"a425couple" wrote in message news:j4WqM.175968$Bq67.100688@fx13.iad...
I'd guess this is more like what the designers of the US Space
Shuttle had in mind. Amazing. Fire it off, retrieve, check it
out, load 'er up, fill 'er up and off she goes again.
-----------------
The tradeoff is lower payload weight and orbital altitude due to the
mass fraction of fuel that brings the booster back down instead of contributing to velocity, as engine thrust limits the total vehicle +
fuel + payload weight. The system is economical for routine missions to
low orbits but less suited to the more demanding ones into deep space.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-orbital-refueling-details/
The overwhelming problem is that rockets need to burn fuel to accelerate
the remaining fuel, like piling up sand where most of it is near the
bottom supporting the rest, and to reach orbital velocity that means
that only 10% or less of launch weight gets there. For Falcon 9 the
payload weight to orbit is 4.1% of launch weight.
Warning! Warning! Rocket science ahead! https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/
The explanation to Congress is that satellites are kept in orbit by
Funding, and if it fails they will crash down on our heads.
NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for
educated workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if
you believe that the government has to create employment to make up for
jobs lost to automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand
for non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to
make up for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in
advancing our technology to keep us ahead.
The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent
(recycled) on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among
the states.
"a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
#2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
them.
----------------------
Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to the Republicans.
Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to
the
Republicans.
"a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
#2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
them.
----------------------
Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to
the
Republicans.
"Dean Markley" wrote in message news:397f4516-f825-4c0a...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:31:42 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
#2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
them.
----------------------
Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to the
Republicans.
Now that statement right there illustrates the problems caused by zero-sum thinking and polarization of politics. I used to be a die-hard Republican without questioning much. Now as I've gotten older (close to retirement), I have definitely moved toward the middle. In my opinion, the greatest danger this country (and probably the world) faces is the ever expanding gulf between the rich and the poor. I have been fortunate to have moved from lower middle class as a child to upper middle class now as an adult. Somehow, civilization needs to understand that this fgulf needs to be bridged and sooner rather than later.
Dean
----------------------
My statement is about why it isn't being bridged by those who claim to care the most.
My statement is about why it isn't being bridged by those who claim to
care
the most.
Warning! Warning! Rocket science ahead! https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/
The explanation to Congress is that satellites are kept in orbit by
Funding, and if it fails they will crash down on our heads.
NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for
educated workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if you believe that the government has to create employment to make up for jobs
lost to automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand for non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to make up for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in advancing our technology to keep us ahead.
The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent
(recycled) on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among the states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU
"In the U.S. boom years of 1998, 1999, and 2000, unemployment dipped below NAIRU estimates without causing significant increases of inflation. There
are at least three potential explanations of this: (1) Fed Chair Alan Greenspan had correctly judged that the Internet revolution had
structurally lowered NAIRU, or (2) NAIRU is largely mistaken as a concept,
or (3) NAIRU correctly applies only to certain historical periods, for example, the 1970s when a higher percentage of workers belonged to unions
and some contracts had wage increases tied in advance to the inflation
rate, but perhaps neither as accurately nor as correctly to other time periods."
NAIRU may be an example of confusing correlation with causation, an
obviously faulty example being that the weather is always clear during a
full moon because you never see it full during rain. The left is notorious for conflating the two
to further the goal of blaming and confiscating the success they envy but aren't able to achieve by themselves.
Rich folk don't really cause poverty, the zero-sum fallacy, they just highlight it and incite toxic envy.
High ability can do very well by filling a demand even in poor countries.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 97:11:44 |
Calls: | 6,659 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,208 |
Messages: | 5,334,526 |