EPTThis milestone has not been accomplished since 1972 and probably will never happen again. The Moon Conspiracy people claim this is because it never happened in the first place.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16700 Posts
This milestone has not been accomplished since 1972 and probably will never happen again. The Moon Conspiracy people claim this is because it never happened in the first place. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
But rocketery is expenential so you need an exponentially larger rocket once mass goes up. Then you need some more velocity to reach the escape velocity of earth. Falcon 9 can do what you suggest fine. You can put a manned spacecraft in a very eccentric orbit. It can put 4500 kg in GTO. A Dragon weights a bit more. But no problem putting in LEO a dragon with then 2 or 3 or more components. But in fact they have a Falcon 9 Heavy that carries almost 20 tons to GTO. If you have enough Falcon 9 heavies you can go to Mars if you want. In fact, put an engine on the ISS and you can move that to Mars. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 24 2012 18:36 Befree wrote: I get so frustrated with how under-appreciated NASA is. + Show Spoiler + Work like theirs isn't going to give immediate rewards to us. We aren't going to fly to the moon and then suddenly gain something from it. But it is progress and the technological advancement of our civilization and it is extremely important to our future. When you imagine the future, what do you think of? Space travel? Colonization across the solar system perhaps? And how do you think we get there? Do you think we just sit on Earth and wait for it to magically pop up. That somehow the passage of time naturally opens up technology to us? That we go over to our engineering bay and click our "space travel" upgrade and wait for it to finish? That's not how the world works. We have to put in a lot of time, money and effort to develop this technology one step at a time. The things that NASA does are the stepping stones upon which we will reach this future. Each of these steps aren't always going to give us something useful. When we first send a person to another planet, we probably aren't going to get anything of immediate value out of it. It is an investment, though. There's a lot between our current technology and future useful technology, we can't simply skip over the middle. This is why private companies are not a replacement for NASA. It would have been impossible for any private company in 1958 to have done what NASA did. The investment is just too huge and there is too much uncertainty with when you will be rewarded. Through the beauty of our collective taxes and our will to forge a bright future, we are able to fund NASA and we were able to create this absolutely amazing technology that we now have 53 years later. And now that we have done the research, we can allow private companies to start actually making use of the technology NASA has pioneered. But this does NOT at all mean that NASA is done. This just means it is time for the next step. NASA is still needed to research things that are not remotely viable for private companies to research. We have not reached the pinnacle of space travel or something, we don't just call it quits at this point on our development. I think that this attitude seems to be getting more common lately, though, and it saddens me. It's like we're giving up on the future. We are no longer dreaming up the amazing things we could be doing, but instead wanting to remain stagnate in our current state of technology. Private companies are the answer for perfecting our already understood technology and making it accessible, but they aren't going to get us much further than that. And it has s still yet to be shown whether these private companies will really be able to come anywhere close to making a profit on this and being able to continually fund themselves independently. Scientific research is the key to our future and always has been. But scientific research is not going to be profitable and we need organizations out there like NASA to do it. Please, just really think for a moment on what you imagine 200 years in the future being like, and then think how do we get there? By defunding or getting rid of NASA? Unlikely. (Also, NASA's research in their field of aeronautics has proven to give many side benefits. During their research, they find lots of practical uses of the what they're doing and they give out a to the public a report annually on these things and they transfer them to the commercial market so we can all make use of them. You can look up NASA spinoff if you're interested in looking through some of them. But you would be amazed with just how much of this NASA technology we use in every day life. To name a few things: NASA is responsible for the development of kidney dialysis machines, CAT scans, LED, memory foam, portable cordless vacuums, water filters, shoe insoles, and so many more things. The amount of benefit society has gotten from NASA on health research and technology alone should be enough to warrant their continued existence. They are truly one of the US's (/World's) greatest assets, and it would be insane to get rid of them.) I don't think we should get rid of government sponsored space flight (or even NASA necessarily.) But there's little doubt that NASA wasted the last 30 years as far as human spaceflight is concerned. The space shuttle was a failure, yet it kept flying 25 fucking years after this became painfully (and tragically) obvious. Even their scientific programs have been a mixed bag. Their biggest success, the Hubble telescope, was delayed, way over budget and didn't work as planned. Ironically one of the most successful missions of the space shuttle was to repair the mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope. I.e. make it work the way it should have from the start. Now the exact same thing is happening with the James Webb Telescope. It's delayed and way over budget, while other important projects, like the Terrestrial Planet Finder or LISA are getting defunded or postponed indefinitely. People go easy on NASA because they like their overall goal of exploring space. But NASA's incompetence is actually hurting these goals and uncritically supporting NASA just makes the situation worse. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16700 Posts
On May 02 2012 22:46 Miyoshino wrote: There is no technolgical stumbling block. You just make your rocket larger and it can carry in space not just a LEO sattelite but an actual spacecraft with an engine and tons of fuel. But rocketery is expenential so you need an exponentially larger rocket once mass goes up. Then you need some more velocity to reach the escape velocity of earth. Falcon 9 can do what you suggest fine. You can put a manned spacecraft in a very eccentric orbit. It can put 4500 kg in GTO. A Dragon weights a bit more. But no problem putting in LEO a dragon with then 2 or 3 or more components. But in fact they have a Falcon 9 Heavy that carries almost 20 tons to GTO. If you have enough Falcon 9 heavies you can go to Mars if you want. In fact, put an engine on the ISS and you can move that to Mars. if you are going to use big sounding math words like "exponential" at least spell them correctly. keep in mind.. i'm talking about putting a living thing that far out... unmanned has already been done many many times in the past 40 years. you can talk theory all you want. it has not happened since 1972. IF it ever does THEN the stumbling block will have been over come. until then .. it is a 40 year stumbling block... that grows with every passing day. | ||
|
xwoGworwaTsx
United States984 Posts
On May 02 2012 23:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: if you are going to use big sounding math words like "exponential" at least spell them correctly. keep in mind.. i'm talking about putting a living thing that far out... unmanned has already been done many many times in the past 40 years. you can talk theory all you want. it has not happened since 1972. IF it ever does THEN the stumbling block will have been over come. until then .. it is a 40 year stumbling block... that grows with every passing day. But arent NASA doing something about it? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21668 Posts
Why do we want to send another person to the moon, Why do we want someone in space just cause we can. Untill we find a way to make actual spacetravel fast and efficient there is no reason to go and do it. | ||
|
Bowdz
United States202 Posts
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11503172-spacexs-commercial-liftoff-to-space-station-put-on-hold-again?lite MSNBC wrote: The first private-sector spaceship destined to hook up with the International Space Station will have to wait a few days longer than planned for its Florida launch. SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket had been scheduled to lift off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Launch Complex 40 on May 7, on a test flight that could climax with a space station berthing of its unmanned Dragon cargo capsule several days later. A launch-pad engine test went off successfully on Monday, but more time is needed to analyze changes in SpaceX's flight software and make sure all systems are go. "At this time, a May 7 launch appears unlikely," SpaceX communications director Kirstin Brost Grantham said in an email. "SpaceX is continuing to work through the software assurance process with NASA. We will issue a statement as soon as a new launch target is set." Due to the orbital mechanics involved in a space station rendezvous, the Falcon 9 can be launched only at a precise time during the day, on specific dates. The next opportunity for launch comes on May 10, but it's not yet clear whether liftoff will be reset for that date. In a Twitter update, Space News' Brian Berger cited an internal NASA manifest that showed the launch slipping to no earlier than May 10. After that date, SpaceX would have to stand down to let the Russians launch a three-person crew in a Soyuz craft to the space station on May 14. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
On May 02 2012 23:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: if you are going to use big sounding math words like "exponential" at least spell them correctly. Asshole. You are just a moon conspiracy idiot. Go read what I write about human space fight. I am against it. But it is pretty obvious what can be done with the rockets they have. You imply that the Van Allen radiation belt will fry them. That was stupid 40 years ago. Now go wash your mouth and go back to high school. User was warned for this post | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
Point is that apparently NASA doesn't necessarily have the brightest or sharpest or unique roster in their facility...juuuuust saying | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
We are literally on the line of a new era in Space travel and it's costs and feasibility. Imagine the pressure and axiety of the Engineers. | ||
|
Bowdz
United States202 Posts
On May 03 2012 11:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think the Media and some people are now trying to detract everything SpaceX does, all these delays as the inevitable failure of the Commercial Space program or even the death of an era not even making it past an idea. We are literally on the line of a new era in Space travel and it's costs and feasibility. Imagine the pressure and axiety of the Engineers. As much as I am disappointed by the delay, I think it is far more important that SpaceX does everything in their power to get a successful COTS2/3 launch and I can't imagine what the atmosphere must be like in Hawthorne. It's a shame that there is SO MUCH importance placed on what in reality is a standard test mission, but I think any success or failure will inevitably be overblown by the media. It is really disappointing to see the people in Congress and in public that are pushing for an end of the COTS and CCDev programs and yet want to fund the ridiculous NASA SLS launcher. Considering SpaceX is about 10 years old and, per Elon's statements, has spent roughly $1 billion (as a company from inception to planning to production to testing) is nothing short of amazing. To think that the Orion capsule alone has already cost $6 billion and won't be tested until 2014, SpaceX is without a doubt changing the game of aerospace. I am sincerely hoping for another flawless launch for two reasons: 1) Elon's post mission press conferences are awesome especially when the mission was a success and 2) The media storm surrounding the mission would be great for the aerospace industry and the entire COTS/CCDev program. | ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
On May 03 2012 08:55 Miyoshino wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On May 02 2012 23:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: if you are going to use big sounding math words like "exponential" at least spell them correctly. Asshole. You are just a moon conspiracy idiot. Go read what I write about human space fight. I am against it. But it is pretty obvious what can be done with the rockets they have. You imply that the Van Allen radiation belt will fry them. That was stupid 40 years ago. Now go wash your mouth and go back to high school. User was warned for this post I don't understand how anyone can be against humans in space. We have to go there, it's in our nature to explore and discover new horizons. Space is the last frontier. Do not forget that the Earth is finite and it will one day, like all other things, cease to exists. So, if we as a species have any foresight we would be vigorously poking and prodding the cold darkness of space. Some Interesting Facts world military budget: 2.1 Trillion dollars world space budget: 38 billion dollars So if its a money thing, your money is being wasted elsewhere. | ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
On May 03 2012 09:10 heroyi wrote: I have a friend whose mom works in NASA. Pretty high position (managing lvl? or equivalent?). Anyway from what he has told me some of the people that work there (i.e engineers not the janitors) are quite incompetent and he stated he could probably do the job a lot better then they(could be an exaggeration but he isnt the type to do such). Point is that apparently NASA doesn't necessarily have the brightest or sharpest or unique roster in their facility...juuuuust saying This is just wrong. NASA has some of the very best and brightest. I know multiple people who have worked there; they aren't incompetent by any means. If your friend could do a better job (more power to him), he might want to consider a scientific job because he will do great, but I am going to bet he is exaggerating. Obviously, there may still be a few people there who are not too bright, or maybe not even that, they might not have good engineering sense (the ability to make something work), but they still have a considerable amount of people who are very good at what they do. The point is that NASA does have one of the (if not the best) roster working for them. EDIT: Also referring back to the thread name, I think it should be NASA and cooperation with the private sector. There isn't any competition here. They are working together. It is good to see progress too, they will be docking with the ISS within the next two weeks for sure! | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
| ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
On May 03 2012 21:50 Zorkmid wrote: Some problems/projects are so big that only government can solve them. Health care, transportation infrastructure, global warming, war. Space exploration probably still falls into that category for now. Well SpaceX is a private company (funded mainly by NASA) but at the moment they do have a pretty decent rocket. For now I would agree with you, NASA and other government space programs are the only organizations with enough backing to do exploration in the near future, but I am crossing my fingers that this will soon not be the case  | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
Some problems/projects are so big that only government can solve them. Health care, transportation infrastructure, global warming, war. Space exploration probably still falls into that category for now. There is no special quality about the organization known as the state that grants it magic powers to solve problems. In fact there is another, superior method to handling these problems, and that is the market. You see, on the market, whenever more of something is needed, i.e. when demand increases, the price of that something goes up. In this manner the economy is planned and scarce resources are allocated EXACTLY where they are needed. On the other hand, if you have a centrally planned economy, or if you centrally plan one or two or more industries in a market economy, what is the method whereby resources are directed to where they are most needed? You must hope that some government official - typically the nephew of someone important - is omniscient enough to divine that more of a is needed here and b is needed there and c is needed there etc. etc. Needless to say this never happens. Under socialism economic calculation is impossible. To use one of your problems, transportation infrastructure. Have you ever been stuck in a traffic jam? There is a very easy solution to the problem of congestion - simply increase the price of driving @ peak times. This is a solution the market would find effortlessly but the state cannot, and will not, because there is no incentive for a government bureaucrat to innovate. In fact, if the government bureaucrat innovates, and it doesn't work, then it will be he who is to blame and he will lose his cushy job, so the incentive is to go along to get along, not make any waves and do everything the exact same as everyone else. Whereas on the marketplace entrepreneurs must fight for every customer, so they are willing to go the extra mile and do anything to make their product sell better. As for war, yes, that is something cannot occur without governments, but I hardly see that as an endorsement of the statist position. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
On May 03 2012 21:07 NadaSound wrote: I don't understand how anyone can be against humans in space. We have to go there, it's in our nature to explore and discover new horizons. Space is the last frontier. Do not forget that the Earth is finite and it will one day, like all other things, cease to exists. So, if we as a species have any foresight we would be vigorously poking and prodding the cold darkness of space. Some Interesting Facts world military budget: 2.1 Trillion dollars world space budget: 38 billion dollars So if its a money thing, your money is being wasted elsewhere. I am a big Star Trek fan. Probably a bigger one than you are. But this is pure romantism. It has no basis in reality. We want to know more, sure. Humans don't help with that. Earth is finite, sure. But is there an alternative. How many people do we need for a good and healthy society? Why is 1 million not enough? One million for our entire civilization. What is wrong with that? The problem is thus not earth being small but there being too many people. And space will never be a solution for that. To put peole in space we need more resources, not less. Humans will cease to exist one day. Why act like they dont have to? I don't think there is any point to having humans in space besides space tourism. Everything can be done both better and cheaper by robots. The money spend and the military budger doesn't matter. I also support a 0 dollar military budget so what is the relevance? | ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
On May 04 2012 01:07 Miyoshino wrote: I am a big Star Trek fan. Probably a bigger one than you are. But this is pure romantism. It has no basis in reality. We want to know more, sure. Humans don't help with that. Earth is finite, sure. But is there an alternative. How many people do we need for a good and healthy society? Why is 1 million not enough? One million for our entire civilization. What is wrong with that? The problem is thus not earth being small but there being too many people. And space will never be a solution for that. To put peole in space we need more resources, not less. Humans will cease to exist one day. Why act like they dont have to? I don't think there is any point to having humans in space besides space tourism. Everything can be done both better and cheaper by robots. The money spend and the military budger doesn't matter. I also support a 0 dollar military budget so what is the relevance? First of all, what is wrong with a 1 million person civilization? Well how about the fact that more than 6 billion people would have to die! I hope you're not that cold. Yes there are harsh realities that come along with the transversing of the vast distances, even just in our solar system and the difficulties of maintaining a sustained presence. Do you believe that we will not advance technologically over the next 100-200 years? In that time frame who knows what kinds of things could be possible. The daunting task of today could become trivial. Do not forget that in the mid 19th century there were many scientist who thought that everything that could be invented was invented. Then guess what happened... we discovered quantum mechanics, special and general relativity. Now look at where were at. I think the budgets are very relevant. The whole privatization thing was because of deficiencies with the NASA's budget at a time when we saw increases in defense spending and it shows the disparity in our priorities. Right now, it does seem that we would rather stay here on the Earth and just kill our selves. So yes, you may very will be right and that 6 billion people will have to die. There are many possible futures for us. Nothing is certain. We may have different hopes and different dreams but by no way do my ideas have no basis in reality. | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
On May 04 2012 01:07 Miyoshino wrote: I am a big Star Trek fan. Probably a bigger one than you are. But this is pure romantism. It has no basis in reality. We want to know more, sure. Humans don't help with that. Earth is finite, sure. But is there an alternative. How many people do we need for a good and healthy society? Why is 1 million not enough? One million for our entire civilization. What is wrong with that? The problem is thus not earth being small but there being too many people. And space will never be a solution for that. To put peole in space we need more resources, not less. Humans will cease to exist one day. Why act like they dont have to? I don't think there is any point to having humans in space besides space tourism. Everything can be done both better and cheaper by robots. The money spend and the military budger doesn't matter. I also support a 0 dollar military budget so what is the relevance? No matter if there is to many people on earth or not, we should still go into space. The resources needed for colonies in space ain't a problem. Read Planetary resources TL thread there are more resources out there close to earth than we could ever use. And humans will cease to exist one day? Only if we all have the same attitude as you do. As long as we in the next 2 billion years can find a way to leave the solar system then short of an alien extermination nothing can stop us. I get the feeling that you are one of those people who view humanity as a blight on the planet, hope I am wrong though | ||
|
TheNihilist
United States178 Posts
On May 03 2012 11:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think the Media and some people are now trying to detract everything SpaceX does, all these delays as the inevitable failure of the Commercial Space program or even the death of an era not even making it past an idea. We are literally on the line of a new era in Space travel and it's costs and feasibility. Imagine the pressure and axiety of the Engineers. When you walk around throwing out estimates like $500 per lb to LEO you are going to have some skeptics. There's a huge amount of private commercial spaceflight potential at the moment though (Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Planetary Ventures, etc) so I am cheering for them. Bigelow even delayed the construction of their private space station since they still need a way to get to orbit and manned Falcon 9 could be their ticket. But Elon has a tendency to be over optimistic about certain ascepts of this and it ends up inviting criticism when things don't go perfectly. | ||
| ||
