Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 223 66.0%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 41 12.1%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 74 21.9%
  • Total voters
    338
#1,476
#1,476
Hunerwadel said:
If I knew I'd be doing it for a living. From what I've read they believe they'll be able to identify them. Later, hopefully they will be able go extract that kind of information. I know they do believe they will. I took a couple of physics courses in college. But I know just enough about it to be considered fairly ignorant.

Here's an interesting lecture on gravitational wave detectors by Lawrence Krauss a theoretical Physicist (A Universe From Nothing). It's on a pretty low technical level but I found it informative. Start at the 9:35 and you will probably learn something about GWs you didn't know. Watch until you get bored. I believe toward the end he gets a little into how we may be able to see back to near the BB. The Q&A isn't worthwhile.

Click to expand...


I was being factious to an extent.

I don't claim to know the science behind gravity waves. I do know gravity is the odd duck in the cosmic forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#1,477
#1,477
Grand Vol said:
I was being factious to an extent.

I don't claim to know the science behind gravity waves. I do know gravity is the odd duck in the cosmic forces.
Click to expand...

It is, and don't even get started on quantum gravity (which btw is the mother of string theory). I can't even fathom quantum particles.
 
#1,482
#1,482
Grand Vol said:
I'm not sure that would help the bone structure.

I get where you're going with the idea, but anything less than artificial gravity (centrifugal type would work) is still going to cause deterioration in the body.
Click to expand...
The rubber band tread mill doesn't work either. You would have to develop artificial gravity or spin what ever you are in. A G suit doesn't create weight, it creates pressure. Same as when diving, you can essentially be neutral bouyant but still be under tremendous pressure.
 
#1,485
#1,485
82_VOL_83 said:
The rubber band tread mill doesn't work either. You would have to develop artificial gravity or spin what ever you are in. A G suit doesn't create weight, it creates pressure. Same as when diving, you can essentially be neutral bouyant but still be under tremendous pressure.

The telescope looking into the past functions the same way as FTL does for traveling into the future.

I believe that we stepped past creationism with that one.
Click to expand...

You're welcome for saying it three times...
 
#1,493
#1,493
Grand Vol said:
So I've seen different sides of this on several sites. Some think it's a worthy goal, others think it's a waste of money that could be better spent on more earthly projects.

How does VN feel about the budgets for NASA as well as the goals in our space programs?

ETA: NASA budget typically runs $17-18 Billion and change.

Budget of NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



The US has had a secret space program for over 40 years, think about that for just a moment.
There are so many unacknowledged special projects going on with technology 200 -300 years in the future, unbelievable things!
 
#1,495
#1,495
Hunerwadel said:
I'm certainly no expert on electricity but in some places like China it appears to be more cost efficient to transmit the electricity long distances via high voltage DC than it is to ship the fuel (coal) across country to a power plant where the demand for electricity is highest. Ship the electricity, not the coal. I do recall reading a few articles in the last year or two where DC is on the rise in many areas of the world.

If it can be more efficient than AC why don't we use it in the US? The answer is we do. I believe there are twenty two or three HVDC facilities in the US which are used when energy needs to be transmitted over long distances. We do it in certain areas for the same reason the Chinese are doing it.
Click to expand...
No. AC for transmission is the correct method. I didn’t read the article I don’t need to. Transmission losses put finite efficiency limits on the process and AC is always going to beat DC in that process.

You can at least store DC. Other than that AC is superior from a generation, transmission, and final distribution standpoint.

Edit: ok I read the article. It was chicken **** to say that so I read it. And still stand by my assertions. Their magical solution of addressing loss? Jacking up the line voltage even higher. Well no **** Sherlock. And AC benefits from that also.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#1,496
#1,496
NorthDallas40 said:
No. AC for transmission is the correct method. I didn’t read the article I don’t need to. Transmission losses put finite efficiency limits on the process and AC is always going to beat DC in that process.

You can at least store DC. Other than that AC is superior from a generation, transmission, and final distribution standpoint.

Edit: ok I read the article. It was chicken **** to say that so I read it. And still stand by my assertions. Their magical solution of addressing loss? Jacking up the line voltage even higher. Well no **** Sherlock. And AC benefits from that also.
Click to expand...

That's your prerogative. Everyone else could be wrong.
 
#1,498
#1,498
VolStrom said:
I wasn't going to register to read the entire article, but I'm dubious to say the least. I worked around high voltage every day and we had DC and AC systems. Unless Tesla has somehow become an idiot, you just can't push as much power through a DC line as you can a similar sized AC line.
Click to expand...
These DC systems operate over very long distances and at VERY high line voltages. The niche is that. The enabler is going far over the 500kV typical line voltage for long distance transmission. And it’s expensive as you have to converter to DC and step up via some huge ass thyristor banks and convert back on the receiving end. So the “break even” distance to justify the equipment cost is very long for these cases which isn’t how the US grid works as you probably know. Ours is an all knowing all seeing grid for the most part. (Edit: I believe there are four major distribution grids in the US?)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#1,499
#1,499
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. It isn’t every body else. Do you by chance have a background in electronics or electric power generation or are you just going by what you read here.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to go back and read the first sentence of my post you replied to and disputed (see #1495). If you have an advanced degree in physics or electromagnetism I will gladly defer to you. If not we'll just both have to rely on the best information we can find on the subject. What I have been able to find, I believe, is a consensus that the overall cost of long distance transmission of electricity favors HVDC. If you disagree fine.


Readying for New HVDC Line, U.S. Lags Behind Rest of World

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#1,500
#1,500
Hunerwadel said:
I encourage you to go back and read the first sentence of my post you replied to and disputed (see #1495). If you have an advanced degree in physics or electromagnetism I will gladly defer to you. If not we'll just both have to rely on the best information we can find on the subject. What I have been able to find, I believe, is a consensus that the overall cost of long distance transmission of electricity favors HVDC. If you disagree fine.


Readying for New HVDC Line, U.S. Lags Behind Rest of World

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Huner I’m an electrical engineer. And at UT we actually had a class on power generation and transmission. And I’ve been doing EE work for 30 years. In short most of the power grids are not conducive to making HVDC affordable due to the expensive costs of the equipment mainly. Look at the post right above yours, it gets down to a “break even” distance. AC wins up to X, DC wins after that. The US is mainly broken up into I believe four major grids largely operating independently. But if you’re on a particular grid you have to phase lock to that grid frequency then you pull power or push power based on your line voltage. I would guess there is an opportunity for the grids to connect via HVDC as it eliminates the synchronization requirement and those could very well be the stations you referenced in one of your posts. 🤷‍♂️

The key enabler for making HVDC viable is transmission over very long distances which you also acknowledge I know,read that as hundreds of miles. However upon receipt it will absolutely be converted back to AC as within a small distribution region AC wins on economic reasons. And that’s the only reason that matters in power generation. So HVDC won’t ever replace our grid(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top