This ticket to the Moon will probably go to a European or Japanese astronaut.
US commits to landing an international astronaut on the Moon - This decade::This ticket to the Moon will probably go to a European or Japanese astronaut.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.
The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.
And yet you were the one that was proven wrong repeatedly. And yet again, can be proven wrong because I can indeed actually look things up. You could have ended the conversation much earlier by showing evidence that NASA had anything to do with anything you claimed. You’ve failed to do so.
Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments.
NASA, nor any member of NASA are credited for any part of the current cells we use in electric car batteries. Go ahead and click through EVERY name in the article from the 1970’s… and probably the whole damn thing frankly. NASA isn’t mentioned once. Weird since you say that NASA was integral to it all. No mention of NASA on any persons profile when clicked through either. NASA wasn’t a part of this. What are you not getting through your skull?
Why are you attributing literally everything to NASA?
But let’s look at these cute slides you’ve seem to have found.
Gemini 1962. Ag/Zn already covered. PEM fuel cell, everyone shits on this now with hydrogen fuel cars… odd how NASA figured out batteries were shit in 1962, and went hydrogen cell.
Lunar Excursion Module. Ag/Zn…
LRV… Ag/Zn…
Apollo… Ag/Zn…
ISS… finally! Ag/Zn, AgO/Zn, Ni/Cd, Ni/H2, Li-Ion. Conveniently these slides don’t say what time-frames the different cells went up. First module of ISS went up in 1998. Li-Ion was already in mass production in 1991, and was in lab testing since 1976… Ni/Cd were invented in 1899 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–cadmium_battery). Ni/H2 You might have found one! This one WAS developed for space travel. It went on the ISS(1998), Mercury Messenger(2004), Mars Odyssey(2001), and Mars Global Surveyor(1996). Long post-dating li-ion cells… And doesn’t work anything near the same as current battery technologies. Or even past technologies.
Such a shame… what a weak argument. Maybe you could read this first before you reply…
The first cars… from pre 1900 were battery powered. Are you going to tell me NASA helped with that? It’s not innovative to put batteries on a rover… It’s obvious as a solution since you can’t bring a rover to a gas/petrol station now can you? We’d had already done it for a long time prior to space.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied.
Ah! Where did I say per capita? I didn’t… But that’s irrelevant anyway. Per capita for CO2 would be a worldwide stat, considering the outsourcing to china/other countries… Which… and take a guess now… Has indeed NEVER gone down. It’s plateaued… but never decreased.
With one exception… Lockdowns during COVID. But we’re only dead on track to resume exactly where we were before.
Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I’ve worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.
The reason I’m not sending you proof is because you aren’t worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.
Literally every time you mention defense procurement
LMFAO, what a small world! I did to… for years.
The reason I’m not sending you proof is because you aren’t worth the time.
And yet I was worth the time for the hours you read and responded before? Nah, don’t buy it. You just don’t have actual evidence. Like I said, you could have skipped all of this nonsense by supply anything that positively links NASA to any of this. But you didn’t.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.
https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf
That’s not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.
The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.
And yet you were the one that was proven wrong repeatedly. And yet again, can be proven wrong because I can indeed actually look things up. You could have ended the conversation much earlier by showing evidence that NASA had anything to do with anything you claimed. You’ve failed to do so.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_lithium-ion_battery
NASA, nor any member of NASA are credited for any part of the current cells we use in electric car batteries. Go ahead and click through EVERY name in the article from the 1970’s… and probably the whole damn thing frankly. NASA isn’t mentioned once. Weird since you say that NASA was integral to it all. No mention of NASA on any persons profile when clicked through either. NASA wasn’t a part of this. What are you not getting through your skull?
Why are you attributing literally everything to NASA?
But let’s look at these cute slides you’ve seem to have found.
Batteries mentioned:
Mercury 1959. Ag/Zn. Oops… https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/silver-zinc-batteries Made for military applications. Not NASA. NASA coopted an existing technology.
Gemini 1962. Ag/Zn already covered. PEM fuel cell, everyone shits on this now with hydrogen fuel cars… odd how NASA figured out batteries were shit in 1962, and went hydrogen cell.
Lunar Excursion Module. Ag/Zn…
LRV… Ag/Zn…
Apollo… Ag/Zn…
ISS… finally! Ag/Zn, AgO/Zn, Ni/Cd, Ni/H2, Li-Ion. Conveniently these slides don’t say what time-frames the different cells went up. First module of ISS went up in 1998. Li-Ion was already in mass production in 1991, and was in lab testing since 1976… Ni/Cd were invented in 1899 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–cadmium_battery). Ni/H2 You might have found one! This one WAS developed for space travel. It went on the ISS(1998), Mercury Messenger(2004), Mars Odyssey(2001), and Mars Global Surveyor(1996). Long post-dating li-ion cells… And doesn’t work anything near the same as current battery technologies. Or even past technologies.
Such a shame… what a weak argument. Maybe you could read this first before you reply…
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/
The first cars… from pre 1900 were battery powered. Are you going to tell me NASA helped with that? It’s not innovative to put batteries on a rover… It’s obvious as a solution since you can’t bring a rover to a gas/petrol station now can you? We’d had already done it for a long time prior to space.
Ah! Where did I say per capita? I didn’t… But that’s irrelevant anyway. Per capita for CO2 would be a worldwide stat, considering the outsourcing to china/other countries… Which… and take a guess now… Has indeed NEVER gone down. It’s plateaued… but never decreased.
With one exception… Lockdowns during COVID. But we’re only dead on track to resume exactly where we were before.
Edit: Shit, forgot to add one more point… The Ni/H2 batteries were NAVY satellites originally… so not NASA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–hydrogen_battery
So what battery has NASA done?
Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I’ve worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.
The reason I’m not sending you proof is because you aren’t worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.
LMFAO, what a small world! I did to… for years.
And yet I was worth the time for the hours you read and responded before? Nah, don’t buy it. You just don’t have actual evidence. Like I said, you could have skipped all of this nonsense by supply anything that positively links NASA to any of this. But you didn’t.
I literally don’t believe that you ever were involved in any level of requirements analysis or weapons programs.