Very interesting movie :-)

[Pawelk198604]

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by Pawelk198604

[HoloYolo]

I clicked on the post and his face scared the utter crap out of me.

[Pawelk198604]

2 minutes ago, HoloYolo said:

I clicked on the post and his face scared the utter crap out of me.

 

But this Gagarin

Edited March 12, 2016 by Pawelk198604

[HoloYolo]

Just now, Pawelk198604 said:

 

But this Gagarin

He's good looking I guess, but the face popped up and I flew back a bit.

[AngelLestat]

those were real breakthroughs...  going to space without gps or or fancy instruments, designing with pure ingenuity and just using a paper, pencil and math.
Now they waste billions with the help of supercomputers or tons of different testing machines or chambers using all the knowledge gather from the effort in those days, without even bothering to engineering something new, and even with all that, they are too scared to accomplish the same things that was accomplished in the 60s.  

 

[DECQ]

Do not worry about history, Russian schoolchildren know exactly that Gagarin was not the first man in space.

[LN400]

41 minutes ago, DECQ said:

Do not worry about history, Russian schoolchildren know exactly that Gagarin was not the first man in space.

If Gagarin wasn't the first, then who was? I am aware of the Lost Cosmonauts theory but to my knowledge, no conclusive evidence has ever been found to support this theory. Is there a source you could link up here?

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, DECQ said:

Do not worry about history, Russian schoolchildren know exactly that Gagarin was not the first man in space.

What do you mean?

[Snark]

5 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Now they waste billions with the help of supercomputers or tons of different testing machines or chambers using all the knowledge gather from the effort in those days, without even bothering to engineering something new, and even with all that, they are too scared to accomplish the same things that was accomplished in the 60s.

How do you mean?

Spacecraft engineers of today are solving very different (and harder) problems than they did in the 60s.  And they're doing so with different constraints.

For one thing, safety.  There is a lot of effort put into making rockets much safer and reliable now than they were then.  Back then, it was all about the space race and beating the other superpower, and the astronauts/cosmonauts were mostly current or ex-military, and they were willing to tolerate levels of risk that would be absolutely insane by today's standards.  Taking a spaceship that's, say, 95% safe and making it 99.5% safe may not seem very "sexy", and isn't something very flashy or visible, but it's an enormous amount of work.

Consider the Apollo 1 tragedy, in which three astronauts died on the launchpad in a training accident.  It was a terrible tragedy.  However, as awful as it may sound to say this... in retrospect it may actually be fortunate that it happened.  Because it happened on the pad while the craft was right there in front of all the NASA engineers, and they could see what happened, and they could figure out what the problem was afterwards, and then fix it so it wouldn't happen again.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, NASA went over the entire spacecraft design with a fine-toothed comb, looking not just to fix the specific problem that killed the three crewmembers of Apollo 1, but any other potentially fatal design flaws.  It wasn't fast and it wasn't fun.  It delayed the rest of the Apollo program by nearly two years.

And you know what problems they found?  They found hundreds.  All kinds of design changes were made, including over 1400 wiring changes.  It turns out that the original Apollo capsule design had been an accident waiting to happen, and nobody realized it until somebody died.  Sooner or later it was going to kill someone... and if it had happened during a mission, it would have been far worse.  We would have simply and suddenly lost all contact with the capsule without any warning, and we would have no clue what happened, and thereby would not have been able to fix the problem to save the lives of astronauts in subsequent missions.

Anyway... today's spacecraft engineers are doing amazing things, and pulling off incredible (and original) engineering feats.  It takes ingenuity, perseverance, and dedication.  My hat is off to them.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Snark

[crberus]

Actually, it's not a full movie, this film is ca. 1.5 hour long. And there are some historical mistakes about life of Gagarin's family and his childhood and some things weren't showed, but that's the best russian movie in last 16 years.

[DECQ]

10 hours ago, LN400 said:

If Gagarin wasn't the first, then who was? I am aware of the Lost Cosmonauts theory but to my knowledge, no conclusive evidence has ever been found to support this theory. Is there a source you could link up here?

I am referring to the current education and some channels on TV, and yet people think Americans do not fly to the moon, because now they do not fly. Most people think that the first on the moon were Soviet cosmonauts. That's how we live.

[crberus]

26 minutes ago, DECQ said:

I am referring to the current education and some channels on TV, and yet people think Americans do not fly to the moon, because now they do not fly. Most people think that the first on the moon were Soviet cosmonauts. That's how we live.

Idk, where did you those peoples find, but i can, as kinda "russian schoolchildren", say, that it's not true. Yup, a lot of peoples think, that americans weren't on the Moon, but they're minority. And, of course, no one thinks, that soviets were there.

Edited March 13, 2016 by crberus

[benzman]

I just watched this and thought it was great!  Very well done.  Can't wait for the whole movie, although I rather hope it can be dubbed into English.

[crberus]

14 minutes ago, benzman said:

I just watched this and thought it was great!  Very well done.  Can't wait for the whole movie, although I rather hope it can be dubbed into English.

Whole Movie came out in 2013, but i don't know if it was dubbed, i'll look for it, if you're interested:)

UPD: Yes, there was UK DVD release, so you can try to find it in Internet.

Edited March 13, 2016 by crberus

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DECQ said:

I am referring to the current education and some channels on TV, and yet people think Americans do not fly to the moon, because now they do not fly. Most people think that the first on the moon were Soviet cosmonauts. That's how we live.

Something strange to hear, as probably I live in the same Russia as you do.

(About the Moon two points of view prevail: "Americans on Apollo were there" and "Nobody was there, Apollos are a fake". But yet never I've heard about "the first Soviet spacemen on a Moon")

Edited March 13, 2016 by kerbiloid

[DECQ]

28 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Something strange to hear, as probably I live in the same Russia as you do.

(About the Moon two points of view prevail: "Americans on Apollo were there" and "Nobody was there, Apollos are a fake". But yet never I've heard about "the first Soviet spacemen on a Moon")

What kind of Russia you talking about? About that that was 2-4 years ago, or today? Maybe I'm behind the times.

2-4 years ago I heard most people that Gagarin was not the first in space, and the Americans were not on the moon.

2 hours ago, crberus said:

Idk, where did you those peoples find, but i can, as kinda "russian schoolchildren", say, that it's not true. Yup, a lot of peoples think, that americans weren't on the Moon, but they're minority. And, of course, no one thinks, that soviets were there.

Many times I've heard from people that we were the first in everything, even landing people on the moon, is particularly surprised to hear from older people, educated in the U.S.S.R.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, DECQ said:

What kind of Russia you talking about? About that that was 2-4 years ago, or today? Maybe I'm behind the times.

2-4 years ago I heard most people that Gagarin was not the first in space, and the Americans were not on the moon.

Maybe RenTV is not an overall picture, but just a "what extrasensory perceptors do think about UFO from Nibiru" channel?

[DECQ]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Maybe RenTV is not an overall picture, but just a "what extrasensory perceptors do think about UFO from Nibiru" channel?

Ren TV? I advise  not to watch this channel, although perhaps people had seen this nonsense going on , I personally know people who believe it, they are few but they do exist ...

[1greywind]

3 hours ago, DECQ said:

Most people think that the first on the moon were Soviet cosmonauts. That's how we live.

Please, speak for yourself and for people you directly know about. Or you is no better than thresh-makers from TV.

People of my generation (born in 80xx, grow-up in 90xx) got pretty normal education - school in 90xx was mostly on good soviet standards, not modern crap. But even in modern Russian schools education is on acceptable level.

Do you have children of school adge? I volunteer to teach kosmonautics in Society of Amateur Astronomers in Simferopol - boys and girls in age 10 - 14 know who Gagarin and Armstrong are and don't watch stupid shows on TV. They watch Dr. Who instead.

Edited March 13, 2016 by 1greywind

[DECQ]

41 minutes ago, 1greywind said:

Please, speak for yourself and for people you directly know about. Or you is no better than thresh-makers from TV.

People of my generation (born in 80xx, grow-up in 90xx) got pretty normal education - school in 90xx was mostly on good soviet standards, not modern crap. But even in modern Russian schools education is on acceptable level.

Do you have children of school adge? I volunteer to teach kosmonautics in Society of Amateur Astronomers in Simferopol - boys and girls in age 10 - 14 know who Gagarin and Armstrong are and don't watch stupid shows on TV. They watch Dr. Who instead.

I very rarely watch TV and certainly not an idiot to see REN TV. I speak about the cases that met in my life personally and repeatedly, and not by their loved ones, thank goodness they do not care about the space program and they do not argue with me on this, but when with me arguing people at work, or distant acquaintances that Gagarin was not the first and that Americans are not the first on the moon, because the moon flag wavers and this is important evidence, and yet almost foaming at the mouth to prove that the ISS Russian station, and a little American.
I do not care where they take this information, the main thing that they think so.

 In the 90 education was much better than it is now, there is no point to argue about this, but apparently many of them missed lessons.

I do not mind when people are not familiar with the individual events, and even the fact that is a the ISS, but when distort the most important historical events, and with the debate on this bill is ridiculous.
There is a lack of educational programs, substantially all of the dancing and fighting.
 

[kerbiloid]

Please, let's finish the political discussion to prevent moderators from closing the theme.

Apologies to the OP.

[AngelLestat]

13 hours ago, Snark said:

How do you mean?

Spacecraft engineers of today are solving very different (and harder) problems than they did in the 60s.  And they're doing so with different constraints.

For one thing, safety.  There is a lot of effort put into making rockets much safer and reliable now than they were then.  Back then, it was all about the space race and beating the other superpower, and the astronauts/cosmonauts were mostly current or ex-military, and they were willing to tolerate levels of risk that would be absolutely insane by today's standards.  Taking a spaceship that's, say, 95% safe and making it 99.5% safe may not seem very "sexy", and isn't something very flashy or visible, but it's an enormous amount of work.

Consider the Apollo 1 tragedy, in which three astronauts died on the launchpad in a training accident.  It was a terrible tragedy.  However, as awful as it may sound to say this... in retrospect it may actually be fortunate that it happened.  Because it happened on the pad while the craft was right there in front of all the NASA engineers, and they could see what happened, and they could figure out what the problem was afterwards, and then fix it so it wouldn't happen again.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, NASA went over the entire spacecraft design with a fine-toothed comb, looking not just to fix the specific problem that killed the three crewmembers of Apollo 1, but any other potentially fatal design flaws.  It wasn't fast and it wasn't fun.  It delayed the rest of the Apollo program by nearly two years.

And you know what problems they found?  They found hundreds.  All kinds of design changes were made, including over 1400 wiring changes.  It turns out that the original Apollo capsule design had been an accident waiting to happen, and nobody realized it until somebody died.  Sooner or later it was going to kill someone... and if it had happened during a mission, it would have been far worse.  We would have simply and suddenly lost all contact with the capsule without any warning, and we would have no clue what happened, and thereby would not have been able to fix the problem to save the lives of astronauts in subsequent missions.

Anyway... today's spacecraft engineers are doing amazing things, and pulling off incredible (and original) engineering feats.  It takes ingenuity, perseverance, and dedication.  My hat is off to them.

Safety?  so now we need to send astronauts in a 5 star hotel?  where is that adventure spirit?  where is that risk to the unknown and brave people who made the first step, never in the man history was so coward explorers as now, but I am sure they dont have the fault, the space agencies who had the job to be pushing into the edge of discovery are doing nothing.
Right now Probes are the answer to everything and the safety and super expensive rule also applies..  we can sent few to test waters..  but we can not live our lives sitting on the couch watching everything from a TV.
Then the AI will come and the best scenery will be fat guys as the movie wally doing nothing relevant in their whole lives.

About pulling incredible engineering feats??  why you dont study a bit more the apollo age, no just all the steps needed of true development to sent somebody to the moon, also all the great projects that was study over that time who were rejected at the end.  Many of those are the same projects that even today nasa is starting to test them again without much advance than in those days!!, no due problems on what they expect to achieve.. just due incompetence and bad funds managing.

Elon Musk is the only one today showing how much you can achieve if you have that adventure spirit and if you don't accept a NO for answer.
But I was in this discussion many times.. so I dont pretend to waste more time in it.  That is just my humble opinion.
Also.. because I realize many times that I am capable to have better solutions for some kind of missions.. so if I am capable of that, then why not a whole agency.

[Snark]

I'll make this one last comment on the subject, then stop, because this is getting badly off-topic and I don't want to hijack the thread.

Lengthy rant put in spoiler section so as not to intrude on people who aren't interested.

Spoiler

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Safety?  so now we need to send astronauts in a 5 star hotel?

Not even slightly.  Space accommodations are incredibly spartan, it goes with the territory, nobody who goes into space expects anything more.

But there's a difference between luxury/comfort and saving people's lives.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

where is that adventure spirit?  where is that risk to the unknown and brave people who made the first step, never in the man history was so coward explorers as now

There's a big difference between calculated risk-- the unavoidable risk that goes with forging into new and unexplored territory-- and avoidable risk.  The former is necessary, and useful, and the people who deal with it are heroes.  The latter is criminal.

Space is dangerous.  It's a hostile environment that is forever coming up with new ways to kill you.  It's also an incredibly difficult engineering challenge; hardware that works just fine in the friendly environs of Earth will find all kinds of novel ways to fail spectacularly in the harsh conditions of space.  I don't think we'll ever be able to make space travel as safe as a commercial airline flight.  Anybody who goes into space is taking an unavoidable risk, and has made the conscious choice to accept that risk in order to expand the sphere of human knowledge.  And they deserve our admiration and gratitude.

But avoidable risk is different.  Sending people into harm's way when you have the knowledge and means to mitigate the risk is inexcusable.  For a firefighter to rush into a burning building to save innocent lives is heroic.  But to send that firefighter in there without giving him or her the best safety and protective gear that you can provide would be criminally irresponsible.

Look at what happened to the Challenger.  This was not a case of heroes dying from unavoidable risk.  They were essentially murdered by bureaucratic mismanagement.  The engineers who designed the shuttle systems knew there was a problem, and frantically tried to get the administration to postpone the launch, and were unable to do so.  NASA had the knowledge and ability to make the launch safer, and chose not to do so.  And therefore killed seven brave astronauts who deserved better.

Not only was it wrong, it hurt the cause of spaceflight.  The public has a lot of tolerance for the deaths of brave heroes who died due to unforeseeable circumstances, who went into danger with their eyes open.  There's a lot less tolerance for killing people because somebody didn't do their jobs and didn't work as hard as they could to prevent avoidable disasters.  That kind of inexcusable screw-up causes the kind of public anger that makes it harder to justify subsequent missions.

I have no idea where you get this idea that we've somehow lost "courage" these days, or that we're approaching the space program differently than we used to.  We always did, even back in those heroic 1960s that you're so fond of.  When the Apollo 1 disaster hit, the whole program got put on hold while they spent nearly two years revising the design and figuring out how to make it safer and more reliable.  Because it was the right thing to do, not just morally but for the sake of having successful missions afterwards.  And that's why we got to watch the Apollo 11 astronauts triumphantly set foot on the Moon.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go anywhere unless it's 100% safe, because that's impossible.  Sometimes risks are going to be necessary.  But if there's a known risk that you have the ability to prevent, it's not just wrong but stupid not to do so.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

the space agencies who had the job to be pushing into the edge of discovery are doing nothing.

Nothing?

Exactly which part of "nothing" are you taking issue with?

Incredible, exciting things are happening.  It just takes a long time because engineering is hard.  It's especially hard when you have to do it on a shoestring.  The 60s accomplished some incredibly impressive, flashy, dazzling things in an astonishingly short timeframe... because we were throwing stupefying mountains of money at it.  At the peak of the Apollo program, nearly 4.5% of the entire US federal budget went to NASA.  If the progress of programs seems slower and less "flashy" than it used to... well, they only have about 1/9 of the funding they used to get at Apollo's peak.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

About pulling incredible engineering feats??

Yes, lots.  Nobody was landing minivan-sized robotic rovers on Mars via skycrane in the 1960s.  Or landing a probe on Titan.  Or flying a probe to Pluto.  Because the engineering didn't exist yet, because engineering is hard work and takes time to advance.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

why you dont study a bit more the apollo age, no just all the steps needed of true development to sent somebody to the moon, also all the great projects that was study over that time who were rejected at the end.

Yes.  Rejected.  For reasons.  Either because they wouldn't have worked with the technology at the time, or they would have been more expensive than the public would have been willing to pay, or other such problems.

So if, as you say, today they're looking at achieving what the 1960s failed to do, how does that somehow make the 1960s better?  Hard to make specific points, though, since you don't cite any specific examples of what you're asserting.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

just due incompetence and bad funds managing.

Which particular incompetence would this be?  Would it be, for example, the incompetence that led to the Challenger disaster, when people weren't putting safety first?  That was certainly incompetence, but since you seem to be advocating against making safety a priority, I'm having trouble following the argument here.

As for bad fund management:  certainly it's possible to mismanage funds in a government bureaucracy, and NASA is certainly that.  On the other hand, it's poking a long with a tiny fraction of the budget it once had, and has to deal with political considerations.  If you've got a specific example of something awesome that NASA could have done with the existing budget that it has, but failed to do so because of budget mismanagement, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Elon Musk is the only one today showing how much you can achieve if you have that adventure spirit and if you don't accept a NO for answer.

Yes, he's doing some amazing things, and you're not going to get any argument from this SpaceX fanboy about that. 

However, it's not just an example of having an "adventure spirit" and "not accepting NO".  It's also very much an example of what you can do when you're a billionaire and can do whatever you're inclined to spend your money on... and can do so freely without having to worry about public relations, or politics, or the uncertainty of congressional funding.  It's what happens when a single person who's passionate about something has the financial wherewithal to "make stuff happen."

NASA can't do that.  NASA has to account for every penny to an often-hostile Congress. It's answerable to a contentious, cantankerous assembly of 535 Congresscritters with conflicting agendas, and also, ultimately, to the aggregate will of the American tax-paying public, which can be fickle and doesn't share the kind of passion for spaceflight that a lone guy like Elon Musk can muster.

I love what Elon Musk is doing.  And I love that someone like him exists.  But he's free to operate in ways that government agencies can't, and never will be.

(And if you're so cavalier about "safety" as being "cowardice"... try asking Elon Musk about "what sort of priority does SpaceX put on safety for manned operations?" and I think you'll find that he cares about it.  A lot.)

Okay, 'nuff said.  I'll butt out now.

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Snark

[AngelLestat]

@Snark I read your answer, I respect it, but I dont share it. I read those kind of arguments many times, The cost-efficiency relation base on achievements is almost null in comparison to older times, and each time is worst when it should be the other way around due all the benefits of technology.
50 years!  and still we did not do nothing alike those times.  Agencies still need like 30 years more to plan a mars mission.  No sure if you realize how much time is that and how much our technology change in that time..  We would develope a hard IA before we can put a foot in mars (unless Elon Musk do it first with goverment´s money).

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Safety?  so now we need to send astronauts in a 5 star hotel?  where is that adventure spirit?  where is that risk to the unknown and brave people who made the first step, never in the man history was so coward explorers as now, but I am sure they dont have the fault, the space agencies who had the job to be pushing into the edge of discovery are doing nothing.
Right now Probes are the answer to everything and the safety and super expensive rule also applies..  we can sent few to test waters..  but we can not live our lives sitting on the couch watching everything from a TV.
Then the AI will come and the best scenery will be fat guys as the movie wally doing nothing relevant in their whole lives.

About pulling incredible engineering feats??  why you dont study a bit more the apollo age, no just all the steps needed of true development to sent somebody to the moon, also all the great projects that was study over that time who were rejected at the end.  Many of those are the same projects that even today nasa is starting to test them again without much advance than in those days!!, no due problems on what they expect to achieve.. just due incompetence and bad funds managing.

Elon Musk is the only one today showing how much you can achieve if you have that adventure spirit and if you don't accept a NO for answer.
But I was in this discussion many times.. so I dont pretend to waste more time in it.  That is just my humble opinion.
Also.. because I realize many times that I am capable to have better solutions for some kind of missions.. so if I am capable of that, then why not a whole agency.

Good lord, you do realize Apollo was filled to the brim with pork (far more than SLS/Orion) and only went so quickly because of the amount of money thrown at it?

And Elon does not have to answer to anyone, of course he is more fearless.

Also, manned space disasters always end horribly politically and financially, thus why NASA is fearful of them.

5 hours ago, Snark said:

I'll make this one last comment on the subject, then stop, because this is getting badly off-topic and I don't want to hijack the thread.

Lengthy rant put in spoiler section so as not to intrude on people who aren't interested.

  Hide contents

Not even slightly.  Space accommodations are incredibly spartan, it goes with the territory, nobody who goes into space expects anything more.

But there's a difference between luxury/comfort and saving people's lives.

There's a big difference between calculated risk-- the unavoidable risk that goes with forging into new and unexplored territory-- and avoidable risk.  The former is necessary, and useful, and the people who deal with it are heroes.  The latter is criminal.

Space is dangerous.  It's a hostile environment that is forever coming up with new ways to kill you.  It's also an incredibly difficult engineering challenge; hardware that works just fine in the friendly environs of Earth will find all kinds of novel ways to fail spectacularly in the harsh conditions of space.  I don't think we'll ever be able to make space travel as safe as a commercial airline flight.  Anybody who goes into space is taking an unavoidable risk, and has made the conscious choice to accept that risk in order to expand the sphere of human knowledge.  And they deserve our admiration and gratitude.

But avoidable risk is different.  Sending people into harm's way when you have the knowledge and means to mitigate the risk is inexcusable.  For a firefighter to rush into a burning building to save innocent lives is heroic.  But to send that firefighter in there without giving him or her the best safety and protective gear that you can provide would be criminally irresponsible.

Look at what happened to the Challenger.  This was not a case of heroes dying from unavoidable risk.  They were essentially murdered by bureaucratic mismanagement.  The engineers who designed the shuttle systems knew there was a problem, and frantically tried to get the administration to postpone the launch, and were unable to do so.  NASA had the knowledge and ability to make the launch safer, and chose not to do so.  And therefore killed seven brave astronauts who deserved better.

Not only was it wrong, it hurt the cause of spaceflight.  The public has a lot of tolerance for the deaths of brave heroes who died due to unforeseeable circumstances, who went into danger with their eyes open.  There's a lot less tolerance for killing people because somebody didn't do their jobs and didn't work as hard as they could to prevent avoidable disasters.  That kind of inexcusable screw-up causes the kind of public anger that makes it harder to justify subsequent missions.

I have no idea where you get this idea that we've somehow lost "courage" these days, or that we're approaching the space program differently than we used to.  We always did, even back in those heroic 1960s that you're so fond of.  When the Apollo 1 disaster hit, the whole program got put on hold while they spent nearly two years revising the design and figuring out how to make it safer and more reliable.  Because it was the right thing to do, not just morally but for the sake of having successful missions afterwards.  And that's why we got to watch the Apollo 11 astronauts triumphantly set foot on the Moon.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go anywhere unless it's 100% safe, because that's impossible.  Sometimes risks are going to be necessary.  But if there's a known risk that you have the ability to prevent, it's not just wrong but stupid not to do so.

Nothing?

Exactly which part of "nothing" are you taking issue with?

Incredible, exciting things are happening.  It just takes a long time because engineering is hard.  It's especially hard when you have to do it on a shoestring.  The 60s accomplished some incredibly impressive, flashy, dazzling things in an astonishingly short timeframe... because we were throwing stupefying mountains of money at it.  At the peak of the Apollo program, nearly 4.5% of the entire US federal budget went to NASA.  If the progress of programs seems slower and less "flashy" than it used to... well, they only have about 1/9 of the funding they used to get at Apollo's peak.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Yes, lots.  Nobody was landing minivan-sized robotic rovers on Mars via skycrane in the 1960s.  Or landing a probe on Titan.  Or flying a probe to Pluto.  Because the engineering didn't exist yet, because engineering is hard work and takes time to advance.

Yes.  Rejected.  For reasons.  Either because they wouldn't have worked with the technology at the time, or they would have been more expensive than the public would have been willing to pay, or other such problems.

So if, as you say, today they're looking at achieving what the 1960s failed to do, how does that somehow make the 1960s better?  Hard to make specific points, though, since you don't cite any specific examples of what you're asserting.

Which particular incompetence would this be?  Would it be, for example, the incompetence that led to the Challenger disaster, when people weren't putting safety first?  That was certainly incompetence, but since you seem to be advocating against making safety a priority, I'm having trouble following the argument here.

As for bad fund management:  certainly it's possible to mismanage funds in a government bureaucracy, and NASA is certainly that.  On the other hand, it's poking a long with a tiny fraction of the budget it once had, and has to deal with political considerations.  If you've got a specific example of something awesome that NASA could have done with the existing budget that it has, but failed to do so because of budget mismanagement, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

Yes, he's doing some amazing things, and you're not going to get any argument from this SpaceX fanboy about that. 

However, it's not just an example of having an "adventure spirit" and "not accepting NO".  It's also very much an example of what you can do when you're a billionaire and can do whatever you're inclined to spend your money on... and can do so freely without having to worry about public relations, or politics, or the uncertainty of congressional funding.  It's what happens when a single person who's passionate about something has the financial wherewithal to "make stuff happen."

NASA can't do that.  NASA has to account for every penny to an often-hostile Congress. It's answerable to a contentious, cantankerous assembly of 535 Congresscritters with conflicting agendas, and also, ultimately, to the aggregate will of the American tax-paying public, which can be fickle and doesn't share the kind of passion for spaceflight that a lone guy like Elon Musk can muster.

I love what Elon Musk is doing.  And I love that someone like him exists.  But he's free to operate in ways that government agencies can't, and never will be.

(And if you're so cavalier about "safety" as being "cowardice"... try asking Elon Musk about "what sort of priority does SpaceX put on safety for manned operations?" and I think you'll find that he cares about it.  A lot.)

Okay, 'nuff said.  I'll butt out now.

 

He's a hardcore SpaceX fanboy. The worst kind of space fanboy, and the kind who never stop drinking the koolaid to think more reasonably.

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

@Snark I read your answer, I respect it, but I dont share it. I read those kind of arguments many times, The cost-efficiency relation base on achievements is almost null in comparison to older times, and each time is worst when it should be the other way around due all the benefits of technology.
50 years!  and still we did not do nothing alike those times.  Agencies still need like 30 years more to plan a mars mission.  No sure if you realize how much time is that and how much our technology change in that time..  We would develope a hard IA before we can put a foot in mars (unless Elon Musk do it first with goverment´s money).

Indeed, never mind there is no reason for the government to give SpaceX anything to go to Mars, no matter how much you fantasize about it.

I get that you don't like the slow pace of exploration, but overoptimism is what lead to the Shuttle. And overoptimism always leads to disappointment.