The old guard in rockets and missiles can't beat SpaceX's prices. They can't, because they're geared towards "cost plus", where the government pays them their cost whatever that may be "plus" some reasonable profit. That means if you can take something off the shelf and put a big price tag on it, then figure your profit as a percentage, you clean up. "This engine costs $5,000,000!" The engine actually costs $1,000,000 because the development costs have already been amortized, and that's just what it runs to buy the materials and machine them--but no one involved is very curious about that. Anyway, it's used once and then thrown away. If your "plus" is 5%, then your profit on a one-use engine is $25,000 and the rocket uses three of them, so you can see how that works.
I think the proper role for NASA here is to say, "We need to be careful with our budget, so if you guys want our business, find a way to compete."
* * *
Americans mistrust the media because the media squandered their trust. Decades of slanted reporting will do that.
* * *
Gee, a hypocritcal leftist. What a fuckin' surprise. "Notably, none of her comebacks include an explanation for why she hasn't attempted to practice what she preaches." Because, the Green New Deal isn't for Representatives and Senators and Democrat politicians, silly! It's for the proles!
Anyone who honestly thinks that AOC or any of her buddies in the DNC believe that the GND should apply to them is smoking crack. This scheme is meant to make everyone else freeze in the dark while the politicians and the important people live it up.
How else would they know they're in power if they can't make everyone else suffer?
* * *
The EPA has done what it was formed to do. Pollution has been reduced by 73%, and "We have the safest drinking water of any country in the world,..." emphasis mine, you bet.
And they juggle words in order to expand their influence. "EPA's so-called quantitative cancer risk assessments have never quantitatively assessed the true risk of potentially carcinogenic exposures." In other words, they are spouting bullshit meant solely to increase the budget of the EPA.
...[A] substance could be classified as a "known Human Carcinogen" only if sufficient epidemiological evidence existed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cancer and exposure to that substance. However, in 1996 (the date of the first draft), EPA rewrote its Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines (CRAGs) to allow it to classify substances as known human carcinogens in the absence of any epidemiological evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship.Such as, "Holy crap, look at the name of that chemical! That's got so many syllables, it's got to be a carcinogen!"
Label: dihydrogen monoxide
And I'm not even remotely surprised by this:
When they were originally created, both federal agencies had legitimate problems to solve. But, EPA quickly became a victim of its own success. As the environment became cleaner, there were fewer and fewer real environmental problems to address. So, they began inventing them, initially by just making their dose-specific health guidelines and media–specific comparison values smaller to create the impression of increased "risk". Then, they would make the unsubstantiated and over-used claim that chemical X "is now more toxic than previously thought". But, it was almost never true.Hence, for example, the drive to reduce arsenic in drinking water far below natural values.
* * *
Illinois has the worst credit rating of any state in the union because Mike Madigan has been in charge for far too long.
* * *
The latest Democrat health-care scheme is the socialized medical system they've always wanted where the government basically runs the entire medical system of the country. It's basically the exact same scheme that Hillary Clinton came up with in 1994.
* * *
A neat photographic trick.
* * *
Well, 15 more minutes in my Monday. Need food.