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
#901
#901
armchair said:
It is one thing for the private sector to get into the launch business--that makes sense. But the federal government is a major client of Space X; without government money, Space X would not survive.

As for Mars, I don't quite see the logic in it as the planet is not habitable and so anyone who goes there would have to live indoors. That means huge facilities. Getting to Mars will cost, er, astronomical amounts of money. No private companies are going to finance that themselves. While Mars seems a bit far-fetched to me, the necessity of finding another planet on which people can live is not far-fetched as we are rapidly destroying Earth--and that is no exaggeration. This is apparent to anybody with elementary-school observational and thinking skills--except for most conservatives and especially EPA chief and despicable human being Scott Pruitt. He should be tarred and feathered and sent back to Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

Terraforming Mars to make it habitable would be prohibitively more expensive than fixing Earth, even if we totally wreck her.
 
#904
#904
Madscientistvol said:
Terraforming Mars to make it habitable would be prohibitively more expensive than fixing Earth, even if we totally wreck her.
Click to expand...

However, that moron is talking out his ass as usual.

SpaceX has about a third of their launches dedicated to the US Government in varying departments (NASA, USAF, etc) and the other two-thirds are with private corporations.

He received subsidies, yes. Every company under Musk's control received approximately $4.9 billion in subsidies. That's Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity.

The fossil fuel industry on the other hand? $6 trillion in subsidies.

Trillion. Six.

Regardless, SpaceX would survive without government contracts. They designed and built a reliable launch system without government money (the first to ever do so) and are making it cheaper in the long run with the reusable systems. As well as giving the old hats in that realm a dose of reality that "we can't continue charging outlandish prices for our systems."

Yay private enterprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#905
#905
We are already working hand in hand and thumbing rides with Russians to the ISS don't see how this would be any different.

I read an article six or seven years ago that if the US, Russia, China, Japan & the ESA worked together more closely we would already have bases on the moon/mars and have or be close to having a spacecraft similar to the NX-01 in the show Star Trek Enterprise.
 
#906
#906
CagleMtnVol said:
We are already working hand in hand and thumbing rides with Russians to the ISS don't see how this would be any different.

I read an article six or seven years ago that if the US, Russia, China, Japan & the ESA worked together more closely we would already have bases on the moon/mars and have or be close to having a spacecraft similar to the NX-01 in the show Star Trek Enterprise.
Click to expand...

I guess news that the Russians hacked our election and prevented Hillary from her rightful position on the throne hasn't reached outer space yet.
 
#907
#907
Grand Vol said:
Because it's right next to the asteroid belt, right? I remember your moronic argument about it.

And FYI, Earth gets smacked by plenty every year as well.
Click to expand...

Ok GV believe whatever you want. But even NASA has said that Mars gets blasted more than Earth.

If you dont realize the huge difference between asteroids hitting Earth and Mars then there is no reason to engage any further.
 
#909
#909
Grand Vol said:
Link?
Click to expand...

atmosphere. Just as many asteroids may "hit" Earth as Mars but our atmo breaks them up before they can do any damage. Mars? they got nothing.

also the moon sweeps up a lot of the stuff coming for us, so I would also say that is another point in the Mars gets it worse than us argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#910
#910
LouderVol said:
atmosphere. Just as many asteroids may "hit" Earth as Mars but our atmo breaks them up before they can do any damage. Mars? they got nothing.

also the moon sweeps up a lot of the stuff coming for us, so I would also say that is another point in the Mars gets it worse than us argument.
Click to expand...

Mars still has a significant enough atmosphere to burn up a lot of stuff. But it's not like they are getting pelted on a daily basis. We likely would have seen a catastrophic impact had it happened.

And I'm not sure the moon really has enough gravitational pull to help as much as you infer. It probably helps, sure, but our gravity is probably far more influential on Near Earth Objects than the moon.

Anyway, BOT's theory was since Mars orbited next to the Asteroid Belt, it was more dangerous for humans. Not quite the case... Furthermore, I challenge him to prove Mars gets hit more often. Something he claims NASA said. I'd like that link.
 
#911
#911
Even if Mars is impacted more often, it is certainly not enough to ruin any plans of habitation. It's only raining asteroids in BOT's imagination.
 
#914
#914
MercyPercy said:
It's not like anyone expected there to be no obstacles. Let's start working on a mission now. Should have started planning something real decades ago.
Click to expand...

We should have been on Mars by the end of the 20th century.
 
#915
#915
MercyPercy said:
It's not like anyone expected there to be no obstacles. Let's start working on a mission now. Should have started planning something real decades ago.
Click to expand...

JFK nailed it 50 years ago. Humanity needs a unifying goal to strive towards. It's not about nations or achievements in the Cold War this time. I truly believe the future of humanity depends on getting off this rock and becoming a multi-planet species. And it won't be an easy task, but something to bring us together.

I'm a semi-idealist, sue me.

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Click to expand...
 
#916
#916
Grand Vol said:
Mars still has a significant enough atmosphere to burn up a lot of stuff. But it's not like they are getting pelted on a daily basis. We likely would have seen a catastrophic impact had it happened.

And I'm not sure the moon really has enough gravitational pull to help as much as you infer. It probably helps, sure, but our gravity is probably far more influential on Near Earth Objects than the moon.

Anyway, BOT's theory was since Mars orbited next to the Asteroid Belt, it was more dangerous for humans. Not quite the case... Furthermore, I challenge him to prove Mars gets hit more often. Something he claims NASA said. I'd like that link.
Click to expand...

couldnt find them saying it got hit more than earth but here are some numbers.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/16nov_bolides

Earth: 556 over 20 years = 27.8 a year

https://www.space.com/21198-mars-asteroid-strikes-common.html

mars: 200 times a year

here is a little vid of how the moon protects earth besides just getting in the way.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLmMgQ2gEvI[/youtube]
 
#917
#917
LouderVol said:
couldnt find them saying it got hit more than earth but here are some numbers.
Click to expand...

Thanks, BOT. I didn't realize NASA had revised the numbers on Mars. However, the math isn't adding up:

The holes gouged out by these asteroids are typically at least 12.8 feet (3.9 meters) wide, the researchers say. The 200-per-year space rockl impact rate for Mars was based on a portion of the 248 new Martian craters that have been identified in the past decade using images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a NASA spacecraft that has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
Click to expand...

Anyway, still not a reason not to go.
 
#921
#921
Only man, having evolved over 50 million years into an organism perfectly suited for this environment, wants to move elsewhere. No one from this planet will ever exit this solar system. The robots we create maybe but not us so, why spend all of this money? It can be put to good use here saving this planet.
 
#922
#922
IPleadInsanity said:
Only man, having evolved over 50 million years into an organism perfectly suited for this environment, wants to move elsewhere. No one from this planet will ever exit this solar system. The robots we create maybe but not us so, why spend all of this money? It can be put to good use here saving this planet.
Click to expand...

Earth has its problems, but even if we go full nuclear meltdown, Earth is immensely easier to fix than it would be to ever make anywhere else in the solar system even somewhat habitable.

People talk about setting up bases on Mars, but we don't even have a lunar base. At this point, the cost of putting human boots on Mars outweighs any benefit. If we want to do anything in space it should be figuring out how to make asteroid harvesting profitable as anything harvested from asteroids would be one less thing we would have to ship from earth at a cost of about $10k a pound.
 
#923
#923
Grand Vol said:
Thanks, BOT. I didn't realize NASA had revised the numbers on Mars. However, the math isn't adding up:



Anyway, still not a reason not to go.
Click to expand...

they are extrapolating. they examined one area. found 248 new craters over 10 years and applied that rate to the rest of the area of Mars.

I have never said its not a reason to go, just saying that Mars does in fact get hit more than earth does.
 
#924
#924
LouderVol said:
they are extrapolating. they examined one area. found 248 new craters over 10 years and applied that rate to the rest of the area of Mars.

I have never said its not a reason to go, just saying that Mars does in fact get hit more than earth does.
Click to expand...

No, I appreciate you pointing out info I missed.
 
#925
#925
IPleadInsanity said:
Only man, having evolved over 50 million years into an organism perfectly suited for this environment, wants to move elsewhere. No one from this planet will ever exit this solar system. The robots we create maybe but not us so, why spend all of this money? It can be put to good use here saving this planet.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this argument was used to lobby against Columbus' voyage?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top