NASA Looking for a Few Good Buyers

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
No, NASA isn’t for sale, but some of its holdings are. If you are thinking about starting your own space program, there’s no real advantage in starting from the ground up when you can just buy, rent or lease exactly what you need from NASA, like a launchpad, shuttle assembly hanger or a 3 mile long runway. NASA’s going out of the Shuttle business sale……we’re dealin’. :D

A lot of the stuff needs to be transferred by the end of 2013, when federal maintenance money will run out. When it does, machinery will start to rust, and buildings will deteriorate in the harsh coastal-marsh environment of Cape Canaveral.
Click to expand...
 
A lot of the stuff needs to be transferred by the end of 2013, when federal maintenance money will run out. When it does, machinery will start to rust, and buildings will deteriorate in the harsh coastal-marsh environment of Cape Canaveral.
Click to expand...

This right here makes me think it doesn't matter if they offload in 2013, people in the commercial space business will stay in the desert. I doubt it will ever see space related activities again.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
This right here makes me think it doesn't matter if they offload in 2013, people in the commercial space business will stay in the desert. I doubt it will ever see space related activities again.
Click to expand...

The closer you are to the equator, the more of a free "speed boost" you get due to the earth's rotation if you launch eastward. At Cape Canaveral that speed boost equals 908 Miles Per Hour.

Cape Canaveral was chosen due to being as close to the Equator as you can get while still being in the US.
 
GotNoRice said:
The closer you are to the equator, the more of a free "speed boost" you get due to the earth's rotation if you launch eastward. At Cape Canaveral that speed boost equals 908 Miles Per Hour.

Cape Canaveral was chosen due to being as close to the Equator as you can get while still being in the US.
Click to expand...

I understand why equatorial launch sites are used. I also understand WHY equatorial launch sites that have to deal with salt water and high humidity are not ideal. Thanks though.
 
GotNoRice said:
The closer you are to the equator, the more of a free "speed boost" you get due to the earth's rotation if you launch eastward. At Cape Canaveral that speed boost equals 908 Miles Per Hour.

Cape Canaveral was chosen due to being as close to the Equator as you can get while still being in the US.
Click to expand...

The difference in "speed boost" between Cape Canaveral and say Arizona are relatively meaningless. You could have your launch site in Hawaii if you cared that much about the extra speed. Cape Canaveral was chosen because there's a big ass ocean where screw ups could fall into without killing an civilians. Hawaii wouldn't be used simply for logistical reasons.
 
AFGuy0127 said:
This honestly is sad on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Yes...OTOH remember the terrific failure that the Space Shuttle was in terms of its design goals. Back when the program was started we were supposed to get a vehicle that could launch and relaunch within week, and whose launch and R&D cost could be recouped through frequent access to space and consequently low lift costs...thus being cheaper and faster to operate than the Saturn V vehicles it replaced.

It failed in ALL of those goals. Each and every one.

Space Shuttle did some neat stuff...but god it was a money hole compared to other science probe missions.
 
Skripka said:
Yes...OTOH remember the terrific failure that the Space Shuttle was in terms of its design goals. Back when the program was started we were supposed to get a vehicle that could launch and relaunch within week, and whose launch and R&D cost could be recouped through frequent access to space and consequently low lift costs...thus being cheaper and faster to operate than the Saturn V vehicles it replaced.

It failed in ALL of those goals. Each and every one.

Space Shuttle did some neat stuff...but god it was a money hole compared to other science probe missions.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was the point of his post my friend. It more has to due with the fact NASA is facing budget cuts and is having to off set the loss through the obvious sale of shuttle program. In the long one we're the engines of innovation in this country and its due to the lobbyists and politicians whose sole purpose is extract the wealth and resources of this country in order to make that quarterly report and the next election cycle.

If you were to simplify the national tax as 1 dollar, the NASA budget is barely 4/10 of a penny on that dollar, so when I hear someone bitch and complain how money inefficient the shuttle program was, and then I see a 850 billion dollar bank bail which not only is the problem in the first place which it's going to ultimately create even higher inflation and a bigger economic crash and the eventual fall of the dollar, then your argument how bloody expensive launching a shuttle made the human species into outer space to learn and explore the great cosmos of this universe, than your statement holds no water with me.

Credit goes to ghostlat on this one....

NASA's budget was about $8.7 billion. In its entire history from 1958 to 2011, the total budget was $526.18 billion. In 2010, the U.S. military budget was $663.85 billion. That
means that in one year, the military spent $137.67 billion more than NASA has in more than 50. And if say the NASA budget was to go to 1/2 a penny on that tax dollar, it would be enough to go send people to Mars and back to the moon. But god knows there are people out there who are ignorant enough to say why and question how important such an monument achievement that would be and lead to new forms of science and inspire kids to learn more.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is so accurate in saying how our country 'stopped dreaming' 40 years and it shouldn't surprise anyone that nobody wants to be scientists or engineers anymore because those foundations which NASA inspired are no longer there to nurture the next generation of Americans, everyone would rather be the next American Idol or YouTube sensation.

At some point we will learn where our priorities in this country needs to be (that is if there still is a country) but get used to the distribution of wealth in this country to be distorted and warped in ways we only saw in movies, because as we're heading into 2013, the real economic bubble is gonna start to show itself and when it bursts, we're going to need those scientists and engineers to lead us into a better economic system than our current one.
 
Ski said:
I don't think that was the point of his post my friend. It more has to due with the fact NASA is facing budget cuts and is having to off set the loss through the obvious sale of shuttle program. In the long one we're the engines of innovation in this country and its due to the lobbyists and politicians whose sole purpose is extract the wealth and resources of this country in order to make that quarterly report and the next election cycle.

If you were to simplify the national tax as 1 dollar, the NASA budget is barely 4/10 of a penny on that dollar, so when I hear someone bitch and complain how money inefficient the shuttle program was, and then I see a 850 billion dollar bank bail which not only is the problem in the first place which it's going to ultimately create even higher inflation and a bigger economic crash and the eventual fall of the dollar, then your argument how bloody expensive launching a shuttle made the human species into outer space to learn and explore the great cosmos of this universe, than your statement holds no water with me.

Credit goes to ghostlat on this one....

NASA's budget was about $8.7 billion. In its entire history from 1958 to 2011, the total budget was $526.18 billion. In 2010, the U.S. military budget was $663.85 billion. That
means that in one year, the military spent $137.67 billion more than NASA has in more than 50. And if say the NASA budget was to go to 1/2 a penny on that tax dollar, it would be enough to go send people to Mars and back to the moon. But god knows there are people out there who are ignorant enough to say why and question how important such an monument achievement that would be and lead to new forms of science and inspire kids to learn more.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is so accurate in saying how our country 'stopped dreaming' 40 years and it shouldn't surprise anyone that nobody wants to be scientists or engineers anymore because those foundations which NASA inspired are no longer there to nurture the next generation of Americans, everyone would rather be the next American Idol or YouTube sensation.

At some point we will learn where our priorities in this country needs to be (that is if there still is a country) but get used to the distribution of wealth in this country to be distorted and warped in ways we only saw in movies, because as we're heading into 2013, the real economic bubble is gonna start to show itself and when it bursts, we're going to need those scientists and engineers to lead us into a better economic system than our current one.
Click to expand...

Yes the amount of money NASA got is small. But remember how little money most of NASA projects got, compared to the insane cost of the Space Shuttle. Hell one single SS launch was nearly $500 million USD. Think of how relatively little money Hubble got ($20bn over its entire lifetime including all servicing missions, including lots of money from the EU etc) and what it did. Think further of how much money we pissed away on the I.S.S.

NASA funding is zero sum. And between Space Shuttle and ISS, we could have had LOTS more science done with those two items funding compared to what we got.
 
GotNoRice said:
The closer you are to the equator, the more of a free "speed boost" you get due to the earth's rotation if you launch eastward. At Cape Canaveral that speed boost equals 908 Miles Per Hour.

Cape Canaveral was chosen due to being as close to the Equator as you can get while still being in the US.
Click to expand...

Is that why Jamacans are so fast? :p
 
Sad indeed -- why spend the money on progress and science when we could blow it trying to bring "democracy" to a group of people who will hate us and try to kill us no matter how much aid we give them.

That, and we gotta make sure Tyron, Sheniqua, and Cletus get their welfare checks on time - we wouldn't want them having to spend their own money to raise their 7 kids now would we?
 
Ski said:
I don't think that was the point of his post my friend. It more has to due with the fact NASA is facing budget cuts and is having to off set the loss through the obvious sale of shuttle program. In the long one we're the engines of innovation in this country and its due to the lobbyists and politicians whose sole purpose is extract the wealth and resources of this country in order to make that quarterly report and the next election cycle.

If you were to simplify the national tax as 1 dollar, the NASA budget is barely 4/10 of a penny on that dollar, so when I hear someone bitch and complain how money inefficient the shuttle program was, and then I see a 850 billion dollar bank bail which not only is the problem in the first place which it's going to ultimately create even higher inflation and a bigger economic crash and the eventual fall of the dollar, then your argument how bloody expensive launching a shuttle made the human species into outer space to learn and explore the great cosmos of this universe, than your statement holds no water with me.

Credit goes to ghostlat on this one....

NASA's budget was about $8.7 billion. In its entire history from 1958 to 2011, the total budget was $526.18 billion. In 2010, the U.S. military budget was $663.85 billion. That
means that in one year, the military spent $137.67 billion more than NASA has in more than 50. And if say the NASA budget was to go to 1/2 a penny on that tax dollar, it would be enough to go send people to Mars and back to the moon. But god knows there are people out there who are ignorant enough to say why and question how important such an monument achievement that would be and lead to new forms of science and inspire kids to learn more.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is so accurate in saying how our country 'stopped dreaming' 40 years and it shouldn't surprise anyone that nobody wants to be scientists or engineers anymore because those foundations which NASA inspired are no longer there to nurture the next generation of Americans, everyone would rather be the next American Idol or YouTube sensation.

At some point we will learn where our priorities in this country needs to be (that is if there still is a country) but get used to the distribution of wealth in this country to be distorted and warped in ways we only saw in movies, because as we're heading into 2013, the real economic bubble is gonna start to show itself and when it bursts, we're going to need those scientists and engineers to lead us into a better economic system than our current one.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was the point of my post. No longer will kids today be able to watch a shuttle launch on television, or see astronauts do a "space walk." I remember watching shuttle launches as a kid in school. It's sad to think what this current and upcoming generation will be missing. Let's face it, NASA and anything space-related like that fueled a lot of dreams. It's sad that the fuel has run out.
 
Very sad. When the pace of technology slows to a crawl, we all know who to blame. Those fucking fools who thought that space research was a waste of time and effort.

You know who you are. Some of you are even here on this very forum.
 
TechLarry said:
This is so sad, really.
Click to expand...

Actually its not. While I personally think an alternative should have been ready to go before the Space Shuttle program was axed , the Space Shuttle in terms of cost is just beyond reasonable and continually managed to get more expensive over the decades.

For what Space X is able to put into Orbit and dock with the ISS (for a total travel cost of around $100 million) it would take almost $1+ Billion easily for a single Space Shuttle venture. Plus private industry will be able to make it much cheaper to the point where traveling into Orbit will no longer be reserved for the military elite or lucky private citizens with fat wallets. For any LEO activity , the Space Shuttle was fantastic but also incredibly expensive. The real truth is that the Space Shuttle managed to hang around so long because the industry it created depended on the continual employment thanks to still running , not because it was the best option.

I think as we look back in the years ahead we will realize that while the Space Shuttle was a true marvel and wonder , at the end it was a technological milestone but a 30+ year old one at that and in the age of technology 30 years is almost forever.
 
I don't think everyone is mourning the space shuttle's passing. Rather, the sad thing is that NASA needs to pawn off pieces of itself to remain intact.
 
Is it just me or does anyone else think that North Korea has a chance (albeit a small one) of surpassing our space program in the next decade (DPK increasing and USA decreasing, because of exporting launches to other nations, between now and then)? That is a very sad idea indeed.
 
So what happens when the us "man made moons" need maintenance? Who will bother to learn how? The people in Area 51 are not immortal they have to be rusting by now.
 
[21CW]killerofall;1039490736 said:
Is it just me or does anyone else think that North Korea has a chance (albeit a small one) of surpassing our space program in the next decade (DPK increasing and USA decreasing, because of exporting launches to other nations, between now and then)? That is a very sad idea indeed.
Click to expand...

Its just you. Our military is decades beyond NK in every regard. China is the only country that has the possibility to truly surpass us in Space in the next decade.
 
AFGuy0127 said:
Yes, this was the point of my post. No longer will kids today be able to watch a shuttle launch on television, or see astronauts do a "space walk." I remember watching shuttle launches as a kid in school. It's sad to think what this current and upcoming generation will be missing. Let's face it, NASA and anything space-related like that fueled a lot of dreams. It's sad that the fuel has run out.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. The first of the new Space Launch System rockets is about to go into production and the SpaceX Falcon 9 will be taking US astronauts up to the ISS. NASA has an Apollo 8-style moonshot test-run of the SLS planned for 2017. The SLS can do whatever we ultimately decide we want to do, whether it's a long-term Lunar outpost, larger space stations, asteroid missions, or Mars. The 2020's are going to be exciting.

The Shuttle put a lot of scientists in orbit, but in the big scheme of things the program was a failure. Too expensive, too dangerous, limited to low Earth orbit, and it never achieved anything close to the once-a-month launch rate that was originally planned. The space program hasn't been 'gutted,' there simply wasn't enough money in the NASA budget to develop a new rocket program while the Shuttle and associated hardware/facilities/staff was still on the books. The Obama administration actually boosted funding for the manned program by shifting funding away from long term unmanned projects. Not the best solution, but it's not like Congress is going to pass a budget increase for anything at the moment. That's why Bush's $250 billion Constellation program never went anywhere even though it was a solid plan with clear objectives.
 
Skripka said:
Yes...OTOH remember the terrific failure that the Space Shuttle was in terms of its design goals. Back when the program was started we were supposed to get a vehicle that could launch and relaunch within week, and whose launch and R&D cost could be recouped through frequent access to space and consequently low lift costs...thus being cheaper and faster to operate than the Saturn V vehicles it replaced.

It failed in ALL of those goals. Each and every one.

Space Shuttle did some neat stuff...but god it was a money hole compared to other science probe missions.
Click to expand...

Think more of a big picture...
http://youtu.be/CbIZU8cQWXc
 
DeathFromBelow said:
That's why Bush's $250 billion Constellation program never went anywhere even though it was a solid plan with clear objectives.
Click to expand...

Meh. Constellation was about as solid as a marshmellow. Besides while it had clear objectives, it was even less about science...it was about e-peen.
 
There you go Lith1um. Your chance to buy some of NASA's holdings and show us how much more efficient you could run it.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Think more of a big picture...
http://youtu.be/CbIZU8cQWXc
Click to expand...

Tyson is a great guy and a smart guy, don't get me wrong. And he makes a great sales pitch, in his bis he has to in order to keep a job.

He says we stopped going to the Moon. Why? That is the important part he leaves out. What was the point of continuing to go an spend billions to drive around on the Moon and grab more moon rocks? Just like with the Space Shuttle, what is the point of continuing to operate it and the ISS? I'm all for space and science, and dreams are great....but after the e-peen of something is over, and you run out of justifications to do something why continue to spend billions doing it?

Without Google, can you name anything the later Apollo missions accomplished scientifically? Without Google can you do the same for the I.S.S.? Once you get people on Mars or asteroids, then what? As far as I know, there ain't a whole lot there. It will be the Moon all over again.

When dreams run into reality, it is seldom reality that gives up.
 
You have about as much vision or foresight as a moon rock, Skripka. You have no idea the depth of the space program's contribution to the technology you take for granted. You have no idea what a tragedy it is that people like you now exist, pooh-poohing space research as a waste of time and money.

If you win, we will all die here on this rock in the next two centuries. That is a guarantee.
 
wabbitseason said:
You have about as much vision or foresight as a moon rock, Skripka. You have no idea the depth of the space program's contribution to the technology you take for granted. You have no idea what a tragedy it is that people like you now exist, pooh-poohing space research as a waste of time and money.

If you win, we will all die here on this rock in the next two centuries. That is a guarantee.
Click to expand...

I have vision. The simple fact is that as a people we like to do things for e-peen or because we're scared shitless. That is how most people are. And 99% of the people out there outside the astronomy and physics community can't name any accomplishments of the later Apollo missions, I am not saying there weren't any and I never did, please don't put words in my mouth. We stopped going to the Moon as it was ridiculously expensive, and the ROI wasn't believed to be there. The same EXACT thing will happen as it stands now if we land on Mars tomorrow.

And yes, we're going to die on this Earth. Welcome to reality.

Unless a breakthrough in Physics occurs greater than the theories of general and special relativity, we're stuck on this rock as there's not a whole lot remotely nearby (cosmic sense of nearby) and the tech we have now and for the visible future ain't gonna cut it for space travel affordable for anyone other than government astronauts or billionaires. The human species ain't leaving Earth in any meaningful numbers for even the moon probably for the rest of my lifetime. We don't have the tech, and it is too expensive.

Manned exploration as it stands now is only about e-peen. Hubble and hopefully the Webb Telescope have and will achieve far more science than the trillions necessary to send primates to Mars.

I'm a huge fan of probes and until a physics revolution occurs, the likes of which was written into the Mass Effect video games, I'll have a hard time changing my opinion.
 
Skripka said:
Manned exploration as it stands now is only about e-peen. Hubble and hopefully the Webb Telescope have and will achieve far more science than the trillions necessary to send primates to Mars.
Click to expand...

I'll bite trololo. The argument that Tyson isn't that we should just keep going to the moon. We achieved what we could already as you pointed out, the point NDGT makes is that the innovation that is necessary, the infrastructure that is necessary, the ingenuity that is needed to problem solve is well worth the money, especially when you consider the immense benefits of the off-shoots. Anyhow, I would rather spend 1% of the federal budget on NASA than for example another SSN program like the Virginia class submarine.
 
Skripka said:
Snip
Click to expand...

Are you a scientist? No? Who are you to condemn us to a fate that can -and will- be averted? Who are you to judge what is possible?

You say you have vision, eh? And you would have predicted steam power, relativity, nuclear power, space travel, before they occurred? Oh, to be sure, your vision is impressive indeed. Tell me, what will happen next. What will the next breakthrough be?

You are an insect if you believe humanity is incapable of anything.

I hope sincerely that your descendants are left here while we make our way out into the universe.


I fail to even see a point in your posts. It's a good thing that NASA funding has been slaughtered? That money could be used better in so many places.

It's a fucking tragedy, and your attitude will be our undoing just as much as warmongering and religion will.
 
The big problem with the LC-39 pads and the VAB are high support costs and sheer size compared to Delta, Atlas, and Falcon operations. Crew flights could be on the KSC side, but its kinda unlikely with those fixed costs, but Falcon Heavy at LC-39A might still be in the cards.
 
6yjjp1.jpg
 
wabbitseason said:
Are you a scientist? No? Who are you to condemn us to a fate that can -and will- be averted? Who are you to judge what is possible?

You say you have vision, eh? And you would have predicted steam power, relativity, nuclear power, space travel, before they occurred? Oh, to be sure, your vision is impressive indeed. Tell me, what will happen next. What will the next breakthrough be?

You are an insect if you believe humanity is incapable of anything.

I hope sincerely that your descendants are left here while we make our way out into the universe.


I fail to even see a point in your posts. It's a good thing that NASA funding has been slaughtered? That money could be used better in so many places.

It's a fucking tragedy, and your attitude will be our undoing just as much as warmongering and religion will.
Click to expand...


Another person who cannot read, and wants to put words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said humanity was capable of anything. Please tell me where I was glad about NASA getting defunded. Because I'll give you a hint as the author-I didn't.

As for the rest, It is quite easy to judge what is and isn't presently possible based on the rules of physics as we know them. And that is fundamentally our problem, not lack of vision or dreams or what have you. We've been searching for the next big thing in physics to get us out of here for decades and decades, with lots of fcking brilliant people looking....and we ain't found it yet, presuming for sake of argument there is something to find, there may be or there may not be. The folks with the PhDs think there is, so at least there is that. We might be spending trillions looking for something that doesn't exist, daydreaming about Captain Kirk while half the planet is starving and still doesn't even have flushing toilets.

Dreaming is great, don't get me wrong. But we've been dreaming of transporters and warp drive and analogues of the aforesaid for almost 50 years now. That ain't any closer to reality now than then. People have been so busy dreaming we even have imaginary Star Trek "technical manuals" explaining in imaginary verbage with physics-like terms how the damn things (might) work. Meanwhile in the real world, we invented the fuel-cell car in 1959-and we still use gasoline to get us around. We also invented nuclear power way back when, and most of our electricity is still produced by dumping carcinogens into the air.

My point is and has been that we need a breakthrough in physics bigger than relativity to make man leaving Earth in sizable numbers remotely close to reality...and the Space Shuttle and the ISS aren't and were never going to get that. In that respect they were huge money holes. And man traveling to Mars probably won't get it either, unless we discover the Prothean Archives buried on Mars. Maybe we will get that breakthrough sending man to Mars, but I'm a very strong skeptic....especially when (monetary) resources are finite, and actual science based on probes is curtailed due to reallocating money for manned exploration for the sake of man.
 
Skripka said:
Another person who cannot read, and wants to put words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said humanity was capable of anything. Please tell me where I was glad about NASA getting defunded. Because I'll give you a hint as the author-I didn't.
Click to expand...

Note that should be *incapable*

Damn lack of edit in News.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
That's bullshit. The first of the new Space Launch System rockets is about to go into production and the SpaceX Falcon 9 will be taking US astronauts up to the ISS. NASA has an Apollo 8-style moonshot test-run of the SLS planned for 2017. The SLS can do whatever we ultimately decide we want to do, whether it's a long-term Lunar outpost, larger space stations, asteroid missions, or Mars. The 2020's are going to be exciting.

The Shuttle put a lot of scientists in orbit, but in the big scheme of things the program was a failure. Too expensive, too dangerous, limited to low Earth orbit, and it never achieved anything close to the once-a-month launch rate that was originally planned. The space program hasn't been 'gutted,' there simply wasn't enough money in the NASA budget to develop a new rocket program while the Shuttle and associated hardware/facilities/staff was still on the books. The Obama administration actually boosted funding for the manned program by shifting funding away from long term unmanned projects. Not the best solution, but it's not like Congress is going to pass a budget increase for anything at the moment. That's why Bush's $250 billion Constellation program never went anywhere even though it was a solid plan with clear objectives.
Click to expand...
Do we have anything in place, after all the development happens on the US dime, to prevent them from shopping the system to say China? Its not really the US space program if that's the case.
 
Skripka said:
Another person who cannot read, and wants to put words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said humanity was capable of anything. Please tell me where I was glad about NASA getting defunded. Because I'll give you a hint as the author-I didn't.

As for the rest, It is quite easy to judge what is and isn't presently possible based on the rules of physics as we know them. And that is fundamentally our problem, not lack of vision or dreams or what have you. We've been searching for the next big thing in physics to get us out of here for decades and decades, with lots of fcking brilliant people looking....and we ain't found it yet, presuming for sake of argument there is something to find, there may be or there may not be. The folks with the PhDs think there is, so at least there is that. We might be spending trillions looking for something that doesn't exist, daydreaming about Captain Kirk while half the planet is starving and still doesn't even have flushing toilets.

Dreaming is great, don't get me wrong. But we've been dreaming of transporters and warp drive and analogues of the aforesaid for almost 50 years now. That ain't any closer to reality now than then. People have been so busy dreaming we even have imaginary Star Trek "technical manuals" explaining in imaginary verbage with physics-like terms how the damn things (might) work. Meanwhile in the real world, we invented the fuel-cell car in 1959-and we still use gasoline to get us around. We also invented nuclear power way back when, and most of our electricity is still produced by dumping carcinogens into the air.

My point is and has been that we need a breakthrough in physics bigger than relativity to make man leaving Earth in sizable numbers remotely close to reality...and the Space Shuttle and the ISS aren't and were never going to get that. In that respect they were huge money holes. And man traveling to Mars probably won't get it either, unless we discover the Prothean Archives buried on Mars. Maybe we will get that breakthrough sending man to Mars, but I'm a very strong skeptic....especially when (monetary) resources are finite, and actual science based on probes is curtailed due to reallocating money for manned exploration for the sake of man.
Click to expand...

Human beings learn from their mistakes. That's the one plus about the shuttle program. We know what not to do next time. Space programs worldwide is still in its infancy despite the fact that it's been around for six decades. It will take a hundred more years if not more before we realize our technological potentials.

As for the ISS, I disagree. I think it's worth having. We learn a lot from long-term space travel and how things work in space which will assist us when we go further. One example: growing plants on the ISS may seem trivial, but if you open your mind and think long-term, growing plants on the ISS will tell us how to be self-sufficient in space - large ships with hydroponic compartments so space explorers can eat.

And frankly I'm really tired of hearing about starving children. Yes they suck, but why pull funding from scientific endeavors? Tell the Vatican to stop hoarding and start giving! They have a hundred thousand times more money than NASA can ever hope to have! There's money from our war department too. Leave NASA out of the starving children argument lest you also be accused of wasting time and money on the [H] and internet when that money could go to feed a family for a month somewhere in Africa!
 
Skripka said:
As for the rest, It is quite easy to judge what is and isn't presently possible based on the rules of physics as we know them. And that is fundamentally our problem, not lack of vision or dreams or what have you. We've been searching for the next big thing in physics to get us out of here for decades and decades, with lots of fcking brilliant people looking....and we ain't found it yet, presuming for sake of argument there is something to find, there may be or there may not be. The folks with the PhDs think there is, so at least there is that. We might be spending trillions looking for something that doesn't exist, daydreaming about Captain Kirk while half the planet is starving and still doesn't even have flushing toilets.

Dreaming is great, don't get me wrong. But we've been dreaming of transporters and warp drive and analogues of the aforesaid for almost 50 years now. That ain't any closer to reality now than then. People have been so busy dreaming we even have imaginary Star Trek "technical manuals" explaining in imaginary verbage with physics-like terms how the damn things (might) work. Meanwhile in the real world, we invented the fuel-cell car in 1959-and we still use gasoline to get us around. We also invented nuclear power way back when, and most of our electricity is still produced by dumping carcinogens into the air.
Click to expand...
Who are you trying to blame for this? Blame this sort of thing on our inept government and greedy individuals.
Skripka said:
My point is and has been that we need a breakthrough in physics bigger than relativity to make man leaving Earth in sizable numbers remotely close to reality...and the Space Shuttle and the ISS aren't and were never going to get that. In that respect they were huge money holes. And man traveling to Mars probably won't get it either, unless we discover the Prothean Archives buried on Mars. Maybe we will get that breakthrough sending man to Mars, but I'm a very strong skeptic....especially when (monetary) resources are finite, and actual science based on probes is curtailed due to reallocating money for manned exploration for the sake of man.
Click to expand...
They do quite a lot of research on the ISS. Who's to say they won't find something in zero gravity that we haven't noticed here on earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top