/sci/ - Science & Math

Why should NASA get more funding when there are much more important programs that need the money?

Thoughts on Nasa's new "Global Exploration Roadmap"?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/591067main_GER_2011_small_single.pdf

This sounds embarrassing but I want to be the first astronaut from my country to orbit space, to be an astronaut you need a degree in engineering, physical science, biological science, or math. But I don't want to get into the debt that comes with college. Should I do it anyways to fulfill my goal or just let it go?

NASA is not allowed to advertise for itself. Not a cent for publicity.

Americans, on average, think that NASA gets 20% of the federal budget.
http://si.academia.edu/RogerLaunius/Papers/93299/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Perceptions_of_US_Human_S
paceflight_

This is why we're fucked.

nope.
Moon again and Mars first.
SPACE.......

How often do you find yourself defending NASA?

Old thread 404'd

Can anybody on /sci/ justify to me the amount of money spent on NASA related projects? I am still undecided as to the NASA budget.

Justify to me the cost of modern space exploration.

I am currently undecided in the NASA spending debate

>>2863976
Who do you think pays them those dimes?

>>2835609
Oh gee, I wonder who's SpaceX's largest customer?

Serious question: is it hard for foreigner to get job in NASA? i have master degree in mechanical engineering and robotics.

As I know I have to be citizen of united states but what about some part-time job or apprenticeship?

I'm applying for an internship with NASA. Advice?

According to hitherto unconfirmed reports, both Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin saw UFOs shortly after their historic landing on the Moon in Apollo 11 on 21 July 1969. I remember hearing one of the astronauts refer to a "light" in or on a carter during the television transmission, followed by a request from mission control for further information. Nothing more was heard.

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...

Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!

In 1979, Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA," he revealed, "but nobody has talked about it until now."

Soviet scientists were allegedly the first to confirm the incident. "According to our information, the encounter was reported immediately after the landing of the module," said Dr. Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at Moscow University. "Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. But his message was never heard by the public-because NASA censored it. "

>>2367790
I don't agree at all with cutting AIDS research, I think a gradual downsizing of farming subsidizes is in order, but yeah. NASA all the way.

I've got a few math problems that I need to confirm I did correctly :) Can someone make sure I did these right?


1st:

The shuttle must reduce its velocity at a pre-calculated point in orbit in order to return to Earth. For this maneuver, the shuttle is turned into an attitude with the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) nozzles pointing into the direction of the velocity. The shuttle must perform the burn to change its orbit so that the perigee, the point in the orbit that is closest to Earth, is inside the Earth's atmosphere. The opposite of perigee is apogee.

De-orbit maneuvers are usually done to lower the perigee of the orbit to 60 miles (or less). The shuttle is captured and re-enters as it passes into the atmosphere at this altitude. There is a change of 1 mile for every 2 feet per second (fps) change in velocity when you are below a 500-mile altitude above the Earth.

Determine the feet per second change in velocity (delta-V) the shuttle will need to make if it is at an altitude of 236 miles above the Earth at apogee and 220 miles above the Earth at perigee, and needs to drop the perigee to an altitude of 60 miles. The units for this math problem are feet per second.

perigee = 220.
220- 60 = 160 miles needed to descend.
160*2 = 320FpS change in velocity. ( 1 mile : 2 Fps)

Ok, making an email that will go to CNSA (china), ESA (European Union), ISA (Iran), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), NASA, CNES (France), HKAY (Ukraine), and ROSCOSOMOS (Russia). In this I will ask about what they think of my idea and that we should share blueprints and ideas if they arnt already and the idea of updating the Orion from the 50s and putting the foot note into the international bill to allow nuclear propulsion beyond earths orbit to be allowed. Any thing else you guys think should be in there?

NASA faked the arsenic bacteria thing to drum up funding. discuss.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/M10-110.html

http://kottke.org/10/11/has-nasa-discovered-extraterrestrial-life

So, shit's finally getting real?

Do you think our representatives in Congress even understand that every time they cut funding for science, technology, and education we come ones step closer to being a former superpower?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-157_Chandra_Update.html

WHAT DID THEY FIND?!?!

Today's the big day - the House of Representatives will be voting on the Senate version of the NASA Authorization Bill (S. 3729). The bill has a lot of support already (including from the authors and former advocates of the House bill) but since the bill is likely to go before the House under a suspension of the rules, it will need a 2/3rds vote to pass.

If you care about the future of space exploration...
If you want to live to see humans start seriously expanding into space...
If you think NASA's time, effort, and funding are better spent on creating new technology, helping support the development of an American spaceflight industry, and focusing on new destinations and challenges than on wasting the next 20-25 years on a 200 billion dollar dick-waving mission to plant another flag on the Moon and nothing more...

... then for fuck's sake, call your congressman this morning before the vote and tell them to vote YES on S. 3729!

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/gordon-house-to-vote-on-senate-authorization-bill-wednesday/

Today Rep. Bart Gordon announced that in order to ensure NASA has an authorization bill on the books in time for the next fiscal year, he'll be pushing for a vote on the Senate version of the bill this Wednesday.

If you were one of the awesome anons who helped by calling congressmen and writing emails, I just want to say awesome job guys, the battle has been won and the war is almost over!

All that's left is to convince enough people in the House to pass the Senate bill, and with the author and former advocates of the House bill now backing the Senate's version, our chance of success just went way up!

Two days till the vote, keep calling and tell your reps YES on S.3729! We can do it guys!

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/23/house-releases-compromise-nasa-authorization-bill/

This is fantastic news! It may not be quite as good as the Senate bill, but it's still a huge improvement on what the House bill was going to be:

- $1.2b for commercial spaceflight (up from $164m)
- $2.7b for technological development (up from $1.5b)
- $150m for robotic precursor missions (up from $5m)
- Extra shuttle flights in 2011 if deemed safe

If Congress passes it this month before they adjourn for the election, there may still be hope for space exploration yet!

Within the next week or two, the House of Representatives will debate two versions of the NASA Authorization Bill:

The Senate version – S. 3729:
- $2.6 billion for developing an American commercial spaceflight industry
- Restarts NIAC and funds new technological development programs
- Scraps the over-budget, behind schedule Constellation program in favor of a new launch vehicle
- The Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of this bill.

The House version – H.R. 5781
- Cuts funding for commercial development to just $164 million, shutting down COTS
- Cuts technological development and scientific research to continue funding Ares
- Continues Constellation's plan to return to the Moon... but doesn't fund development of a lunar outpost or even a lander.

If the House passes its version there will be no commercial replacement for the shuttle, no NASA LV for another seven or eight years at best, and NASA's scientific research, unmanned missions, and technological development will continue being cut, delayed, and stalled.

If you think the House bill is complete and utter bullshit, I recommend the following:

1. Look up your Representative.
2. Call your Representative, tell them to vote against H.R. 5781 in favor of the bill already passed by the Senate.
3. Convince at least one other person to do the same.