Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

NASA's "Solomon's Choice"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Well, the "decision" has been made, which is to make no decision once so ever...

    Commercial Crew Would Get Boost in Omnibus Spending Bill for 2014

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 15 passed an omnibus spending bill for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 that would provide $696 million for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.But the allocation, which would be the largest annual budget for the program, is still considerably less than the $821 million sought by U.S. President Barack Obama and also comes with a string attached: $171 million of the funds would be held in reserve until NASA completes an independent cost-benefit analysis of the program. That would temporarily keep the program funded at about $525 million, the same level it got in 2013.
    NASA would receive $17.6 billion in total under the plan, or about $100 million below the White House’s request and roughly $700 million more than the agency’s sequestered 2013 budget.
    ...
    The bill’s proposed funding levels for NASA’s major spending accounts are:
    • Science: $5.2 billion, about $200 million more than the White House’s 2014 request, and $400 million more than the 2013 budget settled on back in August as part of the agency’s final operating plan for that year. Of the proposed 2014 appropriation, 658.2 million is for the James Webb Space Telescope, the agency’s biggest science project.
    • Exploration: $4.1 billion, about $100 million more than the request and roughly $400 million more than in 2013. About $1.9 billion of the proposed amount is for the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket and its associated ground systems. The Orion Multi-Purpose crew vehicle, the rocket’s companion capsule, would get about $1.2 billion.
    • Space Operations: $3.8 billion, most of which is for the international space station. That is about $100 million less than the request, and roughly $100 more than in 2013.
    • Cross Agency Support: $2.8 billion to cover agency-wide operating expenses, or about $100 million less than both the request and the 2013 appropriation.
    • Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $515 million, some $94 million below the request and $132 million lower than in 2013 to cover upkeep and maintenance at NASA’s national network of field centers.
    • Education: $116.6 million, or about $22 million more than the White House requested as part of a 2014 budget proposal that sought to overhaul the federal government’s education and public outreach programs. The proposed appropriation is essentially flat compared with the 2013 operating plan.
    • Inspector General: $37.5 million for agency oversight, roughly even with the request, but about $2.5 million more than in 2013.
    So we are still spending somewhere in the range of $6 billion dollars on dead end programs in the form of the SLS, Orion, and ISS. It should be noted that while the Congress plays games with the Commercial Crew Program, they are going to end up sending far more money to the Russians than it would cost to finish development on native capabilities....

    NASA May Order More Soyuz Rides to Station Despite Commercial Crew Advancements

    By Dan Leone | Jan. 6, 2014
    WASHINGTON — Companies working on commercial crew transportation services to and from the international space station reported milestones in their efforts even as a NASA official warned that the agency likely will have to order more Russian Soyuz crew capsules to keep the orbital outpost fully occupied.

    Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight at NASA headquarters, told an advisory panel Dec. 9 that the agency may have to order another batch of Soyuz crew capsules from Russia unless Congress funds NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the $800 million-plus level sought by the White House.

    “I think that’s going to be a topic of a lot of debate in the next year or so,” McAlister told a panel of the NASA Advisory Council.

    The debate, McAlister hinted, might be more about how many seats to buy, rather than whether to buy the seats at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &amp;quot;Solomon's Choice&amp;quot;

    So, welfare for rocket scientists it is...
    NASA gets White House backing to extend space station by 4 years
    WASHINGTON — The world's most expensive science project — the $100 billion-plus International Space Station — is poised to get four more years in orbit.According to documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, NASA plans to announce this week that it has White House approval to extend the station's operations by four years until 2024.
    The decision follows years of pressure by top NASA officials, who consider the station a critical steppingstone to future exploration. But a four-year extension likely would cost NASA about $3 billion a year from 2021 to 2024. That's a major chunk of the agency's annual budget, which is now about $17 billion, and a longer mission could force NASA to make tough financial decisions in the future.
    The administration's approval, however, doesn't guarantee that the station, which has been continuously occupied since 2000, will survive past its current end date of 2020. At some point, Congress must approve a NASA budget that includes an extension of the station's life. The plan also must get the support of whoever wins the White House in 2016 — though the backing of President Barack Obama now might make it harder for the next administration to renege.
    Still, the move is expected to reassure NASA's international partners, who have wondered how long the U.S. plans to commit to the station. NASA's announcement coincides with a visit to Washington this week by leaders of the world's space agencies.
    But before you get too excited about the possibility that Congress could do the right thing....
    Congress Makes NASA Finish Useless $350 Million Structure
    NASA will complete a $350 million structure to test rocket engines at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi early this year. Then, it plans to mothball the 300-foot-high, steel-frame tower for the foreseeable future.The reason: Congress ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to finish building the facility even though the agency doesn’t need it.
    The tower was designed to test aGenCorp Inc. (GY) engine for a rocket program canceled in 2010. Its funding survived thanks to Mississippi Republican senators led by Roger Wicker, who crafted a provision requiring the agency to complete the work.

    The test stand is an example of how U.S. lawmakers thwart efforts to cut costs and eliminate government waste, even as they criticize agencies for failing to do so. Attempts to close military bases, mail-processing plants and other NASA facilities also have been fought by congressional members whose districts benefit from the operations.

    “When it comes down to their pork, they’re always going to defend it,” said Rand Simberg, a space policy scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based research group that supports less spending and fewer regulations. “All that matters is maintaining jobs in the right states and districts.”
    But it's not just our own people getting handouts...
    NASA May Order More Soyuz Rides to Station Despite Commercial Crew Advancements
    By Dan Leone | Jan. 6, 2014
    WASHINGTON — Companies working on commercial crew transportation services to and from the international space station reported milestones in their efforts even as a NASA official warned that the agency likely will have to order more Russian Soyuz crew capsules to keep the orbital outpost fully occupied.
    Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight at NASA headquarters, told an advisory panel Dec. 9 that the agency may have to order another batch of Soyuz crew capsules from Russia unless Congress funds NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the $800 million-plus level sought by the White House.
    “I think that’s going to be a topic of a lot of debate in the next year or so,” McAlister told a panel of the NASA Advisory Council.
    The debate, McAlister hinted, might be more about how many seats to buy, rather than whether to buy the seats at all.
    NASA’s current contract with the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, covers astronaut transportation to and from the space station through 2016, and emergency crew rescue services through June 2017.
    The White House is seeking $821 million this year for the Commercial Crew Program, under which Boeing Space Exploration, Sierra Nevada Space Systems and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) are working on U.S. alternatives to the Soyuz. The U.S. government is currently operating under a six-month continuing resolution, set to expire Jan. 15, that funds the program at $525 million.
    This is why we can't have nice things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    The Obama appointee and former Deputy Director of NASA Lori Garver weights in...

    Today, on the Diana Rehm Show, Garver was asked what programs NASA should cancel in order to allow it to achieve more meaningful things in space. Below I’ve transcribed the relevant section of the interview:
    Rehm: What programs do you think should be cut?
    Garver: To me I think those particular programs that are built on previous technology.
    Rehm: Like what?
    Garver: Right now we are building a huge rocket called the Space Launch System that is really …
    Rehm: The SLS?
    Garver: The SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to NASA, it had to do with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly?
    ...
    The significance of Garver’s comments, in regard to the SLS, is that they are consistent with those of most observers who do not work directly for NASA, and thus are not beholden to the program of record as mandated by Congress and the White House.
    Garver asks the right questions. Where is it going to go? After building such an expensive rocket — which critics have labeled a “rocket to nowhere” — there’s just no money to actually build the stuff, like payloads and habitation modules, that would allow NASA to actually use the SLS. When will SLS fly? NASA says it may fly in 2017.

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Originally posted by erikvv View Post
    OP, it seems you do not agree with any of your poll options, correct?
    I think that NASA aught to utilize commercial suppliers of launch and space vehicles where ever possible, encouraging their development.

    Though inevitably there will be a piece of hardware with a purely scientific or mission specific purpose. The usually means payload.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Originally posted by Commodore View Post
    Sounds like a social experiment too volatile to keep in a pressurized habitat.

    In the mean time, the ISS continues to show it's age...
    ISS suffers external coolant loop issue – contingency spacewalks planned

    But lets keep it up there until 2028. What could possibly go wrong.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
    but but but its an international effort!! for the children!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • erikvv
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    OP, it seems you do not agree with any of your poll options, correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Sounds like a social experiment too volatile to keep in a pressurized habitat.

    In the mean time, the ISS continues to show it's age...
    ISS suffers external coolant loop issue – contingency spacewalks planned

    December 11, 2013 by Pete Harding --The International Space Station (ISS) is currently experiencing an issue with one of its two external ammonia coolant loops, with one loop operating much too cold due to the apparent failure of an ammonia temperature control valve. The issue, if not resolved via other means, could result in several spacewalks being required in the immediate future.
    Valve issue:

    The coolant issue relates to a component known as a Flow Control Valve (FCV), which regulates the temperature of ammonia coolant in the ISS’ external cooling loops by mixing cool ammonia exiting the radiators with warm ammonia that has bypassed the radiators. Early indications are that the FCV in the loop A coolant system is not closing properly, which is likely to be causing too much cool ammonia to enter into the cooling loop, which in turn has caused the loop A system to operate at a temperature which is much too low for normal operation.
    ...
    Future options:
    Ultimately, if the FCV issue cannot be resolved, then it will have to be replaced. However, since the FCV resides inside the PCVP, and since the PCVP resides inside the PM, this will mean that the entire loop A PM will need to be Removed & Replaced (R&Rd) via an Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA).The loop A PM was only R&Rd fairly recently in space station terms, after the previous unit failed in August 2010.

    That R&R turned out to be a mammoth three EVA task by spacewalkers Doug Wheelock and Tracy Caldwell-Dyson, due to some very troublesome ammonia Quick Disconnect (QD) lines. Thus, the PM currently experiencing issues has been in service for just over three years, after being launched to the ISS on STS-121 in 2006. The procedure to R&R a PM involves disconnecting four fluid QDs as well as electrical connectors, then driving four bolts to uncouple the old unit from its home, which in the case of the loop A PM is inside the Starboard 1 (S1) Truss.


    The reverse procedure then needs to be completed to install a spare unit, with the failed unit then being stowed outside the ISS.Thanks to NASA’s strategy to pre-position spares outside the ISS for the post-Shuttle era, there are currently three spare PMs outside the ISS – one located on External Stowage Platform-3 (ESP-3) on the Starboard side of the ISS, which was launched on STS-127 in July 2009.
    Another PM is located on ExPrESS Logistics Carrier-1 (ELC-1) on the Port side of the ISS, and was launched on STS-129 in November 2009, and the third spare PM is located on ELC-2 on the Starboard side of the ISS, and was again launched on STS-129. It is likely that the spare PM on ESP-3 would be utilised, as it is the oldest unit and is close to the location of the loop A PM on the S1 Truss.


    Should EVAs be required – as is now expected – the EVA crew would likely consist of NASA astronaut Mike Hopkins, who arrived at the ISS in September, and NASA astronaut Rick Mastracchio, who arrived at the ISS in November. Additionally, Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata would also be able to perform an EVA if required.


    But lets keep it up there until 2028. What could possibly go wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Originally posted by Commodore View Post
    In order to sell the benefit of exploiting the resources of Space to companies, those resources have to produce a product that can be sold on Earth.
    YOu can own the whole planet is pretty tempting. Think of all those people that would rather they were nobility etc. They could set mars up in fine style total recall style.
    Or you could pitch all those heavy metals in the asteroid belt. Personally I'd go with "get there and own your own little fiefdom".

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    In order to sell the benefit of exploiting the resources of Space to companies, those resources have to produce a product that can be sold on Earth.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Certainly companies need to see a profit for us to get into space. Pitch them mars. You can get there and build a functioning colony? It's yours. Boom spaceward ho!

    Leave a comment:


  • tsquare
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    We need to rework the tax code to include something like this:

    Publication 535 (2012), Business Expenses

    Then investment would flow...

    'If you want more of something subsidize it.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    There is plenty we can do even without a NTR, which probably requires less work than one would expect. If we pour our efforts into the Moon, it will hit its stride with plenty of time to hit other goals. If fact, lunar operations will provide the other pieces of the puzzle.

    In the mean time, the politicians are getting theirs...

    House Committee Approves Bill To Shield Big NASA Programs from Cancellation

    WASHINGTON — The House Science Committee on Dec. 11 approved a bill that would require NASA to obtain legislative permission to cancel some of its most expensive human spaceflight and science programs, while at the same time allowing contractors for these programs to tap into hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve funding.
    The bill, H.R. 3625, was introduced Dec. 2 by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), whose district includes the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. It had 15 co-sponsors, including five Democrats, as of Dec. 11. The proposal was approved by a voice vote and now heads to the House floor.
    The bill’s provisions apply to the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the international space station, and the James Webb Space Telescope.
    Should the bill become law, NASA would lose the ability to unilaterally terminate these programs — something federal agencies are typically allowed to do. It would also give these programs leeway to tap into the so-called termination liability funds that contractors set aside to cover any expenses that arise if the government cancels their programs. For the missions covered under H.R. 3625, these set-asides total hundreds of millions of dollars, which could be used for development if the bill passes.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Here's how I would do it: Take MOST of nasa's budget (leave the whole tracking possible world killers section fully funded. in fact, give them more money) and most of those scientists and engineers and have them come up with fusion. Patent it and sell it to private corps and govs. use the revenue and goodwill generated by that, and the existing budget, and start work on a craft, propulsion system, and life support system built around the new power system. Sell that as well. THEN start whipping up the manifest destiny frenzy and just ride the wave where it takes you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    I like your set of goals alot. Problem: You are missing a few.
    1st: Attain fusion power at a stable level.
    2nd: build a craft robust enough to GET you to jupiter while creating an engine that will get you there, AND cryostasis unless the engine you make is some form of FTL (which for the record I would be MORE than ok with. I would have a video of that thing in action instead of viagra when I got old)
    3rd: Build a space program of WORKERS not doctorates. Yes you're going to NEED some doctorates, but you're going to need cheap muscle that isn't irreplaceable because space is fucking dangerous and the belts/moons you wanna visit are more so. There is going to be a REALLY HIGH mortality rate.
    You can do 2 and 3 together, but number 1 is first. ANything other than servicing satellites in LEO etc is pretty much a waste of money until you get number 1 2 and 3 all together.
    My aim was more about destination goals, but you are absolutely right, those are among the technology milestones we need to hit our destination targets. A Mars mission is pretty much the outer threshold of what can be reasonable done with existing chemical propulsion, and we pay a big price for it. In fact nuclear power for the vessel itself is very useful in other areas such as agriculture and active electromagnetic shielding. But for anything further than Mars its an absolute necessity. It maybe harder politically than it is technically. Thats why regular operation in cis-lunar space is essential. Doing final assembly and lighting of a NTR at a Lunar L2 station 37,000 miles on the other side of the moon would be a lot easier to sell.

    Its also true that we have never really built a true "spaceship", as defined as a craft designed to travel through space. The closest we have is the ISS, but that was not designed in a way to endure the flexing that would be required to propel it at high speeds or interact with alien atmospheres in a way that would allow us to aerobrake into a stable orbit without burning large amounts of fuel. We also haven't designed a spacecraft to self sufficiently support a human biosphere for extended period of time, or protect it from the hostile radiation environment of interplanetary space. There is also the question of reusing the habitats on the surface, if you've read Kim Stanley Robinson's fantastic Red Mars (the other two are just as good, but more focused on astropolitics), thats kind of what I am picturing, particularly in the latter half of the century in the outer solar system, where even with fast rockets, journeys are apt to last multiple years and missions are likely to be "open ended", meaning the crew probably will not be planning to return to Earth. The initial transit craft will be large, and will be disassembled in orbit, landed, and reassembled on the surface. Follow-up craft are likely to be smaller and faster, because they can resupply upon arrival.

    There does need to be a decidedly "blue-collar" approach. While much of the machinery used to construct things will certainly be teleoperated, someone is still going to need to maintain those machines. And any colonization effort that doesn't involve families is going to meet a dead end. That automatically opens up a host of domestic labor duties.

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    YOu ever read john ringos "live free or die"? Its about humans getting into space by bootstrapping from outdated alien tech that they trade to us for Maple syrup which is like cocaine for them. (maple syrup was chosen becuase it only grows in a small area, there is a logistically limited amount, it is run by a VERY insular community with a hatred for gov regulation, and its PLANTS which you can't drop rocks on the area surrounding to get people to do your bidding.) You'll like it or I'll eat my hat.
    I will add it to the list.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: NASA's &quot;Solomon's Choice&quot;

    I like your set of goals alot. Problem: You are missing a few.
    1st: Attain fusion power at a stable level.
    2nd: build a craft robust enough to GET you to jupiter while creating an engine that will get you there, AND cryostasis unless the engine you make is some form of FTL (which for the record I would be MORE than ok with. I would have a video of that thing in action instead of viagra when I got old)
    3rd: Build a space program of WORKERS not doctorates. Yes you're going to NEED some doctorates, but you're going to need cheap muscle that isn't irreplaceable because space is fucking dangerous and the belts/moons you wanna visit are more so. There is going to be a REALLY HIGH mortality rate.
    You can do 2 and 3 together, but number 1 is first. ANything other than servicing satellites in LEO etc is pretty much a waste of money until you get number 1 2 and 3 all together.

    YOu ever read john ringos "live free or die"? Its about humans getting into space by bootstrapping from outdated alien tech that they trade to us for Maple syrup which is like cocaine for them. (maple syrup was chosen becuase it only grows in a small area, there is a logistically limited amount, it is run by a VERY insular community with a hatred for gov regulation, and its PLANTS which you can't drop rocks on the area surrounding to get people to do your bidding.) You'll like it or I'll eat my hat.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X