When it comes to hard science and stuff like putting a man in space or on moon, or building a nuke, or discovering medical stuff, it's funny how little of taxes actually go there.

Especially for a pragmatic programmer with 80/20 optimization rule.

Can someone even find NASA funding (hint: it's somewhere in the lower right).

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So the difference will be that now they'll fly under corporate logos rather than the stars-n-stripes and that any scientific discoveries made will be private property even though they were paid for with public money?

The first half, though the "stars-n-stripes" will be on the craft as well. The second half makes no sense, given that the research takes place on the ISS, which is an international, government-funded venture. The commercial providers only take stuff up to the station and bring stuff back, mostly people.

Yes, and all the stars on the flag will be replaced with corporate logos. Asking the second half of the question makes plenty of sense given the record of government funded science being turned to private profits [1], [2], [3], especially given the national security aspects of the technology at issue here (i.e. military industrial complex).

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote:
Sounds like another massive ripoff, like outsourcing military operations to Blackwater.

Better than having NASA's bureaucracy involved, which has often been noted to be a problem with the agency. Apparently there are quite a few issues with management, communication and corruption being among them. Plus by not having the government build a rocket that would compete with commercial rockets that already exist (Ares I was in the same payload class as Atlas-V and Delta-IV Heavy - Orion could theoretically have flown on either one of those, but more likely D4), they can redirect the money to other parts of NASA. Like research, or actually building a proper heavy-lift rocket and beyond-LEO exploration spacecraft.

Bureaucracy can be fixed.

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote:
You can't trust what Republicans say about anything Obama has proposed. They're on track to attack everything he tries to do, even when doing so contradicts positions they've taken in the recent past. So a poor reception from Congress is nearly meaningless.

Note that I said "almost uniformly." That doesn't mean "only Republicans." The poor reception is also coming from democrats, Bill Nelson being fairly prominent among them. I think you're generalizing a bit too much.

Nelson is almost a Republican. His cloture vote on the health care bill had to be bought with favors for his state. I wish I was overgeneralizing, but I'm not. There are 290 bills stalled in the Senate right now. I realize you wrote "almost uniformly" but like I wrote, that statement is meaningless when substantial numbers of members of Congress are routinely saying things they don't believe just because they think they have to oppose everything the President proposes to remain in good graces with the "purity" whips in their party. How can you have "almost uniformity" when 40% is always going to speak badly of a proposal even when they might agree with it privately? You can't.

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Ion drive is ideally powered by Hydrogen fuel cells...

Actually, I would think solar power would be better for inner-system and nuclear power for outer system (since the solar flux isn't good enough out there, which is why none of the probes that have ventured past Jupiter have been solar-powered). If you're powering the ion drive with an energy system driven by chemical reactions, you might as well just use chemical rockets instead of electric rockets. One of the reasons the space shuttle can only stay on orbit for ~2 weeks is because it runs on fuel cells. By contrast, a solar-powered or nuclear-powered spacecraft can operate for years.

Presently employed fuel cells maybe.... there is much in the works with enzyme catalyzed fuel cells and again there is water on the Moon. There is also this for Nuclear but it's in early drafting stages.... last I checked there is a shying away from sending anything into the upper atmosphere that has a nuclear reactor. There was talk of nuclear fuels as in like solid fuels but with some nuclear component..... but I didn't catch what it was about???? That would be a lot of Solar Cells no??? Fuel Cells can deliver a much higher instantaneous and sustained charge..... I haven't really done the math yet on what is possible... I will be as soon as Duality is functional :P

Quote: Original post by Buttacup
last I checked there is a shying away from sending anything into the upper atmosphere that has a nuclear reactor.

There is, which is rather unfortunate in my opinion, since a reusable nuclear-powered spacecraft could do much to open up the solar system. Decent thrust, high efficiency, large payloads; what's not to like? Just make sure you only activate the thing when it reaches orbit so that there's less risk to the ground.

Quote: That would be a lot of Solar Cells no???

It would, but I would think that it would require less mass than using fuel cells. Fuel cells are chemically-based, yes? That means that you have to carry reactants with you, and you're limited to the amount of energy that can be released by those reactants. That's one of the main reasons that nuclear thermal rockets have a big advantage over existing chemical rockets, the nuclear rocket can heat the propellant up much higher and therefore achieve a far greater efficiency (at least double the efficiency achievable with existing chemical rockets). Electric rockets (be they nuclear or solar powered) have even higher efficiencies, but again, if you're powering them with something that has the limitations of a chemical rocket, you might as well just use a chemical rocket.

Quote: Fuel Cells can deliver a much higher instantaneous and sustained charge..... I haven't really done the math yet on what is possible... I will be as soon as Duality is functional :P

Do you know (or when you get the chance, can you find out) whether fuel cells can deliver currents in the megawatt range for months on end without requiring large amounts of reactants? That's the power level required by electric rockets, and is one reason why nuclear power and solar power are usually considered to be better candidates for powering them, despite the mass penalty involved with dragging huge solar arrays all over the place.

I hope this supports my yes but we will honestly have to wait and see what my numbers show :D I would like to point out again the potential for electrolysis or re-electrolysis of water in Titanium Disilicide fuel tanks. The amalgamating of the joyz of Fuel Cells with the off-board Solar resource pwns nubs.......