Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 223 66.0%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 41 12.1%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 74 21.9%
  • Total voters
    338
#679
#679
I was in favor of space exploration, but then I saw "Interstellar" and so assume that all spaceflight is burdened with terrible casting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#680
#680
lawgator1 said:
I was in favor of space exploration, but then I saw "Interstellar" and so assume that all spaceflight is burdened with terrible casting.
Click to expand...

well put more money into it and we might start getting some astronauts who look like your avi.
 
#682
#682
Didn't we cancel our planned return to the Moon?

Europe's Next Space Chief Wants a Moon Colony on the Lunar Far Side

The incoming leader of the European Space Agency is keen on establishing an international base on the moon as a next-step outpost beyond the International Space Station (ISS).

Johann-Dietrich Wörner expressed his enthusiasm for a moon colony at the Space Foundation’s National Space Symposium, a gathering of global, commercial, civil, military and "new space" experts that was held here from April 13 to April 16.

"We have to look into the future about what are the next destinations … what to do after the International Space Station," Wörner said. The end of ISS operations is very close, "and we better know what to do afterwards," he added.
Click to expand...

Kind of a sad day when it seems NASA is more concerned with global climate change than the exploration of space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#688
#688
I hear that travelling at a brazillian miles an hour is real smooth
 
#693
#693
I always love how the GOP is anti-science, yet things like this happen:

House Approves Commercial Space Bill - SpaceNews.com

The House passed H.R. 2262, the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (SPACE) Act, on a 284–133 vote after nearly two hours of debate. Nearly 50 Democrats joined almost all the chamber’s Republicans in voting for the bill.

The act combines four commercial space bills approved by the House Science Committee in a May 13 markup. The cornerstone of the bill is a section dealing with commercial launch issues, including extending the “learning period” limiting safety regulations for people flying on commercial spacecraft, and indemnification for third-party damages from commercial launches, through 2025.
Click to expand...

So the people that signed the bill want to lessen the impact of government regulations on the private space industry, yet Democrats want to control the private sector more in their "for the children" type of attitude.

Had today's government been around in 1903, the Wright Brothers would have given up and continued making bicycles.
 
#694
#694
ok, from the way i read that last sentence it is saying that a third party, a house owner, can't seek damages from SpaceX, or whomever, if their launch system falls down on his house. seems legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#695
#695
LouderVol said:
ok, from the way i read that last sentence it is saying that a third party, a house owner, can't seek damages from SpaceX, or whomever, if their launch system falls down on his house. seems legit.
Click to expand...

It says "limited" so one could assume that could also be protections from people bringing frivolous lawsuits like "the noise from the launches disturbed me and I'm a mental wreck now."

I'm fairly certain if a booster fell on your house, that kind of lawsuit would go through. You normally use some common sense LV.
 
#696
#696
and indemnification for third-party damages from commercial launches, through 2025.
Click to expand...

in·dem·ni·fy secure (someone) against legal responsibility for their actions.
"the newspaper could not be forced to indemnify the city for personal-injury liability"
Click to expand...

the wording raises an eyebrow. i have no problem with the bill, but with our loophole congress i tend to read a lot into the wording of bills.
 
#697
#697
LouderVol said:
the wording raises an eyebrow. i have no problem with the bill, but with our loophole congress i tend to read a lot into the wording of bills.
Click to expand...

I agree on watching Congress like a hawk. But this bill seems like it's more of a "get the government out of the way of private innovation" while the opponents are saying "no! we need more government control to save the poor people!"

You've got private companies being innovative about something the government is politicizing. NASA has reached a point where it's a political tool rather than a serious research agency. And I firmly believe that the government can (and will) hamper that innovation by regulating it to death.

We'll disagree on the wording as it appeared to be partial to me. I'll check out the text of the bill later to find out exactly.
 
#698
#698
Grand Vol said:
I agree on watching Congress like a hawk. But this bill seems like it's more of a "get the government out of the way of private innovation" while the opponents are saying "no! we need more government control to save the poor people!"

You've got private companies being innovative about something the government is politicizing. NASA has reached a point where it's a political tool rather than a serious research agency. And I firmly believe that the government can (and will) hamper that innovation by regulating it to death.

We'll disagree on the wording as it appeared to be partial to me. I'll check out the text of the bill later to find out exactly.
Click to expand...

i should do the same.

and again i agree it seems like a good move overall, but still raised some eyebrows. and FTR i believe in line item voting/vetoing, and i hate the all or nothing approach we have.
 
#699
#699
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (signed by almost every nation in the world in 1967):

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Click to expand...

This says nothing of private parties. When this Treaty was signed... the idea that individuals or companies would have so much wealth as to privately fund trips to the moon and mining expeditions was probably farcical.

If my research proves me right, the Mellon family and Rockefeller families were regarded as the wealthiest people in the US in 1960 with family wealth approaching $2bil. That is roughly equivalent to $16bil now. #3 in the US was Howard Hughes and he barely scratched $1bil.

That wealth isn't even in the top 50 in the world now... and bear in mind that is the estimated consolidated wealth of the entire family. And we all know the Mellon and Rockefeller names.

EDIT: Saturn V cost $6.5bil in 1964-1973 money. Given this was more than triple the wealth of the wealthiest entity in the US... I can see why the idea that individuals could fund this endeavor wouldn't even be worth entertaining.
 
Last edited:
#700
#700
did some more digging, I was wrong on the initial assumption. article was more unclear than the reading of the actual text was (thats got to be a first).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top