/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope.

Aren't NASA just using the Russian rockets?

Obama was all about space exploration when he was running for the spot. What happened with that?

Oh, right, he bailed on it....just like every other fucking promise he made.

Nope.

Because Obama is a douche and I now wish we had Bush back just for the space program.

>>3358240

That makes me sad.

I don't think many people understand how upsetting this really is.

>>3358251
>>3358264
>implying Bush was good for NASA

>>3358266

Only to pseudo intellectualals on /sci/. Not really a big deal in the long run.

>>3358246
yep, using the Soyuz but no man missions in deep space (outside atmosphere) planned for long time

>>3358275

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html

>>3358285
What about that planned Moon/Mars colonization or whatever?

I'm working on a better Ion drive

>>3358282
>Not really a big deal in the long run.

Taking manned space exploration, with all of the technology that we have now that was never even dreamed to be possible 30 years ago, and shutting it down completely, with no plans whatsoever to focus on a new program.

Not a big deal? We are effectively dead in the water as a space-faring species.

>>3358296

We're not even close to having the technology to be a space-faring specifies. You don't need to be in space to invest money in space technology.

>>3358285
>cancel USA missions
>Tag along with the Ruski's

"We" being public-sector Amurrica?

Well, there IS a mandate to have a shuttle replacement by 2016 IIRC. Not sure if that just means a design or what.

>>3358301
>You don't need to be in space to invest money in space technology.

But that's the thing; we aren't even funding a new program. There are literally no plans.

>>3358314

>You don't need to be in space to invest money in space technology.

>>3358309
>Well, there IS a mandate to have a shuttle replacement by 2016 IIRC. Not sure if that just means a design or what.

That was supposed to be Lockheed-Martin's Orion. It has no funding currently and it is doubtful that a prototype will ever even be built.

>>3358238
Sry but the economy is in the shit hole as it is. I agree with the government's decision. People have to eat.

>>3358316
I don't see what you are not understanding about what I am saying:

Yes, I get it; you don't need to be sending men into outer space in order to be researching space technology. However, even though we are not in space, there are still NO PLANS for a future program. So, despite having the capabilities to do so, we are not.

>>3358324

You can't plan around technology you don't have.

>>3358321
>people have to eat.

Please be a troll please be a troll please be a troll

So what happens to the international base now?

>>3358328
>You can't plan around technology you don't have.

I didn't realize there were people this retarded who lurked on /sci/.

Space exploration and spaceflight puts scientific ideas, scientific thinking, and scientific vocabulary in the public eye. It elevates the general level of intellectual inquiry. The idea that we've now understood something never grasped by anyone who ever lived before—that exhilaration, especially intense for the scientists involved, but perceptible to nearly everyone—propagates through the society, bounces off walls, and comes back at us. It encourages us to address problems in other fields that have also never before been solved. It increases the general sense of optimism in the society. It gives currency to critical thinking of the sort urgently needed if we are to solve hitherto intractable social issues. It helps stimulate a new generation of scientists. The more science in the media-especially if methods are described, as well as conclusions and implications-the healthier, I believe, the society is. People everywhere hunger to understand.

>>3358335

It's great that you feel superior to others.

>>3358328
>You can't plan around technology you don't have.
>implying we dont have tons of blueprints and people working on protoypes harnessing never-before-used technology for space travel/exploration and we are simply not funding them, thus keeping them from ever coming to fruition

You are so goddamn stupid.

>>3358328
>>3358328
>>3358328

And you'll never get the technology when you don't put money into researching it, jackass.

>>3358358

>>3358357

>>3358330
Herp derp. Supporting more money for the space program while the country is going through a hard mode recession just makes you a retard or an edgy teen.

We will go to space again--just not in the next five years or so. The universe will still be there.

>>3358347

But we are funding them.

>>3358357
Nope.

>>3358363

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

>>3358359
>Supporting more money for the space program while the country is going through a hard mode recession just makes you a retard or an edgy teen.

Actually having this "recession" determine whether or not you can put food on your table means you contribute nothing to society anyway.

>>3358363

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

>>3358368
That's privately owned. "we" are not funding them.

>>3358372
>just let them starve
>edgy teen status re-confirmed

>>3358377

Whats the difference? research is being done. And by "greedy businessmen". Who would have thunk it.

>>3358375
Key word: private

>>3358381

see

>>3358381

>>3358379
You must not live anywhere near a city bustling with immigrants who walk the streets in packs at 11am on a weekday because they dont go to work, whose parents did the same and whose children will do it also.

Yes, let them starve.

>>3358359
economy is no longer in recession i believe, NASA get's less money than the cost of air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan
I dont see why NASA cant get even a slither of a slice of the pie

>>3358321
>People have to eat.

you terribly mistyped
>out tanks and chppers have to eat

Today is glorious day. A large corporate welfare program whose beneficiaries are mostly military industrial systems has bitten the dust. Now all the NASAtards will cry.

>>3358644
Not me. I love NASA, but I'm glad to see the waste of money that was the space shuttle go.

NASA is currently using Russian rockets, and plan on using private industry later on to send men to the ISS. With them no longer funding the shuttle, the money they were using could now go to other projects.

Seriously guys, this is not the end of human spaceflight, or even a major setback. There isn't much in a asteroid or Mars landing for a government, other than "national pride", because they can't claim it due to the Outer Space Treaty. Corporations have no such issues; I wouldn't be surprised if as soon as a company such as SpaceX grabs an asteroid, we see a massive wave of manned spaceflight claiming as much of the system as possible.

Captcha: Mildic ONE; which is exactly what this temporary delay is.

>>3358785
Also I'm pretty sure the flights will be manned, since I'm sure someone could dispute a robot probe claiming Titan.

>>3358686
I don't understand how this saves any money at all, costs usually go up when the united states out sources its shipping needs to a third party. Case in point iraq and afghanistan.

>>3358793
Even if this doesn't happen, I think Russia will make good on it's promise to build a moon base. If there's one thing us Americunts can't handle, it's the Ruskies being better at anything than us (apart from the obvious strategic value of a gravity well).

D-did I kill the thread?

Our hopes are on Putin.

>>3358884
For some reason, I think spaceflight will do much better under a near-autocratic tyrant. He doesn't give a fuck if the oil companies whine about insufficient dick-sucking or various special interest bullshit, he's all like "Fuck you, build a moonbase."

>>3358910
I don't approve that kind of behaviour... but I like that.

>>3358943
I'm totally with you. It's one of those things that just seems so terrible but yet it's outcome is so great that you have to stop to wonder - could the ends justify the means?