Why is it not a priority any more to actually do cool, revolutionary projects?
>>78192304
Feminism.
Obama and Jews
>muh poor
>muh nigger schools
>muh refugees
>muh social sciences like diversity and equality bs
>muh Africa
Etc etc.
We aren't allowed to do great things anymore because another group is always stood with their hands out wanting a share
>spaceplanes
>cool
how about projects that actually work instead of just look cool while catastrophically failing?
Cant afford them. Bringing in diversity is bleeding us dry.
Gotta pay for muslims, niggers and faggots first.
>>78192304
Napa doesn't get gobs of money like it used to
>>78192621
>how about projects that actually work instead of just look cool while catastrophically failing?
Venturestar was a single stage to orbit system. It would have worked and would have been easy to maintain - they wanted to build it as an answer to the problems that people had faced with the STS.
>>78192304
Death of nationalism and lack of a real cold war.
>>78192304
100% of our resources are now going to cultural and racial suicide, friend.
All our GDP needs to go towards inflating the non-white population of the world who will replace and destroy us.
>>78192304
Aerospike engines make my pee pee feel funny.
>durr let's steal taxpayer money for a useless comic book pipe dream about dome cities
Why haven't you made any cool space projects, OP?
>>78192505
This.
King nigger re-assigned NASA to, believe it or not, making mudslimes feel good.
Totally serious, not making that up!
>>78192621
My mother speaking about my life.
Without the looking good part.
>>78192304
Because the earth is flat
I'm ready to bask in (you) guys
>>78192304
King Nigger cut NASA's budget and put a nigger in charge of NASA.
>>78192304
Damn, that hit me hard. I remember dreaming about this VentureStar back in.... was it the 90s?
>>78192304
Dont forget Buran
Instead of spending money on things that are potentially useful, we spend money on (sand)niggers.
At least we have CERN I guess.
India has cool space projects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScatSat-1
>>78192304
Constellation (the shuttle replacement program) was a full decade behind schedule when Congress finally nixed it in 2009, replacing it with SLS and Orion. Both are expected to fly only 10 years late in 2022. The rest of Constellation, namely the Altair moon lander, probably won't be here until 2025-2030 unless NASA gets a major boost in funding.
But even then, the die has already been cast. Even with unlimited money spacecraft design, manufacture, and certification can only progress so fast. Blame bad policymaking in the late 90s and early 2000s for not being proactive enough on the shuttle replacement.
>>78192598
That has nothing to do with it, at least in the US.
>>78192841
>woulda coulda
>never worked in practice
>would have had an even shittier payload than sts
I want manly rockets that can send things places senpai
>>78193103
I don't wanna google it anon
but I would like to know more
>>78193509
>India
>ScatSat
>Scat
You can't make this shit up.
>>78192841
>It would have worked and would have been easy to maintain
wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar
>VentureStar was intended to be a commercial single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that would launch vertically, but return to Earth as an airplane. Flights would have been leased to NASA as needed. After failures with the X-33 subscale technology demonstrator test vehicle, funding was cancelled in 2001.
>The VentureStar program was cancelled due to development cost concerns accompanied by technical problems and failures in the X-33 program, a program which was intended as proof-of-concept for some of the critical technologies needed by the VentureStar. The failure during a test of the X-33's complex, multi-lobe composite-structure cryogenic hydrogen tank was one of the main reasons for the cancellation of both the X-33 and the VentureStar. Ultimately, the VentureStar program required too many technical advances at too high a cost to be viable.
If it had any merit Lockheed would have plowed money into it like they did with the F-35.
>cool
I think you're going to need a better justification than that for trillion dollar enterprises. And, no, space colonization is not viable and will never be viable in your lifetime.
NASA makes some great ENGINEERING advancements and helps provide information that sometimes scientists use to advance science, but usually just use to document pointless crap and make bullshit journals. But you see more of those in the projects they're doing today than the pissing contest with the Soviet Union that happened in moon landing days.
>>78193143
>durr let's steal taxpayer money for a useless comic book pipe dream about there being a sea route to Asia around Africa
>durr let's steal taxpayer money for a useless comic book pipe dream about a promised land across the ocean
>>78193761
Alternative rocket engine design that's more efficient at multiple altitudes/pressures. They were supposed to be used on the VentureStar.
>>78192841
Easier and cheaper to maintain than a reusable Falcon? I think not.
>>78193269
Mine too, but I look good. Still catastrophically failing, still sucks.
>>78193509
i like indias space program as an underdog, as proof that more countries are interested in participating in space, not yet as one from which to expect epic space shit
the mars sat was pretty cool thoguh
>>78192304
The paperclip-guys are ded.
Unfortunately governments don't care about space anymore because welfare and other bullshit takes precedence.
Odroner literally assigned NASA the task of "muslim outreach" and from things I've heard, it's gone full-on diversity hiring, dump all competent engineers, we need more diversity stats because then king nigg gives us a bigger cheque at the end of the year.
>>78193103
I was thinking about those, yesterday. It had been so long since I'd heard or seen anything about them, I wasn't even sure if I hadn't imagined them in the first place.
This in comforting.
>>78192304
how about that reusable helicopter rocket that got scrapped, that preceded spaceX for a decade and a half, and didndt succeed because lack of funding... it just shows how difficult it is for space companies to do so, spaceX was very lucky and NASa would have supported many such endeavours from way back
instead of wasting money on the shuttle or the sls
>>78194260
What I like about Indian space program is that it supplies satellites at a very miniscule rate for countries that are too poor to launch some on their own or buy it from a major player or corporation so that they also can have internet and weather forcasting services
That bit's good I guess
>>78194174
Why didn't they use them? They look futuristic to me, but anything that's not bell-shaped will for sheer novelty.
>>78193269
Courage mec
>>78194036
>pyramid tier epics are worthless
>but allowing in millions of unskilled immigrants and paying for their social aide isnt worthless
JUST
>>78194556
>muh diversity hiring
It's a government office, that has been the case since 1964. The "muslim outreach" thing was mostly science fairs and other PR garbage, because NASA cannot ask about religious affiliation when they hire people as it would be a violation of the first amendment (separation of church and state). NASA's affirmative action policies are much more heavily biased towards blacks, but even then it's been like that for most of their existence without any problems. NASA was more SJW during the moon landings than it is today.
The #1 problem with NASA is that they are in bed with all three major American aerospace companies (Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop-Gumman) which is why the STS lasted for so long, and why the replacement was not ready when it was retired. It's a classic case of regulatory capture, SpaceX has only managed to break it due to the russian rocket scandal which pissed off everyone inside the Pentagon establishment (including John McCain).
The only plausible reason I see people would become motivated to develop space capabilities would be mining rare elements on asteroids. If that does happen though it'll probably happen more through private capital.
>>78192505
Yes
>>78194897
The amount of money needed to develop a new, conventional rocket engine is huge.
Imagine the dev costs for an aerospike.
Also, they are only more effective than a bell shaped rocket in atmosphere and lose thrust going transonic too.
>>78192304
Canceled
We must spend the funds on nigger wellfare and mentally disabled sex change operations
>>78194897
Not cost effective to create, because bell nozzles work well enough.
>>78194706
DESIGNATED SHITTING ORBITS
>>78192304
Globalism and elites gaining control
Revolutionary technology time and time again breaks control so it is nescesary to stop all real innovation if you want to be in control
Remember one lesser discussed but very very important point made in "1984" was that all technological innovation had stopped because the party couldn't maintain control otherwise
People of real life controlled dictatorships (dark ages Europe etc) often gained more freedom after technological innovation
And globalism means total control with no way to leave. If we had spacefaring technology we would then have alternatives to earth that are not easily controlled. Dictators do not want people to be able to leave to seek any refuge and for a globalist that means that people shouldn't be able to leave the earth
>>78194008
if it was being made for the military*
>>78195685
That's partially my point: If the X-33/Venturestar had any promise the military would have bought them.
>>78192304
Because people will see an achievement and then write "Whitey on the Moon"-type poetry.
>>78195485
What the fuck are you even
>>78194201
So get the fuck out of /pol/. Seriously, this board is a fucking drug, just lay off the ForChinz for a bit.
>>78196086
South East Asian Bangladesh
>>78196033
This tbqh senpai. They cannot understand the "one giant leap for mankind" moments. Also nice digits, Freemason confirmed.
>>78195485
This rare flag motherfucker gets it.
I would love to know where all the NASA money has gone.
https://youtu.be/1hKSYgOGtos
>>78196006
The only real use it would have had would of been nuclear weapon delivery but the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 pretty much neutered any hope of that.
>>78196899
>not wanting a LEO transport plane
It turned out that space wasn't the next battlefield, so funding dried up.
>>78192304
Science dispelled all the myths that got us hyped up for "The Space Age".
We don't need people in space because of microchips
There's nothing in space worth the cost of bringing it back.
There's no point to infrastructure in space, because again, there's nothing worth the cost of doing it.
Basically, we disproved every good reason to ever go there, and thus we stopped. There are more important things in the budget. Even if the moon was covered in gasoline it wouldn't be cost-effective to go get it.
>>78197186
Yeah that is pretty ironic how Space travel killed itself by inadvertently inventing the intercontinental ballistic missile.
>>78192304
the earth is flat and covered by a dome
no space for you, western piggus
>>78192304
GEE
>>78192304
Because space exploration benefits human kind very little for the amount of money it costs.
>>78197833
I WONDER WHY NO MORE REVOLUTIONARY PROJECTS
>>78197974
So being able to live on multiple planets one day in case one gets wiped out doesn't benifit us?
I bet you're one of those green energy types too. There's a very big supply of potential clean fuel on the moon. Look up "helium 3"
Disclaimer: we don't really know how viable helium 3 is yes especially since there's so little on earth that we haven't done proper experiments on it yet
Tell me what else are we supposed to be spending it on? Welfare? Bailing out Wall Street and dying companies?
>>78197974
No, it doesn't.
Don't cite that list of inventions, because not a single one needed space to exist. They could have been made by literally anyone.
>>78197562
>Even if the moon was covered in gasoline it wouldn't be cost-effective to go get it.
It would absolutely be cost-effective to get it. Once you set up an extraction base, you just shoot containers of gas into the ocean for collection, and use some of that as fuel to rocket the empty ones back.
>doesn't pay attention to any of the space projects going on right now
>WHY R THERE NO COOL PROJECTS? :((((
Kill yourself.
>>78198098
>all with Women's Studies degrees
>>78197789
>France
>knowing something about space
>>78198391
>So being able to live on multiple planets one day in case one gets wiped out doesn't benifit us?
Why don't you live in the antarctic in case a meteor hits mainland north america?
>I bet you're one of those green energy types too. There's a very big supply of potential clean fuel on the moon. Look up "helium 3"
The concentration of helium 3 in the lunar regolith is 50 parts per billion, or 150 million tons of regolith mined and processed to gain 1 ton of helium 3.
>Disclaimer: we don't really know how viable helium 3 is yes especially since there's so little on earth that we haven't done proper experiments on it yet
Chemistry is not a mystery. We know that helium 3 is good because it has a decent binding energy, which is where the energy in fusion reactions comes from.
>Tell me what else are we supposed to be spending it on? Welfare? Bailing
Keeping the lights on so shits like you can bitch about how greedy people are.
Canadians really are sorry.
we need a USSR
>>78198431
I'd love to see your cost-projection analysis on a lunar railgun system. You can meet 50 dollars per barrel?
>>78197974
You mean that it wont turn a quick profit for short sighted shareholders?
Because damn son, moons, asteroids and planets chuck full of resources seems to me like a shit ton of money waiting to be made and a shitton of markets waiting to be created and to open up.
>>78199138
If it's possible to lower costs to the point that mining in space comes into parity with the costs of mining on earth, all we have to do is apply that tech to mining on earth and suddenly space becomes pointlessly expensive again.
There will never be a time when mining space is cheaper than mining on earth.
>>78192304
they ran out of german engineers :D
>>78198750
>Why don't you live in the antarctic in case a meteor hits mainland north america?
>climate isn't a world-wide system
>asteroids can't move fast enough to affect more than just a continent
Jesus, just off yourself m8
>>78198461
I'm hard.
>>78197562
What else is more important on the budget? If you stopped giving money away to foreign nations and stopped fighting foreign wars we would absolutely have enough
Why do you think trump wants to pull out of crap like NATO and bring the troops home?
Also people said this exact same shit about the new world when it was discovered "we don't need a new continent" "even if there was mountains of gold there would be no reason to go there it would cost too much" "there's nothing there how would we live"
Taking technological differences between eras into account European colonization of the new world is about as difficult as lunar colonization would be in 2025. Replace "protection from strange elements" with "protection from lack of oxygen" and you've basically got it
aside from muh money what so damn fucking hard about building a fucking space ship. Why only burger king can do it?
For fuck sake it's literally metal and ceramic.
>>78193761
Similar to a typical rocket engine in principle, but the "spike" in the middle directs the flow of thrust in such a way that it maintains a high specific impulse in atmosphere. This means it's more fuel efficient. The only problem is that the spike gives it a lot of mass, but the improvement in specific impulse is worth it. The spike can be linear like that or an actual spike in the middle of a round engine
Liberals wanted to spend more tax dollars on feeding niggers.
>>78193103
>>78193761
>>78194588
They under-performed in all tests. I think it was a materials problem. Could probably find an engineered solution, but they didn't have the funding.
Basically, don't let NASA morons design things.
t. a former NASA contract employee
>>78192304
It is though. You just haven't been paying attention.
Private investment in space industry is far higher than govt investment globally now days.
The first privately funded moon mission was recently approved like a couple weeks ago.
NASA is horribly inefficient because it gets reduced to pork barrel politics like everything else, with many congressmen refusing to approve any spending that doesn't create jobs in their district resulting in economically retarded decisions.
NASA director Charlie Bolden gave a speech a while back citing a study which found that within NASA's current budget they could put a man on Mars before 2020 by leveraging the private sector to make spending much more efficient.
Watch this if you want to hear some of what is happening in space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVy5jjSb1N4
>>78199524
>antarctica
>climate concerns
Really? You think it would become more uninhabitable?
>>78199770
>What else is more important on the budget?
Making sure we have enough energy to keep the economy running. Military spending, basically.
>If you stopped giving money away to foreign nations and stopped fighting foreign wars we would absolutely have enough
Show us the ROI and we'll consider it.
>Why do you think trump wants to pull out of crap like NATO and bring the troops home?
Because he doesn't understand anything.
>Also people said this exact same shit about the new world when it was discovered "we don't need a new continent" "even if there was mountains of gold there would be no reason to go there it would cost too much" "there's nothing there how would we live"
Refuging in anecdote is pretty sorry of you, canada.
>Taking technological differences between eras into account European colonization of the new world is about as difficult as lunar colonization would be in 2025. Replace "protection from strange elements" with "protection from lack of oxygen" and you've basically got it
So you're saying that wool coats are as complex and expensive as oxygen generators? That if a spaceship gets damaged we can just slowly float to the moon and cut down the spaceship trees with axes to fix the hull?
Wew lad. Thanks for saving me the time of responding to you seriously. Maybe get your education some place other than youtube?
>>78200217
Private investment in boondoggles promising to save the earth is far higher these days. Remember solar roadways?
Rich people aren't smart, especially not about space.
>>78192304
People at somepoint realized we live in a planet with limited resources.
>>78196756
most of it goes to flying dipshits to circlejerk conferences where nothing is accomplished except maxing out daily allowances and writing off sight-seeing as "travel expenses"
>>78192304
>>78200578
>so lets waste them on going to space for rocks we can more cheaply find on earth because it's cool and i saw it in cartoons
Makes total sense.
>>78193509
>ScatSat
>>78200264
>Really? You think it would become more uninhabitable?
It's still warm enough to live there without a pressurized suit, and still receives sunlight at certain points in the year
An impact winter could fuck everything up, even in Antarctica
>>78192304
THE (((JEWS)))
>>78192304
>tfw no more space elevator threads
HOLD ME!
>>78200902
But guess what?
It'd still be safer than space is.
>>78192304
Nope, priorities shifted to feeding the masses of poor people whose population is exploding (because we're feeding them)
If Bongistan leaves the EU and becomes an economic powerhouse, the Skylon dream will come true and Her Majesty's great empire will stretch beyond one planet.
>>78200902
>>78201118
Or better yet, why not live underwater? Put a mile or two of ocean above your head and even relativistic bombardment won't be able to get you.
Still cheaper, still safer than space.
>>78193509
>>78201224
>another satellite lifter
>in an already oversaturated market
What's the max payload of the skylon? Less than 10 tons? Can it make GEO or just LEO?
Seems pretty niche.
>>78201277
>>78201277
Mars receives more sunlight than the deep ocean, and could be made more livable than Antarctica (with the exception of needing Oxygen masks to breathe) within a few generations
The ironic thing is that Mars is the best insurance policy against other humans
You can't get to Mars in 1 day like you can get to anywhere on Earth in 1 day
>>78194198
>Easier and cheaper to maintain than a reusable Falcon?
There is no reusable Falcon. It is a meme. There is a first stage which may be refurbishable. Completely different thing to a reusable single stage to orbit spaceship.
You are trying to compare a Boeing 747 with a 1912 biplane. And yes, VentureStar is the Boeing 747 in this comparison.
>>78201732
Mars receives more sunlight than the deep ocean, and could be made more livable than Antarctica (with the exception of needing Oxygen masks to breathe) within a few generations
Geothermal/nuclear power. A fraction of the cost of shipping or manufacturing sufficient solar panels all the way to mars.
>The ironic thing is that Mars is the best insurance policy against other humans
>You can't get to Mars in 1 day like you can get to anywhere on Earth in 1 day
Which means even a small mistake or accident results in the entire colony dying before help can arrive. It'd take centuries to become self-sustaining.
Something goes wrong underwater? Drop ballast. Done.
Fuck the government paying for it
The free market will actually fix it
>>78200217
>Private investment in space industry is far higher than govt investment globally now days.
Private investment in the space industry make up a tiny fraction of the overall space spending. 85% of SpaceX revenues are from taxpayer money from the DoD and NASA. 100% of ULA's revenues come from the taxpayer. Lots of investment in Arianespace and Ariane 5 and 6 come from the European taxpayer, same for JAXA, RSA etc.
What private space investments are you talking about? There is no money in private space.
>>78201988
How do you get nuclear power in the deep ocean?
You can't mine shit at those pressures
Fusion power doesn't exist yet
>Which means even a small mistake or accident results in the entire colony dying before help can arrive.
Just like the deep ocean.
>It'd take centuries to become self-sustaining.
It will take less than half a century
>>78198933
Bah. If the 50/60s were like the CURRENT YEAR we would probably have just let the Soviets go to the moon and said
We need to spend more on refugees and we need more feminist programs instead of engineers
If we end up building one of these how long before a certain portion has to go low-income housing?
I'm thinking DAY ONE.
>>78201441
>What's the max payload of the skylon?
15 tons to 200km
>>78202215
>How do you get nuclear power in the deep ocean?
Pic related and some really long cable?
>>78202577
I think you forgot the part where we were comparing potential shelters from impact cataclysms
>>78202215
>How do you get nuclear power in the deep ocean?
You build a reactor for the underwater base? You could build it on the surface and sink it down to the site. Nuclear power is really cheap with an abundant water source.
>You can't mine shit at those pressures
You can't colonize planets either. If we're imagining bullshit futuretech solving all our problems, then it goes both ways.
>Fusion power doesn't exist yet
Nor will it ever, at least in a commercially viable manner.
>Just like the deep ocean.
It doesn't take 30 days to descend or ascend two or three miles. By the way, the minimum time between hohmann transfers to mars is 25 months, not 30 days.
>It will take less than half a century
Then ocean colonization will be that much farther ahead, since they're very similar techs, making mars colonies even more pointless.
It's not gonna happen, bro. If it was going to happen, it would have happened two decades ago. We've never lacked the tech, we just lack an economic reason to invest that many trillions of dollars into fulfilling science fiction.
>>78202479
That's pretty sad. There's not much of a market for LEO satellites.
>>78201441
Apparently 15000 to 17000 kg to LEO, it could toss smaller payloads higher though
Skylon would be able to do a ton of hauls at a comparatively low price, perfect for a spaceship that would be assembled in orbit.
Trying to lob a whole ship up in one go is horribly inneficient and risky.
>>78200264
>military spending
If you transformed in to a purely defensive force and stopped propping up your weak "allies" you wouldn't have to spend so much on the military
Plus you only spend about 3.3% of gdp on the military anyway.
Let's face it the reason you don't have enough money for space is because you've become cucks who give free handouts to any shit tier nation or illegal that comes along and asks. Just learn to say no and stop giving sub 80 iq shits free money and you'll have more than plenty
>>78202982
>Apparently 15000 to 17000 kg to LEO, it could toss smaller payloads higher though
On an elliptical trajectory that is useless for most commercial applications, unless the satellite has hundreds of meters per second of delta v on board to circularize at its apoapsis.
You're one stupidly ignorant fuck if you think Republicans support anything scientific.
>>78202980
It would be quick and cheap though, so potentially worth it.
The idea behind it is that the engines compress oxygen to liquid form as it flies and it refuels its own rocket oxidizer.
Capitalism.
It siphoned state money away from interesting shit like this and into projects that are designed solely to make money.
And pol won't even care.
>>78202890
>You build a reactor for the underwater base? You could build it on the surface and sink it down to the site. Nuclear power is really cheap with an abundant water source.
my point was how do you build a reactor and fuel it by using only materials from the deep ocean, in a self sustained manner?
>You can't colonize planets either.
it's much easier to build stuff that works in a zero-pressure environment than stuff that works in mega crush depth of the deep ocean
>It doesn't take 30 days to descend or ascend two or three miles.
1 hole or structural deficiency in a deep sea habitat will kill everyone there just as quickly as a habitat failure on Mars
It doesn't matter how long it takes for "help to arrive" in either situation
>Then ocean colonization will be that much farther ahead, since they're very similar techs
They're really not similar at all, aside from being in environments inhospitable to humans
>>78203092
What makes you qualified to know better?
Do you think it's a coincidence that we only prop up dictators in oil-producing nations? How's that tar sands production going? Seen a few hundred mines go into default from 50 dollars per barrel oil costs?
>>78202453
Is there a name for this type of structure? I've seen artists conceptions of other similar areas before.
>>78203267
I know how it works, there's just other methods that work better and have less risk.
>>78200264
And I meant from a cost point of view with my colonization comparison. It wasn't cheap to send a ship to a place with absolutely zero infrastructure when you didn't even know what was there
In all honesty humans could have never expanded anywhere at all and been fine. We are a species of exploration it's what we do. We go where nobody has ever gone before.
Was there any point to any of our exploration from the point of view of people at the time? No but we did it anyway
America would not exist without seemingly pointless exploration
>>78203414
O'neill cylinder. Proposed before the microchip removed the single reason for having people in space.
It is a cart before a horse, in the most literal sense.
>>78200439
>this
All they care about is profit for themselves and control
>>78194491
Yeah but their work is still continued to this day.
The public stuff is worthless, the stuff they worked on in secret though and taught us is truly amazing.
>>78200578
>so well just die here and not expand to other possibly inhabitable places
And our fucking huge world population. We need to move a bunch of people somewhere
>>78192841
>It would have worked and would have been easy to maintain
They said the same thing about the Shuttle, until they actually started launching it.
>It'll be so much less work, I swear! I mean, compared to building an ENTIRE NEW one every time you launch? How could this go wrong?
>>78202215
>Fusion power doesn't exist yet
Better tell that to Ronald Richter circa 1954 then.
>>78203473
That wouldn't be a British project if we took the easy route I think.
>>78192304
Budget concerns.
The USA didn't want to keep giving NASA a reasonable amount of money, so after Apollo they quickly pushed détente.
Read into the Apollo applications program and NERVA. It was all because of budgetary concerns.
>>78192304
yeah sure guys, its the jews and feminism, totally not far right wing rednecks who dont think space is a good investment
>>78203376
my point was how do you build a reactor and fuel it by using only materials from the deep ocean, in a self sustained manner?
Uranium extraction from seawater, if they must. Look it up.
>it's much easier to build stuff that works in a zero-pressure environment than stuff that works in mega crush depth of the deep ocean
Mars is not zero pressure. It is not necessarily easier because the habitats will have to be extremely light or it will cost far too much to ship it to mars. We actually have experience building deepsea vehicles and installations. China is building one now. Keeping pressure out is pretty simple, that's why we went to the bottom of the challenger deep before we went to the moon.
>1 hole or structural deficiency in a deep sea habitat will kill everyone there just as quickly as a habitat failure on Mars
Yep, but it's cheaper to build it in the ocean and less catastrophic events can be mitigated far easier than on mars.
>They're really not similar at all, aside from being in environments inhospitable to humans
Oxygen generation, co2 scrubbing, water purification, hydroponics, etc etc. It's similar enough. But easier at the same time.
>This faggot isn't following SpaceX
>Announcing the Mars Colonial Transporter later this year
>Will probably announce their BFR too this year
>Launching Falcoln Heavy in November (greatest launch potential of any current era rocket)
>Dragon 2 test flights over the next 2 years
>Dragon 2 landing on Mars in 2018
>>78203267
Nope.
The engines are hybrid jet/rocket.
Jet mode uses liquid hydrogen and air cooled down to almost liquefaction to power itself.
When the atmosphere gets too thin, the engine turns to rocket mode, which uses liquid hydrogen and on-board liquid oxygen as reaction mass.
>>78192304
Because theres almost no benefit to anyone on earth from an experiment conducted in space save for satellite technology and some obscure fluid dynamics findings.
>>78203545
Columbus was looking for a new trade route to india so he could get rich. people explore new lands to find new resource deposits so they can get rich. Nobody explores for the fun of it, except rich mountain climbing assholes.
But don't take my word for it.
>>78192505
>>78192423
These
>>78204139
uranium 235 is 1 part per billion, less than the he3 on the moon that you nonchalantly shot down earlier
>>78204190
>Elon "Nuke Mars" "Ai is going to get us terminator style" "we live in a computer simulation" Musk
>Taking the word of such a madman.
What utter foolishness. His goal in life is to buy a tombstone that says "Not just the paypal guy"
>>78192304
>what is SpaceX
Don't you guys think it's sad that people don't think that the apollo missions happened?
I tried to explain it to one of these people, and they just didn't get it.
>>78204541
I know. I wouldn't advocate for either plan. It's just that undersea will always be cheaper. Go for geothermal for all i care. It's not like deep oil drilling hasn't pushed that tech as far as possible.
>>78204674
No, but i think it's sad that people think the apollo missions mattered.
>>78204657
>>what is SpaceX
A company that derives 85% of its revenue from the taxpayer, would long be bust without taxpayer money and uses 1960s technology to effectively scam billions of taxpayer dollars from the taxpayer.
>>78192304
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVzwf0nS-eE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXvsi7DRyPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf_-g3UWQ04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs_a_cd61-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHvBUqfWDRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQz3STH19w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAMPD65dvIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwbLls-PCs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARWWMiknT48
>>78204541
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/ferguson2/
>>78204605
Except he already has working hardware that is Mars HSF capable and nobody else does
Fuck off the man is winning more than Charlie sheen in spite of obongo
>>78192304
We came to the conclusion as a species that we deserve to die on this planet.
Take a long look around and convince me otherwise.
>>78204762
So eighty percent is 125 billion in private sector launch contracts right.
Fuck off shill I can smell your sjw from here.
>>78204812
>Except he already has working hardware that is Mars HSF capable and nobody else does
>chemical rockets
lel
>>78192304
Cold war ended.
They were also all astronomical wastes of money. The space shuttle was an unmitigated disaster.
>>78192304
Because of:
>muh big gubment
>muh taxpayers money
>poor repogees
>progress is ebul
>>78193622
>That has nothing to do with it, at least in the US.
nigga u dumb, the left has always bitched and whined about us spending money on our space programs.
>>78204792
also this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzpOgXxsnvo
>>78204762
>scam billions of taxpayer dollars from the taxpayer.
So how would the taxpayer better spend they money then? SpaceX sells rockets for a fraction of what NASA needs to build them.
>>78204925
>So eighty percent is 125 billion in private sector launch contracts right.
The global private market launch services volume is around 2 billion a year and has been around 2 billion for more than a decade... and has been large the decade before.
125 billion? Are you drunk?
P.S. the market leader for private launch contracts has been Arianespace since the 1990s and is still Arianespace.
>>78204792
>>78193509
>ScatSat-1
>Scat
Designated shitting orbits.
>>78192304
the jew hasn't found a way to monetize it yet
as soon as euros make a moon base or asteroid mine shlomo will be there to take credit for everything and rewrite history.
the only upside instead of this is that the space holocaust will involve an airlock which is much easier, and it will be real this time.
>>78199352
The German engineers have taken on the difficult task of miniaturizing everything for their cuck sheds.
>>78204541
Oh wait, you do know that 50 ppb is more than 1 ppb? I misread your post originally.
>>78199352
No. They ran out of Fagets.
>>78195668
Technology is actively enslaving us.
>>78203563
What was the reason?
>>78204792
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXvsi7DRyPI
>2:30
Epic pulse-pounding putting rocks into bags action!
>>78192304
Why climb on a limiting spacecraft, when the universe is right there inside your skull!?
>>78198098
jesus fucking christ
>>78192304
Feminism and niggers blowing tax dollars
>>78192304
>Whatever happened to cool space projects?
They went black and what we have now is public consumption science meant to keep the status quo.
>>78198461
>doesn't pay attention to how corporations are raiding government space programs
Oh, please !!! Your corporate over-lords are gutting NASA, JPL, etc., so private corporations can develop the technology for private profit that used to benefit us all.
>>78209390
>public consumption science is the same as what is going on behind the scenes!
lol, NASA is a joke and a shield to keep people from the truth.
>>78208764
Tax cuts for the rich, you mean.
>>78210033
>he doesnt know about the black budget or the secret space program
lel
>>78210033
Yeah that's totally it
>>78203414
Dyson sphere
>>78192304
>>78192423
>>78192505
>>78192598
>>78210033
>>78208764
Ever heard of the NATIONAL DEBT? We can't go to space with a huge debt.
>>78210408
No it isn't Dyson sphere goes around a star.
>>78210440
>Ever heard of the NATIONAL DEBT?
>Ever heard of the BLACK BUDGET?
>We can't go to space with a huge debt.
>I am not told about the secret space program so therefore no space ever!
I love these threads.
>>78194174
The right one looks like a reliability nightmare.
>>78210540
oh i thought thats what this was doing
>>78192304
Because the Nazi scientists are dead.
>>78209816
>>78210174
>>78210323
Because all those private corporations are in space to benefit the public, to share the know-how with the education system, and to inspire students to go into math and science. I mean, really ????
>>78192304
>>78210651
fuck off of pol senpai
>>78210781
We can't do either with massive national debt.
>>78210781
>>78210633
>Because the Nazi scientists are dead.
Not the people they taught and passed their knowledge to.
>>78210651
I see you missed the point, the point is that we are already there, NASA is a front to keep idiots that think tax breaks for the rich that are whats keeping us out of space occupied.
Musk is revealing his colonial transport ship to take people to Mars in fall of this year. It's supposedly able to carry 100 people at a time along with 100 tons of supplies. I think that's pretty cool. Every time someone asks him for details about it he looks like a little kid who knows the most exciting secret in the world with this huge shit eating grin on his face and says "You'll have to wait and see." Plans to have first test flight to mars in 2018 and to start taking people by 2024. This is also the year that Musk will be flying his super heavy lifter rocket with a payload capacity twice that of anything else ever flown, and he will be revealing new space suit designs. I think that's pretty cool
Because the good guys lost in WW2
>>78211025
>Not the people they taught and passed their knowledge to.
They have no hope. Only ubermensch can advance the science.
>>78192304
if NASA could fly shit to space for pennies they'd lose funding.
with such huge budgets things are doomed to end up in pockets.
>>78201854
no the first stage is 100% in condition able to be reflown
however musk is autistic and is only concerned with going to mars, so the Falcon is more a testbed/profit maker until their next big rocket.
>>78211073
>I think that's pretty cool
>I think that the technological dead end of chemical rockets is the future because I dont understand math or science!
Awesome.
>>78211232
We're doing well so far.
>>78211073
First flight is in 2022 to mars
In 2018 he's just sending a shitty little Red Dragon capsule off the top of a falcon heavy
>>78192304
because USA spent all their money doing landscaping and interior decorating projects in Afghanistan and Iraq this last decade or so.
>>78192304
We started to prioritize bombing sand people. The world needs less of them.
>>78211379
Where in my post did I say that I think chemical rockets are going to be the main form of space flight forever?
>>78193268
That never happened. Fox News ranted about it for weeks but it was never anything but a bullshit feelgood shtick from a diplomatic speech. No such program ever showed up in a single budget or official NASA document.
>>78192304
NASA's problem is bigger than any single president or space policy. Space missions take years, sometimes decades of planning, development, and execution. Take the James Webb Space Telescope for example, the space telescope intended to replace the aging Hubble. It's launching in 2018, but it's been in development for the better part of 20 years, because that's the kind of timescales these sorts of big projects necessitate.
It's a huge problem, then, when you have to completely change your funding priorities every couple of years when a new president or Congress gets elected.
NASA's fundamental problem is too much Congressional oversight, too much meddling. Congress tells NASA what it's priorities are, how much it's allotted budget is allowed to be spent on each, which contractors they're allowed to use, what their design specifications need to be.
Scientific projects are at their best when you minimize meddling - for example, in fusion research compare the simplicity and effectiveness of the DIII-D project in San Diego and all they've accomplished with it, versus the absolute bureaucratic and diplomatic clusterfuck that ITER has become.
What should happen is NASA should receive a list of broad priorities from the president. They should have their own internal organization to decide how best to work towards these priorities and determine the estimated final cost. Then they submit a budget request to Congress who either approves it or asks for refinements. NASA should be free to use whichever contractors they want, and develop whatever projects they think best suit their broad objectives in science and exploration.
>>78192304
It's 2016 and we have more important things to worry about now
>>78211489
>here in my post did I say that I think chemical rockets are going to be the main form of space flight forever?
>thinking they are viable now
lel
>>78211426
But what if we could bomb sand people, FROM SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE?
>>78210935
You need to do some more loving-kindness meditation and be more welcoming and affirming on /pol/. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for all the private corporations to willingly share all their scientific discoveries with the public for free, now that NASA is broke and doesn't even have a manned transportation system into space. We now have to beg the Russians to get our Tupperwares into space.
>>78192304
Cold war with sssr stopped so no space race anymore
>>78211782
>Meanwhile, I'm waiting for all the private corporations to willingly share all their scientific discoveries with the public for free
We never will. Oil will run out before you know what we do behind closed doors with your tax dollars and money from our investments.
>>78211534
>Space missions take years, sometimes decades of planning, development, and execution.
They don't though, thats more a political/bureaucrat thing.
The #1 problem at NASA is that those fuckers produced the shuttle, which was the single most expensive launch vehicle ever made, then they tried to force it to launch EVERYTHING for them
So suddenly everything is a shitshow
The shuttle is STILL killing NASA because the SLS rocket they are building now is using all shuttle components, and some old apollo tech.
>>78211379
>We're doing well so far.
Yeah but pretty late. We were supposed to have Mars colonization by now.
>>78211402
They need to practice Mars landings and Mars missions in general before they send their billion dollar spaceship up there
That being said, I don't think it will happen in 2018 though
They still haven't gotten Falcon Heavy off the ground
>>78212161
>Yeah but pretty late. We were supposed to have Mars colonization by now.
What is going on in public versus what is done behind the green door are two very different things.
>>78210440
>We
Who are you talking to, leaf?
>>78211971
Jesus christ why. Why would they not learn from their mistakes? Why not purge everything related to the shuttle? Costs be damned, that thing was a shit-show.
>>78211971
>They don't though, thats more a political/bureaucrat thing.
Not always. You can't always throw money at a problem and fix it.
Just look at fusion - no amount of funding is suddenly going to make the engineering and design hurdles that prevent self-sustaining fusion from working disappear, you need a lot of time, research and development to come up with a solution.
I'll agree with you about the shuttle though, it's NASA's equivalent of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle - something that was originally intended to do one thing well and ended up going through a hundred redesigns at the request of congressional oversight committees who wanted it do do everything well, and the final result was a vehicle that did nothing well.
>>78211602
>JFK
>First non-white President
>Quoting him unironically
KEK
>>78211971
>>78212451
SLS is a lot cheaper than shuttle or even Saturn V, and it's pretty close to the Saturn V in performance
It's a pretty decent rocket tbqh
>>78212679
>Just look at fusion - no amount of funding is suddenly going to make the engineering and design hurdles that prevent self-sustaining fusion from working disappear, you need a lot of time, research and development to come up with a solution.
I suggest finding and reading the Paperclip file and the interview in 1954 of one Dr Ronald Richter if you honestly think that fusion isnt possible today.
>>78199002
Leaving moons orbit isnt hard. Apollo did it
>>78212451
congress made them
It wasn't that bad of an idea, its just a waste of money now that SpaceX and possibly/eventually blue orgin have come along.
>>78212785
SLS is literally the shuttle minus the orbiter
It lifts 70 tons compared to double that in the Saturn V
And it'll cost multi billions a launch.
>>78212231
The falcon heavy first launch will be this year
By the time 2018 runs around, they will have launched maybe 10 of them
So they'll send the first red dragon 2018, then a couple more in 2020, then the MCT + more dragons in 2022, and a manned MCT in 2024
Thats their plan at least, if everything goes well.
>>78192304
Say...that one on the right is pretty fat.
Fat is good. Merica should make more fat space ships.
>>78193509
>India
>ScatSat-1
>Shit Satellite 1
Good to know india embraces being designated poo in loo country.
>>78212679
Space Flight is simple physics stuff, developing whole new power plant designs for practical fusion is something very different.
The #1 first thing you have to do for all space activity is reducing cost of access to space.
aka total reusability of the vehicles. For some baffling reason people got stuck on the single stage to orbit meme, and that killed all reusable vehicles...
>>78192304
What we really need is for the US/Russia/China/EU/India/Japan/Private Corporations to become competitive enough to trigger a new space race.
>>78213092
>SLS is literally the shuttle minus the orbiter
wrong
The only component they share is the SSMEs
The boosters, fuel tank, second stage, Orion, and the escape system are all different.
>It lifts 70 tons compared to double that in the Saturn V
That version will only fly once and then will be upgraded to the version that can send 39.1 metric tons to the moon (the Saturn V could do 45 tons)
>And it'll cost multi billions a launch.
only if you include program costs and if it also flies less than 5 times
the shuttle cost 750 million per launch and had 1/3 the payload
>The falcon heavy first launch will be this year
Probably not
It will get delayed to February or March 2017
>By the time 2018 runs around, they will have launched maybe 10 of them
Wrong.
I'd say 3 launches at most by 2018
> then the MCT + more dragons in 2022
There's no way that MCT and BFR will all be ready to fly in 6 years
They haven't even started construction on a pad that could deal with the rocket yet
>>78198098
>posts pic of women that are in no way related to NASA other than they all visited on the same day
>>78212451
No, the shuttle was bad but if you want to see the absolute WORST you can get out of an R&D program, look at Constellation and the new SLS program.
Constellation was started up in 2003 in response to the Columbia disaster (the final nail in the coffin for the continuation of the shuttle program). The idea outlined by W's Vision for Space Exploration speech was to launch a manned mission to the Moon by the late 2010s and establish a permanent manned lunar research outpost by 2020.
Congress laid out ridiculous requirements and provisions for NASA to abide by, and they mandated that NASA had to use the contractors that Congress decided on - Lockheed Martin for the Orion Capsule, ATK for the Ares Rocket, and Northrop Grumman for the Altair Lunar Lander.
Almost immediately it ran into problems. The cost-plus military contracts with LM, ATK, and NG caused development costs on all three projects to skyrocket, but Congress refused to increase NASA's budget while simultaneously refusing to allow them to shift funding priorities - so NASA was literally forced to gut it's other research and exploration programs to continue shoveling money into Constellation.
On top of that, all three projects ran into major design complications and had to constantly reduce performance expectations, which of course complicated development of the other projects. Ares' engines under-performed so Orion and Altair had to shed weight, etc.
In 2009 when ATK presented it's "Ares I-X" for a test launch, it turned out to be an off-the-shelf SRB with a fancy nose cone. The Augustine Commission was convened to review the programs progress and found Ares was $10 billion over budget, the first manned flight had been pushed back from 2014 to 2020, Orion had gone from a crew of 7 to a crew of 4, and Altair and the Moon base had been scrapped altogether.
It was a fucking disaster, and worst of all Congress mandated that NASA should reuse all the same contractors for SLS.
>>78192304
They cost 50 billion dollars in pajeet mode.
>still dangerous as fuck
>can only live in space a year
>>78210570
The bell shaped engine has a lot of shit going on as well. Its just above the engine-bell.
>>78212807
Yes fusion is possible - any high schooler with his daddy's credit card can slap together a basic hydrogen fusor.
*Sustained* fusion producing net power output is still a long ways off, and I say this as someone whose office is three doors down from a tokamak-stellerator hybrid.
>>78214161
Well, you're wrong about SLS
It's been NASA's cheapest heavy lift rocket development to date
It only costs $3 billion a year when NASA's budget is $19 billion, and congress literally overfunds it every year
>>78200439
>SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADS?!
>>78198431
My nigga, you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress lately too?
>>78192304
The VentureStar was cancelled in 2001 due to problems with it's linear aerospike engine. Although I believe the issues have since been worked out in the decade and a half sense. The project aimed to reduce the cost of transporting cargo to orbit by 90%. The whole project could probably be resurrected at any time.
>>78213874
SLS uses a modified shuttle fuel tank
Boosters are modified shuttle boosters
Orion is old apollo tech dogshit, has no mission or purpose, it's incapable of landing on the moon.
>That version will only fly once
Yea because they are trying to meet congressional requirements, which was a launch in 2016.
There is no "upgraded rocket" being planned or built
>There's no way that MCT and BFR will all be ready to fly in 6 years
And why not? The hardest part, the engine is almost ready
Nothing else takes 6 years from start to finish. Obviously it means they have to be starting soon, but I don't see it as impossible.
The SLS looks absurd in an era where SpaceX is building reusable rockets and aiming at a 236 ton to LEO methane powered launch vehicle ready by 2022.
>>78214417
>It's been NASA's cheapest heavy lift rocket development to date
It's been NASA's ONLY heavy lift rocket since Saturn, that's not saying much. A BMW is less expensive than a Lamborghini but that doesn't make it cheap.
>It only costs $3 billion a year when NASA's budget is $19 billion, and congress literally overfunds it every year
Development is $3 billion a year and the most optimistic per launch cost is between $1-2 billion. That's 10% of your annual budget PER LAUNCH.
The whole problem with SLS is that it's a rocket designed to carry massive projects into space, but doesn't leave much money left to actually fund a lot of those massive projects.
>>78214416
>*Sustained* fusion producing net power output is still a long ways off
>I decided to not look into the man you mentioned because my biases told me the that it isnt possible.
Why bother posting?
>>78193509
>usa ok
>>78214926
I'm familiar with Richter's name, and I've seen no credible evidence that any of his claims were legitimate.
Everyone and their fucking mom was making amazing claims of miraculous cold fusion in the 50s and 60s, and Richter's name is just another on the list.
>>78214921
The shuttle was a heavy lift rocket
It just spent 80~ tons of its heavy lift to put some fucking orbiter with wings up there
Who has tried building SSTOs in KSP? That's why the VentureStar was canceled.
>>78215330
>I'm familiar with Richter's name, and I've seen no credible evidence that any of his claims were legitimate.
Read the 1954 interview he gave to some USAF members when they asked him why Bravo ran away. Compare his answer to how Gabriel Kron outlined energy gating based on circuit geometry and rotation works.
If you actually have an open mind prepare to be amazed, if however you are like most public consumption scientists though you were dismiss what I say out of hand even though one of flies to work on Janet.
>>78198668
>The ESA space center is located in the south American france
>American education
>>78192304
Cold war ended.
The cold war was the most beneficial "conflict" in the history of human progress.
>>78215559
>If you actually have an open mind prepare to be amazed
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that phrase from someone trying to sell me on "free energy" or "cold fusion" or "electrogravitics", etc... I could self-fund my own plasma research lab.
Too much money is spent funding useless people.
>>78192304
I had this argument with a buddy saying its a waste of time, its Obama nigga
>>78214919
>SLS uses a modified shuttle fuel tank
No it does not.
>Boosters are modified shuttle boosters
They are five segment boosters, a lot more powerful than the shuttle ones and needed a new design and new testing regime
>it's incapable of landing on the moon
What?
Why would Orion land on the moon?
>And why not? The hardest part, the engine is almost ready
because the Falcon Heavy uses 95% the same parts as falcon 9 and is launching 4 years later than Musk originally said it would
BFR is a completely new rocket, which also happens to be the largest rocket ever made, with an engine that won't even begin testing until 2018 at the earliest
SLS will be used for nearly a decade before BFR starts flying
Look what NASA did with the Saturn V in the few short years it was flying
>>78214921
>A BMW is less expensive than a Lamborghini but that doesn't make it cheap.
And?
I don't criticize the Saturn V for being as expensive as it was
>That's 10% of your annual budget PER LAUNCH.
It will never launch more than 3 times per year.
>The whole problem with SLS is that it's a rocket designed to carry massive projects into space, but doesn't leave much money left to actually fund a lot of those massive projects.
The idea behind SLS is to develop the rocket first, then develop the hardware after
It's not like Apollo where they just need two pieces of hardware in addition to the Saturn V to land on the moon. Landing on Mars takes a shit ton of stuff.
The reason Constellation failed is because they tried to develop all this shit like the MTV, Altair lander, Ares I and V, and Orion all at once, and it was pretty obvious from the get go that it was going to collapse.
It's funny that you criticize SLS for being "the same as Constellation" while at the same time bemoaning the fact that SLS isn't being run the same way they tried to run Constellation.
>>78215930
>I wont look into what the interview was about nor will I look into the other gentleman because my confirmation bias confirms that I know everything there is to know about this!
At least you tried.
>>78192304
We just role play now, but it doesn't matter because diversity is what is important.
>>78192304
They have the tech now buddy. Its eyes only. They dont need to waste money on bulky space race shuttles costing billions. you just tell the public you arent on shit.
>>78213934
Except they are:
>Women working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory pose for a photo in mission control in honor of Women in Science Day. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Keep the damage control, liberal cumshitter.
>>78195485
Nigger wtf are you doing over there? You a bond villain or some shit? post a couple pics of the local flora please
>>78216161
I don't give a shit about interviews and conspiracies. I don't care about the "circumstantial case". I'm not going to waste an hour of my life digging through conspiracy websites and youtube videos listening to guys who look like Milton from Office Space talk about how "it's all a big coverup maaaaan".
Dammit man, I'm a researcher, not a tabloid journalist. You want to convince me his cold fusion claims were credible? Show me hard evidence! Show me design schematics! Show me data!!!
>>78194556
You know i the only thing i would say about that is that if you're dong a diversity hire for NASA, chances are you probably can recruit the very best when it comes to minority groups. A small structural engineering firm might struggle by having to hire more incompetent engineers in the name of diversity. However the literal best aerospace engineers in their respective minority groups would fucking cream themselves to work as a engineer for NASA.
