Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like the subject says I was sitting here and a friend of some one my Mother works with worked at NASA for many years and was laid off. Which made me wonder how the Obama administration sees NASA. Are they for it? Against it?

Yes

The problem we are having right now is the tech NASA is working with for space missions is far to old and inefficient to keep running. It's a smart cost saving maneuver and plan until we can advance the technology to make manned space flight more efficient.

For example, the next planned Space Shuttle design was scrapped by the Bush Administration, so they had nothing new to put into service and the old Space Shuttles tech has about as much computing power as an Iphone.

Once we have a need to start bombing Muslims on the moon or mars NASA will become popular again...

CT GAMER wrote:Once we have a need to start bombing Muslims on the moon or mars NASA will become popular again...

We would have FTL travel if there were terrorists in the galaxy over the hill.

We have to kill them there, so they don't kill us here!

"A sound strategy, My Lord."

That does make sense. Shutting down the program until the tech can be brought up to date.

CT GAMER wrote:Once we have a need to start bombing Muslims on the moon or mars NASA will become popular again...

Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

Same reason we go anywhere, becuase it is there. If we never explored we wouldn't find anything new. Or to put it another way, knowledge. And room for breeding.

Ok, fair point.

Ahtman wrote:

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

Same reason we go anywhere, becuase it is there. If we never explored we wouldn't find anything new. Or to put it another way, knowledge. And room for breeding.

Your bedroom is too small? Or are there no women there...... I think there will be even less on the moon...

Ahtman wrote:

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

Same reason we go anywhere, becuase it is there. If we never explored we wouldn't find anything new. Or to put it another way, knowledge. And room for breeding.

And resources.

I think they should scrap any "space missions" when they think its justifiable to build a toilet for $10,000,000. Im sorry, but your going to TRY to justify a fething $10 million dollar toilet? Its a shop vac with a urinal cup attached to it.

I think what they should do is continue to do what they do, but have an old school Russian scientist, and a group of super efficient poor folk over see everything they do. That way when NASA and the like come up with another $10,000,000 toilet, or a $5,000,000 computer that is shittier then a prepaid phone, Angry Russian guy and his team of clever cheap asses, can bring the cost down by as much as 99%

KingCracker wrote:I think they should scrap any "space missions" when they think its justifiable to build a toilet for $10,000,000. Im sorry, but your going to TRY to justify a fething $10 million dollar toilet? Its a shop vac with a urinal cup attached to it.

I think what they should do is continue to do what they do, but have an old school Russian scientist, and a group of super efficient poor folk over see everything they do. That way when NASA and the like come up with another $10,000,000 toilet, or a $5,000,000 computer that is shittier then a prepaid phone, Angry Russian guy and his team of clever cheap asses, can bring the cost down by as much as 99%

I once heard that NASA spent over $1 000 000 developing a pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

The only thing good that came out of the space program was velcro and tang. Otherwise, it was a waste of time and money for no other reason that to make ourselves feel superior to the ruskies.

Nothing wrong with that, necessarily

Um... and satellites?

All the money will be justified whne we go to space, mine resources and bring back sexy alien green women.

hotsauceman1 wrote: ...and bring back sexy alien green women.

After all, is that not what man has dreamt of since first he looked up at the stars?

Thaanos wrote:

I once heard that NASA spent over $1 000 000 developing a pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

This is an urban myth I'm afraid.

IIRC both factions used ball point pens/biros, as the design lets the ink flow even in zero G. Pencils would be a bad idea as they require sharpening and you don't want even more detritus floating around and, possibly, interfering with equipment.

I personally very much support NASA, I think it's a wonderful program. How else can we pave the way for the Emperor of Mankind years from now.

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

I am guessing it would be a good idea for a permanent base/colony, that would be the launch point for further manned exploration of the solar system. I am going to guess it wouldn't require as much energy to break orbit as it would from earth, thus allowing larger payloads to be launched.

VermGho5t wrote:

1-i wrote:Ive always been a big fan of the question "Why do we need to go to the moon?"

I am guessing it would be a good idea for a permanent base/colony, that would be the launch point for further manned exploration of the solar system. I am going to guess it wouldn't require as much energy to break orbit as it would from earth, thus allowing larger payloads to be launched.

Mars is a better place, more protected from Meteors as well as actually having useable building materials to make the colony self-sufficient.

Mars has all the building-blocks for life, the moon has none.

VermGho5t wrote:I am guessing it would be a good idea for a permanent base/colony, that would be the launch point for further manned exploration of the solar system. I am going to guess it wouldn't require as much energy to break orbit as it would from earth, thus allowing larger payloads to be launched.

Indeed, any further exploration of the solar system would be much better done from the moon than Earth. The lower gravity means cheaper launches, and the possible existence of ice means a source of fuel. Not to mention there must be a few tonnes of ore kicking about the place to make stuff out of.

The "self assembling factory" has been proposed as a possible first step to creating a permanent presence on the moon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:Mars is a better place, more protected from Meteors as well as actually having useable building materials to make the colony self-sufficient.

Mars has all the building-blocks for life, the moon has none.

Mars may be more attractive in terms of some factors, however, it still has twice the gravitational pull of the moon, an atmosphere (so you would need to waste time creating atmosphere capable launch/recovery vehicles), weather (including some pretty fierce dust storms), it is about 6 weeks travel away (depending on position in relation to the Earth) etc...

Long term, sure, Mars may offer some advantages, but not anywhere near as many as the Moon.

SilverMK2 wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:I am guessing it would be a good idea for a permanent base/colony, that would be the launch point for further manned exploration of the solar system. I am going to guess it wouldn't require as much energy to break orbit as it would from earth, thus allowing larger payloads to be launched.

Indeed, any further exploration of the solar system would be much better done from the moon than Earth. The lower gravity means cheaper launches, and the possible existence of ice means a source of fuel. Not to mention there must be a few tonnes of ore kicking about the place to make stuff out of.

The "self assembling factory" has been proposed as a possible first step to creating a permanent presence on the moon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:Mars is a better place, more protected from Meteors as well as actually having useable building materials to make the colony self-sufficient.

Mars has all the building-blocks for life, the moon has none.

Mars may be more attractive in terms of some factors, however, it still has twice the gravitational pull of the moon, an atmosphere (so you would need to waste time creating atmosphere capable launch/recovery vehicles), weather (including some pretty fierce dust storms), it is about 6 weeks travel away (depending on position in relation to the Earth) etc...

Long term, sure, Mars may offer some advantages, but not anywhere near as many as the Moon.

In space, and in general long term is far far better.

Not to mention what the hell are we going to get from mining the moon? Decorative moon rocks?

You got a problem with my desire to create a Japanese rock garden with moon rocks?

Alexzandvar wrote:In space, and in general long term is far far better.

You still need to get there in the short term...

Not to mention what the hell are we going to get from mining the moon? Decorative moon rocks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_vs_earth_composition.svg

How about titanium and aluminium? Both of which (especially titanium) are found at higher concentrations (as far as we know) on the moon as compared to the Earth, and both of which are very handy in space manufacture.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:In space, and in general long term is far far better.

You still need to get there in the short term...

Not to mention what the hell are we going to get from mining the moon? Decorative moon rocks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_vs_earth_composition.svg

How about titanium and aluminium? Both of which (especially titanium) are found at higher concentrations (as far as we know) on the moon as compared to the Earth, and both of which are very handy in space manufacture.

And that we need far far more than just those two things to build space craft? I guess we could corner the galactic market on tin foil hats.

reds8n wrote:

Thaanos wrote:

I once heard that NASA spent over $1 000 000 developing a pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

This is an urban myth I'm afraid.

IIRC both factions used ball point pens/biros, as the design lets the ink flow even in zero G. Pencils would be a bad idea as they require sharpening and you don't want even more detritus floating around and, possibly, interfering with equipment.

How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

KingCracker wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Thaanos wrote:

I once heard that NASA spent over $1 000 000 developing a pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

This is an urban myth I'm afraid.

IIRC both factions used ball point pens/biros, as the design lets the ink flow even in zero G. Pencils would be a bad idea as they require sharpening and you don't want even more detritus floating around and, possibly, interfering with equipment.

How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

So you wouldnt want to go in a 10million$ toilet?

KingCracker wrote:How ever true that is, the point still stands, 10million for a fething toilet. Cmon.

I'll need a citation on that. I'm willing to bet a waste system for zero gravity that doesn't have a water or sewer system to plug into would cost more then a normal toilet and require more design time, but I don't know that it would be $10 million. If the price includes the years of research time, mock ups, tests, system integration, and final model perhaps, but usually when talking of the cost of a thing the end product is being referred to. A Bic pen is only a dollar, but the very first one that all the rest are based on wasn't. Highly specialized and unique systems will always be more expensive.