Another NASA Annoucement!

[Sheepo]

RUFF RRRRRRUFF RUF RUF RUF.

RUF RRRRRRUFF RUFRUF RRRRRRRRRRRR

GODDAMNER KYRNN SHUT THE **** UP I'M TRYING TO TALK TO NO-

RUFF

 

[Dekstar]

BAAAAAAAA, BAAA BAAAAAAAAA!

In terms of stuff like privatisation and that, I'm just glad we have no idea if aliens exist, because at least it means there's no real reason for the military to get involved. We already have weapons good enough for killing bad guys, with no need to have them buggering off into space.
Having said that, in my eyes, militarisation has done more for inventions and tech than commercialisation.

 

[Remus]

In terms of stuff like privatisation and that, I'm just glad we have no idea if aliens exist, because at least it means there's no real reason for the military to get involved.

I for one welcome our Weyland-Yutani overlords.

 

[No Limit]

You're talking about Hubble. I'm not. I expect more. You don't.

And don't question my knowledge of NASA. Even if I don't appreciate them, I know them.

Hubble was just one of many things I mentioned. Did you miss those other things? And since we are talking about Nasa and you keep insisting they haven't accomplished anything significant Hubble is a huge part of that. It is one of the most successful space exploration programs ever.

When you say you expect more what exactly is it that you expect? Do you want pictures of little green men on a planet a million light years away? Showing that our modern model of physics seems to have some serious flaws in it isn't good enough for you?

Even your complaints about the shuttle program, which makes up a fraction of the overall nasa operations, are absurd. The shuttle was designed in the 1960s. I have similar computers at work that they used on the shuttle which we built in the 1970s, 1 Mhz processors were top of the line back then. So Nasa has been able to keep a program going for over 35 years even though that program has computers on board that your calculator can out perform. And that is not a draw back, that just means that americans decided that was good enough and didn't feel the need to fund a new space flight program. And after 35 years it is just now that private enterprise is starting to catch up when it comes to space flight. Why? Because turns out some millionares are willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to go in to space for a few minutes. Yay!

As Ennui pointed out there is absolutely no value in that to 99.9999% of us. While programs such as the ones developed by Nasa have given us huge insight in to the universe around us, there is huge value in that for pretty much all of us. Wether it is hubble, the mars rovers, the surveys they do of our atmosphere each and every day, the monitoring of solar wind, the spitzer telescope which today gives us amazing data about other solar systems, or the hundreds of other Nasa programs that exist today which help us not only get a better understanding of the universe around us but physics in general which can lead to great practical things.

I don't mean to put your understanding of Nasa in to question, but what you are saying makes very little sense to me. By if you could clear up my confusion by explaining what exactly it is that you expect from nasa maybe that will help.

 

[Sheepo]

NASA gives the contracts, gives them Canaveral, and makes sure they adhere to their strict safety protocol. In the meantime they can continue the research of their ongoing projects.

It costs more for NASA to operate these projects within the atmosphere than it does to give contracts to private companies or cooperate with the space programs of other countries. You may just see them as money whores, but companies like SpaceX have proven incredibly innovative and efficient in building rockets to get our satellites up and I think that's a good sign for getting fresh blood into American space projects and going to ****ing mars.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, Nasa realized that with new technology it is cheaper to transport things than to use the shuttle, which is why they are retiring it. They didn't have that option 10 years ago. So I still don't understand what your complaints or what your expectations are.

The majority of funding Space-X has gotten has been from Nasa as well as other government agencies. It might be a private venture, but most of the funding comes from government sources. What is the heaviest pay load they can take to space? Something like a few hundred kilograms? Compare that to Nasa which is capable of launching thousands of kilograms.

Again, you are looking at a shuttle developed in the 1960s and the 1970s and comparing the operating costs of that ancient thing to the operation costs of something designed in the 21st century. I see absolutely no evidance that if you gave the same amount of money to Nasa as you did to a private company to develop a rocket that the private company will do it cheaper and more efficient. In fact I think it's a bit absurd that Nasa is taking public money and instead of developing it's own launch rockets it is funding private companies which will skim profit off the top to do the exact same thing. And I can't wait to see what the true launch costs are in the next few years using these private companies, I am willing to bet they won't be much, if any better than what Nasa could do.

 

[Remus]

It costs more for NASA to operate these projects within the atmosphere than it does to give contracts to private companies or cooperate with the space programs of other countries. You may just see them as money whores, but companies like SpaceX have proven incredibly innovative and efficient in building rockets to get our satellites up and I think that's a good sign for getting fresh blood into American space projects and going to ****ing mars.

I agree. The way I see it the problem with NASA is that they are not making their delivery systems (and other equipment) anywhere near cost effective. Whereas private companies with small limited funds are forced to come up with cheap inovative ways of doing the same thing, and that is a good thing. True, for now their reusable spacecraft only take rich people in Earth orbit for a few minutes, but future generations will be more cost efective, so that avarage joes can afford a ticket. The same has happened with the passenger aircraft industry, the same will happen here. If we leave it up to NASA, even a hundred years from now we wouldn't have started to colonise the solar system.

 

[Sheepo]

The majority of funding Space-X has gotten has been from Nasa as well as other government agencies. It might be a private venture, but most of the funding comes from government sources. What is the heaviest pay load they can take to space? Something like a few hundred kilograms? Compare that to Nasa which is capable of launching thousands of kilograms.

Yeah, I've already said that's what we've done and we would be doing. Giving them less tax dollars to do it makes sense. Also, you're comparing entirely different space craft, of course one can hold a much larger payload than the other.

Again, you are looking at a shuttle developed in the 1960s and the 1970s and comparing the operating costs of that ancient thing to the operation costs of something designed in the 21st century. I see absolutely no evidance that if you gave the same amount of money to Nasa as you did to a private company to develop a rocket that the private company will do it cheaper and more efficient. In fact I think it's a bit absurd that Nasa is taking public money and instead of developing it's own launch rockets it is funding private companies which will skim profit off the top to do the exact same thing. And I can't wait to see what the true launch costs are in the next few years using these private companies, I am willing to bet they won't be much, if any better than what Nasa could do.

Oh, so since they're using ancient technology I should be cool with it costing more. That's why they shouldn't be using ancient technology. I don't see how you could think that. Private companies are motivated by profit, and NASA will take whatever they think is necessary to get the job done. You won't see NASA saving millions collecting scrap parts from other launches to build things and having a launch system that will take a space craft from at rest to taking off within an hour. SpaceX is already doing this.

 

[No Limit]

Again, what is your beef with Nasa here? Yes, they were using ancient technology (ancient technology that worked extremely well) because they had no other options. Today they do have other options, and they decided to utilize them. What would you have done differently have you been in charge of Nasa in the last 10 years or so?

Like you said these are different space craft. Private companies are yet to deliever anything in to space that has a weight of a few thousand pounds. So Hubble, which you seem to agree is a great program, would not have been possible since that needed to be transported using the shuttle since its weight is almost 25,000 pounds.

And what makes you say Nasa wasn't using scrap? The shuttle was built in the 60s and the 70s and is still in use today. Some of it was built using scrap materials. Everything they do uses scrap materials.

You keep coming up with these wild claims about nasa. When those claims are debunked you come up with some new ones. First it was Nasa hasn't done anything new and innovative in decades. But the fact is that they have done a lot of new and innovative things in the last few decades, I listed some of the ones I considered big for you above.

Then you said you can't judge the success of nasa based on a few nifty images. But the fact is you absolutely can judge the success of nasa based on those images. Hubble, mars rovers, spitzer telescope, and hundreds of other programs nasa has had over the last few decades have been widely successful (certainly not every single one has been perfect, but successful? Most have been).

Then it was that the shuttle program is a waste of money. Currently there is nothing private enterprise has available which can do what the shuttle does and many of the discoveries we have made over the years would not have been possible without the shuttle. Once there is a cheaper and more efficient way to get 50,000 pound payloads in to space you bet your sweet ass Nasa will do so, and they will largely be responsible for providing the research and the funding to do this even if a private company can then profit off that research and that funding.

And after all that you are now bitching about Nasa not using scrap? They do use scrap, they use it all the time. Just about every government research lab as well as any private research company uses scrap. You simply made this up.

 

[Sheepo]

I haven't gone back on anything I've said. Twenty years is a long time to call NASA successful based on a telescope. I think you misinterpreted what I said about the nifty images, though granted, I said it pretty poorly. As you say, I agree that Hubble is great, the images it's produced have changed our perception of the universe completely. But I'm not talking about Hubble. I'm talking about year in, year out, we haven't done anything but work on the ISS, repair Hubble, and do some experiments within our atmosphere, for a good long time. I'm not talking about NASA's research on the ground, I've already said I think that it's tremendously important. As far as spacecraft go, private enterprise can produce them cheaper. No, there's nothing like the shuttle from the private sector right now, but I've clearly said the Russians can provide for that. And when I was referring to scrap, I was talking on an entirely different scale. Should've been more clear.

 

[No Limit]

But jesus ****ing christ, it's not just about a single telescope. Hubble was one telescope, yes. I also mentioned the spitzer telescope which is highly successful. I mentioned the mars rovers which were highly successful. Spitzer was launched in 2003, it is still operating today. Kepler, another highly successful program. WMAP, another nasa program that gave us a picture of the universe as it was 380,000 years after the big bang.

In fact instead of listing everything out you can simply look here:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

These are all active missions, all extremely important missions.

So again, what you just said about them not doing anything significant year in year out is simply not true, it couldn't be further from the truth.

And you can keep repeating that private companies can do space craft cheaper but until we have some evidance of that it is not a fact, it is your opinion. Nasa designed the shuttle over 40 years ago. Today private industry still doesn't have anything that is capable of doing what the shuttle does. Space-x has some interesting tests on the way but for now that's all they are, tests.

 

[Sheepo]

I haven't ignored everything they've done, they're simply not the things I'm talking about. I'm talking about the construction of spacecraft. By having private companies compete for contracts, we'll save far more than we would otherwise. Sure, it's an opinion, and can't be backed up because we've yet to do anything of that sort.

 

[No Limit]

I have no idea what your issue with them is at this point. What specific programs do you think are wasteful or inefficient? Nasa has developed lots of amazing spacecraft. WMAP was a space craft. Kepler was a space craft. The mars rovers were space crafts.

Are you talking space craft in the sense of sending people in to space?

 

[Sheepo]

I think their construction of space craft is inefficient and wasteful in general and could only be improved by private contracting. The fact that they have produced quality space craft doesn't really have anything to do with it, it's how it's done. And yeah, people in space is cool. too.

 

[No Limit]

Inefficient in what way? You got any specifics?

 

[Stylo]

Until they discover more life besides our own, it'll probably go over my head.

 

[Sheepo]

Inefficient in what way? You got any specifics?

Nope.

 

[No Limit]

Colonization of space is your opinion of what Nasa should do, not what Nasa actually does or wants to do. The point of Nasa is to help us better understand the universe around us. And they do an amazing job at that.

Yes, I asked you for specifics because you keep insisting something but you refuse to say why you insist it. The reality is that Space X is nothing more than a Nasa contractor. There is very little interest in what they do from private industry. And the cost is not cheap by any means. For 12 launches Nasa gave space x around 1.6 billion dollars. That works out to about 130 million per launch. Meanwhile from what I can gather Nasa was paying Boeing 1.8 billion for 19 launches using the Delta rockets which actually comes out to less.

You did edit your post after I hit reply, my reply is to address what you originally said which was a bit more detailed than simply "nope".
So if at this point you refuse to offer up any kind of specifics but will continue to insist you are right without those specifics there isn't that much more to discuss here. It's actually pretty pointless.

 

[Sheepo]

I'm glad you see things clearly. My opinion isn't really up for much debate because there's no real evidence to defend or oppose it. Obviously if I had specific examples of how NASA could improve their space flight programs, I would just recommend we fix those problems. I think privatization is a fundamentally better option than handling space craft creation through a government program.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, actually there is evidance that directly contradicts your opinion. I posted some of it in my previous reply. Plus you don't think its just a bit absurd to have an opinion on something based on nothing?

 

[Sheepo]

Your evidence is that NASA paid Boeing less to launch rockets then they paid SpaceX? You realize that's the kind of stuff I'm advocating right? But anyway, it's not as if it's my fault there isn't any evidence one way or the other. I favor my view because I can't see any logical reason private companies competing for contracts wouldn't be cheaper and more efficient than the government doing it itself.

 

[No Limit]

You are advocating this kind of stuff but the fact is that Nasa has been doing this for a long time. So I don't understand why you were so quick to call them inefficient.

My point with the Boeing example was that what Space-x is doing isn't all that significant and it is not innovative. It is the same thing Nasa has always done because we have a real hard on for private industry in this country. But there is no evidance none of this is any more efficient than if Nasa simply did it itself. Nasa does the research, nasa provides the funding, and what does the private company do? They profit off it. That's a logical reason to believe that if you have to put 30% of your funding in to profits chances are things are going to cost 30% more.

I will go back to the fact that I think it's absurd for you to constantly make claims when you have no evidance behind those claims. This all started when you talked alot of smack about Nasa without being able to point out a single specific thing you didn't like about what Nasa has done.

 

[CyberPitz]

What the goddamn shit happened to this thread?

 

[AKIRA]

I think NASA is pretty cool. They build spaceships and doesn't afraid of anything.

 

[Sheepo]

You are advocating this kind of stuff but the fact is that Nasa has been doing this for a long time. So I don't understand why you were so quick to call them inefficient.

Because I think this should be pretty much entirely how they operate. Doing some things efficiently =/= being as efficient as possible.

My point with the Boeing example was that what Space-x is doing isn't all that significant and it is not innovative. It is the same thing Nasa has always done because we have a real hard on for private industry in this country. But there is no evidance none of this is any more efficient than if Nasa simply did it itself. Nasa does the research, nasa provides the funding, and what does the private company do? They profit off it. That's a logical reason to believe that if you have to put 30% of your funding in to profits chances are things are going to cost 30% more.

Hmm, well I'm not sure where the 30% number comes from but as long as the cheapest offer costs less to NASA even including the 30%, then it doesn't matter.

I will go back to the fact that I think it's absurd for you to constantly make claims when you have no evidance behind those claims. This all started when you talked alot of smack about Nasa without being able to point out a single specific thing you didn't like about what Nasa has done.

I don't think I've really made very bold claims or talked shit. I think our space program would benefit from taking on larger projects, along with their current projects, via private contracts. That is my opinion. It is not backed up by any actual testing, but the flip side of that is, of course, that neither is yours. Hell, if NASA began making concrete efforts to go to Mars or make a permanent establishment on the moon, I probably wouldn't give a shit how they did it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

WHY YOU HATE NASA. WHAT NASA EVER DO YOU. :frown:

 

[unozero]

I would have to agree that the future of space exploration and procuring resources from moons or Planets will be in the hands of private Corporations BUT I personally thing that's a bad thing I've seen enough movies to know that Corporations would have only themselves to answer too if they take the forefront in space.Some might say that's not a vaild point but if you look at Companies like BP,Exxon or Google they care very little how much the little man complains about something unless the Government intervenes.
Not to sound like a commie Hippie but the Government better have the most say when it comes to space mining and what not....


see movies for reference lol: Outland,Alien,Total Recall,???????? (Planetes anime) and Avatar (ja rly)
and the list goes on.

 

[Ennui]

I've seen enough movies to know that Corporations would have only themselves to answer too if they take the forefront in space.

Bring back life form. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded.

On a NASA-y note, yesterday (Friday the 28th) was the 25th anniversary of the Challenger's disintegration shortly after takeoff.

 

[bbson john]

Why don't we build more Hubble?

 

[Avoidist]

Because we built more Fermi.

 

[No Limit]

Because I think this should be pretty much entirely how they operate. Doing some things efficiently =/= being as efficient as possible.

So you were just making the statement that they should operate as efficiently as possible, you weren't suggesting that they weren't operating as efficiently as possible? So I guess you never said this:

Eh, I shouldn't really have said exploration, and I sort of exaggerated, but my rant was intended to really highlight how poorly NASA's been utilized and run in recent years. The fact is it hasn't been used for anything new or innovative in decades. The shuttle program is unnecessary, since we can hitch up with the Russians for cheaper. Private companies are already proving that they can build rockets far more efficiently and for far cheaper.

So next time when you say something as if it is a fact but you have no evidance for the claim you should probably say that at the end of your post.

Hmm, well I'm not sure where the 30% number comes from but as long as the cheapest offer costs less to NASA even including the 30%, then it doesn't matter.

The 30% is a number I pulled out of my ass based on an assumption of what these companies take off the top for profit. The reason I used 30% is because that is what we mark up our governmetn contracts where I work. Any contract a private company writes up is going to be inflated to account for expected profit. If Nasa was doing this themselves they wouldn't be inflating prices to account for profit.

I don't think I've really made very bold claims or talked shit. I think our space program would benefit from taking on larger projects, along with their current projects, via private contracts. That is my opinion. It is not backed up by any actual testing, but the flip side of that is, of course, that neither is yours. Hell, if NASA began making concrete efforts to go to Mars or make a permanent establishment on the moon, I probably wouldn't give a shit how they did it.

You claim there is no evidance one way or the other but you keep insisting that you are right. The evidance is that Nasa giving out private contracts to do launches is nothing new, it has been doing this for decades. And the fact is that none of this has gotten any cheaper. In fact what Space-X is doing is currently turning out to be more expensive than what Boeing has done in the past.

So if you have any examples of something new and innovative that private industry has done I'm all years. But if your example of new and innovative is delivering a few rockets in to space at a cost of 1.6 billion then that has been happening for decades.

 

[Warped]

http://www.space.com/10720-nasa-planet-discoveries-announcement.html
New discovery about alien planets comes Wednesday! I now love these teasers, it makes life interesting

 

[No Limit]

Kepler is a really cool mission, one of the newest, very innovative things Nasa has done. It should find thousands of new planets by the time it is done. Looking forward to Wednesday.

 

[Sheepo]

So you were just making the statement that they should operate as efficiently as possible, you weren't suggesting that they weren't operating as efficiently as possible?

No, I definitely did that. How can I ask some one to improve in efficiency while implying they operate at 100% efficiency?

So next time when you say something as if it is a fact but you have no evidance for the claim you should probably say that at the end of your post.

Well that first thing is very much an opinion. Why should I say that at the end of my post? Won't the absence of the information be enough?

The 30% is a number I pulled out of my ass based on an assumption of what these companies take off the top for profit. The reason I used 30% is because that is what we mark up our governmetn contracts where I work. Any contract a private company writes up is going to be inflated to account for expected profit. If Nasa was doing this themselves they wouldn't be inflating prices to account for profit.

Interesting.

You claim there is no evidance one way or the other but you keep insisting that you are right.

Perhaps you should try and memorize this sentence, I've already said it several times: It is my opinion. I have no evidence, because there really isn't any, for or against it. Sorry, that's the reality we live in.

The evidance is that Nasa giving out private contracts to do launches is nothing new, it has been doing this for decades.

What is this evidence of?

And the fact is that none of this has gotten any cheaper. In fact what Space-X is doing is currently turning out to be more expensive than what Boeing has done in the past.

Okay.

So if you have any examples of something new and innovative that private industry has done I'm all years. But if your example of new and innovative is delivering a few rockets in to space at a cost of 1.6 billion then that has been happening for decades.

They've only been asked to really do one thing, not exactly an incredible opportunity for innovation. And I still find the one hour launch idea really cool, so you can go with that.

 

[Dead Phil]

If anyone is confused what the big announcement is about the new galxy found
What is so special about this galaxy???

it is the farthest galaxy we know of, and it means that we will se many moar but that will be when the light gets to us, so we are seeing the light that was from the begining of the new galaxy..........I like space................Physics more

ALL SO NO HAVING NASA BE HAVING PRIVATE COMPANIES.................................NASA SHOULD STAY IN THE LEAD FOR SPACE EXPLORATION
DON"T MAKE CUTS TO NASA

 

[Warped]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni5LdzvLY7o&feature=feedrec_grec_index
I love space too bro

 

[No Limit]

This is getting old, so this will probably be my last reply to you here.

No, I definitely did that. How can I ask some one to improve in efficiency while implying they operate at 100% efficiency?

Your example of them not being efficient is that they don't hand over alot of what they do to private industry. Your example is false. Nasa has been doing that for ages. So when you say the efficient way to get to space is to let private industry do it while saying Nasa is inefficient when it does just that your argument is clearly flawed. Yet you continue to refuse to admit that.

Well that first thing is very much an opinion. Why should I say that at the end of my post? Won't the absence of the information be enough?
Interesting.

When you start your sentence off with "the fact is..." that is not an opinion. And the facts you used were not facts at all.

Perhaps you should try and memorize this sentence, I've already said it several times: It is my opinion. I have no evidence, because there really isn't any, for or against it. Sorry, that's the reality we live in. What is this evidence of?

You keep repeating there is no evidance but clearly as I keep pointing out there is. My example is evidance that private industry doesn't do things all that more efficiently if you believe Nasa is inefficient (which you clearly do since you keep repeating it). Private industry has been eating up Nasa contracts to launch things in to space for decades, yet the process has not gotten any cheaper. That is not the fault of private industry by any means, space flight is expensive. But seeing that you have absolutely no foundation to stand on when you say private industry does these things more efficiently.

Okay.

Fuel prices aren't cheaper for Nasa than they are for anyone else. Neither are materials, labor, nor anything else. So when you take all those costs and add 30% as profit chances are things are going to be 30% more expensive. Simple as that.

They've only been asked to really do one thing, not exactly an incredible opportunity for innovation. And I still find the one hour launch idea really cool, so you can go with that.

So your idea of private industry being this beacon of innovation and efficiency is only valid when the government hands them billions of dollars? They can't innovate and be efficient on their own without the government's help?

If you are refering to Virgin Galactic as the example of a one hour launch then again, Nasa has absolutely no need for this. 99.99999% of us have absolutely no need for this. Which is why Nasa never decided to "innovate" such a thing, there is no point to it. If there was I gurantee you Nasa could have done it 20 years ago.

I will leave this discussion with this. Your idea of Nasa is that they should let you get on a space craft and visit mars. It's a neat idea you have, but it is not a practical one and Nasa's mission has never been to do that. And just because they don't share your idea of what space exploration should be you have no right to bitch and moan about how inefficient they are and how they don't innovate anything new because they aren't doing what you want them to do (beam me up Scotty). The FACT is they are efficient and they innovate something new all the time. And the reason I keep going back and forth with you on this is that you keep refusing to admit that your original claim otherwise is absolute bullshit.

 

[Sheepo]

I'll admit that I may have overstated things in this thread and that it is lazy of me to state things (whether there is evidence or isn't) without giving evidence, but you still have, intentionally or otherwise, virtually no grasp on what I've actually been saying this entire time.

 

[No Limit]

I think I do grasp what you are saying. But if I don't my apologies, please correct me. It seems to me like you want Nasa to concentrate more on getting people in to space. And you don't think Nasa has done a good job at that, which is true, they haven't. But the point is that's not what Nasa's main objective is as currently sending people to space serves...I would argue....absolutely no purpose. I don't think your issue is so much with the idea that private industry does a much better job than Nasa, I just think you happen to like what they are doing (sending people to space for relatively cheap). And I have no problem with that, I think it's good private industry is doing this. But I'm not going to knock Nasa because they aren't doing the same thing, I don't think they should be doing that. And if you look at Nasa overall they are ran very well and they do give us insight in to the universe on pretty much a daily basis that we wouldn't have otherwise. Something private industry has absolutely no interest in. And Nasa does all this at a budget of $20 billion a year, hardly expensive for the amount of information we get for that $20 billion.

 

[Sheepo]

And if you look at Nasa overall they are ran very well and they do give us insight in to the universe on pretty much a daily basis that we wouldn't have otherwise. Something private industry has absolutely no interest in. And Nasa does all this at a budget of $20 billion a year, hardly expensive for the amount of information we get for that $20 billion.

Primarily what I was referring to. I've never disputed this. I think this is great too. When I've pointed out my problems I've noted that only in terms of space exploration and, primarily, sending people into space, did I have a beef with NASA. I think NASA should explore space as well, and, failing that, fund private companies to do so.

Also, starting a sentence with "The fact is" does not change whether it as an opinion or not. The only thing that distinguishes a fact from an opinion is whether it can be proved or disproved. You cannot prove or disprove how disappointing something is.