/sci/ - Science & Math

Don't forget to sign the petition.
http://penny4nasa.org/Penny4NASA/Home.html

>>4587226
done

So, have you guys ever looked into how NASA actually spend their money? ....or do you just assume that increasing the budget will get us to mars, because throwing money at shit = progress?

>>4587293
They are a scientific organization. Their finances always look like a mess. In science money always looks like it's being wasted, but if you've ever actually worked in a research lab you would know that money is always tight and half the work is making your tools do something that was never intended.

Bumping for pennies

>>4587400
Actually, Feynman did a paper about that shuttle blowing up where he explained that a lot of NASA is useless spending.

For the money we spend on re-usable shuttles we could do ton of disposable ones, but we spend the mooney just so we can say we have one.

>>4587794
Well we ain't got dick-all now

>>4587814
we'll see on April 30

and in a few years, Dragon Rider, Dream Chaser, CST-100, and Blue Origin will carry crew

Space times are good.

>>4587943

It's a fucking Apollo module. We're going back in fucking time or something. The Space Shuttle should have been succeeded with SSTO and you fucking well KNOW IT.

Like NASA, you just GAVE UP and now you make fucking excuses. Pathetic.

The music in that video really struck home, the emotions....

>>4587985
The space shuttle is a failure at its intent of cost savings and is the bastard child of a political compromise between a spaceship that could explore the solar system and a ferry for low-earth orbit cargo.

It blew up twice.
Now fuck off.

Be bold.

>>4588012

Sorry, I made a typo. I should have said that the Space Shuttle should have been succeeded BY the SSTO type of craft. Hence, Single-Stage-to-Orbit should have been the next step.

But no, we went FULL GAY and elected to return to the hugely wasteful and utterly pointless Apollo Era.

>>4588050
You are right, because a light, compact, and powerful propulsion system already exists for an SSTO to succeed.

NASA should run on donations, get out of my pocket Tyson. I'm a computer scientist, and I would be willing to donate some money, but I am also a libertarian and think it is wrong to force people to pay for things.

>>4588050
By which mechanism of conveyance do you suggest we get into orbit with in one single stage?

>>4587985
>SSTO
Hahahahaha

SSTO is a nice concept but it's very hard to do outside of Star Wars. Space travel's main limitation right now is cost. SpaceX will be able to launch humans into orbit vastly cheaper than NASA or the Russians can using their "Apollo-like" module.

Oh wait, Apollo modules didn't land using fucking rockets.
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0&cat=recent

>>4588088

The Delta Clipper project was going along nicely, before NASA took it over and buried it.

At any rate, if SSTO is not pursued, then logically the lift profile should have split between Shuttle-derived stacks. One would be the heavy lifter (100tn to LEO), and the other would have glorified X-15s attached to the stack. We use personal cars and cargo trucks in the same way, to model that profile.

But no, no, NASA is going back in time to some Apollo-esque crapshit. We're fucked. Another 20 years of a serious mistake.

It's time to bust up NASA and auction the pieces off to the highest bidders. It's worthless; even its shining jewel, the Deep Space Network, is fucking useless since we're not using it with any intention of putting Humans into space.

>>4588117
The Delta Clipper wasn't going anywhere. It was a test bed for the concept of vertical take off and landing (which, by the way, SpaceX is well on their way to implementing as you would've known if you read my previous post >>4588104)

They never got around the problem of weight and fuel, which is the biggest issue with SSTO.
Say you have a 100 ton rocket; to get the whole thing to orbit, you have to lift 100 tons the entire way.
With multiple stages, you can carry a greater payload because you carry 70 tons half the way and drop it, then drop another 20 tons 3/4 the way up.

This is simple physics. SSTO will not be feasible through traditional rockets unless a significant advance in rocket technology is made. Air-breathing engines are one possible example, see the Skylon. But this is still years off.

>Apollo-esque crapshit
Hurrrr, just because it doesn't look like an X-Wing doesn't mean it's crap. The aeroshell design is a damn efficient means of getting in and out of space. Sure, the shuttle looked cool, but it cost millions each launch to replace all those heat-proof tiles on it. With the aeroshell you just replace one piece.

SpaceX's design gives us all the benefits of SSTO as well as the superior payload capacity of a traditional multistage rocket. Just because it superficially looks like what we had before the shuttle isn't a rational reason to dismiss it. Sometimes the best solution isn't the coolest looking one.

>people against space exploration consider themselves realists
>people against space exploration consider people for it to be idealist dreamers with no concept of economics
>people for space exploration continue to appeal to emotion
>people for space exploration continue to not give examples of what consumer technology came out of the space program

Stop trying to make them cry. They don't care. Their not going to break down and hand over money because of a sappy montage on youtube. Throw reality at them and watch them squirm as they try to justify not funding the only positive future we have because some republican asshats want to piss on Kennedy's legacy and science.

>>4587943
Speaking of spaceX, Elon Musk is a bad ass. I'm surprised that I can't find any claims of him being the antichrist. Paypal was originally X.com. SpaceX. and I'm sure there is an X worked into Tesla motors somewhere. XXX seems in the realm of 666, but maybe I should be posting this in /x/

>This thread should show up here every day.
Yes because the
But moneys
But science
But moneys
But science
...
Never gets old
/Also this is a science board so the But moneys fags can go and fuck themselves.

You'll be hard pressed to convince consumers good technology comes from space science, the only thing they can remotely associate (and probably aknowledge) is teflon non-stick pans, and tbh thats a pretty shitty technology.

They're not non-stick at all unless you put oil or butter in them, try to scramble a few eggs without oil, see how much you like scraping dat teflon to even eat half of the meal.