/sci/ - Science & Math

Why should anyone care about commercial space flight? That's taxpayers funding something only the most rich would ever be able to afford. I'm not for that.

>Why should anyone care about commercial space flight?
Sattelite phones.
Weather satellites.
Google maps.
Satellite internet 100mbps.
First zero-G porno movie.
Future space habitats/hotels

Need more?

>>1661279
We have dragged our feet too god damn long on putting boots on Martian soil. The private sector can handle commercial spaceflight.

>>1661320
All of which private companies have and will continue to develop without the government sticking their big fat bureaucrat asses into it.

>>1661326
At a painstakingly slow place. The government has two options:

1. Continue to dump money into their own space programs year after year, or

2. Dump money into the private sector for a few years to jump start it, at which point companies will be able to operate autonomously and develop space programs without the government's "big fact bureaucrat asses".

>>1661341
hurr durr, "fat", not fact.

/sci/ - NASA

>>1661324
Fuck Mars. All our efforts should be focused on the moon. We need a permanent scientific observatory there, and we need to be mining He3 there. And fuck America. Russia and China seem to be the only ones serious about space any more.

>>1661390
Russia's new spacecraft is even further behind than ours, China's launching one manned mission every 2-4 years and will scrap it all at the first road bump like they did with their last two space programs.

>>1661304
The development of commercial space flight is the only way the prices will be driven down ever.

Once they can make money off of tourists, eventually there will be so many companies taking advantage of it that the prices will become something reasonable due to competition.

If it's left in the hands of NASA to get every person we send to space up there, it's never going to be something that the normal joe can do.

>>1661770
The key is balance. Let NASA focus on destinations beyond the Earth-Moon neighborhood while the commercial industry builds infrastructure in orbit and on the Moon.
Public spaceflight blazes the trail, and private spaceflight paves the interstate behind it.

A space program is nothing without people supporting it.
If, Sagan forbid, NASA does someday get shut down, it won't be because of greedy politicians, it won't be because of anti-science lobbies, it won't be because of budget cuts or technological hurdles... it will be because of public apathy. If NASA shuts its doors it will be because no one was willing to fight to keep them open.

Just popped in from /k/
I'm a NASA F-18 HARV pilot.

all u so mad

>>1661796
pics or it didn't happen

>>1661780
Innovation/implementation

We need corporate$!

>>1661816
>Innovation/implementation
If the House bill passes there won't be either.

links
senate bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3729
house bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5781

Why set out to conquer space, when nine-tenths of our oceans remain to be discovered?

>>1661794

Zubrin/Tyson quote?

>>1662007
No, just making shit up.

>>1661981
Universe > Ocean

bump

>>1662274

Lets solve the dispute between space and sea exploration by TRAVELING HORIZONTALLY.

>>1661981

one frontier should not prevent another

>>1661279

I am pretty sure there are other priorities right now.

>>1662645
The implication that we have to choose between solving problems on Earth or exploring space is a ridiculous claim perpetuated by people who are desperate to come up with a reason to oppose programs like NASA.

bump

>>1662645

bump

>>1662787

This is absolutely right. The opposition to NASA seems to be coming mainly from people who watch Fox News and have no idea where their tax dollars are actually going. 18 billion out of 3.5 trillion is an extremely small price to pay for blasting our future off toward the stars both figuratively and literally.

>>1665397
Actually, the opposition to NASA comes from people who would rather we spend the money on social programs, which I imagine would not be in FAUXNEWS' demographic.

>>1665413

I think it's a bit of both. There are the people who want to throw the money away on trying to help people who are more content to just beg for change all day and the people who want to throw even more money away on the war on <insert faggotry>.

>>1665397
>>1665413
Opposition and support for NASA crosses whatever imaginary political lines have been drawn. Regardless of whatever stupid fucking reasons people rationalize their opposition to NASA, it won't be their fault if it gets shut down, it will be our fault for not making any effort to stop it from happening.

If supporters of NASA don't start making an effort to stop it from being constantly fucked over, human space exploration probably won't survive another generation.

I already wrote my rep and have already convinced some of my classmates write theirs. We're even planning to flier our physics building to see if we can't get more people involved.

As a contractor to both ULA and Space Ex among others, I welcome this news.

>People think that NASA doesn't know about flying saucers, and isn't run by an Egyptian priest class.

>>1665610
orion, osiris, hitlers birthday, etc

bump

>>1662645
Og! Stop waste time on wheel! Have other priorities! Wheel not make bigger fire or better spear anyway. Wheel useless!

>>1661770
Speaking of commercial flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1ZuxjvfSM
Dragon just completed its final drop test. All that's left now is the three COTS demo flights, then SpaceX starts unmanned resupply missions to the ISS.

>>1665635


=p

I am wondering, isn't the Constellation Program (at the moment) a waste of time (or mixed up priority at least) seeing as we still use oil as an energy source? i mean, wouldn't we have to find a energy source powerful enough that could get a space-vessel into outer space before we can about colonizing other planets and whatnot?

Mind you, i am not perhaps that educated on the subject, but an honest answer would be appreciated as this has been bugging me for a while.

>>1667436
>EDIT: before we can talk about
Also, wouldn't commercial space flight bring in a lot of money to the government? everyone nowadays talk about the deficit and whatever and how we need to bring in more money.

Just a thought.

>>1667436
>seeing as we still use oil as an energy source? i mean, wouldn't we have to find a energy source powerful enough that could get a space-vessel into outer space
>Mind you, i am not perhaps that educated on the subject

bumpan a non-troll thread

FUCK YOU ALL WHO POST IN TROLL THREADS WITHOUT SAGE

YOU FUCKING DESERVE ALL THE TROLLING YOU'RE ENABLING

Wow... if I weren't so sure it was impossible, I'd swear I just found a thread on /sci/ that isn't about religion or a poor attempt at trolling. I must be hallucinating.

saganbump

bump

bump

bump

When is the vote?

>>1672458
There's no date on the calendar yet, but the House reconvenes two weeks from Monday. Congress has to have a draft of the final FY2011 Federal Budget finished before the end of the month, so chances are they'll try to get through "smaller" issues like NASA as soon as they can, so the debate over the NAB will probably take place within their first few days back.

>>1672791
Could we, by any chance, get some kind of propaganda mission from many groups of concerned people to turn this into a major issue? Or are people too concerned about the economy that any attempt would fail?

>>1672863
huh?

>>1672905
Well, to get the public more aware of this subject, and more concerned, so the representatives are actually thinking seriously about the issue, I was suggesting launching a large propaganda campaign. But upon review of it, I came to the conclusion that the vocal public probably wouldn't give any thought to the subject no matter how much you threw it in their face.

bump

bump

>>1661390
>Fuck Mars.
NO NO NO YOU ASS
MARS WILL SAVE US

Having a destination is pointless if we let Congress pass a bill that will eliminate any means of reaching it

I'm gonna leave this right here

>>Buried in 92 pages of Senate amendments to the war bill, however, is a paragraph about NASA stating that funds previously appropriated for Constellation should remain available for Constellation contracts and that “performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in fiscal year 2010."

http://news.discovery.com/space/stealth-funding-for-nasas-constellation.html

>>1676119
Shit like this tells you all you need to know about Constellation's lack of merit as a space program. Fuck I don't think it even has any support outside of LockMart, Boeing, Congressmen stand to lose jobs in their districts if the program ends, and whatever stupid retards are still convinced that this shit program is going to get us to the Moon in eight years.

I'm going to email my rep later today.

bump

Also more recent news:

>>"These two awards are just the beginning of an innovative teaming relationship with industry to provide affordable access to the edge of space while evaluating the microgravity environment for future science and technology experiments," said NASA Chief Technologist Bobby Braun at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "CRuSR represents the sort of government-commercial partnership that will facilitate near-space access at affordable costs."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/aug/HQ_10-203_CRuSR_Awards.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/1684908/nasa-finds-cash-to-fund-fast-clever-unusual-tech-for-future-space
-air-missions

More news, I remember that new technology and approaches to spaceflight were a big point when Obama and Bolden made their pitch back in February, and from the look of the Senate budget, programs like these three will definitely get funded.

>>1665559

Maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker but I can't say SpaceX without making it sound like Space Sex.

>>1676984
Fuck yeah Kittinger

>>1677723
I just looked up a few of the proposals mentioned by NASA for the 'Flagship Technology Demonstrations' program.
>Advanced solar and nuclear propulsion systems
>Orbital refueling/resupply capability
>Light-weight and/or inflatable structures for habitats, spacecraft, and re-entry systems
>Closed-loop environmental and life support systems
>Automated systems that can reliably rendezvous and dock spacecraft and manage interplanetary mission systems from launch to landing
>Robotic systems that can autonomously construct structures, perform maintenance, and execute complicated repairs

>no NASA LV for another seven or eight years at best
You say that as if it were something we should hold against that plan when the other bill won't have a rocket ready for years either. You are disingenuous.

>mfw someone else Saganbumps

>>1677942
1.The Senate plan calls for a new HLV to be completed in five years. The House plan continues Ares I as planned... OPs estimate is off though, more like 8-10 years at best.
2. Even if the new HLV called for in the Senate plan isn't completed within five years, the Senate plan still has commercial LVs as a backup. We'd still be able to maintain operations in orbit until the new HLV is finished.The House plan doesn't have that backup, it cuts planned funding for commercial development down to almost nothing. It bets the proverbial farm on Ares I.
Short version:
Senate plan succeeds - Public HLV in 5, Commercial LVs in 3-4
Senate plan fails - Still get commercial LVs
House plan succeeds - Public LV in 8-10
House plan fails - YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!

>>1677960
Feynman bump

bump

bump

>>1679112
Feynman hated manned space flight

>>1681679
I wouldn't go as far as to say he hated manned spaceflight, more like he hated the way it was manged - The bureaucrats run the show and are often completely disconnected from the scientists and engineers (and occasionally reality).