/sci/ - Science & Math

I see a saturn V and 2 SFRBs glued onto its sides

where's the new rocket?

until we open up the moon/mars for corporate rape, nobody cares

;_;

>>3772717
Fool, it's obviously a german V2!

Saturn V lift capacity 130 tons.
SLS lift capacity 130 tons.

>>3772740
Any comparisons as to costs?

Also, I hate all these incremental improvements. I wish we got at least a geometric progression in capability over the years.

>>3772740

it's really like we're taking a step backwards here

They should just give the money to SpaceX and have them build the Falcon XX. it's going to be built, they may as well speed up the process

>>3772740

>thrust
>kilograms
>2011
>ISHYGDDT

>>3772740

the shuttle isn't the payload, and it certainly weighs more than 25 tons (closer to 70 while empty)

>>3772835
kf-F
learn it love it

ITS A PENIS

>>3772740

>first launch planned 2017

The United States spent millions of dollars to fabricate a pen that would function in space. Russia sent a pencil.

It seems our habit is to spend a lot of money for impractical things to show the rest of the world we can do it. Then they don't care because it's stupid.

>>3772812
Falcon XX lift capacity 140 tons. About same as Saturn V and STS.

>>3772869
>The United States spent millions of dollars to fabricate a pen that would function in space. Russia sent a pencil.

That's an urban myth.

>>3772869
the US spent nothing to make the "space pen", it already existed
only a few missions were done by people stupid enough to use a pencil in space

>>3772838
Shuttle can carry 25 tons of payload.

bulbous head
long shaft
a pair of oblong storage tanks for important fluids at the base
spews white hot man love

>>3772886

I know, I was just pointing out that the chart is misleading

>>3772894

Well... what do you expect? The vagina design crashed and burned.

Women can't do anything right.

>>3772897
They should have colored only the Shuttle cargo bay.

>>3772894

It spews it out in the wrong direction

>>3772881
>dildos, dildos everywhere

>>3772913
there's clearly something wrong with one of our penises

SLS is a fine system with a payload capacity that will finally make it possible to build outposts on other worlds.

Most of the opposition seems to come from people rooting for SpaceX. That's silly. It isn't as if one must fail for the other to succeed. The more heavy lift rockets available the more rapidly space development can occur. We should be pushing for as many options as possible for getting beyond LEO.

>>3772958
>will finally make it possible
We already had Saturn V in 1960s that had exactly the same lift capacity.

>>3772972

>We already had Saturn V in 1960s that had exactly the same lift capacity.

And since 1980 we've been stuck with the Shuttle, which has a pitiful payload capacity by comparison. The aggravating mistake I see people making is claiming that SLS is a step backward from the shuttle, when in fact the shuttle was a step backward from the Saturn V, and SLS regains that lost ground.

>>3772977

And now I shall ask the obvious question. Why are we only recovering lost ground instead of making larges leaps forward with our, decades more advanced, technology?

>>3772991
budget cuts? nasa not knowing what they're doing? nasa not wanting to take any risks?

>>3772991

And what advanced technology would you be referring to?

>>3772994

NASA current budget is the same as the Apollo budget

>>3772991

>And now I shall ask the obvious question. Why are we only recovering lost ground instead of making larges leaps forward with our, decades more advanced, technology?

Because rockets are still the best way to get into space with today's tech. Because putting wings on something doesn't make it more advanced and removing them doesn't make it more primitive. Because the fact that it looks the same on the outside as 70 year old tech doesn't mean it doesn't use new materials, new computer systems and new fuel chemistry.

Being upset that a heavy lift rocket today looks like a heavy lift rocket from the 70s is like being upset that cars still use wheels instead of hovering or some shit. Rockets look the way they do for a reason, and the big technological differences are on the inside where you can't see them. If we ever return to the spaceplane design it will be because we're actually able to leverage the advantages of it in terms of lifting off like a plane and using air breathing engines to the limits of the atmosphere, whereas the shuttle still needed rockets to achieve orbit and only landed like a plane, being in effect a large, clunky, winged capsule.

>>3772998

It was a kind general statement that, I now realize, should've catered more to the inevitable aspie (you) who was going to be a prick and ask me.

Honestly though, I'm not some sort of expert on the technological advances between now and the apollo space launch, but I figure stuff along the lines of:

>new material types
>more advanced computing ability
>more precise manufacturing ability
>new and more efficient/effective fuels

Things along those lines...

>2011
>Still using rockets to get into space
>Not any better than 50 year old rocket designs

>>3772740
We are the gods now.

>>3773025

I wasn't really talking about the aesthetics though, bro...

You kind of sidestepped my question.

>Because the fact that it looks the same on the outside as 70 year old tech doesn't mean it doesn't use new materials, new computer systems and new fuel chemistry.

Exactly, and why doesn't that allow us to have a higher payload capacity, and other such superior specs.

>>3773035

>Not any better than 50 year old rocket designs

But this is completely wrong. The fact that it still looks like a rocket doesn't mean it's identical to the rockets of the 70s.

>Still using rockets to get into space

Science fiction has distorted your sense of what is practical with present day technology. It's given many people the impression that scifi tech is where we ought to be and anything short of that is primitive and boring. The problem here is that we should be able to appreciate actual advances and regard them as amazing accomplishments instead of dismissing them because they don't compare to fictional spaceships in fictional television shows, movies and games.

>>3773026

You're saying that the SLS will have the same computing power as the Saturn V? A laptop has more power then the whole of NASA had during the 60's

>>3773056

No. Not at all. Why can't you comprehend simple English?

>>3773041

>Exactly, and why doesn't that allow us to have a higher payload capacity, and other such superior specs.

Physics and economics. NASA has a limited budget. They cannot build the rocket they want to build. They must build a rocket sufficient to carry out actual, planned missions. The SLS is exactly what's needed for establishing outposts on the moon and mars, and sending a deep space vehicle to explore asteroids, which are NASA's intended uses for the SLS in the decades to come.

Additionally there is a point of diminishing returns with chemical rockets that makes endlessly scaling them up impractical. For anything much larger than a Saturn V launch we would want some type of nuclear launch vehicle, which the political climate prevents.

>>3773026
Why do you think those aren't incorporated into the SLS ?

Computers in space can never have as much power per volume as the ones on the ground due to having to be radiation-hardened.

But still, the computers used in space now are many orders of magnitude more powerful than the Apollo era ones.

>>3773073

Thank you. That indeed answered my question.

>>3773079

No! What the hell is your guy's problem?!? He asked what kind of advances we had in the past couple of decades and I simply listed those which were applicable.

Goddamn, what is up with /sci/'s reading comprehension...?

>>3773052
I don't care about the aesthetics of it I care that it's the exact same size and yet it has the exact same capabilities despite the supposed "advancements" you claim it has.

>Science fiction has distorted your sense of what is practical with present day technology.

This is a terrible argument coming from you mister undersea colonies. This isn't about science fiction this is about no advances in getting off the planet.

Why didn't they just name it the Saturn VI?

>>3773096

>I don't care about the aesthetics of it I care that it's the exact same size and yet it has the exact same capabilities despite the supposed "advancements" you claim it has.

Are you disputing my claim that it features newer materials, computing technology and fuel chemistry? Yes or no?

>This is a terrible argument coming from you mister undersea colonies. This isn't about science fiction this is about no advances in getting off the planet.

Yes, I advocate for something that has on occasion been the topic of science fiction. However I am not going around complaining that fictional technologies aren't in use, as if I'm entitled to their existence by virtue of living in a year when many such advances were predicted to occur. I have a realistic (and thorough) understanding of the technologies involved and can soberly lay out possibilities for such colonies *given the tech currently available*.

That is a world apart from asking why we're still using rockets to get into space. That question suggests a disconnect from reality far beyond anything I could be accused of.

Both made of aluminum, both use liquid oxygen + liquid hydrogen.

Where the hell is my LightCraft damnit?

I don't care what heavy lift rocket they use, but where is my Nautilus-X.

>>3773178

It's coming

>>3773178

With the SLS and the higher end Falcon rockets, we can construct the Nautilus X. Its design relies implicitly on the availability of heavy lift rockets in the same class as the SLS and Falcon XX. It also employs Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable modules. The only portion of it that I don't see how we could build with this tech is that long, hexagonal central portion.Unless that's just an outer shell and there are cylindrical modules inside.

>>3773200

Whoops, not the central portion but rather the section that forms the 'front' of the craft. It doesn't seem to fit into the payload bay of any upcoming rocket and our ability to assemble anything from parts on a spacewalk is fairly rudimentary right now.

I thought I heard it had a lot more reusable components compared to the saturn v making it much cheaper after multiple reentries.

or was that was one of the scraped concepts earlier...

>>3772706

Pointless.

>>3773230

>Pointless.

>>3773230

Explain how? the only thing holding us back right now is the lack of a super heavy lift rocket

>>3773261

Holding you back from what?

>>3773261
Explanation, he's a troll. Also, he doesn't believe words.

>>3773230

Typical autistic tripfag response.

One word answers, how edgy.

>>3773272

Are you from the other thread? I am impressed you can capitalize and correctly use interpunction.

>>3773279

>Still here

>With the stalwart shuttle fleet heading for retirement this coming summer, U.S. space administration NASA has already begun doling out the cash to develop future space-faring technology.
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201116/7081/Boeing-and-SpaceX-secure-healthy-NASA-funding

>>3772706
It needs to be BIGGER!

>>3773230
Why do you say that?

>>3773354

Why does the gubbmint need to steal labor for this rocket?

>>3773358
It doesn't. Why do you use the word "gubbmint?"

>>3773358
Man, I love your trolls.

...carry on

>>3773373
He has an accent. Don't be so insensitive.

>>3773376
If you believe he's a troll, responding to him is only helping to make the board worse.

>>3773373

The word represents the childish nature of the people that support it.

>>3773387
Assuming that NASA maintains the same budget it already has, what would be a better use of its money, in your opinion?

Ok, so it lifts the same amount of payload. But has anyone ever considered that with the VAST weight savings in items such as computers and other electrical systems has provided that we would be able to carry HEAVIER objects into space? Before, a lot of the Saturns payload was used in life support, electronics, etc. Now, most of that weight is cut(and still much more reliable and effective). With all that free weight, they can add heavier objects or more fuel for much more productive missions. I mean shit /sci/ get out of the freaking basement and stop wining about every single thing. Fuck. At least we can go into goddamn space.

>>3773384
But I'm learning a lot about his nature. What he thinks, what he wants people to know he thinks, what he thinks other people think.

It's incredibly fascinating stuff.

Whether he is a troll or not, is besides the point. Subconsciously, he could be seriously repressed, and tell himself 'i'm just trolling'. Or he could be one of those messiah types, who thinks spreading the word will make the world a better place.

It doesn't really matter what he believes, only how he responds to the various trajectories.

Now, watch.

>>3773403
>But I'm learning a lot about his nature. What he thinks, what he wants people to know he thinks, what he thinks other people think.

Okay, you're piqued my interest. Mind sharing?

>>3773396

Not being taken in the first place.

>>3773387
Where do you think money comes from for anything?

>>3773403
>Now, watch.

The same to you, Sir.

>>3773396
Finish the James Webb Space Telescope.

>>3773387
I agree, children shouldn't do anything but work in coal mines to support their families

>>3773423

Theft of labor from people, originally.

>>3773387
words nr ilusion mk gd is smthnd tha nth gbbmnt wll do to u

>>3773430

I disagree. But you would fit in well with communists.

>>3773419
If it has already been taken, and returning it is not an option, how should NASA use it?

>>3773438
But they should have the liberty to choose how to support their families.

>>3773434
Wait, am I getting you right, are you saying that paying wages in exchange for labor is theft? Or is it only because it's the government?

>>3773443

Returning it is an option.

Debt.

>>3773403

That's one way to look at his posts. Another way is to take his responses seriously (even if he's trolling) and challenging your own opinions with his arguments. If you know what you're talking about then it's fun to crush his arguments with sound reasoning.

Even if he's serious, forcing him to read your responses serves as a reverse troll of sorts.

This discussion over a fraction of a tenth of a tenth of the total US federal budget is fascinating, but can we get back to the rockets?

>>3773449

There is no Liberty to initiate an act of aggression against another.

>>3773452

Theft of labor from the wages. Taxes.

>>3773454
Hypothetically speaking, if NASA can only spend it, and only on the exploration or exploitation on space, what should the money be used for?

>>3773461
What do you think about the rockets?

>>3773462
>>yet people claim they have the freedom to do so in my own country

Also, fuck off, Libtard.

>>3773462
How can aggressions against another's liberty be solved then? I recognize it happens in government, but it also happens regardless of a government.

>>3773455
That's true, but it's still annoying when you give him a sound argument that counters each of his points and he hits you back with a "Wrong." or something, obviously it's just bottom level trolling but when coupled with his tendency to make long, largely self-consistent and educated-sounding arguments based on completely false or ludicrous assumptions it's still frustrating.

>>3773467

A big ass ladder.

>>3773473

Freedom ≠ Liberty

>>3773422

>>3773477

Education.

>>3773478

Source?

>>3773479
Why a ladder?

>>3773480
That's just a model.

>>3773487

Why the fuck not?

>>3773455
I've spent many a internets doing that same thing, with other trolls.

Inevitably, if you do this long enough, you realize his reverberations are not unique, nor are they inventive.

What sounds like 'responses' from him, are more like choreographed steps taken from any number of sources.

Ultimately, his intelligence is no different than Cleverbot.

He is amusing at first, but when you try to test his long term memory, and ask him to rationalize with his prior statements, he fails miserably.

At the end of the day, presenting him with valid arguments does not garner you the reciprocity in his response, as he merely searches a database of responses he picked up somewhere in the dark interwebs.

What is more interesting, is see how he does or does not respond to pointed, and more philosophical or double entrendres, or other more human forms of communication.

>>3773491
It's not NASA's area of expertise, and in my opinion it is not a good use of their budget, if not having a budget in the first place is not an option.

>>3773483
>Source?
>>3773247
>>3773250
referring to >>3773179, see 3773365 as to why you are completely wrong

>>3773483
Does educating someone automatically prevent them from theft of liberty? If people have the liberty of ownership of capital, is it not theft of liberty when capital is stolen from someone?

>>3773498
While calling his intelligence no different from Cleverbot shows that you're obviously a bit mad which means he's not been entirely unsuccessful, the rest of your post is pretty much spot on.

>>3773501

Who are you to say they are not great at ladder building?

>>3773505

Explain theft of Liberty. Theft is indeed not Liberty.

Planned since 1996, the massively overbudget James Webb Space Telescope now expected to cost $8 billion by the time it launches in 2018.

>>3773512
Who are you to say they should build ladders instead of rockets?

>>3773515

A taxpayer. A taxpayer with a private job. I taxpayer with a private job that has not accepted public money ever.

>>3773512
If I have some valuable currency or money, I would think that I would have the liberty to spend it. If someone steals that money from me, do they not steal some of my liberty?

>>3773519
Should you have more say in what NASA does than other taxpayers?

>>3773523

They stole your property.

>>3773503
He ignores posts that show he is incorrect. As, if you were to refute three of his three points (just for instance) he may or may not respond to one or two but will ignore that others as if they had not been demonstrated false. He sources nothing himself but will challenge you on yours.

He a passive aggressive faggot, who is not even badly educated, just not educated at all.

Catch him in a political science thread sometimes and ask him to sum up the debate of liberty vs freedom, just for laughs. he styles himself "liberty" but does not know what it technically means.

>>3773527

I should have no say.

>>3773510
You've not been around him much have you?

Have you even read this very thread?

>>3773230
>>3773268
>>3773279
>>3773358
>>3773387
>>3773419
>>3773434
>>3773438
>>3773454
>>3773462
>>3773479
>>3773491
>>3773512
Go ahead, put together a flow chart of his rational responses and long term cognition of those responses as the thread unfolds.

You'll see that he rarely holds a thought longer than one or two responses.

Sure he's advanced, as far as a cleverbot, but his intelligence is not decidedly different than a cleverbot which searches a heuristic database for likeminded but contextless responses.

>>3773533
Why?

>>3773532

I address any post directly made to me that refutes a post of mien they quoted (save for 404).

>>3773535

Voting is an act of aggression.

>>3773541
No you do not, and you have been caught out on this numerous times since you first showed up here.

>>3773543
How so?

>>3773544

Where?

>>3773550

Having a say over another's money, interactions, etc without their consent is an act of aggression.

>>3773530
But why would you say that they did not steal liberty? I know i would still have the liberty to spend, but i would no longer have the liberty to utilise that particular amount of property. Did I not have the liberty to be entitled to my labor? (assuming that property was from an entirely private source)

>>3773535
He's a sociopath and an anarchist. Deep left field anarchist.

In other news, the Air Force took over the direction of NASA policy for space exploration back in the 70s and directed it to maintenance of satellites (weapons platforms).

>>3773559

Liberty, not liberty. Why would you? Theft is not part of Liberty.

>>3773562

I am of course not an anarchist.

>>3773558
If those who fund NASA willingly gave their money and their consent for you to vote on its use, would you vote?

>>3773571

No, NASA is a state agency.

>>3773577
Why does that cause you not to vote?

>>3773570
Theft is not a part of Liberty....
As in, no one has the liberty to steal, or liberty should not be stolen, or what? I don't see how this answers my question, so i would appreciate it if you could go nto more detail.

>>3773583

State agencies lack consent.

>>3773588
Who do they lack consent from?

>>3773587

There is no Liberty to steal.

>>3773594

The people that have their labor stolen from to fund them. And anyone that is aggressed due to their presence.

>>3773503
This was my post as was the last I listed in the thread I linked (I noticed you stopped replying to that thread when I made that post.) Previously in that thread, you had been ridiculing others for saying that democracy exists in the real world. You provided no evidence in that thread other than saying that democracy doesn't mean what others think it means and doesn't exist in the world. It was clear by inference that the definition of democracy in your head refers only to a direct democracy in the purest sense of the word (from your other responses, it seems you would classify even pure Athenian democracy as impure if still somewhat democratic). You repeatedly said that definitions that differed from that are incorrect. I linked two different online English dictionaries (wordreference and webster's), both of which had, for their first definition of "democracy," general wording which explicitly includes government by elected representatives. This explicitly refutes your claim that democracy does not exist in the world today. You never responded to that post, you never responded to the other post I made in this thread, in direct response to you asking for a source on your lack of real argumentation, and, no doubt, you'll never respond to this one either, because you can't actually make a real argument for the shit you say and when you just sit there telling people they're wrong you know damn well how much of an idiot it makes you look like.

>>3773602
What if NASA was not a state agency?

>>3773596
Ok. So what happens when people steal? Do they activate a free pass to aggression as a reaction?
And why would just education prevent stealing?

Is anyone still confused as to what Liberty's intelligence consists of?

>>3773623
No, I'm really just trying to understand the guy. I agree with quite a few of his points but it's so annoying when he's really vague.

>>3773605

Why are you posting with and without your trip?

You made a claim not found in evidence. Why would I respond? Nothing you said had any relevance to any post I made at all in anyway, and refuted nothing.

>>3773606

If NASA was a private agency that was never funded by theft of labor, and received no state benefits, then sure, I would vote on whatever the private business wanted me to vote on (not sure why they would want me to vote, but whatever) if asked to.

>>3773623

I am.

>>3773621

Self-defense is of course warranted, if so wanted, when one is aggressed.

>>3773635
Hypothetically, if NASA was a private agency that was never funded by theft of labor, and received no state benefits, and they wanted you (and others) to vote on what they should use their budget for, what would you propose they use their budget for?

>>3773630
Yeah, I know, the only time he makes a post that's more than one line is when he's telling someone how wrong they are or responding to multiple posts, clearly his views aren't reachable using normal logic and I'd really like to see what, exactly, he thinks we should do as far as economics and politics are concerned. He says he disapproves of all government and all taxation but at the same time he's not an anarchist, I don't even know what that means.

>>3773623

Liberty use to make moderately coherent posts when he first showed up, but he was so overwhelmed by people completely disagreeing with him and pointing out why he's wrong that he became the one-sentence-response semi-troll you see today.

>>3773644

The collection of general space information while on route to planets to mine.

>>3773646

Anarchism is simply absolute freedom. Absolute freedom includes rape, murder, and torture. Liberty does not.

>>3773664
Would you also support asteroid mining and the creation of orbital construction infrastructure?

>>3773646
He's not social enough to be bothered to tell you what his actual political stance is, but most regulars (well, me, anyway) would call him a full-on libertarian, but with no regard for social contracts. That is to say, he feels no social obligations whatsoever that any one has been able toacertain. He's not bound to the Constitution because he didn't get to vote on it or something, but fails to realize that no one is requiring him to stay here.

He's also oblivious to the fact that since the majority of US citizens *do* feel obliged to the compact he refuses to support, he actually *does not* belong here.

It's been suggested that he move to Somalia, but I think he would feel uncomfortable being pushed around by warlords, so he hangs around here looking for fights to get into. Still, even when smacked down, he doesn't just go away, he looks for another thread to derail.

Quite frankly, I think he needs psychiatric help, but that would infringe on his freedom, so that's out.

Just ignore him. That's what the "hide" button on the FF/Google 4chan extension is for.

Liberty is a brilliant left wing democratic anarcho-syndicalist satirist who aims to destroy libertarianism's credibility by using every trick in the book to train people's argument analysis skills to master level. Bravo. Well done, good sir.

>>3773700
If that's the case, he should start his own blog, and leave us the fuck alone.

this thread was doing just fine, talkin bout rockets and shit, unitl Troll L showed up.

>>3773635
I'm not Scientist.

Let me be specific.

>so eventually, nothing changes, and we're back to democracy.
Original post by someone in that thread, all it says is we have a democracy now.

> implying democracy exists today anywhere
This was you, now we all understand 4chan speak so semantically this post was equivalent to you saying, "Democracy does not exist today anywhere and you are wrong for saying it does."

Skipping some childish back and forth brings us to >>3773291, which reads:
>Everyone gets a vote, on every issue.. This does not happen in any country.

>I find it odd you emotionally feel direct democracy (defined democracy) can broadly be changed to mean anything where a lot of people vote on some issues.

Then we get to my post, >>3773365, in which I clearly provided evidence that the accepted English definition of the word democracy includes representative government. I provided two sources showing that democracy can refer to a democratic government.

>>3773700
and for the record, "left wing democratic" is redundant

anarcho-syndicalism includes those as part of its definition

just sayin

>>3773717
Now, here's the hard part, using logic. You said that democracy is only direct democracy, and any form of limited democracy is no longer democracy. However, the dictionary says that democracy can included a government using elected representatives. This means that governments like that of the United States, in which the public elects representatives to make government decisions for them, falls under the definition of democracy. However, this contradicts your argument that democracy is strictly defined as direct democracy and nothing else, and as I provided sources and you did not, this is a clear refutation of your argument. My post was clearly found in evidence, directly responded to a post that you made and refuted the assumption that you based that post on. You have now shown yourself to be a liar as well as troll and a major bullshitter. You've been proven wrong and so far, in this entire thread and the last entire thread, you've done nothing but make unfounded claims and tell others they are wrong, then criticize their arguments and evidence while providing none of your own. You fail to even address posts that refute your points, whether out of fear of being further proven wrong or simply because you have no logical response. In short, your rhetoric is terrible, your arguments are faulty and your extremely poor arguing abilities would make you look like a fool even if your opinions weren't self-contradicting idiocy, and you contribute nothing to this board except more shitposting and uninformed opinions. If you continue to respond to my posts with denial and refusal to address my argument, that is, if you respond without providing some sort of defense of yourself other than saying I'm wrong and denying the posts that I linked to and everyone can see, I'm not going to waste my time with a response; you may convince yourself you've won, but everyone else is aware of the real situation.

>>3773719
Left wing is not necessarily democratic for instance: Nietzschean aristocratic radicalism
Also, thanks for the heads up, for some reason I thought anarcho-syndicalism had room for a non-democratic system like B.F. Skinner's Walden Two.
Didn't mean to derail, carry on.

>>Faggots in rocket thread.

SLS is another jobs program that will fund important districts for another election cycle. It has nothing to do with opening frontiers, supplying ISS or even flying rockets. Look at the whole of Ares and Constellation plus OSP, CEV, X33 etcetcetc and you will see a couple of drop tests, one half-fuelled rocket launch and giant abandoned tower upgrade that cost more than the whole SpaceX program.

tl;dr: not a rocket, never gonna fly.

>>3773740
The political "spectrum" is not really a spectrum, as your example evidences, being totalitarian and anarchic at the same time. You might call it 'supra' specular. <snicker>

Back at 'cha.

Word, but why can't we elect our representatives in some way that avoids the whole voting debacle. Why can't we have run-off elections? Why can't we have elections where money doesn't purchase access? Why are corporations people?

>>3773752
> It has nothing to do with opening frontiers, supplying ISS or even flying rockets.

Thank you for continuing to issue forth the message while I am not here to do it. Yes, the SLS is another means of feeding money to the military-industrial complex, which includes legions of do-nothing and otherwise totally useless PhDs who are now part of the same system of pipelining public funds into the pockets of the elite.

After 50 years, all we've done is re-invent a partial Apollo Program with this Saturn-esque rocket. Nothing has really advanced. SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit) is a dead idea. Nobody with resources is trying the only other launch system that makes sense, either, called the "Launch Loop". We're still at the stage of Big Dumbassed Booster, which is what makes the military-industrial complex the most money.

Take my advice, folks: Stop paying your taxes and prepare for the end of this sick little empire. Don't be left holding the bag.

>>3773775
> Word, but why can't we elect our representatives in some way that avoids the whole voting debacle. Why can't we have run-off elections?

Because the people who buy elections want it that way.

> Why can't we have elections where money doesn't purchase access?

Because the bankers rule you all.

> Why are corporations people?

Because the bankers rule you all. In 1913 the war was finally lost for resisting banker takeover of the West. In 2 years will will see them commemorate their 100th anniversary of that victory. They might start a little war just to punctuate it.

>>3773791
NASA specializes in making self-guided robots. The airforce and army screw weapons on them. That's why NASA.

Remember, Skynet started with armed, self-guided robots.

Things I would like to see:

200+ ton capacity rocket
Space station with artificial gravity, centrifuge with 250+ meter diameter. Could be just a tether tied to a counterweight and a tunnel to the center part with the docking station and instruments.
A nuclear powered spacecraft
A nuclear powered launch vehicle that would lift rocks, sand etc from Moon as radiation shield for the station and the spacecraft, glued together by some adhesive.
A Mars mission and a permanent base in Moon.

>>3773699

There is no such thing as a contract with no terms and no agreement.

> move to a multiple state area (Somalia)

lolwut

>>3773717

Not the equivalent.

> if a lot of people think the world is flat, it is flat

How...... democratic of you.

>>3773727

You cannot have limited democracy, it is an all-or-nothing concept.

Why are you using your trip and not using it? Are you doing this to pretend more people disagree?

Strap 4x Final Config SLSes to a launch vehicle.
Go big or go home, fagets. If were going to launch something in orbit and go to Mars, we might as well spend a lot of time there

Okay srsly, tho.
>1st SLS drops off a power supply unit and emergency shelter unit.
>2nd SLS drops off a home unit.
>3rd SLS drops off addition home unit/supplies
>4th SLS brings in the crew and their return vehicle.
1, 2, 3 supplies can be cannibalized if 4th needs repairs.

Also I Don't even agree to dates unless I know he's bigger than 6 inches.

>>3772706
The SLS has fuckall to do with science. It is a jobs program for the Shuttle workers and major contractors. If it actually makes it off paper, it will be used for national prestige projects, where science is a far secondary goal.

The launchers the actual scientists are waiting for are the Falcon 9 and Taurus II, which fall into the medium-lift price/performance sweet spot for Discovery level missions (5-10 ton) recently vacated by the retiring Delta II launcher. Bigger is not better for science missions with limited budgets.

Honest opinion:
Whenever the next president comes in, he will suddenly come up with an idea to try something else and we will be back at square one.

SLS reminds me heavily of the Delta heavy.

According to a source of mine, SLS is 90% derived from the delta heavy notion with structural changes to reflect utilizing J2X engines and Shuttle legacy technology with the Orion craft as its head. So far, no real spacecraft ideas have been floated for long duration flight to Asteroids or Mars, so I remain skeptical.

>>3774949

When Ron Paul becomes president you can guarantee NASA will be canned completely, Or he will see the value in having NASA and increase and tell them to get off their asses

>>3774955
Good thing Ron Paul won't become president then.

>Canning NASA.

Great what are we going to do about the extensive architecture that maintains scientific study of other worlds and the likes?

>Tell them to get off their asses and do something useful.

Which affirms my original statement of:
>The next guy will come in and come up with a different plan.

The only way for a viable long term spacecraft goal to come out of NASA is if multiple presidents lock in and commit to a long term goal without coming in and interjecting their own ideas each time they come into office. This has been a common occurrence since Nixon came in and it needs to stop in order for NASA to gainfully advance.

>>3772706

Not needed, and will swallow billions that would be better invested in building actual payloads for chronically launch-starved private rockets (both existing and upcoming heavy derivatives).

Its a jobs program. The real progress will be made not by building bigger rockets, but cheaper rockets.

>>3775000

Not Needed? a super heavy lift is just about the only thing we need right now

>>3775007

For what exactly do we need 130 tons? Every mission imaginable can be done with 50 tons max.

>>3775019
Damn, that's one small imagination.

>>3775019

BA-330 and BA-2100's come to mind

>>3774964
Ron paul actually supports NASA. They provide a competitive edge to USA against other countries, not to mention their work on national defense.

>>3775033

BA-330 is 20 tons. BA-2100 is not needed, and 50 tons can get you BA-1500, which is enough for everything.

>>3775044

The BA-2100 will be needed, especially when you want to move raw material around the solar system

>>3775044
>be dishonest
>"See, this is why I'm right"
>get ignored forever

>>3775043
To quote:
>"When Ron Paul becomes president you can guarantee NASA will be canned completely, Or he will see the value in having NASA and increase and tell them to get off their asses"

So in reality that statement was pulled from your ass.

The point remains though, that Paul has no chances of ever getting elected People like populist presidents. Which is why people like Paul (Who shouldn't get elected based entirely upon his intents to allow ID to be taught in schools alone. Though "End the FED and income taxes" were sheer oratory genius.)

The question remains:
Will he try steering NASA in a different direction, cancelling the previous administrations goals, and implementing his own that will be cancelled by the next administration?

Because this is a problem and it needs to be stopped more than anything else.

>>3775051

No, strapping two BA-1500 together is more effective than developing a new superheavy lift for countless billions. And please, keep it realistic, I am talking about missions doable in next few decades.

>>3775052

What?

>>3775065

You're going to cram a good size LFTR into a BA-1500?

>>3775110

Absolutely. But why the hell would I want to have it inside a bigelow module in the first place?

>>3775125

What else are you going to put it in

>>3775127

uhm.. attached to some truss, probably as far away from habitat module as possible? It is not USS Enterprise.

>>3775141

And waste the time on an EVA when you could have walked over to it in the comfort and safety of a BA-2100

>>3772793
> it's really like we're taking a step backwards here

Of course. It's not like the military-industrial complex wants what you want for space goals. All the MIC wants is billions in free cash. Sending people off and -- most to the point -- out of range of the tax man, is NOT THE GOAL of the MIC and the government that it steals money from.

I sure wish the stupid fucking yuppies on /sci/ would stop believing that that government is somehow their friend.

Anyone needs more proof that NASA is just a big smoke screen for public ?

I am sure you have heard of flying black triangles, TR-3b, man made, but if US left this technology go public it would go hand in hand with losing all money from oil.

So do they value more hundred people on mars or trillions from selling crude oil ?

As long as oil has any value, you will not see the space with your own eyes.

>>3775230
>>3775214
>Conspiracy theorists from Alex Jones site.

You must be new here....

In order to be substantiated, you are required to post your sources (No news links) and lay out a cogent case.


Seriously, what the hell is up with the conspiracy theorists pouring in this time around?

>>3772740

YAAAY

We're ALMOST back to 1967 technology!

>>3775280

>denying the existence of TR-3b

How stupid can you be?

>>3775280
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0oLJNfs_rM

If only one of those hundred retired officials is not lying, it means that we have the technology to go beyond LEO cheaply and reusably.

Do you really think nothing has change in technology since 69 ?

>>3775298

So it looks the same therefore it is the same?

>>3775309
>same fuel
>same structure
>same lift
>bit more fancy capsule with LCD monitors

>>3775311

The Shuttle was a step back form 1960's technology

>>3775301
I think you should check yourself right now. I'm not saying it is too expensive to go beyond LEO. In fact, with modifications to existing vehicles with very low budgetary turnovers it is quite simple.

What I have a gripe with is the whole "Oh the Military Industrial compex is doing X" line of logic.

And for you to understand that, you have to understand a few things about HOW the space programs work in the U.S.
Mil applications are launched through private means on canaveral Air force base. They have their own ground crews and everything.

This can be shown by referencing publicly available documents and by asking a simple question.

Atlas V Delta IV and so on are made by private contractors and if you have the money you can get your own stuff up there utilizing one of those types of vehicles (Though...it will be expensive)

So check yourself and stop making up a strawman.

>>3775300
Got any actual evidence of its existence? Maybe some video of it flying? Schematics and blueprints?
Documentation?

Thought not. So far nobody has been able to prove this urban legend from the 80s and highlighted in a demon haunted world, despite all the brand new aircraft which have come out of 51s R&D.
(I'm looking at you F-117, F-22, and F-35.)

>>3775300
On a lighter note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-3B

It's a nice car though lol!

>>3775330
Are there blueprints of that new military shuttle craft ? No ?! God damn it does not exist !

>>3775341
No there isn't but there is plenty of video, pictures, telemetry and ground sightings as it's orbit passed overhead. Which is EVIDENCE.

Which is the important point to make here.
Evidence.
Otherwise, you are making a baseless assertion that has no hard documentation.

This for example:

>>3775358
Well we have some photos and radar confirmations and retired military personnel that claims to have done various things with this craft

You cant expect more from classified project

>>3775365
No what you have is a crank trying to get by.

You do not have any way of saying "This is of extra-terrestrial origin and there is no other logical explanation of it."

If we were being visited by UFOs and these were unmistakable signs (Radar signatures) that they were not terrestrial, it would be the biggest thing ever. It wouldn't be covered up at all. people would LOVE it. Look at the excitement over SETI announcements, or the uptick in interest following extra-solar worlds being found. It follows logically that UFOs existence wouldn't be covered up. If they were, then you wouldn't be hearing all about new worlds being discovered every week.

Also, as a little side note, there is a reason testimony is not often considered as infallible evidence:
Perceptions can be altered, biases can be introduced, and "facts" can be misremembered.

And yes, I do think that there is extra-terrestrial life out there. But this Universe is 14 Billion light years across. What interest could they possibly have in us? A primitive warring world who stands on the edge of oblivion and forever? A race advanced enough would have no interest in our resources or even us.
So this falls into a self congratulatory chauvinism "We are important! We are being visited"
Are we truly this vain?

>>3775365
Finally,

If this is a wonder craft (Like the 117 and 22, and not so much like the 35... a waste of money), why is it still classified? Certainly a powerful weapon like this would be in use by now?
I mean, within the last 6 years alone we have introduced Predator drones into the mix and 10 years ago they were still in conceptual phases.

So what's the hold up? Why have a super top secret project 30 years old now not in use? In another 5 years, all statutes of classification run out on it, Yet the F-22 was developed in the 90s and is in wide use.

This seems in any light, to be a big inconsistancy and follows in opposition to what is obvious about how vehicles go from testing to use.
Why this one project?

These grounds alone render the entire argument pointless.
To quote good ole spock:
"That shit ain't logical"

>>3775396
Well if you want to go down that deep in conspiracy, many claimed ex-military scientists claim one thing

That evolution of Neanderthal man was altered as an experiment and we were genetically engineered as an humanoid/alien hybrid.

That could be one thing, another thing is that chile, england, and many others disclosed many ufo files filled by pilots confirmed by radars, if you wish, you can look up hundreds of these.

There is no doubt that we have flying things over our heads that is unidentified, is confirmed by radar, can fly at several mach speeds and can hover.

All it lefts us are these options:

Aliens
Man made craft

The first one would left us with histeria, they probably watched us for years and would complete historic records. That means no Jesus, no Krishna, no God. Religiousfag butthurt nations would collapse and sudden new technology would create monopoly of certain companies and would make many counties obsolete because of old technology they manufacture.
Oil dependent nations would collapse too.

If it is man made, it would just mean no oil money and pretty much the previous column

>>3775429
>That evolution of Neanderthal man was altered as an experiment and we were genetically engineered as an humanoid/alien hybrid.

And yet, there is but a 1% difference in DNA and base pairs are not of extraterrestrial origin. Thus discounting your theory.

>There is no doubt that we have flying things over our heads that is unidentified, is confirmed by radar, can fly at several mach speeds and can hover.

All it lefts us are these options:

>Aliens
>Man made craft

Ever hear of LEO satellites?

Does it never strike you as peculiar that astronomers are rarely if ever part of the UFO community?

One would think that they would be the first to recognize something that is clearly not of this world. They spend all their time looking up after all.

Everything else you said is a bare faced assertion and follows from your earlier assertion which alone speaks for your argument. Instead of approaching a matter skeptically you have bought into woo.

I do not dislike you for that. I just ask you remain skeptical.
Do come back and let us know if you ever change your views.
I recommend you start out with "A demon haunted world" by Carl Sagan.
It is available as a pdf file and a delightful read.

Good luck and I hope you learn to be more skeptical of the views people present to you. Because so far, the views you have offered tend to have almost no evidence beyond anecdote and misinterpretation to support them.

>>3775471
I am skeptical in nature. I just watched too many UFO videos.

Your main claim is that every UFO is either Venus or LEO satellite, yet they are visible on radar and visually confirmed by pilots that state so in hundreds of papers from british/chile disclosure ? Nigga please...

>>3775490
Just because a flying object is unidentified doesn't imply it's of extraterrestrial origin.

Your logic is a flawless example of argument from ignorance.

>Your main claim is that every UFO is either Venus or LEO satellite, yet they are visible on radar and visually confirmed by pilots that state so in hundreds of papers from british/chile disclosure ? Nigga please...

Nice strawman. I actually only said LEO.
And satellites can be tracked utilizing Radar and have been mistaken as UFOs by pilots.

So I say to you:
So what?

You rely heavily on anecdote despite knowing full well that anecdote is useless in proving something and arguments from authority (pilots maaaan) are equally useless as they carry 0 weight.

Anyways, I gotta catch some sleep. Go read the book I recommended in the meantime. You will find /sci/ is not the place to discuss these things.
You could try /x/ though. They buy into everything.

>>3775515
I never claimed that they are ET god dammit.

For implication refer to my previous post
>>3775429

>>3775429
Yup.

These are likely highly classified military aircraft of either an operational or research nature.

The reasons for keeping them secret could be numerous:
Technology(ies) used could violate some international treaties
We wish to keep these aircraft secret from our enemies
We're embarrassed about exactly how much money we've spent on the project, so we keep it secret

All of these are more reasonable explanations than that some extraterrestrial intelligence crossed the vast distances of space just to fuck with us by doing flybys.

>>3775522
I understand you are heavily influenced by that nigga guy Neil Tyson, yet statistic is on my side, if any of those sightings are true, even one, it means we can go to space at price of a ticket from london to tokyo, or aliumz exists

>>3775546
I'm more influenced by Carl Sagan than Degrasse Tyson to be honest.

And if even one of those reports is found to be of alien visitation there would be a major shift because then we could say:
"We are not alone, others are out there and they made it through their technological infancy"

And actually, statistics are VERY against you.
L2 the Drake equation.

>>3775575
>implying the variables of the drake equation are correct and we have them

>>3775575
Now you are being strawman, we have no idea how much earthlike exoplanets are in space and no idea how hard for life is to evolve and no idea what are the odds of it becoming intelligent.

My argument refers to hundreds of sightings each day and many ex-military testimonies.

Only one true case out of million can matter.

And that means NASA is smokescreen, which was our original debating point, or we are visited

>>3775601
>Now you are being strawman, we have no idea how much earthlike exoplanets are in space and no idea how hard for life is to evolve and no idea what are the odds of it becoming intelligent.

I don't think you understand what a strawman logical fallacy is...

>My argument refers to hundreds of sightings each day and many ex-military testimonies.

And mine is that each of those sightings could be anything and are always mundane and never out of the ordinary and utterly useless due to them being anecdote and arguments from authority.

>Only one true case out of million can matter.

And yet not one case has turned out to be extra-terrestrial in origin yet.

>And that means NASA is smokescreen, which was our original debating point, or we are visited

And you are still wrong there because Alien visitation does not imply government complicity.
NASA has helped to advance modern technology through innovation and exploration. Aliens didn't take Voyager out to the very edge of the heliosheath and it didn't land rovers on Mars. If aliens did visit earth that doesn't mean that they would be able to give us their technology. We have advance on our own even if we are being visited. Otherwise, we would never get anywhere because we would not take the time to develop the discipline needed to grow as a species to maturely handle the technological growth we have exacted.

Thus, your argument proves Nothing at all.

You know what the really sad thing is? That in 2040 AD, pissants like the proponents here on 4chan will just be arguing using the same issues when the SLS is junked (having blown through billions) in favor of a Shuttle variant. It's just a cycle and it's designed to go nowhere for decades, in order to pay off the rich industrialists.

The military-industrial complex has been ripping off the U.S. taxpayer for decades. And the MIC is here, on earth. So it has ZERO motivation to ever form a space-based infrastructure (ie. spacefaring civilization). After all, you can't control people who can get away from you completely with a little bit of delta-v.

The really annoying thing about all this is that people actually believe that private efforts will get anywhere. All those efforts are geared towards government (which I already explained has no interest in providing citizens with the means to escape it) or rich people. Rich people aren't a source of market expansion. I have to correct stupid yuppie assholes on that singular fact again and again. It's like religion for yuppies, to believe that marketing to the rich somehow produces a market later on that has wide subscription.

>>3775627
>Herewegoagain.jpg