the treatment has helped seven of 45 patients with a variety of cancers, Rosenberg says. That's a response rate of about 15 percent, and included patients with advanced cases of colon cancer, liver cancer and cervical cancer.
Reply
Fuck no, Boston Dynamics:





Someone made it worse:

Did none of these nerds watch Red Planet, dammit!?
"Listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing that happens to you today."

Xbox Live Gamer Tag: Strider Ryoken / PSN: Kenryo81 /Steam: Ryoken81
Reply
It's adorable and I want one.

Skynet references to Boston Dynamics stuff is old hat. 

At this point, I'm one step closer to getting my own BT from Titanfall 2. 

[Image: 519d6d0a2ec623bf587a7ea780aad2e11bf41c0f_hq.gif]
"I mean don't get me wrong fucking the wolf man is impressive but ugh." - Waaaaaaaalt
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)