Orion spacecraft gets funded to be flight ready in 2010 at the latest. Now it is 2016, "earliest" flight with astronauts supposed to be in 2023.
WTF is wrong with American engineering? This is essentially a rehashed 1960s tech space capsule. Back in the 1960s, they were designed without computers and built and launched with astronauts within three years from scratch.
Why does it take 20 years now? Not to mention half of it (the service module) is built by Airbus in Europe!
one word: ancient aliens
The time scale is so slow because there isn't the same drive or hunger to beat Ivan that there was in the 60s.
>>56260609
>Orion spacecraft gets funded to be flight ready in 2010 at the latest. Now it is 2016, "earliest" flight with astronauts supposed to be in 2023.
If you weren't so busy being a retard you would know that Orion was delayed because the original project that it was part of was cancelled.
The SLS and Orion are actually on fairly good schedule. Don't blame the scientists for political fuck ups.
>>56260609
>Back in the 1960s, they were designed without computers
We did have computers. Room-sized mainframes, but computers nonetheless.
that always bugged me too
everyone went on the moon almost 50 years ago when technology wasn't even as good
nowadays they can't even launch the things without failing
what the hell happened ?
Also, Orion has now been to space and the new capsule is ready for another flight and sitting in a hangar at KSC
>>56261436
>nowadays they can't even launch the things without failing
What exactly failed.
>>56261436
because with going to the moon you dont discover anything new, its already discover, and only lose money
>>56261571
The only lunar probes launched since the 80s was Clementine in 1994 and that chink probe a few years ago.
>>56261436
>nowadays they can't even launch the things without failing
Going into space is safer now than ever
>automation, automation everywhere to the point of people might be soon loosing their jobs en masse
Here's your problem. With manned flight, you need machine that can operate in space and keep man alive, with automated flight, you only need a machine that can operate in space. Which one of them would liely be lighter, more compact and last but not least, cheaper?
>>56260609
Because NASA budget is like 15 billion dollars
Compared to level of funding it got during cold war it's pitiful
And so, your program is pitiful too
>>56261659
>>56261545
I had no idea
Every single time you hear of a rocket you hear about how it failed, exploded and cost millions of dollars
I guess they just don't mention the successful ones
>>56261659
Since the 70s, the failure rate has held steady at around 1 in every 16 launches. They also tend to come in waves such as 1985-87 and 1997-99.
>>56261714
>>56260609
they are talking of going back to the moon for decades.
now it's obama administration who actually gets it done.
>>56261734
>Every single time you hear of a rocket you hear about how it failed, exploded and cost millions of dollars
>I guess they just don't mention the successful ones
Of course not. It's always more interesting and fun to discuss failures. :^)
>>56261219
that's two words.
>>56261767
And here's why USA has not developed fusion energy yet
>>56261767
The vast majority of that budget in the 60s went to Apollo. You notice by the time we actually landed on the Moon in 69, the budget starts tapering off once all the hardware had pretty much already been designed and built.
>>56261830
Are you one of the recently arrived Syrian professors by and chance?
>>56260609
Money should be wasted on space flight, when it could be spent on more worthy projects at home, such as free university education for millennials, projects to redress economic inequity among People of Color, and more healthcare insurance.
>>56261754
We're at 15 space launches worldwide so far in '16 and no fails yet this year.
Are we due?
>>56261894
No. I am one of the recently arrived Syrian children with big sad eyes.
>>56261889
Yep, you achieved your objective and took money away. Now you want to do this again, but refuse to give it proper funding and wonder why is it taking so long
>>56261904
Pretty much exactly what they said in 1969. "Oh yeah, the money spent on Apollo is a waste. Useless flying toys. We should spend that on nigger gibesmedat instead."
>>56261659
And all manned flights and 50% of all launches world wide are ruskies.... have you guys become to fat and stupid to get into space
>>56261843
>we will develop it if we throw money at it
Have you considered that building commercially viable fusion powerplants might not be physicaly possible?
>>56261904
I like you singapore
>>56260609
There is little to no incentive for space engineering right now. Excitement about off-world mining opportunities is just now starting to slowly seep into the mainstream but it's going to be several decades, probably, before space exploration incentives move from "lel is there life on Mars?? Or What about Europa?!".
The main reason for the explosion of productivity in the 60s was the very real, down-to-earth political competition between the US and the USSR. Maybe if the Chinese step up their space game things will change faster.
>>56261980
and nothing was archived with apollo
>inb5 we discovered there is no water on moon wow
leld
>>56262063
Then we will burn czechs in big ovens
heat will turn water into steam which will move turbines
>>56262043
>and 50% of all launches world wide are ruskies
Yes because they're nothing but a low cost freight service now. Their rockets aren't the best or most sophisticated but they're a cheap, dependable way for everyone to launch commercial payloads on.
>>56261714
>15 billion dollars
18.5 billion.
And that is actually a very large amount of money. NASA, as a Federal Agency gets a lot more money than some others who could use more.
NOAA gets a little over 5 billion. USGS gets a little over 1 billion, EPA is 8 billion, DEO Office of Science is a few hundred million I think, etc etc
A lot of scientists believe NASAs budget is high enough. There are other things we could be spending money on.
>>56260609
The aliens told them to not come back.
>>56262122
Except the huge advances in technology esp. computers that benefited everyone. The personal computer revolution of the 70s-80s would not have happened without the race to the Moon.
>>56262172
>There are other things we could be spending money on.
Yes, for example Israel
>>56262247
one of the best projects ever.
>>56262247
And subsidies for military industrial complex
>>56262195
lel sure, send spaceship to sun surface and scientists will discover personal robots for everyone
>>56262247
and corporate welfare checks aka "Bailouts"
>>56261365
Because investing in science is hard to justify to tax payers. Because sometimes the results might take decades (especially with space exploration, Rosette Probe was launched in 2004, and landed 2014). Where as people spending billions in mobile games gives them instant satisfaction and feeling of achieving something.
>>56260609
>This is essentially a rehashed 1960s tech space capsule.
Maybe because we now know that this is the best way to perform manned space travel. Having a reusable spacecraft was cool but impractical.
>>56262405
>>56262122
You must be at least 18 to use this website.
>>56261659
>manned failures
>does not include anything for 1967 (Soyuz 1) or 1971 (Soyuz 11)
Also since when did a manned failure happen in 1985?
>>56263369
I think they're counting that one Shuttle flight where the crew aborted and returned to Earth (there was a malfunction of the SSMEs or something).
>>56260609
>Why does it take 20 years now?
>>56263448
Bush isn't the guy who cancelled Constellation, that was the guy who came after Bush.
>>56263504
The rocket that was being built for Constellation was a disaster. NASAs own analysis projected that its vibrations while heading into space were so violent that the astronauts would be likely to sustain injuries.
By the time Obama got into office they were talking about having to redesign it, which was a fucking insane thing because the program was almost a decade old by then.
It had to be cancelled.
The SLS is a good rocket and its modular design is great for the future. The only problem is that it does not have a mission, but when Congress decides that we want to go somewhere in deep space, we will finally have a rocket that can do it since Saturn V
