The end of NASA

[Cassel]

I hope it does

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-space-nasa.html

[Nightside]

18 minutes ago, Cassel said:

I hope it does

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-space-nasa.html

So you are not a fan of manned space exploration, deep space probes or planetary science?

Nasa has a mandate to do all that, Space Force would just develop more spy sats... that’s pretty boring to me.

[Spaceception]

4 minutes ago, Nightside said:

So you are not a fan of manned space exploration, deep space probes or planetary science?

Nasa has a mandate to do all that, Space Force would just develop more spy sats... that’s pretty boring to me.

Yep

33 minutes ago, Cassel said:

I hope it does

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-space-nasa.html

NASA is important to have, because they do a lot of R&D, and exploration that private companies don't have much interest in, and that other countries are comparatively lagging behind in. Militarizing space won't do much peaceful exploration or discovery. The space force and NASA have very different goals, so it doesn't make sense to merge them. And a lot (Or even all) of what they would develop would have to have some military application to be made in the first place. After skimming the article, I don't think we need another arms race. Especially one in space. The space force right now won't have much more to do than its already done with things like the Air force space command. And meanwhile, NASA should stick to scientific discovery.

There's enough room for the both of them, but we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to stuff like the space force.

(I hope I didn't get too political)

[Ultimate Steve]

IMO NASA should stay. There is a debate as to whether they should stay in the launch vehicle business, but that's only a bit of what NASA does. Probes, the ISS, science that might be useful someday, spinoffs, keeping many rocket scientists busy, knowledge of logistics of manned missions, and who knows what I'm forgetting...

[DerekL1963]

On 10/18/2018 at 2:29 PM, Cassel said:

I hope it does

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-space-nasa.html

Whoever wrote that article is not only impressively stupid, they're completely clueless to boot.  Yet another idiot who knows absolutely zero about the issue and blathers on blaming the White House, and who doesn't realize that the movement to create a Space Force dates back to late in the Clinton Administration.  And what kind of hallucinogenic drugs are they on to think a military service would absorb NASA's civilian missions?  They're also spreading the common FUD that the Space Force is some kind of Space Marines rather than an agglomeration of existing functions.  Etc... etc...

Or, to sum up, pretty much every lie and deliberate misrepresentation ever presented on this topic - this maroon has taken as the gospel truth.  They then proceeded to treat the nonsensical opinions they've based on that load of crap as though were some reasonable representation of reality.

[snip]

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[insert_name]

On 10/18/2018 at 3:35 PM, DerekL1963 said:

Whoever wrote that article is not only impressively stupid, they're completely clueless to boot.  Yet another idiot who knows absolutely zero about the issue and blathers on blaming the White House, and who doesn't realize that the movement to create a Space Force dates back to late in the Clinton Administration.  And what kind of hallucinogenic drugs are they on to think a military service would absorb NASA's civilian missions?  They're also spreading the common FUD that the Space Force is some kind of Space Marines rather than an agglomeration of existing functions.  Etc... etc...

Or, to sum up, pretty much every lie and deliberate misrepresentation ever presented on this topic - this maroon has taken as the gospel truth.  They then proceeded to treat the nonsensical opinions they've based on that load of crap as though were some reasonable representation of reality.

Also they seem to think that there is a need for the space force to develop its own launch vehicle, and that that would somehow mean less workers for NASA. Do they not understand that the military has been contracting out LV development for decades, and that the decrease in launch costs that could result would help NASA. Also why on earth would the military want to build a space telescope, that has almost no practical application outside of research.

[Bill Phil]

20 minutes ago, insert_name said:

Also they seem to think that there is a need for the space force to develop its own launch vehicle, and that that would somehow mean less workers for NASA. Do they not understand that the military has been contracting out LV development for decades, and that the decrease in launch costs that could result would help NASA. Also why on earth would the military want to build a space telescope, that has almost no practical application outside of research.

Check for aliens...

[sh1pman]

18 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Check for aliens...

Also check if there’s a lot of valuable resources on their planets...

[razark]

8 hours ago, Cassel said:

I hope it does

A. I hope not, I like my paycheck.

B. Put me under DoD and their budget?  I hope so, I like my paycheck!

 

7 hours ago, insert_name said:

Also why on earth would the military want to build a space telescope, that has almost no practical application outside of research.

Point it one way, it's a telescope.  Point it the other, and you're reading newspapers in Moscow DPRK Baghdad Pyongyang Tehran Beijing <insert random US city here>.

 

NASA and Star Fleet I mean Space Force would have very different foci.  NASA may be outdated¹, but it will not be replaced by a military branch.

 

¹We have a space exploration program.  That is, and should be, NASA's mission.  What we need is a (civilian) Space Exploitation Program.

Edited October 19, 2018 by razark

[Cassel]

On 10/18/2018 at 2:51 PM, Nightside said:

So you are not a fan of manned space exploration, deep space probes or planetary science?

Nasa has a mandate to do all that, Space Force would just develop more spy sats... that’s pretty boring to me.

I am a fan of all this, which is why NASA must be closed and a new agency must be created instead, which will be able to explore. NASA also participated in the creation of spy satellites. How do you think where they came from?
At the beginning, NASA did all these things and was trying to explore our solar system, but now it has stopped, it is just a very expensive space job program. They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years. Send one probe does not count it is also what Indian space program can do and they do it 20 times cheaper than NASA, but you can not call it a large mission.

[snip]

On 10/18/2018 at 3:13 PM, Ultimate Steve said:

IMO NASA should stay. There is a debate as to whether they should stay in the launch vehicle business, but that's only a bit of what NASA does.

SpaceX is probably technologically overtaking NASA in the matter of building rockets?

On 10/18/2018 at 3:35 PM, DerekL1963 said:

  They're also spreading the common FUD that the Space Force is some kind of Space Marines rather than an agglomeration of existing functions.  Etc... etc...
 

Somewhere you can read what Space Force is meant to be?

On 10/18/2018 at 3:58 PM, insert_name said:

 Also why on earth would the military want to build a space telescope, that has almost no practical application outside of research.

To watch other states taking part in the space race?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[razark]

37 minutes ago, Cassel said:

They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years . Send one probe does not count... you can not call it a large mission.

<Looks at an orbital station that has been continuously occupied by humans for just a couple weeks short of 18 years, as well as promoting peaceful cooperation among countries that a decade earlier were on the verge of wiping out the species.>

 

<Shakes his head, pats you on yours.>

 

You can minimize any of NASA's programs.  Mercury was just hoping humans could do as well as monkeys in space.  Gemini was a simple series of experiments to see if we could actually do anything in space.  Apollo was a liquiding contest with the Soviets that ended up with a field trip to take a few photos and collect rocks.  Skylab was a chance to see what astronauts would do with some free time.  Shuttle was a canceled experiment in reusable spacecraft.

In the same vein, SpaceX is just an example of what one rich guy can build when standing on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before.  I mean, have they done anything that hasn't been done before?

Edited October 19, 2018 by razark

[Canopus]

So because no one has reached Mars yet, you think everything else NASA does is worthless? This might just be the worst thread this forum has ever seen.

[Cassel]

43 minutes ago, razark said:

<Looks at an orbital station that has been continuously occupied by humans for just a couple weeks short of 18 years, as well as promoting peaceful cooperation among countries that a decade earlier were on the verge of wiping out the species.>

 

<Shakes his head, pats you on yours.>

AND? The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper?

 

Quote

 

You can minimize any of NASA's programs.  Mercury was just hoping humans could do as well as monkeys in space.  Gemini was a simple series of experiments to see if we could actually do anything in space.  Apollo was a liquiding contest with the Soviets that ended up with a field trip to take a few photos and collect rocks.  Skylab was a chance to see what astronauts would do with some free time.  Shuttle was a minor experiment in reusable spacecraft.

In the same vein, SpaceX is just an example of what one rich guy can build when standing on the shoulders of what giants have built before.  I meane, have they done anything that hasn't been done before?

Apollo was an achievement, but it was 50 years ago. Later, the technology was rejected and the ISS came up with everything from scratch. What component of the space shuttle came from the Apollo mission?

After completing the space shuttle missions, they re-invent everything from scratch. If SpaceX, or anyone else, takes over the role of supplying resources and astronauts to Earth's orbit, technology will be a completely new technology, not a development of what has been built in the space shuttle program.

What part of the Apollo program was used to build space shuttles?
How much did the space shuttle program cost and what will be used in the next space programs planned by NASA?
What is the point of keeping an agency that throws itself at programs, and later turns out that all technology is useless and they have start from scratch?

There is no such a natural transition of technology as it is seen in other industries:
a horse-drawn car, a combustion car, a hybrid, an electric car.
A biplane airplane, a monoplane with an internal combustion engine, a jet plane, and a supersonic airplane.
Sailing ship, ship powered by a steam engine, a ship powered by a combustion engine, a ship with electric drive (I read about such plans).

The technology from the previous stage went on, but some part has been improved. Meanwhile, NASA works so that they first invented a balloon, then a plane, and then return to the balloon again.
 

24 minutes ago, Canopus said:

So because no one has reached Mars yet, you think everything else NASA does is worthless? This might just be the worst thread this forum has ever seen.

Did I said anything about Mars?

Edited October 19, 2018 by Cassel

[Canopus]

10 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Did I said anything about Mars?

You said NASA didn‘t do anything worthwhile in 50 years which implies that you only consider flag and footprints stunts like the Moon landing to be of importance.

[Cassel]

Just now, Canopus said:

You said NASA didn‘t do anything worthwhile in 50 years which implies that you only consider flag and footprints stunts like the Moon landing to be of importance.

"They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years. Send one probe does not count"

Yes, the mission on the moon was big, because Apollo is more than one landing. Have you seen a similar mission somewhere beyond Earth's orbit?

[razark]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

AND? The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper?

Refresh my memory.  How long has it been occupied, and how many taikonauts are there now?

 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

Apollo was an achievement, but it was 50 years ago.

Well, no excrements, Sherlock.  You're the one saying nothing else has happened.  [snip]  There's been a lot going on.  Not all of it is big public relations related crap.

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

...they re-invent everything from scratch.

Right.  All the data and experience and materials research just gets thrown away.

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

SpaceX... technology will be a completely new technology

Right. (Please, read that in a sarcastic tone.)  Again, What has SpaceX done that has not been done before?  And how far along would SpaceX be, if they didn't have access to what NASA had already done?

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

How much did the space shuttle program cost and what will be used in the next space programs planned by NASA?

It cost a lot.  How much has what SpaceX done cost?  Space is expensive.  Oh, and shuttle was used to build ISS.  And launch various probes.  And launch Hubble.  I guess HST has been worthless, since it was part of the shuttle program, not to mention an offshoot of spy satellite technology.

By the way, has anyone else managed to catch a satellite and return it to Earth yet?

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

...all technology is useless and they have start from scratch?

Ask Elon Musk.  By the way, how much business would he have if he wasn't chasing government contracts?

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

There is no such a natural transition of technology as it is seen in other industries...

Wow.  Really?  [snip]

 

By the way, this is all related to the S of NASA.  You're completely ignoring NASA.  Perhaps you should pay some attention to the A. [snip]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:45 AM, Cassel said:

"They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years. Send one probe does not count"

Two Viking landers.

Plus a number of other Mars landings.  That's a bit more than one probe, and that's only one planet.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Cassel]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:47 AM, razark said:

Refresh my memory.  How long has it been occupied, and how many taikonauts are there now?

What does it matter? Maybe they work faster than Americans?

 

Quote

 

Well, no excrements, Sherlock.  You're the one saying nothing else has happened.  [snip]  There's been a lot going on.  Not all of it is big public relations related crap.

Which, for example? And I do not mean sending a single probe, because it is possible for other smaller and cheaper agencies.
 

Quote

Right.  All the data and experience and materials research just gets thrown away.
 

 

Right. (Please, read that in a sarcastic tone.)  Again, What has SpaceX done that has not been done before?  And How far along would SpaceX be, if they didn't have access to what NASA had already done?

It cost a lot.  How much has what SpaceX done cost?  Space is expensive.  Oh, and shuttle was used to build ISS.  And launch various probes.  And launch Hubble.  I guess HST has been worthless, since it was part of the shuttle program, not to mention an offshoot of spy satellite technology.

So what part of the Apollo program has been used for the space shuttle program?
What part of the space shuttle program will be used in the new planned NASA missions?

 

Quote

By the way, has anyone else managed to catch a satellite and return it to Earth yet?

For what? Even NASA admits that it is cheaper to repair satellites in orbit.
 

Quote

Ask Elon Musk.  By the way, how much business would he have if he wasn't chasing government contracts?

 

SpaceX technology comes from NASA? What NASA program Musk did take two staged reusable rockets from? Was it space shuttle program or Apollo or something else?
 

Quote

Two Viking landers.

Plus a number of other Mars landings.  That's a bit more than one probe, and that's only one planet.

Is this an element of one program, with uniform technology that will be further developed, if so, what is the technology?

[Cassel]

[snip]

 

Quote

So what part of the Apollo program has been used for the space shuttle program?
What part of the space shuttle program will be used in the new planned NASA missions?
What NASA program Musk did take two staged reusable rockets from?

edit:
I forgot about the Dragon, a capsule that can land using engines. What NASA program did this idea and technology come from?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper?

And ten times smaller.

Colour me shocked.

[YNM]

Give all your data to the public, then we'll let you die in peace.

That being said I'm not sure if ISRO or CNSA is going to be more open than NASA. ESA is definitely as open but they operate with a lot less budget and a lot more administrative steps. JAXA is as open, but they've far less budget and they don't really speak english.

TL;DR We'll be damned if NASA is gone. Unless they join up (funding as well) with ESA.

[snip]

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[sh1pman]

@Cassel SLS is going to use a lot of Shuttle technologies.

A) You happy now?

B) Does it make SLS a better rocket?

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

And fifty times smaller.

Colour me shocked.

(Bolded part mine)

ISS: 400+ tonnes

Tiangong 1 and 2: 8.6 tonnes each, and each one has only had 20 to 30 days of crew occupation. Skylab did better than that, though I'm sure there are plans to create better stations down the line.

It should be common knowledge that the Merlin is based on NASA's Fastrac engine concept. Not only that but SpaceX has considerable support from NASA. They've accomplished a lot, but they weren't alone.

[Green Baron]

imo, the ISS is as well a nice example that cooperation (even if one party plays a lead role) is better than controversy.

[razark]

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

So what part of the Apollo program has been used for the space shuttle program?

"The history of the RS-25 traces back to the 1960s when NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and Rocketdyne were conducting a series of studies on high-pressure engines, developed from the successful J-2 engine used on the S-II and S-IVB upper stages of the Saturn V rocket during the Apollo program. The studies were conducted under a program to upgrade the Saturn V engines, which produced a design for a 350,000 lbf upper-stage engine known as the HG-3. As funding levels for Apollo wound down the HG-3 was cancelled as well as the upgraded F-1 engines already being tested. It was the design for the HG-3 that would form the basis for the RS-25."

SSME came out of work on Apollo.  One minor example.

 

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

What part of the space shuttle program will be used in the new planned NASA missions?

"The Space Launch System's Core Stage will be 8.4 meters (28 ft) in diameter and use four RS-25 engines. Initial flights will use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space Shuttle program; later flights are expected to switch to a cheaper version of the engine not intended for reuse. The stage's structure will consist of a modified Space Shuttle external tank with the aft section adapted to accept the rocket's Main Propulsion System (MPS) and the top converted to host an interstage structure."

Hey!  There's that engine again!  Even Apollo is still in the game.

 

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

What NASA program Musk did take two staged reusable rockets from?

Hrm.  I guess you got me there.  Elon invented two-stage rockets himself, and the idea of reusable  space vehicles has never been done before.

 

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

I forgot about the Dragon, a capsule that can land using engines. What NASA program did this idea and technology come from?

Right.  NASA has never been able to propulsively land a crewed vehicle.

 

But you seem to be missing the point.  It's not all about reusing the same engines, or fuel pumps, or screws, or computers.  It's about information, too.  What works and what doesn't.  The behavior of fluids in a tank in zero-g.  The reaction of the human body to prolonged spaceflight.  All the research done prior to SpaceX even existing was done, and it wasn't done by SpaceX.  SpaceX didn't have to reinvent the rocket, and life support, and navigation, and every other thing.  Materials research, physics, how to live and work in space, etc.  All this is data that SpaceX is not reinventing from basic principles.  That data exists because others, mostly NASA, have already done a lot of the hard work.  Remember the bit about standing on the shoulders of giants? 

 

Now, it's your turn.  What has SpaceX done that hasn't been done before, and how much would they have gotten done if they weren't being funded by NASA, or chasing NASA contracts?

Edited October 19, 2018 by razark

[NSEP]

Its also really important to note how 'out there' NASA is with their space probes. Its pretty safe to say that NASA is the leading space agency when it comes to the unmanned exploration of space, expecially in the outer solar system and the Martian surface. If NASA were to end, so would all these missions.

I find it hard to believe how shutting down most current Mars missions, nearly all Outer Solar System probes, like half of all space telescopes and exoplanet hunters, and dozens of climate researching satellites, is a 'good thing' for space exploration.