info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Obama destroyed the U.S. space program Ares 1
65 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Feb 20, 2016, 3:40:32 AM2/20/16
to
Forget the Shuttle, he finished it off. Then came Ares 1.
$6 billion gone. No one lost their job for this. Obama cancelled the program. He'd rather continue to squander billions on the ISS and hundreds of billions on the B.S. that is global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Cancellation
$6 billion gone. No one lost their job for this. Obama cancelled the program. He'd rather continue to squander billions on the ISS and hundreds of billions on the B.S. that is global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Cancellation
Gary Harnagel
Feb 20, 2016, 8:12:48 AM2/20/16
to
Chris L Peterson
Feb 20, 2016, 11:28:17 AM2/20/16
to
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:40:27 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Forget the Shuttle, he finished it off. Then came Ares 1.
>$6 billion gone. No one lost their job for this. Obama cancelled the program. He'd rather continue to squander billions on the ISS and hundreds of billions on the B.S. that is global warming.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Cancellation
Looks to me like our space program is moving along nicely, both manned
and unmanned.
Maybe you should worry about the Canadian space program.
wrote:
>Forget the Shuttle, he finished it off. Then came Ares 1.
>$6 billion gone. No one lost their job for this. Obama cancelled the program. He'd rather continue to squander billions on the ISS and hundreds of billions on the B.S. that is global warming.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Cancellation
and unmanned.
Maybe you should worry about the Canadian space program.
Quadibloc
Feb 21, 2016, 3:40:36 AM2/21/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Maybe you should worry about the Canadian space program.
Canada isn't wasting any money on a space program...
> Maybe you should worry about the Canadian space program.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
Feb 21, 2016, 10:16:05 AM2/21/16
to
RichA
Feb 22, 2016, 2:14:32 AM2/22/16
to
Chris L Peterson
Feb 22, 2016, 10:06:57 AM2/22/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:14:28 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not seeing any such disintegration.
wrote:
RichA
Feb 23, 2016, 4:02:28 AM2/23/16
to
Mike Collins
Feb 23, 2016, 4:28:28 AM2/23/16
to
Rodney Pont
Feb 23, 2016, 4:30:57 AM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:02:23 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
>No, I can see them building multi-billion $ plants to "extract" C02 from the atmosphere. Imagine, diverting that kind of money to make something that produces no products.
They can take the co2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and make
>No, I can see them building multi-billion $ plants to "extract" C02 from the atmosphere. Imagine, diverting that kind of money to make something that produces no products.
petrol. We have a complete infrastructure and developed engines to use
petrol. Hydrogen and electricity powered vehicles are still in the
early stages of development.
--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>
Martin Brown
Feb 23, 2016, 4:37:27 AM2/23/16
to
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris L Peterson
Feb 23, 2016, 10:18:55 AM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:02:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>No, I can see them building multi-billion $ plants to "extract" C02 from the atmosphere.
I certainly hope so. Our future likely depends on such technology.
>Imagine, diverting that kind of money to make something that produces no products.
That kind of research inevitably leads to products... although when
we're talking about preserving civilization, "products" are hardly a
priority.
wrote:
>No, I can see them building multi-billion $ plants to "extract" C02 from the atmosphere.
>Imagine, diverting that kind of money to make something that produces no products.
we're talking about preserving civilization, "products" are hardly a
priority.
Helpful person
Feb 23, 2016, 11:49:24 AM2/23/16
to
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 4:30:57 AM UTC-5, Rodney Pont wrote:
>
> They can take the co2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and make
> petrol. We have a complete infrastructure and developed engines to use
> petrol. Hydrogen and electricity powered vehicles are still in the
> early stages of development.
>
Sorry, there's no good way to do that.
>
> They can take the co2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and make
> petrol. We have a complete infrastructure and developed engines to use
> petrol. Hydrogen and electricity powered vehicles are still in the
> early stages of development.
>
http://www.richardfisher.com
Chris L Peterson
Feb 23, 2016, 11:54:51 AM2/23/16
to
atmospheric CO2 and solar energy to produce hydrocarbon fuels.
Rodney Pont
Feb 23, 2016, 12:30:59 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:49:21 -0800 (PST), Helpful person wrote:
>> They can take the co2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and make
>> petrol. We have a complete infrastructure and developed engines to use
>> petrol. Hydrogen and electricity powered vehicles are still in the
>> early stages of development.
>>
>Sorry, there's no good way to do that.
There are two methods being worked on that I know of, one is a
>> They can take the co2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and make
>> petrol. We have a complete infrastructure and developed engines to use
>> petrol. Hydrogen and electricity powered vehicles are still in the
>> early stages of development.
>>
>Sorry, there's no good way to do that.
catalytic cracker that needs air at 1500 degrees centigrade and the
other is using bacteria of some kind.
Martin Brown
Feb 23, 2016, 3:42:07 PM2/23/16
to
suckers who will inevitably lose their shirts on such investments.
It can be done but at such a high cost that it wasn't even economic when
crude was >$120/barrel. The spot price today is nearer $30.
Even taking CO2 from the relatively high concentration in power station
flue gases is proving uneconomic and everything has been put on hold now
since the oil price fell by a factor of nearly 4. Even fracking and the
remaining North Sea oil has become uneconomic in this environment.
Watch them all go bust as the Saudis keep on pumping...
(Iran coming onstream again makes things even worse)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris L Peterson
Feb 23, 2016, 7:34:04 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:41:01 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You're mistaken. There are a number of promising approaches to using
>> atmospheric CO2 and solar energy to produce hydrocarbon fuels.
>
>Promising only in the sense that they are able to attract funding from
>suckers who will inevitably lose their shirts on such investments.
No, promising as in it's likely we'll be producing economical fuels in
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You're mistaken. There are a number of promising approaches to using
>> atmospheric CO2 and solar energy to produce hydrocarbon fuels.
>
>Promising only in the sense that they are able to attract funding from
>suckers who will inevitably lose their shirts on such investments.
a decade using such techniques. You're not keeping up with the
research on artificial photosynthesis. It's pretty exciting stuff, and
advances are starting to come quickly.
0 new messages