/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11401214
I just don't understand this reusable legislator meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing representatives isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to pass the difficult bills that usually make money in the lawmaker world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with political science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the legislator after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable legislators are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the appropriations bill takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual representative only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this legislator (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the constituents world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some country made reusing legislators popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of laws per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for legislators' meme.

>>11171778
>nuclear reactors on Earth work for decades, why can't nuclear reactors in Space?
Because space has a special property that makes reusability impossible and you should never ask about it again!

>>11163415
Theres only room for one based AMERICAN boomer in spaceflight.

>>11090674
>With Starship, though, the Gateway can be xboxhueg for way cheaper.
Are you insaine?! Do you want to put American lives at stake inside cheaply made, unsafe, and weight inefficient space station modules? The only proper way for America to return to the moon will be in modules carefully crafted by AMERICAN contractors across AMERICA. Each part extensively checked and rechecked to guarantee increases in safety and reliability. No expense is spared because lives are priceless. To round out this safety oriented program, all modules would be launched on the Space Launch System (pbui). This rocket is AMERICAS rocket, and the most powerful and safest rocket ever built. SpaceX has had multiple failures on their Falcon 9 rockets and they're expected to have problems with Starship. Meanwhile SLS (pbui) has NEVER had a failure, an enviable achievement.

Would you support America's return to the moon, or SpaceX? I think you know the answer.

>>11026167
No! Orbital refueling will not be allowed and that's final! I will not let this nation fall under the degeneracy of storing propellant in space for later use. It goes against God, it goes against America, and it goes against SLS (pbui). How about you go live in the Soviet Uni- er China if you want to obsess over such a non-patriotic idea!

>>10985509
If there weren't studies then bureaucrats couldn't get their rocks off, and people who publish redundant studies would be out of a job. You don't want to create unemployment right Anon? You love America and the SLS (peace be upon it) right? BUY MORE SHUTTLE PARTS RIGHT NOW!