THIS, so much. I’m pretty sure most of the hate it got was for not sticking to the formula of the previous films, which was already getting stale with T3.

What? Bale was not the problem from my perspective, among other things, it was having children in the movie playing the role of little soldiers. That said, yes:

Space Bound And Out
Loaded Up With Cargo
We Gonna Fly That Dang Ol Kessel Run

*Sigh* I miss Sarah Connor Chronicles. (It spent a decent amount of time in the apocalyptic future, and did a pretty good job with it)

The problem with hydrogen is that nearly all of it on Earth is bound up with something else. There are no abundant deposits of just hydrogen. To get it you have to split up molecules containing hydrogen such as water. This process takes more energy to run than what you get out of it.

So their goal is to turn sun into electricity into light into heat so that they can create hydrogen. Unless I’m missing something, there are far easier ways to split up a water molecule than this.

There are many reasons as to why the replacements got canned - mostly due to politics, different administrations cutting back on the previous ones’ expenses, spiralling development and never-ending changes of technical requirements (the XM2001 Crusader, for example, was a fine SPH, but the White House -and therefore…

Man, I can’t imagine what Prime will cost on the Moon.

They had all sorts of problems with the fuel tank, and they were indeed used as the justification for killing it.

However, Lockheed and Northrop continued to work on the composite fuel tank concept and managed to prove it out a few years later. Oddly, its one of the only technologies that survived the project…

Fair enough. I just don’t see the fact that 99.9% of people don’t have any interest in space flight as being something within NASA’s sphere of influence. And it shouldn’t have to be either. Space flight is just a weird thing in that public interest should have zero bearing on how much funding it gets (kinda like the…

There’s a committee in congress that makes these decisions and they, at the very least are advised by people who know the difference. They do tend to have their own interests that get in the way of the space program, but it’s in all of their interests to keep it alive.

I wouldn’t say that at all. NASA has had to face the challenge of figuring out how high to aim since the early days of the X-Plane program in the 50s. Even back then, by the time NASA was testing a supposedly top-of-the-line experimental jet, the private sector had already caught up. It wasn’t until the X-15 that they…

That was my reaction also!

I think Congress has as much to do with it as anything. Every time NASA aims, they move the target. A private company like SpaceX can choose a target and stick with it.

Having spent 7 years working in a steakhouse, I can attest that there are exactly two kinds of adults who eat steak like this:

they just grabbed an image of a white house press briefing amiright?

You’re welcome.

“the dietary laws were basically ancient FDA”

The first part of your paragraph is spot on. Any refusal by the USA to respond to NATO requests for assistance in the event of a Crimea-like event happening in the Baltics would spell the end of the organisation. It might soldier on until a replacement Euro treaty could be organised, but it would effectively be dead.