/sci/ - Science & Math

well after they retire all of the shuttles, what I heard is that they're just going to utilise reusable capsules for human transport and heavy lift launch vehicles for supplies and equipment

>>2655688
One without life-support for a bunch of space-monkeys.

>>2655688

They won't have the budget to after the GOP gains control of another branch of the government.

>>2655702
But didn't they say they're going to be working on something that's gonna take us beyone low eart orbit again?

>>2655725
Nah the Military industrial complex will take over NASA for subsidies.

did op seriously use that convoluted sentence construction just to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition?

op is a fag

Soyuz

>>2655726
i didn't hear. but i don't think they will because the shuttles and capsules already do just that and they're not going to use them ever again after this year. that is, unless a more powerful propulsion system is made to promote single-stage-to-orbit spaceplanes.
but there are certainly proposals for earth-moon and earth-mars transit spaceraft.

>implying NASA will ever replace the shuttle
As much as I hate to see it go, I doubt NASA will ever be able to manage to scrape together enough resources to field a successful replacement for the shuttle; it's manned space program is in irrecoverable decline barring a major political shakeup leading to a new space race.

Even ignoring the funding issues (which are only going to get worse as the US continues its decline), NASA is hemorrhaging institutional knowledge as it loses its experienced scientists and engineers to retirement and private industry. The situation there right now (incompetent management, workforce demoralized by bureaucracy and being used as political footballs) is so bad that I don't think they would be able to accomplish anything even if their funding were suddenly jacked up tenfold.

>>2655737
sorry for hitting your asperger rage button, nigger

What's up with OP's picture? Totally different lighting, plus perspective problems. And they don't use F-15s as chase planes...

>>2655737
Funny, because you still seemed to understand him.

X37B

>>2655765
obvious shoop is obvious.

>>2655771
everyone could have understood without the spasticated construction - there was no need to complicate

the tortuous bending of the sentence just highlighted op's faggotry, like op's sulk that it got pointed out

>>2655795
>implying i was OP
>implying you're not an aspie nigger

>>2655765

Pretty obvious shoop. Dumb lighting issues aside, there's also the fact that since it is presumably coming into land, the nose should be tilted up more, airbrakes deployed and landing gear deployed.

Also, pixels. Very obvious pixels.

>>2655765
It's a shoop.

>>2655757
Sounds horrible.

So realistically speaking, we're talking about 20 to 30 years till we might see something similar to the moon landing again? Unless private industry takes some serious steps. But even that seems to be far ahead in the future.

>>2655737
Thanks for pointing that out. I need and want to work on my english. It's eh not eh so gud, I know.

>>2655806
op confirmed for samefag

>>2655846
>he doesn't know how to check samefag
here's a hint, i am posts
>>2655702
>>2655753
>>2655764
>>2655806

>>2655834

Nice pic

>>2655820 there's also the fact that since it is presumably coming into land, the nose should be tilted up more, airbrakes deployed and landing gear deployed.

It flies like a brick, nose doesn't point up.

Gear isn't opened until close to ground, shit's on fire yo.

It's not going to be replaced. Once they're gone that's it, major space research is over for the foreseeable future.

ESA or JAXA might do something in the future, but NASA's just going downhill.

>>2655978
Maybe we can nuke the moon again, yes?

>>2655978
>>nope.rar

NASA is working on secret shit.

They already have the unmanned X37-B up and going, 270 days in continuous orbit with massive cross-range abilities.

+ They'll want a new manned vessel just for the tactical advantage.

I'm pretty sure its the Ares class due to replace it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Launch_Vehicle

Looks really promising, though they had some trouble with funding and Obama =/

I don't know the state of the project right now, but everything has already been designed and built :)

>>2656005


You mean Air Force, not NASA

This one

We'll probably use the good old fashion Soyuz for a while. However, developing something better would come quicker, since NASA is no longer spending all the money on the shuttle program.

Is this project still being worked on?

For now..... -with nothing-

That is the state of current manned NASA flights.
American astronauts are going to hitch rides to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz.

Shuttle is retired for pretty obvious reason:

Shuttle launch = $450 million / 7 seats = $64 million/seat
+ $1.5 billion/shuttle

Soyuz launch = $75 million / 3 seats = $25 million/seat

>>2656132
>>2656132

It has been moved to the back-burner by the congress.
However, NASA is using the founds that they do have to -very slowly- continue with the capsule only development.

>>2656132

If yes, at this point it is only to satisfy contractual obligations. It turned out to be a bad idea. The first problem was that the solid rocket motor could vibrate badly enough to harm the astronauts.

The second problem was that if the booster exploded the safety system could not pull the crew capsule far enough away from the burning fuel to prevent the parachutes from catching fire.

of course the third problem is funding

>>2656146
>>2656146

If NASA had --half-- the budget of the department of war, you know the part of government charged with killing humans and causing mass destruction and disorder, and all other things directly opposite of progress. (I hate it that we evolved from a territorial predatory species).

Back on topic, if NASA had half that budget, we could launch exactly 178 shuttle flights PER YEAR.

>>2656132
you should never use solid fuel rockets for manned flights. they cannot be throttled or shut down.

and they tend to explode since they dont need oxygen to burn

>>2656181
You're talking about the Federal Reserve corporation, the property-owners of America. America IS a republic, or didn't you notice?

>>2656181
And we would also get raped by half of the world

>>2656208
half the world would not want to rape you if you stopped invading other countries.

>>2656208
>implying

That irrational fear is what keeps you from progressing, americunts.

>>2656181

>>(I hate it that we evolved from a territorial predatory species).

well, it is probably the reason we are intelligent and also have the desire to do future oriented things like build rockets.

Nasa has become a worthless bureaucracy. After seeing what spaceX can do, sure move the low-tech stuff like launches (rocket science is not rocket science anymore) into industry, and keep the hard science, and crazy far future oriented stuff that industry won't fund in nasa.

Its a same that all the shuttle tech will end up in the trash just like all the saturn stuff before it, but that's just what happens.

>>2656212
lol no

>>2656215

hmmm. I think that is the irrational fear that keeps us progressing :)

orion CEV

>>2656215
Its not irrational if its justified
Lets make a list of countries that would rape us shall we?
-Saudi Arabia
-China
-Russia
-North Korea
-Afghanistan
-Iran
-Pakistan
-Iraq
and so on...

>>2656181

Predatory? What CA do you get that from?

Def not an obligate carnivore.

>>2656246
>implying the reason they would "rape" you isn't because you messed with them in the first place.
>Implying it Would happen.

Grow up and accept your responsability.

>>2656225
lol, no.

It only makes you invent bigger and "better" weapons.
Oh, wow, progress.

>>2656263
Dude Al-qaeda took down the twin towers for no goddamn reason!
On top of that they killed themselves in order to do so!
Seriously what responsibility are we talking about?!

>>2655834
Don't underestimate american private industry.

We were the ones to commercialize cars and aircraft after all

>>2656246

confirmed fear-mongered basement troll

Grow up little boy. You think they are going to defeat us with inferior equipment? You also think they would start a fight considering we utilize almost all of their exports? KN excluded...

>>2655726
You were thinking of the Russians
Their next Earth-to-Orbit ship is also capable of circumnavigating the moon

Or maybe you were thinking of beyond 2025, when they disassociate their ISS modules to make an orbital shipyard and fuel depot

>>2656292
>You think they are going to defeat us with inferior equipment?
They will if we cut the defense budget to a fraction of what it currently is like someone suggested earlier

>The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 envisions the transformation of the Ares I and Ares V vehicle designs into an a single launch vehicle, the Space Launch System, both for crew and cargo. It is to be upgraded over time with more powerful versions. The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, should be for between 70 tons and 100 tons into LEO in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. With the addition of integrated upper Earth departure stage the total lift capability of the Space Launch System should be 130 tons or more.


This is official

>>2656312
US is on a separate continent, none of those nations have expeditionary fighting capabilities so your only threats would be Ca'anadia and Mehiko

Cut your defense to two supercarriers per ocean (hell you can keep the 20+ smaller carriers) and you can fund a mars mission tomorrow

>>2656271

I think intel is still > 1 year ahead of anyone in semiconductor fabrication. (if not intel then IBM).

the nsa will probably figure out quantum computing 10 years before anyone else (but will keep it secret).

I think most medical advances happen here, particularly involving bio/electrical interfaces.

that whole 'internet' thing.

the US has an assload of problems atm, but we do do a lot of neat stuff that does not directly involve blowing people up.

>>2656329
Dude China has millions of soldiers
They can do a zerling rush and destroy anything we throw at them

>>2656356
They have no boats.

>>2656363
Then how do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy

>>2656356
>Dude China has millions of soldiers
With no way to transport them in any fashion that would win a ground invasion.

>>2656386
The only ships capable of crossing the pacific are the old WWII/Cold war destroyers, and they would get smushed by a minefield/air force/coastal artillery/nukes anyway

>>2656356
500 million soldiers vs a few Davey Crockets = 500 million corpses

Numbers don't cut it in modern combat, we simply have too many force multipliers for that

>>2656386
How do they plan on getting through 10 aircraft carriers + 2 supercarriers + all those destroyers and frigates and jets?

i hope you dumbass derailing fucks realize that two superpowers going to war = game over anyways and arguing who would win with conventional weapons is a moot point since whichever one lost would just go to its nuclear arsenal

>>2656498
America or Russia could probably neuter china in a nuclear first strike.

NASA is a front for the secret space program that has been developed since the 60's. We can thank Nikola Tesla and T. Brown for developing electro-kinetic craft that don't require propellant. There is no need for liquid fuel, turbines, or blades.

NASA will never admit this since the power reactor is based on clean fusion which doesn't kill the pilot. They don't want regular people or other countries to have access to this technology. It can literally solve most of the world's problems overnight but they are too selfish to let this happen.

>>2656503
i can think of literally no situation where a first strike on the scale necessary to completely overcome a superpower's retaliatory abilities would be green-lighted by anyone ever. it'd have to be such a massive attack that you'd effectively be committing suicide (for everyone), which defeats the purpose of a first strike anyways.

>>2656517
Nuclear winter is bullshit.

>>2656498
While on paper, PRC has 100-200 nuclear weapons, more than half of those are useless for attacking us and are mostly aimed at nearby Russia
China has 56 warheads capable of reaching USA, and USA can defend from approximately 90 with one Aegis boat

Why do you think Russia keeps 2500?

>>2656508
>[Citation needed]

cool story, bro.

>>2656519
Tell that to dinosaurs.

>>2656534

Here is a video you can start with. Decide for yourself. There is a secret history that we are not allowed to be aware of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xd0GdaP920

Why are you guys debating the end result of a traditional war between china and the US when china has decided to merely destroy the US economically? After this has been accomplished there is no point to a shooting war.

>>2656560
even if that doesn't work on space, what is stopping us from using it for transportation on earth?

>>2656600
This.
hurpderpgunzwarweeponz
Fuck you, warmongers.
Ever heard of "The Art of War"?
Written in China way before the US came to existence. This is about how to ensure complete victory without even fighting. And China is doing just that. And sending people in space, and shit to the moon, also, if this can help put this thread back on its rails.

>>2656386
The art of war is some bullshit group of weightings compiled by fragulent historians 1000 years ago in an attempt to make a superhero novel. Ive read it and it was as boring as fuck. Full of dumb ass tactics a five year old could come up with like steal the enemy food so you can eat it and they cant.

>>2656776

Looks pretty gay to me.

>>2656191 Can't use solid rockets, can't turn em off
>>2656196 They tend to explode

Stfuplzkthx.

So wat if you can't turn them off. They were used in the original shuttle design to save costs on developing liquid engines. They also helped reduce the size of the rocket (size not mass you fucks).

No they don't tend to explode, they're incredibly well tested and reliable.

>>2656067 implying the Air Force manufactures everything alone and doesn't contract most of their stuff to private corporations.

>>2656600
I've seen this argument so many times before that I wish it was substantiated with at least some semblance of critical thought.

>>2656776
Art of war?

What are you? Some guy in middle management from the 80s??

>>2656776
>This is about how to ensure complete victory without even fighting

No it isn't, it just states that that is the ideal.

>>2656600
this is such a naive and misinformed point.

China holds US bonds. During a time of war, the US can choose not to honor them. Sure it reduces US credit temporarily, but I'm sure most countries that don't see themselves attacking the US will still find US bonds safe.

>>2656600
If guy in debt can beat the loan shark and his thugs, he isn't in debt anymore.

>>2656279

Dude, Al Quaeda rolled your towers because a) the CIA armed and trained the Taleban in the '80s to fight the Russians. Then turned around and acted shocked after it allowed extremist Wahhabism to be bankrolled by Saudi oil dollers, which in turn pushed mounting Arab/Islamic anger into well funded, well trained cells bent on fighting America, a power responsible for countless military and political incursions throughout the Middle East for decades.

A list:

- Overthrow of the Shah of Iran
- Gulf War
- Iraq Invasion
- many many more

America is a bully, and acts surprised when some of the kids learn how to throw rocks.
-

>>2658123
And that's highly unlikely, considering what currency the bonds are denominated in. I also don't see it being problematic to the point that prodigious levels of inflation would occur.

Correction: And even that's highly unlikely

>>2658102

ok. china spins up its mfg. engine; brings peasants in to work for $1/hr. Ignores all safety standards for the environment because they are expensive. anyone that complains is re-educated. China begins making complete goods that sell in the US for less money than the _raw materials_ would cost in the US. US companies export jobs and / or go out of business. We export the technology behind the products; we educate chinese students in our universities that have no intention of staying here. Companies set up chinese r&d labs to support the develop and design the products not made here (it is better to keep this R&D near the factory).

We loose the factories; we loose the skilled labor; we loose the heavy industries (like mining & steel making) and become a husk / welfare state, and loose the expectation of innovation and expectation of success at the individual level.

This behavior is maintained through currency manipulation. After the US is a husk, suddenly allow the Yuan to inflate and the dollar to deflate, and call in some debts. Kaboom.

>>2658588
you fail at economics forever.

>>2658621

this is /sci/. explain and argue or gtfo. throwing rocks is for /b/.

>>2658633

Your previous post is completely wrong. You get a 0, try again.

>>2658588
I don't think you know how monetary policies work. I'd question your previous claims but reading your post gave me a headache.

OP here.

Holy shit, this thread is still going..

>>2656508 We can thank Nikola Tesla and T. Brown for developing electro-kinetic craft that don't require propellant

Lol.

Define:evidence

Hot: Russia, China
Cold: US, EU

Soon the East and West will be equals, and we can focus on abusing the shit out of everybody else.

>>2658643
>>2658644

Perhaps you feel the 'internets' were invented solely for a giant circle jerk of experts such as yourselves.

I may have forgotten most of my macro-economics, but I am no fool. Please explain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/think-twice-before-accusing-others-of-currency-manipulation-2010-10

>>2658588
Can I buy puts on you? Like you, personally.

>>2658734
The author assumes that the US debt holders (namely, China) are primarily concerned about their ROI, ignoring how the purchase of said debt props up export-led growth. HIs misrepresentation of monetary policies are so egregious that he doesn't even bother trying to refute the basis for the claim that China is manipulating his currency.

>>2658756

chuckle. well I am on 4chan presently. but so are you.

>>2658767
Business Insider is web 2.0 money porn. It partners with Yahoo and is on par with the most intelligent 5% of Yahoo Finance commenters (god help us).

It doesn't totally suck for news. Henry Blodget's arrongance knows no bounds, but he does generate OC lulz on occasion. The analysis pieces are usually written by people who pleasure themselves to Ayn Rand.

>>2658774
>MFW "rugged individualism" has new meaning

Also, janitors need to end this shit. This thread is so off topic.

>>2658774
Yes, I've heard about BI and Mr. Blodget for a couple of years now. Some of the site's writers are so profoundly moronic it's amazing how they get paid to write ill-informed tripe. And Mr. Kownatzki makes repeated references to the USD , among others, being a fiat currency, implying that this is somehow bad.

and here's the blog of one of the site's writers.

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/

It's even worse than his articles for BI

>>2658793
why.jpg

>>2658783

Aren't we going to inflate away the value of all the retiree savings in the US as we inflate away our debts to the rest of the world? From the individual's perspective, that only wants a stable currency, putting the full value of their savings in the hands of a 2nd or 3rd party that operates to different rules is not a comfortable place to be.

>>2658802
>retiree savings
>MFW
>unicorns
>MFW

>>2658802
A good question. I'm extremely tired atm though, so I'll refer you to Mr. Bernanke's comments on the fiat currency and gold standard here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110301-714533.html

>>2658802
1. Inflate
2. Switch to a new currency
3. Only exchange new currency to domestic dollars
4. Prove economics isn't a science