We all know which one will be dropped

Blue Origin and their SSTO nonsense should have never received a dime of public money to begin with.

Good riddance.

NASA spent very little money on this. Most teams were funded by their university and local space grants which almost every state has. The only real expense to NASA was in setting up the final test and the judging.

I graduated from WVU (THIRD PLACE, congratulations guys!) last year so I couldn't participate in this event, but I have participated in similar ones in years past, more elaborate ones even. Trust me they are worth the cost to the tax payer.

It wasn't until praticipating in one of these competitions and saw the actual rael world applications of my school work for the first time did I really buckle down and start to take school seriously.

For the US it would be more expensive to build.

Everything built in Russia is cheaper.

Also, can you provide a source on those numbers. The only mir cost I could find did not say it was adjusted for inflation or not

If you want to launch station segments by themselves like the Russians do the segments become more expensive, smaller, and less capable because each segment has to be its own spaceship complete with guidance, altitude and attitude control, and docking capability.

The shuttle allowed for the segments to be large, cheep, and uncomplicated. Plus the entire integrated truss system witch is quite literally the backbone of the station could not have happened without the shuttle. You would have to get your power from smaller solar arrays, which would greatly complicate the power system. Same problem with the radiators.

The shuttle did a great job with the ISS,

To bad the ISS hasn't done a great job for science or exploration. It has just been a large overpriced diplomacy tool, mostly used to keep the Russian aerospace industry alive after the collapse so they wouldn't wonder off and wind up in china or Iran.

This is what I will be telling my boss from now on

You are making several failed assumptions about the world run by me.

1) You assume that STEM majors do not appreciate arts
2) You assume STEM majors are not creative, and will make a society of uniform rows of grey buildings
3) You assume art can only be learned by univerity classes.

I myself am an engineering graduate student. And while I don't paint I appreciate good architecture (which BTW I think is considered STEM), literature, and music. I just don't see how one might need a formal university education in those areas to make an impact on society.
 

I would think it would be the opposite. That the gender studies and the dance majors should be paying the way for the STEM majors.

After all, only one group will contribute to the economy after graduation.

STEM is a wonderful field if you manage to end up in the top 10% of your class, get into a good graduate school, and eventually manage 10% there too.

But for folks like me, an underachiever and average student, who ended up with an undergrad GPA of 3.5 and a Grad GPA of 3.6(so far), and only cared about airplanes and rockets throughout school, STEM has been a slap in the face.

With a degree in physics I envisioned coming out of school and being bombarded with job offers. In the entire summer of 2010 I had three interviews out of nearly 100 jobs applied for, didn't get a single position. Meanwhile I worked for 30k a year as a technician for a company which makes medical equipment where my job duties regularly included changing light bulbs and sweeping.

I only came back to grad school because I want to avoid reality for a couple more years, not because I think it will land me a better job.

Last thing I need is more competition. STAY AWAY FROM MY JOBS

Wouldn't it be great to pick and choose how our tax money is allocated within the government.

I for one would transfer all the tax money I pay towards welfare, and most of what I pay towards the military to places like NASA, and NSF

The Space Shuttle
The Delta series
The Atlas Series
The Araine series

They were all touted early on as being very inexpensive, prices ended up increasing much faster than inflation.

Of course those were all designed in the 70s, we shall see what the present brings

Or you can just download the graphing calculator app for your smart phone.

They only cost .99

If your apogee is over the target you need larger optics to get the same resolution you would get in a lower orbit.

The Molniya orbit was used for communications in the days before the soviets were Geo-sync was capable. It was never meant for spying.

There are actually American flags put on Russian Soyuz rockets when an American is flying, or the US has payed for the payload on a Progress supply ship.

As far as NASCAR advertising goes...

Space debris is a problem, but not THAT big of a problem. I mean think of the vast size of the earth and the vast volume of area which satellites inhabit, and then think of how little we actually put up there. Those pictures you see make every piece of debris look like they are the size of Belgium.

So why did you pick the US rocket with the worst record to compare the falcon 9 to?

Why not the Atlas V or even the Delta II, both have nearly perfect records.