NASA Approves Space Launch System for Deep-Space Travel

With a new $2.8 Billion dollar contract in hand from NASA, Boeing is ready to get to work putting the US back into space and this time, they aren't shooting for the moon, they’re going for deep space exploration.

The first Space Launch System mission in 2017 will launch an empty Orion spacecraft. The second mission is targeted for 2021 and will launch Orion and a crew of NASA astronauts.

Click to expand...

Great timing, country is in the shits, debt to our teeth, immigrants coming in like there is no border.
We can't even take care of our vets, sure why not. A billion here and billion there is just paper.

Nokia said:

Great timing, country is in the shits, debt to our teeth, immigrants coming in like there is no border.
We can't even take care of our vets, sure why not. A billion here and billion there is just paper.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, it is just paper.

*Fixed first one is a drone out fitted with state of art cameras, and second is sound stage.* Cartel pockets the difference in funding again.

Nokia said:

I don't understand modern economics, or the societal benefits to science/engineering/space exploration. So i am going to sit in my armchair, bang my cane and rage incoherently about stuff I have no idea about because I'm still butthurt over who is president.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Dekoth-E- said:

Fixed that for you.

Click to expand...

Nailed it.

I think its worth it if we start rounding up all the lawyers and send them shooting into space on exploration missions to the sun.

Dekoth-E- said:

Fixed that for you.

Click to expand...

His rant was agnostic.

But at what point do we get to discuss what the man has done and failed to do, and failed in the attempt to do something?

When does the no accountability period end?

This is arguably the best thing the President has done during his term. NASA is a valuable assist to the U.S. and it's value to other countries. Just look up all the different technologies and products that we as consumers have from the research that NASA has done.

Skillz said:

This is arguably the best thing the President has done during his term. NASA is a valuable assist to the U.S. and it's value to other countries. Just look up all the different technologies and products that we as consumers have from the research that NASA has done.

Click to expand...

THIS +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Copied wrong link, but somewhat the same.

This is the best thing to come from the White House in 6 years, so I'll give him that at least. But as always it's probably a divert off of something else really stupid that has come up recently or will come up sometime this week.

SGA76 said:

I think its worth it if we start rounding up all the lawyers and send them shooting into space on exploration missions to the sun.

Click to expand...

That's way too expensive. Do you know how many lawyers there are? It's why we have such a litigious society, there's so many lawyers they have to keep finding silly ways to stay employed.

Nokia said:

Great timing, country is in the shits, debt to our teeth, immigrants coming in like there is no border.
We can't even take care of our vets, sure why not. A billion here and billion there is just paper.

Click to expand...

Hey grandpa, see this pie chart? See that 58% in spending on military? Now look for the 3% on science. The amount of benefits we get from NASA helps a lot in our economy. We need science over military for a growing economy. We need science to move forward as a society. Our school system is horrible for teaching science.

BTW, take a look at all the spin off technologies that came from NASA.

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses

Lets just hope Boeing doesn't once again take billions of dollars develop a fairly awesome concept direct take off space plane, then figure out after it's all done that they can't actually build it because the technology to do so doesn't exist.

Ashbringer said:

Hey grandpa, see this pie chart? See that 58% in spending on military? Now look for the 3% on science.

Click to expand...

Also note that Veteran's benefits are 4%, so we are spending more on vets than we are on science (and that's all science too, not just NASA)

Skillz said:

This is arguably the best thing the President has done during his term. NASA is a valuable assist to the U.S. and it's value to other countries. Just look up all the different technologies and products that we as consumers have from the research that NASA has done.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the continued replies of the others who share the same ignorance as the post I quoted, This is exactly what I am talking about. Hell I hate basically Everything this president and the two before him have done. However I recognize the value of this and willingly throw my support behind something that Benefits our society and honestly our planet as a whole. Do we need more accountability in our government? Sure we do and there are plenty of other areas to do that and that is another thread. This is something that anyone with a shred of intelligence should be completely behind.

So fucking sick of conservative's crying about debt (they are the cause of 90% of it) and Jobs programs when they run the biggest job's program on the planet ... the US Military.

Time to take a few $Trillion and invest in space program. If they need "offsets" to satisfy their psycho idiocy, we'll take $15 Trillion from the 1%, there ...

Offset

We need a new shuttle fleet, a bunch of these new cargo rockets, a second Space Station that is built to be self-sufficient, hydroponics, artificial gravity etc and once the bugs are worked out and it is perfected .... make a copy and ship it to Mars orbit. Install 3-4 Orbital refueling stations in Mars orbit so we can run ships back and forth. Eventually build a small research colony on the Martian north pole ... like our South Pole Antarctic science station on Earth. Rover/drone exploration of Mars will be a lot easier operated from Mars orbit rather than remotely from Earth.

We need a GPS/Communications satellite system for Mars, a new much more massive space telescope for L2, a base and huge Radio telescope in a crater on the dark side of the Moon (relative radio silence from Earth).

Then we need two interplanetary space ships to shuttle people and supplies between Earth and Mars, as well as visiting the Asteroids and eventually Jupiter/Saturn moons.

We also need a small fleet of interstellar robot ships, using ion/nuclear engines to send probes to nearby (under 100 LY) star systems with planets. They can use XRay rather than radio communications to send back information.

Anyway, until we solve our biggest problem here on Earth, none of this is going to happen .... you know, the problem of ... Conservatives.

Dekoth-E- said:

Ignoring the continued replies of the others who share the same ignorance as the post I quoted, This is exactly what I am talking about. Hell I hate basically Everything this president and the two before him have done. However I recognize the value of this and willingly throw my support behind something that Benefits our society and honestly our planet as a whole. Do we need more accountability in our government? Sure we do and there are plenty of other areas to do that and that is another thread. This is something that anyone with a shred of intelligence should be completely behind.

Click to expand...

Wut?

Great quote from the article:

...built from rotting remnants of left over congressional pork. And its budgetary footprints will stamp out all the missions it is supposed to carry, kill our astronaut program and destroy science and technology projects throughout NASA

Click to expand...

Ashbringer said:

BTW, take a look at all the spin off technologies that came from NASA.

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses

Click to expand...

That list has a lot of reaches. Some specific examples:

Freeze dried food? Invented by Nestle in 1938
Cordless tools? Black & Decker in 1961

NASA seems to be taking any improvement to an existing technology and claiming credit. Yeah, I know they are trying to justify their budget, but it's still a crock.

Dekoth-E- said:

Ignoring the continued replies of the others who share the same ignorance as the post I quoted, This is exactly what I am talking about. Hell I hate basically Everything this president and the two before him have done. However I recognize the value of this and willingly throw my support behind something that Benefits our society and honestly our planet as a whole. Do we need more accountability in our government? Sure we do and there are plenty of other areas to do that and that is another thread. This is something that anyone with a shred of intelligence should be completely behind.

Click to expand...

Hold yer horsies there...

This President has been cutting NASAs budget which necessitated this kitbash launch system made from 'off-the-shelf' parts instead of being something much more advanced (and naturally more expensive) like an SSTO plane. Our last awful president even had hopes of a permanent moon base before some assholes flew some planes into places they weren't supposed to go that sparked a couple wars. But this President cut plans for new moon missions too.

Skipping the moon is a HUGE mistake. While risks are inherent in the space program - and we should not be risk adverse - human spaceflight gets extremely dangerous the farther and longer duration we go. A permanent moon base incrementally pushes technology and infrastructure, which will support the next step after that. Not to mention the benefits to communications, physical sciences, astronomy, etc. that a moon base can host.

pigster said:

That list has a lot of reaches. Some specific examples:

Freeze dried food? Invented by Nestle in 1938
Cordless tools? Black & Decker in 1961

NASA seems to be taking any improvement to an existing technology and claiming credit. Yeah, I know they are trying to justify their budget, but it's still a crock.

Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about any number of supposedly original inventions. According to this, the first known freeze dried food process was invented by the Incas in the 15th century: http://www.ehow.com/facts_4966925_was-freeze-dried-food-invented.html.

hellokeith said:

Skipping the moon is a HUGE mistake. While risks are inherent in the space program - and we should not be risk adverse - human spaceflight gets extremely dangerous the farther and longer duration we go. A permanent moon base incrementally pushes technology and infrastructure, which will support the next step after that. Not to mention the benefits to communications, physical sciences, astronomy, etc. that a moon base can host.

Click to expand...

Ferrying supplies back and forth from a moon base would be expensive as designing and implementing a deep space mission -- if not more expensive because of the environment the surface of the moon causes. What about getting the materials to the moon to begin with? Crazy expensive. And that dust is a bear to deal with, for any structure or suit! It clogs EVERYTHING and is as efficient as elbow grease and sandpaper. We already know more about the Moon that we do the bottom of our deepest oceans, so even research missions are not really worth the risk or effort. Project Constellation was scrapped for very valid reasons. Even a refueling station in orbit wouldn't be worth the effort over just shooting for local asteroids with more resource availability, HE-3 would be expensive to mine and refine on the lunar surface. Deep space travel is going to be a requirement for the survival of mankind, eventually. And if our history and all of the technological laws we've established hold true, we may not beat the sun to its expansion phase on the current time table.

Guybrodude said:

No one is denying the past benefits of NASA R&D.

The person you reply to and continue to call ignorant (more indicative of your own ignorance) has valid views. We are trillions in debt, have a massively overblown military budget, send billions in foreign aid, and the list goes on and on.

The few billions here might be a drop in the bucket, and as much as I love space exploration and science in general, our country is a wreck right now and we need to get it back into shape before spending on non-essential stuff, this included.

Click to expand...

The deficit as a percent of GDP is just over 4%. For reference, the 2008 Deficit (10/2007-9/2008) was just over 7.2%. 2009 was 12.8%. It's been dropping every fiscal year. Do I want it lower? Hell yes, but R&D isn't the place you cut.

DiabloRojo said:

Hold yer horsies there...

This President has been cutting NASAs budget which necessitated this kitbash launch system made from 'off-the-shelf' parts instead of being something much more advanced (and naturally more expensive) like an SSTO plane. Our last awful president even had hopes of a permanent moon base before some assholes flew some planes into places they weren't supposed to go that sparked a couple wars. But this President cut plans for new moon missions too.

Click to expand...

While I'm not sure I agree, the argument that some scientists make is we've been to the moon. I'm not against the moon, but I'm also not against bigger goals. We went from no space program to the moon in less than a decade. Since then we've done some nice stuff, but going back to the moon isn't the most ambitious idea. Besides, I suspect Commercial interests will make it to the moon in the next 20 years or so. I doubt they'll be on Mars (even if some claim they otherwise).

DiabloRojo said:

Hold yer horsies there...

This President has been cutting NASAs budget which necessitated this kitbash launch system made from 'off-the-shelf' parts instead of being something much more advanced (and naturally more expensive) like an SSTO plane. Our last awful president even had hopes of a permanent moon base before some assholes flew some planes into places they weren't supposed to go that sparked a couple wars. But this President cut plans for new moon missions too.

Click to expand...

This is about economics as much as technology advancement. I guarantee you there was an economic analysis done between several systems and the SLS was judged to be the most cost efficient. Also, just because something may use COTS parts doesn't mean it's inferior.

The fact that an alternative, such as an SSTO or even new multi-stage space shuttles, were not considered means that the present worth analysis / capitalized costs were WAY higher than the SLS. Maybe when technology advances we can start talking re-usable space lift systems (with large payloads...even Space X doesn't have anything that can match the Saturn V...much less SLS) that can be built with reasonable cost.

Grahamkracka said:

This is about economics as much as technology advancement. I guarantee you there was an economic analysis done between several systems and the SLS was judged to be the most cost efficient. Also, just because something may use COTS parts doesn't mean it's inferior.

The fact that an alternative, such as an SSTO or even new multi-stage space shuttles, were not considered means that the present worth analysis / capitalized costs were WAY higher than the SLS. Maybe when technology advances we can start talking re-usable space lift systems (with large payloads...even Space X doesn't have anything that can match the Saturn V...much less SLS) that can be built with reasonable cost.

Click to expand...

There was a proposal for a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle, essentially the Space Shuttle fuel tank and SRBs with Orion/other payloads piggyback instead of the Shuttle. It would have been significantly cheaper to develop, but it would have had crummy payload capacity, no upgrade path, and the high launch risks inherent to riding on the side of the boosters instead of on top.

SLS is what NASA wanted. The final design looks a lot like the DIRECT/Jupiter-class proposal that engineers proposed as an alternative to Bush's Ares rockets.

We are fully capable of establishing a permanent Moon base AND visiting Mars. It would take ~1% of our GDP. The public just doesn't care. The only reason we're getting SLS at all is that it can be used for huge DoD payloads.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:

So fucking sick of conservative's crying about debt (they are the cause of 90% of it) and Jobs programs when they run the biggest job's program on the planet ... the US Military.

Time to take a few $Trillion and invest in space program. If they need "offsets" to satisfy their psycho idiocy, we'll take $15 Trillion from the 1%, there ...

Click to expand...

We could dissolve the military completely now and we would barely dent the yearly debt. So that's a non-point. At one time maybe a big player. No longer.

Basically it is the 'social programs' we cannot afford. Non-conservatives need debt because they use it to buy votes since that they only appeal they really have. So if we balanced the budget their power would diminish. So they are more than willing to march us into economic oblivion rather than lose power.

jpm100 said:

We could dissolve the military completely now and we would barely dent the yearly debt. So that's a non-point. At one time maybe a big player. No longer.

Click to expand...

Hold your horses, this thread has devolved into bitching about the tiny fraction spent on space exploration, yet when you talk about the military being dissolved "oh that would barely dent the yearly debt"? You realize the military still is about 20% of the total spending right? And that's just the planned budget, that doesn't even start to take into account all the earmarks and other spending that gets passed through the year.

Basically it is the 'social programs' we cannot afford. Non-conservatives need debt because they use it to buy votes since that they only appeal they really have. So if we balanced the budget their power would diminish. So they are more than willing to march us into economic oblivion rather than lose power.

Click to expand...

"if we balance the budget" lets get one thing straight "you" are just as incapable of balancing the budget, just as much as non-conservatives. If you chopped social welfare (and I'm using that term generically, not talking about the dirty W-word "you" are probably thinking of), you know what politicians would see?? (both conservatives and non-conservatives) They would see a budget surplus and spend that money elsewhere.

The only two presidents in modern times (past 40 or so years) who had any inkling of getting the debt under control is Carter and Clinton, Carter the public unilaterally booed out of office, and Clinton the conservatives tried to get him kicked out of office because he lied about getting a BJ from a chubby intern, and Clinton was a special case because that dot-com bubble brought in more money than would have come in ordinarily.

jpm100 said:

We could dissolve the military completely now and we would barely dent the yearly debt. So that's a non-point. At one time maybe a big player. No longer.

Basically it is the 'social programs' we cannot afford. Non-conservatives need debt because they use it to buy votes since that they only appeal they really have. So if we balanced the budget their power would diminish. So they are more than willing to march us into economic oblivion rather than lose power.

Click to expand...

This is a great factoid.

Here's a fact: Military spending is around 700 Billion, which is more than the annual deficit (unless you're living in 2008-2010.

Obviously completely eliminating the military is a bad idea and would have economic repercussions, but cutting back to 2000 levels (perhaps adjusted for inflation, though we spent too much then too) would help.

Guybrodude said:

The person you reply to and continue to call ignorant (more indicative of your own ignorance) has valid views.

Click to expand...

Not really. They are absurdly out of touch with reality.

We are trillions in debt, have a massively overblown military budget, send billions in foreign aid, and the list goes on and on.

The few billions here might be a drop in the bucket, and as much as I love space exploration and science in general, our country is a wreck right now and we need to get it back into shape before spending on non-essential stuff, this included.

Click to expand...

NASA's budget is 0.5% of the national budget. Half a percent. NASA's $17B budget may sound like a lot, but it so very much isn't. Not even remotely.

The Army has gone to congress and asked to stop building tanks it doesn't want. It would save $3B alone. They got told no. Why? Because spending $3B to preserve the jobs of the tank factory workers was considered politically worth it. $3B for 16,000 jobs and NASA's $17B employs 78,000 jobs. So even if NASA would have to do literally nothing but just pay those people to join the ranks of wasted money. As long as NASA is doing *anything at all* with the money (which they clearly are), they are coming out *WAAAAAY* ahead of the vast majority of wasted budget money.

Ranting about NASA's budget being a waste is ranting about one of the few uses of government spending that's actually accomplishing shit.

And of course there's always fun programs like the F-35. The DOD estimates that program will cost $1.0165 *TRILLION* over its 55 year life, which comes out to $185B a year. For *just* the F-35 and nothing else.

Yet somehow NASA's paultry $17B is too expensive?

Social security and Medicare in 2013: $1,300B
Other wellfare (food stamps, housing, etc...): $930B
VA budget: $164B
Military budget: $640B

What would any of these programs possibly do with an extra $17B? Nothing. Not a god damn thing.

And while yes the US debt has increased lately, it is not even close to being an all time high (1940-1950 holds that honor thanks to WWII). And history repeatedly shows that *military* costs are what significantly impact US debt. Everything else is peanuts. In fact during the space race of the 60s when NASA's budget was 4.5%, US public debt was at the lowest point it's been for the last 100 years.

So if you want to solve federal debt spending, it's really easy. Scale back the US from representing 36.6% of the world's military expendaturies to something more like, say, 30% ($475B). Or maaaaybe even go as low as 25% ($370B). The US would still far and away be the undisputed military power on the planet with that budget (China is #2 at $188B), and yet it would free up insanity amounts of money.

But good luck getting THAT budget passed. It would be political suicide. There would be screams of bloody murder that liberal pussies are trying to ruin this country or some other laughably stupid shit like that.

At the end of the day the National Defense spending is only there to keep companies such as Boeing, Lockheed and numerous others in business. Only a small fraction of it goes to pay wages for soldiers, with majority being spent on endless maintenance of war-machines and planes that are never fully utilized. Like the F22/F35 program - with every hour of flight it needs 15 hours of maintenance, thats $$$ draining for no good reason and the Military Industrial Complex summed up.