|
Keep debates civil. |
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
.Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything.
Stop.
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology
If you mean the EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPE ares rocket is shit, then you are correct, which is why they scrapped it If you mean everything else, You are wrong
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
And they can't do much more than shuttle a few people into space and bring up light cargo.
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA
lol? having a lot of satellites and cameras in space doesn't mean they're catching up to what NASA does or its goals.
|
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything. Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology, but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA!
I went through your post history looking for more hilarious posts, but was disappointed 
|
Osaka27172 Posts
Yeah guys, keep falling for trolls
|
On January 05 2011 08:56 Manifesto7 wrote:Yeah guys, keep falling for trolls
Aside from the moon landing bit, way too many people believe everything else he posted for it to be an outrageous troll.
|
Just a note on tech guys, it's a lot easier to do something that's been done before better the second time around than it is to do it in the first place. One might say that the first step is always the hardest. Commercial companies will be able to do far better than NASA these days, because they don't have to pay for all those engineering, astrophysics and psych studies, experiments and documentation that have come out of NASA. The hard, expensive work has been for the most part done for them. All they have to do is optimize the supply chains and employ a bit of flair in specialized design.
The job of govt funded research and development is to go beyond what would be commercially viable so that the potential of future commercial viability can be discerned. Whether it's medicine, engineering, space exploration, weapons tech or informatics, the principle has applied for centuries- academics, principally on private or govt funding do the expensive, failure laden pioneering, and commercial interests pick up the good bits once it's done.
I'm not saying that this is bad, I'm not even saying that were there to be no govt or private R&D progress would stagnate, but you can be sure it would be both slower and less diverse. Commercial ventures must be so much safer and, well, cheaper.
|
if the NASA and the other governement funded space programms were clever they would work together in every aspect and not all do their own stuff.
|
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything. Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology, but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA!
User was warned for this post
have you ever seen a russian rocket? you do understand that russia's philosophy for getting to space was "not high enough? lets put more motors on it or stalin will kill us". Here I got a picture to help you.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wBjI3.png)
Each one of the yellow circles is a motor. Now remember, this is a multistage rocket, this is just the first stage, there is more motors inside-- some russian rockets had over 50 motors in them. You sir are a fucking retard. Moreover, NASA doesn't like the idea of shuttles they wanted disposable rockets but bureaucrats are stupid and said no. Furthermore, Challenger (the one that blew up in the 80s) failed because of an o-ring due to cold weather. engineers said :don't fly", bureaucrats said "fly dat shit nigga". There is a reason bureaucrats aren't engineers. Also, Columbia (the one that blew up upon re-entry recently) did so because a small piece of foam coating the propulsion system hit a wing and was not visible in plain sight. Previously, space walks for checking the shuttle weren't as routine as nothing had happened before after over 100 missions to space, thus not as crucial (or so they thought). Are you one of those "truthers" that say Bush decided to blow up the WTC too? You sir are fucking retarded. The only reason europe/china are in the space game is because the US and NASA partnered up so instead of simply americans colonizing space, it will be the world because this frontier is unlike any other and everyone will be needed to help. Now I will repeat, you sir are a fucking retard. But hey, gz on believing so much in something that is completely and utterly wrong. you're dumb.
|
On January 05 2011 10:25 Question132 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything. Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology, but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA!
User was warned for this post have you ever seen a russian rocket? you do understand that russia's philosophy for getting to space was "not high enough? lets put more motors on it or stalin will kill us". Here Each one of the yellow circles is a motor. Now remember, this is a multistage rocket, this is just the first stage, there is more motors inside-- some russian rockets had over 50 motors in them. You sir are a fucking retard. Moreover, NASA doesn't like the idea of shuttles they wanted disposable rockets but bureaucrats are stupid and said no. Furthermore, Challenger (the one that blew up in the 80s) failed because of an o-ring due to cold weather. engineers said :don't fly", bureaucrats said "fly dat shit nigga". There is a reason bureaucrats aren't engineers. Also, Columbia (the one that blew up upon re-entry recently) did so because a small piece of foam coating the propulsion system hit a wing and was not visible in plain sight. Previously, space walks for checking the shuttle weren't as routine as nothing had happened before after over 100 missions to space, thus not as crucial (or so they thought). Are you one of those "truthers" that say Bush decided to blow up the WTC too? You sir are fucking retarded. The only reason europe/china are in the space game is because the US and NASA partnered up so instead of simply americans colonizing space, it will be the world because this frontier is unlike any other and everyone will be needed to help. Now I will repeat, you sir are a fucking retard. But hey, gz on believing so much in something that is completely and utterly wrong. you're dumb.
I think paragraphs are often times as important, or more important, than space programs.
Edit: and manners...
|
On January 05 2011 10:29 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 10:25 Question132 wrote:On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything. Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology, but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA!
User was warned for this post have you ever seen a russian rocket? you do understand that russia's philosophy for getting to space was "not high enough? lets put more motors on it or stalin will kill us". Here Each one of the yellow circles is a motor. Now remember, this is a multistage rocket, this is just the first stage, there is more motors inside-- some russian rockets had over 50 motors in them. You sir are a fucking retard. Moreover, NASA doesn't like the idea of shuttles they wanted disposable rockets but bureaucrats are stupid and said no. Furthermore, Challenger (the one that blew up in the 80s) failed because of an o-ring due to cold weather. engineers said :don't fly", bureaucrats said "fly dat shit nigga". There is a reason bureaucrats aren't engineers. Also, Columbia (the one that blew up upon re-entry recently) did so because a small piece of foam coating the propulsion system hit a wing and was not visible in plain sight. Previously, space walks for checking the shuttle weren't as routine as nothing had happened before after over 100 missions to space, thus not as crucial (or so they thought). Are you one of those "truthers" that say Bush decided to blow up the WTC too? You sir are fucking retarded. The only reason europe/china are in the space game is because the US and NASA partnered up so instead of simply americans colonizing space, it will be the world because this frontier is unlike any other and everyone will be needed to help. Now I will repeat, you sir are a fucking retard. But hey, gz on believing so much in something that is completely and utterly wrong. you're dumb. I think paragraphs are often times as important, or more important, than space programs. Edit: and manners...
its a forum most post don't constitute requiring paragraphs--I didn't realize how long it actually was. Moreover, I called him a "fucking retard" because both he is, and I believe in repetition to get my point across. Thank you for defending the man that claims we never landed on the moon and that thrown together rockets are better than engineered ones but hey its cool.
|
On January 01 2011 09:07 FragKrag wrote:
Um. $800 million to send a rocket into space ok
NASA's rocket was supposed to send humans to the moon again and eventually to Mars which could possibly quite a bit more costly than sending a rocket into orbit and bringing it back down.
Of course I'm not saying that NASA doesn't need to be trimmed a fair bit, but to compare the two projects seems a bit far fetched considering their ultimate goals.
Well, it costs about that much for every launch for NASA so it's still strangely close in cost range.
|
On January 01 2011 11:21 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 10:51 majestouch wrote:On January 01 2011 10:37 BlackJack wrote:
I never understood why people care so much about the deaths of astronauts. Millions and millions of people have died doing their jobs to get us where we are today. What is there to complain about when it is essentially safer for us to explore other planets than it was for our ancestors to explore their own country? wow, that is extremely narrow-minded that you think of human life as being so how do i put this... not worthwhile? not important? lol. Good thing that engineers follow a code of ethics and morals, else your house would crash in on yourself--to bad it isn't after reading that comment. For more information about the earliest set of rules/ethics in engineering/building read the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi sounds like something written by a five year old. "You poked my eye out? I'M GONNA POKE YOUR EYE OUT NOW TOO"
That's the bible you are quoting son. Go forth and spread the word that it sounds like it was written by a five year old.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
eh, the private space guys and nasa are doing different things and have different objectives. sending rich people into space seems like a complete waste of money when compared to what nasa is doing if your goal is encouraging basic research. the trick here is that the rich guys that are flying into space are perfectly happy to waste their money while generating no scientific results.
|
On January 06 2011 11:26 oneofthem wrote:
eh, the private space guys and nasa are doing different things and have different objectives. sending rich people into space seems like a complete waste of money when compared to what nasa is doing if your goal is encouraging basic research. the trick here is that the rich guys that are flying into space are perfectly happy to waste their money while generating no scientific results.
Kinda like private pharmaceutical companies making drugs for rich people and private hardware companies making chips for rich people, generating no scientific results?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
whether space tourism generates scientific results or not, the point is that that's not really their goal, and their activity probably yields a lower return in terms of scientific results than nasa's various research programs do.
nasa does basic research, private space tourism is tourism. there is obviously a difference in objectives here, and when you ask a question like "nasa vs private space program," you have to specify by which objective you are comparing them.
btw, speaking of private pharma vs govt/academic medical research, the human genome project, brain mapping, large amount of cancer and special disease research etc are gaps that can only be effectively filled by the latter. private industry isn't the entire answer to scientific research, that much should be obvious.
|
Scientific research, at least in the USA, is done mostly by private institutions. Every worthwhile university in the States is a private institution. Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea sure, for profit corporations will pay the basic research physicist and the biologist not doing pharma research.
and wow, did you just equate universities with for profit industry?
|
On January 06 2011 13:04 oneofthem wrote:
yea sure, for profit corporations will pay the basic research physicist and the biologist not doing pharma research.
and wow, did you just equate universities with for profit industry?
An university is a profitable business. They wouldn't exist privately otherwise.
|
On January 06 2011 12:57 Cloud wrote:
Scientific research, at least in the USA, is done mostly by private institutions. Every worthwhile university in the States is a private institution. Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
No most universities are public with money paid to them+controlled by the government... and even decent private universities get much of their research funding from government grants
(Of course most public University research also has some private funding)
Generally, the more Basic the research, the less private funding is available ... too little chance of profit too far in the future.
|
The privatization of space exploration is something that I some interest in, I've followed and enjoyed the company Armadillo Aerospace founded by id software founder and doom/quake programmer John Carmack. Their youtube page got some fun stuff to watch: http://www.youtube.com/user/armadilloaerospace
Love their "back to basic" approach, designing many things from scratch. Their work and a few other companies are making cheap space travel possible....by nasa standards.
Either way the worst thing is how restricted most of the space travel related work is, One reason being that so many things within space exploration have military uses, therefor enormous paperwork for every little thing is needed. For a small company this is just a pain and limiting.
|
On January 06 2011 11:40 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 11:26 oneofthem wrote:
eh, the private space guys and nasa are doing different things and have different objectives. sending rich people into space seems like a complete waste of money when compared to what nasa is doing if your goal is encouraging basic research. the trick here is that the rich guys that are flying into space are perfectly happy to waste their money while generating no scientific results. Kinda like private pharmaceutical companies making drugs for rich people and private hardware companies making chips for rich people, generating no scientific results?
Please don't let this be my thousandth post...
Pharmaceutical advances delve into NEW territory, whereas private space research does not. Private hardware companies delve into NEW territory, whereas private space research does not.
Both of those things generate new scientific advances...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
