EPTThe money trump wants to give to the military should be given to NASA. If he did that, my opinion of him would change slightly for the better.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 137
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
The money trump wants to give to the military should be given to NASA. If he did that, my opinion of him would change slightly for the better. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To Congress's credit, the SLS they salvaged out of Obama's stupid is looking more and more real every day. A well-established purpose for it, less so. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On September 19 2017 00:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You put miltary assets in space because they can affect what happens on Earth. There's GPS, and with GPS there exists a need to destroy, obscure and protect those satellites along with every other communication and surveillance sat. Also Directed Energy Weapons is a thing.If we ever Gundam low orbit, then I could see this. But we're still stuck on Earth for the foreseeable future, Musk be damned. What is it in there to militarize? Take out satellites? ISS? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13927 Posts
Like even if we had the capability and knew where a colonize able planet was why would the united states colonize it? | ||
|
Yurie
11833 Posts
On September 19 2017 12:28 Sermokala wrote: There's a lot of potential in space we just don't have the things now for it. People are just positioning for that thing to come along. If we had some sort of high energy processes or thing we wanted/could only make in space things would be great. As it is we're pretty stuck in a currency based society that can't expend resources on things like non earth assets without a clear picture of what we could get from that. Like even if we had the capability and knew where a colonize able planet was why would the united states colonize it? We need another round of religious suppression and starvation to force people to migrate. Most of the time people move because the grass is much much greener on the other side. The cost for even a small population to cross star systems is so prohibitive that only the majority that has it nice and can do the suppression can afford it right now. Nations also know that in the long term any colony will become independent so you don't really get a payback. Basically what needs to happen is that it becomes cheap enough that a consortium of people in the top 100 riches people can afford to create it for their new absolute kingdom with noble titles. Or something similar to prompt investments. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21679 Posts
On September 21 2017 00:58 Yurie wrote: We need another round of religious suppression and starvation to force people to migrate. Most of the time people move because the grass is much much greener on the other side. The cost for even a small population to cross star systems is so prohibitive that only the majority that has it nice and can do the suppression can afford it right now. Nations also know that in the long term any colony will become independent so you don't really get a payback. Basically what needs to happen is that it becomes cheap enough that a consortium of people in the top 100 riches people can afford to create it for their new absolute kingdom with noble titles. Or something similar to prompt investments. That or depleting the earth that forces us to move mining operations to another planet. | ||
|
Yrr
Germany804 Posts
On September 21 2017 01:14 Gorsameth wrote: That or depleting the earth that forces us to move mining operations to another planet. Depletion is a strong word. You cant really deplete most ressources. At some point it is just cheaper to mine them somewhere else. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
Could we use a Dragon capsule to ferry from the ISS to a beyond LEO building site? | ||
|
Yrr
Germany804 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On September 21 2017 02:00 Yrr wrote: All you need to do is to fake a signal from outer space and watch the space program explode :D I'd say you don't even need to go that far. Just fake Russia or China exploding their space program to build LEO infrastructure. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Yrr
Germany804 Posts
On September 21 2017 02:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'd say you don't even need to go that far. Just fake Russia or China exploding their space program to build LEO infrastructure. That's easy to debunk though. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
So would a signal. We just need a really vocal proponent of space with a fuck ton of money (more than we already have) and we could do it. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Yrr
Germany804 Posts
On September 21 2017 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote: Why not just send a probe to push a giant rock towards us? First they will nuke you and then they will get hit by a rock.  Oh well I guess all we can do is wait.. or found a company and ... | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2617 Posts
I think the initial checklist for beyond LEO infrastructure is pretty simple. 1. Launch survey probes that examines near earth asteroids until you find a suitable asteroid with water (it can be pretty small). 2. Launch proof of concept capture mission. 3. Bring asteroid to earth 4. Extract water from asteroid (can be done before previous step if it's easier) 5. Turn water into fuel. Were going to need to work on rocketry/space launches, robotics, space construction/habitats, engines etc during the time it takes to do this. I'd much rather see more organizations launching small robotic probes that can fit on our regular launch platforms and try to improve on each launch. That way we can work on both the launch costs and working with tech in space while we search for something to work with. Once we have a target we can figure out what it would take to bring it back and refine it into something useful. Building or moving a space station at a Lagrange point or in Lunar orbit is cool but ultimately not very useful since it will only mean that we need to blow more of the budget to sustain it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 21 2017 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: We could do that if we borrowed some money from the military and gave it to NASA, don't you think? USAF Space has always done more reliable, if less ambitious, work for space. Don't discount the military entirely here. On September 21 2017 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: The space treaty that was signed could be bolstered a bit more and more incentives to private corps for researching/launching robotics to test the feasibility of building in space. NASA has some interesting funding for commercial space. I think just a few days ago they were taking proposals for funding of a new lunar lander. Though perhaps they could do more themselves because really, the "privatization" of space seems to be private companies on a NASA budget doing things for mostly NASA. Rather than private companies on a NASA payroll building things for NASA to do stuff with. Not much different in character, really. On September 21 2017 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Could we use a Dragon capsule to ferry from the ISS to a beyond LEO building site? Why a Dragon? And we talking cargo or people? In any case: 1. We'll see what range of long-duration features Crew Dragon is equipped with, but they're probably inferior to Orion and other craft actually built to go far. 2. Falcon isn't very good for higher orbits. 3. Though in principle, yes you could build stuff in higher orbits. It's just not practical to service with the craft we currently have available. Not that we don't have the technology to do better, but it's tough and unfortunately the last decade has been one of dicking around and constantly switching directions. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On September 21 2017 03:05 LegalLord wrote: USAF Space has always done more reliable, if less ambitious, work for space. Don't discount the military entirely here. NASA has some interesting funding for commercial space. I think just a few days ago they were taking proposals for funding of a new lunar lander. Though perhaps they could do more themselves because really, the "privatization" of space seems to be private companies on a NASA budget doing things for mostly NASA. Rather than private companies on a NASA payroll building things for NASA to do stuff with. Not much different in character, really. Why a Dragon? And we talking cargo or people? In any case: 1. We'll see what range of long-duration features Crew Dragon is equipped with, but they're probably inferior to Orion and other craft actually built to go far. 2. Falcon isn't very good for higher orbits. 3. Though in principle, yes you could build stuff in higher orbits. It's just not practical to service with the craft we currently have available. Not that we don't have the technology to do better, but it's tough and unfortunately the last decade has been one of dicking around and constantly switching directions. I'm not discounting the military. As I assume that is your career field, I know you want to get your hands on the good funding and come up with fascinating things. I always push towards NASA because it's kinda what they do, ya know? Might as well give money to the experts and let them do what they do best. The Google X Prize is similar to what NASA is asking for, so I know a bit about the proposals for lunar landing modules. Some should be sent this year or early next, if I remember correctly. Might have to brush up on it again. I agree that NASA should be outsourcing some things so they can work with it, instead of the other way around. But as long as it's a collaborative effort, I'm not going to begrudge it too much. As for the why Dragon, that's the only pod I know of that we have to shuttle people once they are in orbit. We could use cargo as well but once in space, Crew Dragon capsules seem to be the best. I'm talking mainly ferrying people once they are at the ISS. Make the ISS a staging ground and then move past it to do some experiments. | ||
| ||
