Asked to by Sen. Boozeman to justify HLV (essentially), Elliott Pulham of the Space Foundation overs quite an odd reply, in my view. The only thing he mentions is that Ariane V will launch JWST. So what? Ariane V is not what anybody would call an HLV.
I'd be interested in anybody else's guesses as to what was going on.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/19/2011 04:35 amListening to the replay.00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.And you seem determined to forget that the purpose of AMS is to identify the existence of and attempt to characterize the UNKNOWN phenomena of Dark Matter and dark Energy; things that have only been largely theorized about to date. Until it is in fact observed and its behavior understood, no one--certainly not you--can predict what it may or may not be able to be "harnessed" to do, if anything. Therefore, as Dr. Ting told a group of Senators six years ago when discussing AMS--a discussion which, by the way led directly to the efforts by Senator Hutchison to ensure AMS would be flown by including language in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill to mandate that mission--efforts without which it would NOT have been manifested and would NOT be on orbit today--the question of what it may discover, and what those discoveries will reveal about what its implications or potential uses may be, can not be predicted at his point. So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.
Listening to the replay.00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/20/2011 06:39 amI'd be interested in anybody else's guesses as to what was going on.Is 'Heavy Lift' going to suddenly be redefined as 25t+ IMLEO? In that case, America already has one and could easily have three (Delta-IVH, Atlas-VH and Falcon Heavy). I wonder if there have been some crossed wires and they were thinking of the Ariane-5-ECB.
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1346292619 May 2011 Last updated at 21:27 GMTNew method 'confirms dark energy'By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News19 May 2011"First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy."And "While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos."Many things seen and unseen to think about...Cheers!
Quote from: Proponent on 05/19/2011 06:13 amI believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf. If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons. That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.Quote from: 51D Mascot on 05/19/2011 04:57 amSo I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is. Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so. I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth." My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject. I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.EDIT: Grammar.She's a politician! Postulating nebulous connections in order to justify spending huge gobs of money is what they do.Even when they believe a thing is justified in and of itself, they still have to spin it to counter arguments from those who don't subscribe to the same world view.Besides, no Research is truly 'pure'. I doubt Rutherford was thinking of nuclear reactors and solar panels.
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf. If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons. That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.Quote from: 51D Mascot on 05/19/2011 04:57 amSo I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is. Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so. I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth." My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject. I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.EDIT: Grammar.
So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/20/2011 01:57 pmSee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1346292619 May 2011 Last updated at 21:27 GMTNew method 'confirms dark energy'By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News19 May 2011"First results from a major astronomical survey using a cutting-edge technique appear to have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy."And "While dark energy makes up about 74% of the Universe, dark matter - which does not reflect or emit detectable light - accounts for 22%. Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up just 4% of the cosmos."Many things seen and unseen to think about...Cheers! An interesting article that has nothing to do with AMS, ISS, HSF or this thread.
new source of energy
Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/21/2011 07:50 amnew source of energyNot a source: a storage mechanism.
Quote from: madscientist197 on 05/21/2011 08:54 amQuote from: HappyMartian on 05/21/2011 07:50 amnew source of energyNot a source: a storage mechanism.Sorry, no. Quite possibly a source.
Not everyone may agree with that idea, but HSF supporters should at least be doing some thinking about the possibilities.
Usually the the definition is IMLEO:Small < 2mTMedium 2mT to 10mTMid-heavy 10mT to 20mt (some define as 25mT)Heavy 20mT (see above) to 50mTSuper-heavy >50mT
congress critter is a socially excepted term
Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/21/2011 07:50 amNot everyone may agree with that idea, but HSF supporters should at least be doing some thinking about the possibilities.AMS is not a justification for HSF or ISS research. AMS and HSF are totally independent. There is no interaction between AMS and the ISS crew. The ISS was just a convenient place to put ISS. AMS would be better served as a freeflyer.
Who was willing to spend the extra money for a "freeflyer" mission?
1. Who was willing to spend the extra money for a "freeflyer" mission? 2.Who pays for any repair mission to fix a loose wire on such an AMS "freeflyer"?