161–170 of 174 posts
Pretty incredible what they are able to do with a i486!
Is it though? All you'd need to control some gyros is a microcontroller. I can't imagine it'd be more than a couple hundred lines of code implementing a PID controller or something. In fact, you could probably do it with standalone controllers, some sensors and relays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dragon has capability for a Hubble servicing mission. It would need more development than a Shuttle visit, but it's not a huge hurdle since the last visit installed a soft-capture mechanism. (It'd probably cost less than an equivalent Shuttle mission, just due to Shuttle's high launch costs.) SpaceX even prepared a proposal in a Space Act Agreement but NASA declined it recently. Sierra Nevada also has looked at doing…
Servicing Hubble require EVA. Does Dragon has an airlock?
Some of the Apollo missions had an EVA during the return transit to recover cameras on the exterior of the Command Module (CM).
Those spacewalks occurred on Apollo 15 (see: https://www.space.com/20565-al-worden-apollo-15-astronaut.ht...>) and Apollo 9, which didn't land on the Moon (see: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_9/>).
According to this Stackexchange post, the entire CM was depressurised: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/38239/how-did-apol...>
During lunar landings, EVAs also required full depressurisation of the Lunar Module. Repressurisation took about two minutes:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ECSQuickRef.html>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Servicing Hubble require EVA. Does Dragon has an airlock?
Old-school space-walks involved depressurising the capsule. Soyuz, Gemini. Some of the Apollo missions had an EVA during the return transit to recover cameras on the exterior of the Command Module (CM). Those spacewalks occurred on Apollo 15 (see: https://www.space.com/20565-al-worden-apollo-15-astronaut.ht... >) and Apollo 9, which didn't land on the Moon (see: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_9…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old-school space-walks involved depressurising the capsule. Soyuz, Gemini. Some of the Apollo missions had an EVA during the return transit to recover cameras on the exterior of the Command Module (CM). Those spacewalks occurred on Apollo 15 (see: https://www.space.com/20565-al-worden-apollo-15-astronaut.ht... >) and Apollo 9, which didn't land on the Moon (see: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_9…
Okay, can Dragon be depressurized and then repressurized back? Somehow I think it will require a lot of additions to its construction, and also alternative hatch instead of docking module (was already done with transparent dome for Inspiration4 mission.
This article states that the entire capsule would be depressurised and repressurised, as there's no integrated airlock. It also specifically mentions the prospect of servicing Hubble (though with no details).
https://www.extremetech.com/aerospace/spacex-unveils-eva-spa...> (May 6, 2024)
That strikes me as both the most basic approach and a capability which would be useful for other reasons as well. Another option might be to carry along an airlock, perhaps stowed in Dragon's trunk, and mounted during flight, though that itself might require an initial (full-capsule-depressurisation) EVA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so where did you get the 85% number?? From your own link. What's 52% + 34%? 86%. That's where it comes from. The money you pay in income taxes is divided between these two categories. So, 60% of what you pay as an individual in taxes goes to programs. They like to break this up so that it's harder for average people to apprehend that 86% of all government spending comes out of their pockets and very little from bus…
Are you adding in Social Security and Medicare taxes? Those don’t go to NASA.
> but as income taxpayers we only pay around half of that, or around $36.40 per American
I'm saying using half is incorrect because the ratio isn't as simple as the OP assumed. The correct figure would be 60%, or $43.68 per _citizen_, this because a large chunk of your taxes go elsewhere, and because business pays so very little.
Anyways.. it's a parsimonious point about how taxes are intentionally obscure and widely misunderstood and miscalculated.
Pretty incredible what they are able to do with a i486!
We used to get quake and Warcraft running on them from memory. It was - is! - a great chip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point being made is that NASA is wasteful because the people in charge (Congress) told them to be wasteful.
You are in charge. Congress is your employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA also thought the Space Shuttle was going to get cheaper per-launch after a couple years of service, and they turned out to be completely wrong. Why should we trust that this time will be different? NASA's own Inspector General says, "... NASA’s aspirational goal to achieve a cost savings of 50 percent is highly unrealistic" and "... a single SLS will cost more than $2 billion through the first 10 SLS rockets ...…
> and they turned out to be completely wrong. There were a lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong. The chief among them was launch cadence and satellite capture and return missions. When these assumptions changed the cost values changed significantly as well. > Why should we trust that this time will be different? Do you understand the details of this specific contract? It's limited to 10 launches. It's struc…
I also think there is almost no chance anyone of these folks is going to do fixed price for EUS or whatever. Contractors are getting something like $600 million / year on this thing and have been hoovering the gravy for 7-8 years.
Remember that these types of forever contracts that take 20-30 years are also liked by the NASA centers who work with the contractors - it's very stable career / funding (ignore the waste). So NASA at the centers level is not fighting against this stuff (ie, it's not just congress that pushes this stuff).
All these pork projects got a huge win with Biden picking Bill Nelson as NASA admin. Do wonder if a bit of SpaceX hate played a role there :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except you look at what they are spending on the entire SLS infrastructure vs what they are getting (vs other science options and/or space exploration options) and basically your mind is blown at how wasteful NASA is. SLS is a $2-$3 billion per launch DISPOSABLE rocket. The orion capsule is going to be something like $20 billion(!). I think things like launch abort and service module with all the propulsion etc are a…
NASA's manned mission division does seem to have the bigger problem with bloated contracting budgets and inefficiency, relative to the rest of the organization. I'd guess that's due to direct political influence (the Richard Shelby - Bill Nelson effect in that case). From 2010: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62767_Page3.html
They also needed to get Kathy L out who had started to push down manned mission cost (crew dragon etc) and I think they succeeded there - there was a push to get her off new projects and into just operations I think to keep her from disrupting the pork - even just by showing the contrasts to other approaches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you adding in Social Security and Medicare taxes? Those don’t go to NASA.
The OP posted: > but as income taxpayers we only pay around half of that, or around $36.40 per American I'm saying using half is incorrect because the ratio isn't as simple as the OP assumed. The correct figure would be 60%, or $43.68 per _citizen_, this because a large chunk of your taxes go elsewhere, and because business pays so very little. Anyways.. it's a parsimonious point about how taxes are intentionally obs…
I agree that businesses pay too little, and yes taxes are a bit complicated. I’m not seeing intentional obscurity at this level, just that there are multiple different valid ways to frame NASA’s budget. The top comment was correct that the average per citizen cost to fund NASA in 2023 was slightly under $75. This is already very low, so that was the point from the top. Mine was simply that the actual amount we pay is even lower. Whether it’s 36% or 50% or 60% or even 85% doesn’t matter much, that ends up being about 1 or 2 cups of coffee either way.