bdhill1979
Gone West
Oh I read all 4 pages, why I have no idea.
Nasa gave us Tang, growing boys love Tang, what more do you want?
shuttle coming in over LA today (maybe)
- Thread starter Slot Pilot
- Start date
Nasa gave us Tang, growing boys love Tang, what more do you want?
Oh, it's been fun and you know it.
I don't know that I've ever had Tang. Is it any good? I know it's Orange...is it like orange juice? I've had Sunny D before, does that count?
What the hell is that? Er...was that?
bdhill1979
Gone West
think ultra sugary orangeish Kool Aid that you can almost chew.
I guess I'll do the math...I have nothing else to do tonight.
We'll use 300,000,000 people since (as pullup said) it's a nice round number.
Looks like NASA's FY 2010 budget request was just a tad over $18.6 Billion...with a B.
We'll use $18 Billion for easy numbers.
$18,000,000,000/300,000,000=$6/Person
Hardly 1/4 of a penny. Simple math. Thank you, NASA.
-mini
We'll use 300,000,000 people since (as pullup said) it's a nice round number.
Looks like NASA's FY 2010 budget request was just a tad over $18.6 Billion...with a B.
We'll use $18 Billion for easy numbers.
$18,000,000,000/300,000,000=$6/Person
Hardly 1/4 of a penny. Simple math. Thank you, NASA.
-mini
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
What the hell is that? Er...was that?
It's a bridge... on fire... as in burning bridges!
bdhill1979
Gone West
While there may be approximately 300,000,000 people in the US, there are nowhere near that many tax payers
Exactly. Divide by a smaller number, you get a bigger number.
18B/200M = $9/person.
Rinse, repeat.
That was just for easy numbers. I want to know where the 1/4 of a penny comes in. NASA couldn't figure out how to turn on the light switch for 1/4 of a penny per tax payer.
-mini
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
No, you're thinking of Nash Bridges.
bdhill1979
Gone West
But NASA is good at math
<!-- /interact --> <script type="text/javascript"> CNB.Toolbox.toolbars['fa_57155808'] = { 'share': true, 'print': true, 'title': 'Math%20error%20equals%20loss%20of%20Mars%20orbiter', 'url': 'http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_15_156/ai_57155808/' }; </script> <script type="text/javascript"> CNB.Interact = new CNB.Toolbar({ cid: 'fa_57155808', rid: '', callback: 'CNB.Interact' }); </script> Math error equals loss of Mars orbiter
$125,000,000 x mathematical error = good use of taxpayer money
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
The best way to solve a problem is to throw money at it. Clearly.
-mini
Realms09
Well-Known Member
The Space Shuttle is a beautiful creature and in many ways an amazing technical accomplishment. Its main engines offer the highest specific impulse (a measure of rocket fuel efficiency) of any operating today. Like most people here I grew up in an era where the Space Shuttle defined space programs and I can understand the feeling of loss from their eventual grounding. However, they are simply too old, too complicated, and too expensive. It needs to be replaced by a less complicated and lower performance system - in other words a more reliable and cheaper one. My fear, however, is that they will keep flying until 7 more people are lost.
Ppragman, in response to the aerospace plane concept: That was the original goal of the Space Shuttle program - to develop a full-blown reusable vehicle. However, that was a formidible task that resulted in large cost overruns. The result was a compromise of the present Space Shuttle that in many ways is a conventional rocket but can land like an airplane. Many of the "re-usable" aspects were not realized in the design, and those that were are just as expensive or more expensive to maintain than disposable alternatives (carbon tiles vs. ablating heat shields).
That is the general lesson we need to keep in mind. Complex aerospace systems with too high a price tag face political pressure to be shutdown. This results in compromises that jeopardize what the system was trying to do in the first place and everyone loses. The prohibitive price associated with complex systems also generates monopolies (United Launch Alliance) that stymies any real development.
The key to advancement in aerospace is simplicity. We need to find those disruptive, simple technologies to liberate the space launch industry. NASA could and should have a prominent role in making that happen. I care deeply about space exploration, but my dollars might be better spent towards research of core technology rather than the sustennance of an aging and unsustainable system. NACA never built a plane, but we've all flown on NACA airfoils. Just my 2 cents.
Ppragman, in response to the aerospace plane concept: That was the original goal of the Space Shuttle program - to develop a full-blown reusable vehicle. However, that was a formidible task that resulted in large cost overruns. The result was a compromise of the present Space Shuttle that in many ways is a conventional rocket but can land like an airplane. Many of the "re-usable" aspects were not realized in the design, and those that were are just as expensive or more expensive to maintain than disposable alternatives (carbon tiles vs. ablating heat shields).
That is the general lesson we need to keep in mind. Complex aerospace systems with too high a price tag face political pressure to be shutdown. This results in compromises that jeopardize what the system was trying to do in the first place and everyone loses. The prohibitive price associated with complex systems also generates monopolies (United Launch Alliance) that stymies any real development.
The key to advancement in aerospace is simplicity. We need to find those disruptive, simple technologies to liberate the space launch industry. NASA could and should have a prominent role in making that happen. I care deeply about space exploration, but my dollars might be better spent towards research of core technology rather than the sustennance of an aging and unsustainable system. NACA never built a plane, but we've all flown on NACA airfoils. Just my 2 cents.
pullup
Homewrecker
Again, what are you basing a couple of extra pennies a year from (now up from 1/4 of a penny/person)?
300,000,000 million people x $.02 = $6,000,000.
That is a far cry from $17,500,000,000 budget of NASA.
No one is saying stop the space program (I would be among the last to say that) but what is wrong with a little justification for my tax money? Why can't people call for a more efficient govt. organization? Private industry has proven again and again that it is more efficient then the govt. I don't care if their budget is $2 or $2 trillion, stop wasting money.