| NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory03-05-2022 03:32 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Photo of failed corn crop
Drought caused this Iowa corn crop to fail in 2012. As the changing climate increases the frequency of extreme events, the risk will double that corn harvests will fail in at least three of the world's five major breadbasket regions in the same year. Credit: USDA
In Brief:
To assess how climate warming will change risks such as crop failures and wildfires, it's necessary to look at how the risks are likely to interact.
Troubles never come singly, the proverb says. A new NASA study shows that the old saying will become increasingly true of climate troubles in a warmer world. The study shows that extreme weather events such as floods and heat waves will increasingly cluster closer in time and space, heightening the risks of crop failures, wildfires, and other hazards to society.
By the year 2100, increases in heat waves, drought, and excessive rainfall combined will double the risk of climate-related failures of corn harvests in at least three of the world's six major corn-growing regions in the same year, according to the study, published in Environmental Research Letters. The U.S. Midwest is at the highest risk of being the site of one of these multiple harvest failures.
Many previous studies have modeled changes in a single climate indicator, such as the number of days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) in a certain region. But the greatest impacts usually come when extremes occur simultaneously or in close sequence. For example, Western states are all too familiar with the scenario where excessive heat and drought fuel a wildfire, and then heavy rainfall creates a new hazard, landslides, in the burned area.
Get NASA's Climate Change News
enter email address
Climate scientists have been working for years to understand and represent these complex chains of interacting events numerically in climate models – a daunting task that pushes the limits of available computing power. "It's only in the last five or so years that a framework has been developed for applying compound-risk thinking to climate analysis in a way that you can actually compute without getting in hopelessly over your head," said study lead author Colin Raymond, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.
For their study, the research team used a well-known German climate model called the Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble to run 100 individual simulations of the years 1991 to 2100. The simulations of the past (1991 to 2020) showed that the model was able to represent extreme-event clusters, such as the alteration of extreme heat with extreme rainfall, consistently with the way they actually occurred during that period. The researchers analyzed simulations of the future through 2100 to examine probable future changes in climate hazards, particularly in hazards that could occur simultaneously or in close succession.
Raymond and his colleagues focused on how the increased clustering of both temperature and precipitation hazards will affect corn. This important food crop is grown worldwide, with six major regions, or breadbaskets, accounting for about two-thirds of all production. The U.S. is the world's top corn grower, harvesting some 419 million tons (380.3 million metric tonnes) in 2021.
The model simulations showed that by 2100, extreme heat waves around the world lasting at least three days will occur two to four times as often as they do now. Three-day extremes in rainfall will generally increase 10% to 50% in frequency. The researchers also analyzed how these increased events will cluster in time and in location. They then looked at how all of these changes combined could affect future corn harvests, using the relationship between climate extremes in heat and rainfall and past crop failures as a guide.
By their best estimate, the chance that a cluster of events will cause corn crops to fail in at least three of the world's breadbaskets in the same year will nearly double, from 29% to 57%, by the year 2100. While small, the chance that harvests will fail in the five largest breadbasket regions in a single year will grow even more significantly – from 0.6% to 5.4%. The U.S. Midwest is the region most likely to be included in years with three breadbasket failures, followed by Central Europe.
The study also examined how risks to wildfires and human health would increase as extremes follow one another more closely. All the results showed, Raymond said, that "things are interconnected in a way that we haven't quite appreciated up to this point. It's not just heat waves. It's not just heat and drought. It's all of those interconnections that best explain the severe impacts we care most about when we're trying to prevent major disasters."
I could not help it I had to post this nonsense.If I was nuclear capable my first shot would be at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory get them all in one go.We can not predict the weather in a week but these clowns can predict 80 years from now
duncan61 |
| 03-05-2022 14:01 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5722) |
duncan61 wrote:
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Photo of failed corn crop
Drought caused this Iowa corn crop to fail in 2012. As the changing climate increases the frequency of extreme events, the risk will double that corn harvests will fail in at least three of the world's five major breadbasket regions in the same year. Credit: USDA
In Brief:
To assess how climate warming will change risks such as crop failures and wildfires, it's necessary to look at how the risks are likely to interact.
Troubles never come singly, the proverb says. A new NASA study shows that the old saying will become increasingly true of climate troubles in a warmer world. The study shows that extreme weather events such as floods and heat waves will increasingly cluster closer in time and space, heightening the risks of crop failures, wildfires, and other hazards to society.
By the year 2100, increases in heat waves, drought, and excessive rainfall combined will double the risk of climate-related failures of corn harvests in at least three of the world's six major corn-growing regions in the same year, according to the study, published in Environmental Research Letters. The U.S. Midwest is at the highest risk of being the site of one of these multiple harvest failures.
Many previous studies have modeled changes in a single climate indicator, such as the number of days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) in a certain region. But the greatest impacts usually come when extremes occur simultaneously or in close sequence. For example, Western states are all too familiar with the scenario where excessive heat and drought fuel a wildfire, and then heavy rainfall creates a new hazard, landslides, in the burned area.
Get NASA's Climate Change News
enter email address
Climate scientists have been working for years to understand and represent these complex chains of interacting events numerically in climate models – a daunting task that pushes the limits of available computing power. "It's only in the last five or so years that a framework has been developed for applying compound-risk thinking to climate analysis in a way that you can actually compute without getting in hopelessly over your head," said study lead author Colin Raymond, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.
For their study, the research team used a well-known German climate model called the Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble to run 100 individual simulations of the years 1991 to 2100. The simulations of the past (1991 to 2020) showed that the model was able to represent extreme-event clusters, such as the alteration of extreme heat with extreme rainfall, consistently with the way they actually occurred during that period. The researchers analyzed simulations of the future through 2100 to examine probable future changes in climate hazards, particularly in hazards that could occur simultaneously or in close succession.
Raymond and his colleagues focused on how the increased clustering of both temperature and precipitation hazards will affect corn. This important food crop is grown worldwide, with six major regions, or breadbaskets, accounting for about two-thirds of all production. The U.S. is the world's top corn grower, harvesting some 419 million tons (380.3 million metric tonnes) in 2021.
The model simulations showed that by 2100, extreme heat waves around the world lasting at least three days will occur two to four times as often as they do now. Three-day extremes in rainfall will generally increase 10% to 50% in frequency. The researchers also analyzed how these increased events will cluster in time and in location. They then looked at how all of these changes combined could affect future corn harvests, using the relationship between climate extremes in heat and rainfall and past crop failures as a guide.
By their best estimate, the chance that a cluster of events will cause corn crops to fail in at least three of the world's breadbaskets in the same year will nearly double, from 29% to 57%, by the year 2100. While small, the chance that harvests will fail in the five largest breadbasket regions in a single year will grow even more significantly – from 0.6% to 5.4%. The U.S. Midwest is the region most likely to be included in years with three breadbasket failures, followed by Central Europe.
The study also examined how risks to wildfires and human health would increase as extremes follow one another more closely. All the results showed, Raymond said, that "things are interconnected in a way that we haven't quite appreciated up to this point. It's not just heat waves. It's not just heat and drought. It's all of those interconnections that best explain the severe impacts we care most about when we're trying to prevent major disasters."
I could not help it I had to post this nonsense.If I was nuclear capable my first shot would be at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory get them all in one go.We can not predict the weather in a week but these clowns can predict 80 years from now
LOL JPL designed the American rockets that were so bad that the USA had to buy rockets from Russia.
PS. Rocket and missile are the same thangy |
| 03-05-2022 15:45 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:PS. Rocket and missile are the same thangy
Nope. They are not the same thing.
A rocket implies an object that burns fuel for thrust.
A missile is a directed weapon.
Astronauts launched in a rocket, not a missile.
An arrow fired from a bow is a missile, not a rocket.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. |
| 03-05-2022 18:22 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
Throwing a rock, is a missile... Basically anything that flies, can be a missile... |
| 03-05-2022 20:40 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Photo of failed corn crop
Drought caused this Iowa corn crop to fail in 2012. As the changing climate increases the frequency of extreme events, the risk will double that corn harvests will fail in at least three of the world's five major breadbasket regions in the same year. Credit: USDA
In Brief:
To assess how climate warming will change risks such as crop failures and wildfires, it's necessary to look at how the risks are likely to interact.
Troubles never come singly, the proverb says. A new NASA study shows that the old saying will become increasingly true of climate troubles in a warmer world. The study shows that extreme weather events such as floods and heat waves will increasingly cluster closer in time and space, heightening the risks of crop failures, wildfires, and other hazards to society.
By the year 2100, increases in heat waves, drought, and excessive rainfall combined will double the risk of climate-related failures of corn harvests in at least three of the world's six major corn-growing regions in the same year, according to the study, published in Environmental Research Letters. The U.S. Midwest is at the highest risk of being the site of one of these multiple harvest failures.
Many previous studies have modeled changes in a single climate indicator, such as the number of days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) in a certain region. But the greatest impacts usually come when extremes occur simultaneously or in close sequence. For example, Western states are all too familiar with the scenario where excessive heat and drought fuel a wildfire, and then heavy rainfall creates a new hazard, landslides, in the burned area.
Get NASA's Climate Change News
enter email address
Climate scientists have been working for years to understand and represent these complex chains of interacting events numerically in climate models – a daunting task that pushes the limits of available computing power. "It's only in the last five or so years that a framework has been developed for applying compound-risk thinking to climate analysis in a way that you can actually compute without getting in hopelessly over your head," said study lead author Colin Raymond, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.
For their study, the research team used a well-known German climate model called the Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble to run 100 individual simulations of the years 1991 to 2100. The simulations of the past (1991 to 2020) showed that the model was able to represent extreme-event clusters, such as the alteration of extreme heat with extreme rainfall, consistently with the way they actually occurred during that period. The researchers analyzed simulations of the future through 2100 to examine probable future changes in climate hazards, particularly in hazards that could occur simultaneously or in close succession.
Raymond and his colleagues focused on how the increased clustering of both temperature and precipitation hazards will affect corn. This important food crop is grown worldwide, with six major regions, or breadbaskets, accounting for about two-thirds of all production. The U.S. is the world's top corn grower, harvesting some 419 million tons (380.3 million metric tonnes) in 2021.
The model simulations showed that by 2100, extreme heat waves around the world lasting at least three days will occur two to four times as often as they do now. Three-day extremes in rainfall will generally increase 10% to 50% in frequency. The researchers also analyzed how these increased events will cluster in time and in location. They then looked at how all of these changes combined could affect future corn harvests, using the relationship between climate extremes in heat and rainfall and past crop failures as a guide.
By their best estimate, the chance that a cluster of events will cause corn crops to fail in at least three of the world's breadbaskets in the same year will nearly double, from 29% to 57%, by the year 2100. While small, the chance that harvests will fail in the five largest breadbasket regions in a single year will grow even more significantly – from 0.6% to 5.4%. The U.S. Midwest is the region most likely to be included in years with three breadbasket failures, followed by Central Europe.
The study also examined how risks to wildfires and human health would increase as extremes follow one another more closely. All the results showed, Raymond said, that "things are interconnected in a way that we haven't quite appreciated up to this point. It's not just heat waves. It's not just heat and drought. It's all of those interconnections that best explain the severe impacts we care most about when we're trying to prevent major disasters."
I could not help it I had to post this nonsense.If I was nuclear capable my first shot would be at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory get them all in one go.We can not predict the weather in a week but these clowns can predict 80 years from now
LOL JPL designed the American rockets that were so bad that the USA had to buy rockets from Russia.
PS. Rocket and missile are the same thangy
Nope. A rocket is a missile, but a missile is not necessarily a rocket.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 03-05-2022 20:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Throwing a rock, is a missile... Basically anything that flies, can be a missile...
Heh. Ever shoot a bird at someone?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-05-2022 20:44 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Throwing a rock, is a missile...
The rock becomes a missile when it is thrown/directed at a target for collision. A rock that is thrown just to skip on a lake is not a missile.
HarveyH55 wrote: Basically anything that flies, can be a missile...
A passenger jet is not a missile; it is not directed at a target. On 9/11, terrorists turned passenger jets into missiles when they directed them to collide with buildings.
The Apollo 11 rocket burned fuel for thrust to get Neil Armstrong off the ground, but it had no target against which it was targetted to collide. It just dropped off in stages. It certainly flew but it was not a missile.
Missiles have targets. Rockets simply burn fuel for thrust.
When a fighter pilot kicks in afterburners, the jet is converted to a rocket. If the pilot becomes a kamikaze and crashes into a ship, the jet becomes a missile. |
| 04-05-2022 00:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Throwing a rock, is a missile...
The rock becomes a missile when it is thrown/directed at a target for collision. A rock that is thrown just to skip on a lake is not a missile.
HarveyH55 wrote: Basically anything that flies, can be a missile...
A passenger jet is not a missile; it is not directed at a target. On 9/11, terrorists turned passenger jets into missiles when they directed them to collide with buildings.
The Apollo 11 rocket burned fuel for thrust to get Neil Armstrong off the ground, but it had no target against which it was targetted to collide. It just dropped off in stages. It certainly flew but it was not a missile.
Missiles have targets. Rockets simply burn fuel for thrust.
When a fighter pilot kicks in afterburners, the jet is converted to a rocket. If the pilot becomes a kamikaze and crashes into a ship, the jet becomes a missile.
Quite right. The word 'missile' comes from the French 'missilis' and refers to anything thrown or otherwise directed at a target. The word first appeared in the English lexicon around 1610.
Rocks, darts, arrows, rockets sent against a target, spears (the throwing type), throwing stars, slingshot pellets, bullets, shotgun pellets, cannonballs, shot hurled by catapults and trebuchets, and similar objects directed against a target is a missile. A car can be a missile as well, even if it never leaves the ground, if directed at a target (one guy built a trebuchet that hurls old cars).
Rockets used for travel to the space station, the Moon, the planets, etc. and aircraft are not missiles (unless directed against a target, such as during the WTC attacks.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-05-2022 00:41 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:PS. Rocket and missile are the same thangy
Nope. They are not the same thing.
A rocket implies an object that burns fuel for thrust.
A missile is a directed weapon.
Astronauts launched in a rocket, not a missile.
An arrow fired from a bow is a missile, not a rocket.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead versus another payload.
Try again simpleton |
| 04-05-2022 01:39 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead
Nope. A missile does not need to be a rocket. It can be a stone, an arrow, ... anything directed at a target |
| RE: No science. Word game fallacy.04-05-2022 02:02 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
No science. Word game fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead
Nope. A missile does not need to be a rocket. It can be a stone, an arrow, ... anything directed at a target |
| 04-05-2022 02:46 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead
Nope. A missile does not need to be a rocket. It can be a stone, an arrow, ... anything directed at a target
But NASA did not launch stones into space, they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Clearly your mother did not drop you often enough |
| 04-05-2022 03:39 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. |
| 04-05-2022 09:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead
Nope. A missile does not need to be a rocket. It can be a stone, an arrow, ... anything directed at a target
sealover wrote:
No science. Word game fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy. The meaning of 'missile' was defined in English back in 1610. It's meaning is specific and I have already given it.
It is YOU and Swan that are arguing trying to change the meaning of the word. It is YOU playing word games.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-05-2022 13:20 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
Edited on 04-05-2022 14:01 |
|
| 04-05-2022 15:14 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually a missile is a rocket with an exploding warhead
Nope. A missile does not need to be a rocket. It can be a stone, an arrow, ... anything directed at a target
sealover wrote:
No science. Word game fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy. The meaning of 'missile' was defined in English back in 1610. It's meaning is specific and I have already given it.
It is YOU and Swan that are arguing trying to change the meaning of the word. It is YOU playing word games.
This thread is not about missiles but about the Russian rockets that the NASA communist used to power the American space program. The Russian rockets also power Russian missiles, so no matter how much you try you can not change the truth.
Now piss off commie
He he he |
| 04-05-2022 18:23 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:This thread is not about missiles but about the Russian rockets that the NASA communist used to power the American space program.
Did Russia file for missing rockets? Was there an investigation into NASA that I missed?
Now that you mention it, that would explain why those supposedly geostationary satellites spontaneously went HEO. Perhaps NASA stole more Russian equipment than anyone really knows.
Swan wrote: The Russian rockets also power Russian missiles, so no matter how much you try you can not change the truth.
The truth? You can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to! |
| 04-05-2022 19:42 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-05-2022 21:21 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:This thread is not about missiles but about the Russian rockets that the NASA communist used to power the American space program.
Did Russia file for missing rockets? Was there an investigation into NASA that I missed?
Now that you mention it, that would explain why those supposedly geostationary satellites spontaneously went HEO. Perhaps NASA stole more Russian equipment than anyone really knows.
Swan wrote: The Russian rockets also power Russian missiles, so no matter how much you try you can not change the truth.
The truth? You can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Obama purchased the Russian rockets from Russia.
Silly girl |
| 04-05-2022 21:25 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before. |
| 04-05-2022 23:24 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Obama purchased the Russian rockets from Russia.
Neither the US nor Russia ever had much confidence in Russian rockets. Any one of them could be a dud due to age and/or lack of maintenance and/or lack of any real testing. This is why we make jokes about Russian rockets and why Russia created so many ICBMs, i.e. to compensate for the large number they expected to fizzle on launch.
So the question is: "Why would the US government suddenly buy Russian rockets?" |
| 04-05-2022 23:38 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Obama purchased the Russian rockets from Russia.
Neither the US nor Russia ever had much confidence in Russian rockets. Any one of them could be a dud due to age and/or lack of maintenance and/or lack of any real testing. This is why we make jokes about Russian rockets and why Russia created so many ICBMs, i.e. to compensate for the large number they expected to fizzle on launch.
So the question is: "Why would the US government suddenly buy Russian rockets?"
Ever tried to do a web search on your own or do you depend on me for everything?
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
Sixteen years ago, amid a post-Cold War glow, U.S. defense contractors began using a cheap and efficient Russian engine to launch American military rockets into space.
Nonetheless, some lawmakers have been trying to force the Pentagon to stop relying on the Russian rocket engines, and they are trying to pass a provision to do that in a defense spending bill being debated this week on the Senate floor. Other lawmakers are vehemently opposing that effort.
There are substantive arguments on both sides. But, as with much of what happens in Congress these days, what's unfolding is very much a parochial brawl, pitting lawmakers with ties to the companies that use the Russian engines against lawmakers with ties to the company that would benefit from a ban on them. It's all happening against a backdrop of fund raisers, political contributions and lobbying.
Sen. John McCain has been leading the charge to stop using the Russian rocket engines, arguing that by buying them, the U.S. is providing a benefit to Putin and his allies.
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+did+the+usa+buy+russian+rockets&newwindow=1&hl=en&sxsrf=ALiCzsZpVMYpO9aq-X_GMEU2puPpy6R_Rw%3A1651696644764&source=hp&ei=BORyYvjpKrCfptQP8duB8Ac&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYnLyFEuatd3KJbiC9TcwTGxIGKJg8_ik&ved=0ahUKEwj4-6K-2cb3AhWwj4kEHfFtAH4Q4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=why+did+the+usa+buy+russian+rockets&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwghEAoQoAEyBwghEAoQoAEyCgghEBYQChAdEB4yCgghEBYQChAdEB5QAFgAYN4NaABwAHgAgAF5iAF5kgEDMC4xmAEAoAECoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz
Or link to the above 198,000,000 links that answer your dopey question |
| 05-05-2022 00:09 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Ever tried to do a web search on your own or do you depend on me for everything?
You know that I totally depend on you for everything. I don't know what I'd do if you weren't posting here on Climate-Debate ... man, I'd be F'ed.
Can I send you over a pizza? Notice, I didn't ask if I could bend you over a pizza, I said send you over a pizza.
Swan wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
Good stuff ... a 2016 NBC article so you know it's true and up-to-date ... and you know I'm not going to find any glaring problems with the article so thanks for posting this.
Swan wrote: ... U.S. defense contractors began using a cheap and efficient Russian engine to launch American military rockets into space.
Is this the problem that you see?, i.e. that the engines are cheap and efficient? |
| 05-05-2022 01:34 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Ever tried to do a web search on your own or do you depend on me for everything?
You know that I totally depend on you for everything. I don't know what I'd do if you weren't posting here on Climate-Debate ... man, I'd be F'ed.
Can I send you over a pizza? Notice, I didn't ask if I could bend you over a pizza, I said send you over a pizza.
Swan wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
Good stuff ... a 2016 NBC article so you know it's true and up-to-date ... and you know I'm not going to find any glaring problems with the article so thanks for posting this.
Swan wrote: ... U.S. defense contractors began using a cheap and efficient Russian engine to launch American military rockets into space.
Is this the problem that you see?, i.e. that the engines are cheap and efficient?
The article was from 2016 because it happened under Obama, what part do you not understand? I also included 198,000,000 other links that all detail the same thing, we could do this for 50 years and I would never be wrong. Yo take the chlorpromazine that you have never denied being prescribed |
| 05-05-2022 04:37 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:The article was from 2016 because it happened under Obama,
... and it was written by NBC because it an entirely accurate big picture. I would never accuse you of being gullible and following whatever the mainstream media orders you to believe. I would absolutely never do that.
Swan wrote:what part do you not understand?
How it is that you believe that what the US purchased is what is powering Russian ICBMs. But then again, you know that I would never accuse you of gullibly conflating entirely different rockets.
Swan wrote: I also included 198,000,000 other links
... and every single one of them is totally relevant. I scrutinized every single one of them, just as you did, and all of them are spot on. You rock.
... and absolutely none of them are the propagated narrative of conflated rocket engines that the mainstream media want you to believe. Of course not.
Thank you for the dead-on dope. I'd be totally hosed without you.
. |
| 05-05-2022 08:02 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Did you know that Obama caused the war in Ukraine? After killing the space shuttle program, and next generation. Obama made a deal with Russia, for taxi service to and from the space station. Which, was sort of a strange arrangement, considering the sanctions. Don't remember the exactly deal, but it's a few million a trip. Could be a one way ticket, per astronaut, are a package deal. Obama wasn't even concern about Crimea, sort of a gift. Still can't believe that even if a fraction of the liberal media reporting on Ukraine were true, why is no one stepping in to help? Wrong is still wrong. Ukrainians are human beings They also made clear, that Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia to war... Personally, I think Ukraine is a gift to Russia, since they only exist on welfare checks from other countries. Most people on welfare, eventual get comfortable with it, ungrateful, and always wanting more.
Joe already used the Russia taxi service once, even though there is Space-X. To be fair, the Americans were already up there. Maybe they already paid for the return trip. Should be interesting, if Joe continues to book flights though. Russian technology outdated, faulty, prone to failure, is propaganda. No way we are putting Americans on a Russian coffin-rocket. Unlikely Russia would take the risk either. It's one thing to blow up Russian astronauts, but not cool to do paying customers. |
| 05-05-2022 11:24 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
The thread was created to show what bollocks NASA is spruking.If its gone political I can cope I will just cry for a little bit |
| 05-05-2022 15:48 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The article was from 2016 because it happened under Obama,
... and it was written by NBC because it an entirely accurate big picture. I would never accuse you of being gullible and following whatever the mainstream media orders you to believe. I would absolutely never do that.
Swan wrote:what part do you not understand?
How it is that you believe that what the US purchased is what is powering Russian ICBMs. But then again, you know that I would never accuse you of gullibly conflating entirely different rockets.
Swan wrote: I also included 198,000,000 other links
... and every single one of them is totally relevant. I scrutinized every single one of them, just as you did, and all of them are spot on. You rock.
... and absolutely none of them are the propagated narrative of conflated rocket engines that the mainstream media want you to believe. Of course not.
Thank you for the dead-on dope. I'd be totally hosed without you.
.
LOL the fact is that you know I am correct that the NASA was using Russian rockets but that as a government mule you need to push the communist party line. You mock yourself with every word you babble, now go have your dogmeat stew
Do American rockets use Russian engines?
United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed launch company, uses Russian-made RD-180 engines on its Atlas V rocket.
Silly girl |
| 05-05-2022 17:38 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
Have you heard of the International space station Swan |
| 05-05-2022 19:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before.
Built by Boeing (the engines are built by Aerojet Rocketdyne). You really gotta stop believing the New York Times is a newspaper.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 05-05-2022 19:09 |
|
| 05-05-2022 21:32 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
duncan61 wrote:
Have you heard of the International space station Swan
Sure but at one point the USA had no rocket system even capable of reaching the space station as a result of complete NASA incompetence. |
| 05-05-2022 21:36 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before.
Built by Boeing (the engines are built by Aerojet Rocketdyne). You really gotta stop believing the New York Times is a newspaper.
What does the government pay you to embarrass yourself daily? or do you like being my toy
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-halts-deliveries-rocket-engines-us-2022-03-03/
MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on Thursday.
"In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," Rogozin said on state Russian television.
Reuters. Seriously if you got out of your cubicle more often and kissed a woman that was not your mother you would be better off |
| 05-05-2022 22:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before.
Built by Boeing (the engines are built by Aerojet Rocketdyne). You really gotta stop believing the New York Times is a newspaper.
What does the government pay you to embarrass yourself daily? or do you like being my toy
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-halts-deliveries-rocket-engines-us-2022-03-03/
Reuters isn't a news organization either.
Swan wrote:
MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on Thursday.
"In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," Rogozin said on state Russian television.
Reuters. Seriously if you got out of your cubicle more often and kissed a woman that was not your mother you would be better off
None of them are used on that project. Big hairy deal.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 05-05-2022 22:57 |
| 06-05-2022 00:27 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before.
Built by Boeing (the engines are built by Aerojet Rocketdyne). You really gotta stop believing the New York Times is a newspaper.
What does the government pay you to embarrass yourself daily? or do you like being my toy
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-halts-deliveries-rocket-engines-us-2022-03-03/
Reuters isn't a news organization either.
Swan wrote:
MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on Thursday.
"In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," Rogozin said on state Russian television.
Reuters. Seriously if you got out of your cubicle more often and kissed a woman that was not your mother you would be better off
None of them are used on that project. Big hairy deal.
LOL you are arguing with yourself at this point kid as I clearly have nothing to prove to you. That said you go right on ahead and continue frustrating yourself and denying reality.
CIAO
PS. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/05/space-force-only-6-more-launches-russian-rocket-engines/174336/
Space Force: Only 6 More Launches With Russian Rocket Engines
It's the end of an era for U.S. launches with Russian-made engines.
Patrick Tucker
BY PATRICK TUCKER
The U.S. Space Force is ahead of schedule in phasing out a controversial Russian-manufactured rocket engine for approved launches, the service's second in command said on Wednesday.
Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice chief of space operations, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that while the U.S. military has congressional authorization to use the Russian-manufactured RD-180 rocket engine for up to 18 more launches, current plans are to use them only for six more launches. |
| 06-05-2022 01:09 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
Swan wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Have you heard of the International space station Swan
Sure but at one point the USA had no rocket system even capable of reaching the space station as a result of complete NASA incompetence.
The U.S. Space Shuttle, which first flew in April 1981, has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo back and forth to ISS, but the shuttle system has encountered difficulties since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Russian Soyuz spacecraft are also used to take crews to and from ISS, and Russian Progress spacecraft deliver cargo, but cannot return anything to Earth, since they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth's atmosphere. A Soyuz is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in case of an emergency.
duncan61 |
| 06-05-2022 01:37 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
duncan61 wrote:
Swan wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Have you heard of the International space station Swan
Sure but at one point the USA had no rocket system even capable of reaching the space station as a result of complete NASA incompetence.
The U.S. Space Shuttle, which first flew in April 1981, has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo back and forth to ISS, but the shuttle system has encountered difficulties since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Russian Soyuz spacecraft are also used to take crews to and from ISS, and Russian Progress spacecraft deliver cargo, but cannot return anything to Earth, since they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth's atmosphere. A Soyuz is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in case of an emergency.
What point are you trying to make?
That you can copy and paste from wiki?
Amazing, for a 3 year old that is |
| 06-05-2022 10:06 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
The point I make is the shuttle transported stuff to and from the ISS.You are claiming USA did not do it |
| 06-05-2022 14:44 |
Swan★★★★★
(5722) |
duncan61 wrote:
The point I make is the shuttle transported stuff to and from the ISS.You are claiming USA did not do it
The last shuttle launch was in 2011, after that NASA began using Russian rocket engines in their lift vehicles. Why? because the American engines were garbage death traps. So kid the one in denial is you not I
CIAO
Edited on 06-05-2022 15:24 |
| 06-05-2022 17:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:But NASA did not launch stones into space,
Correct. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Swan wrote: they used Russian rockets to launch astronuts
Very good, you're catching on. They launched rockets, not missiles.
Now, those ICBMs they have, those are missiles. They are directed at targets.
Just go slowly. Baby steps. We'll walk you through this.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Still you can not get the facts straight, NASA was so ****ed up after they blew up two shuttles that they gave up on designing rockets and switched to using Russian rockets that are used to make Russian missiles as a source of power. This makes NASA a communist affiliated group that should be eliminated
NASA never designed or built any rocket. Private companies did, on contract with NASA.
NASA just flew 'em.
Wrong again
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/science/nasa-space-launch-system.html
Eleven years in the making, the most powerful NASA-built rocket since the Apollo program at last stands upright. Framed by the industrial test platform to which it is mounted, the Space Launch System's core section is a gleaming, apricot-colored column cast into relief by twisting pipes and steel latticework. The rocket is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal and all, and is the cornerstone of NASA's astronaut ambitions. The launch vehicle is central to the agency's Artemis program to return humans to the lunar surface, and later, land them on Mars.
On Thursday, NASA set out for a second time to prove that the Space Launch System is ready to take flight, conducting a continuous "hot fire" of its engines for more than eight minutes. The test appears to have gone well, following an earlier test in January that cut off after about 67 seconds because of errors and equipment problems.
The rocket's next stop will be Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and as early as November, the launchpad. It is expected to lift a capsule called Orion on a path around the moon and back. Its first crewed mission is planned for 2023. That flight will be the first to lift astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since 1972. Indeed, it will send astronauts farther into space than any human has gone before.
Built by Boeing (the engines are built by Aerojet Rocketdyne). You really gotta stop believing the New York Times is a newspaper.
What does the government pay you to embarrass yourself daily? or do you like being my toy
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-halts-deliveries-rocket-engines-us-2022-03-03/
Reuters isn't a news organization either.
Swan wrote:
MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on Thursday.
"In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," Rogozin said on state Russian television.
Reuters. Seriously if you got out of your cubicle more often and kissed a woman that was not your mother you would be better off
None of them are used on that project. Big hairy deal.
LOL you are arguing with yourself at this point kid as I clearly have nothing to prove to you. That said you go right on ahead and continue frustrating yourself and denying reality.
CIAO
PS. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/05/space-force-only-6-more-launches-russian-rocket-engines/174336/
Space Force: Only 6 More Launches With Russian Rocket Engines
It's the end of an era for U.S. launches with Russian-made engines.
Patrick Tucker
BY PATRICK TUCKER
The U.S. Space Force is ahead of schedule in phasing out a controversial Russian-manufactured rocket engine for approved launches, the service's second in command said on Wednesday.
Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice chief of space operations, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that while the U.S. military has congressional authorization to use the Russian-manufactured RD-180 rocket engine for up to 18 more launches, current plans are to use them only for six more launches.
No, you are pivoting.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2022 17:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The point I make is the shuttle transported stuff to and from the ISS.You are claiming USA did not do it
The last shuttle launch was in 2011, after that NASA began using Russian rocket engines in their lift vehicles. Why? because the American engines were garbage death traps. So kid the one in denial is you not I
CIAO
No, they are not garbage death traps.
The shuttle was an aging system and was due to be retired. It had nothing to do with it's engines.
You are now denying your own argument. You mentioned a space program using engines made right here in the States, and new craft made right here in the States; now you deny you even mentioned it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |