/sci/ - Science & Math

It is like scraps being thrown to stray dogs.

This is what NASA is now.

I find it more worrying that the NRO has moved onto 'bigger and better instruments' to spy on us.
Privacy is dead.
But then, it has been for years.

I think they should hold some sort of competiton (if they aren't already) in which the public chooses on a use, and if NASA see it as doable, and it doesn't breach some pre-set terms e.g. must be science related, can't use to spy or hurt people, they choose it.

This story is a year old.
The issue is that the "telescopes" are missing most of the equipment needed to be useful, equipping and launching just one would cost in excess of a billion dollars likely much more, the units handed over by the NRO are only worth 250 million dollars each. NASA don't have the money to use either of them until the end of the decade so a launch before 2024 is unlikely.

>>5576596
How much did the recent rover cost to build and launch?

Nasa is criplled by burocracy and congressmen who believe the world is 10 k years old after von braun's death and the fall of soviet union. NASA was never created to explore ou system or uncover the secrets of the universe, that is just a by-product. It was created to scare communists. (Wich didn't happen by the way.)

>>5576601
2.5 billion. That was budgeted and room in the budget was made for it, there is no room for this.

>>5576610
Which would you rather have?

Another rover or Hubble 2.0?
I hear people are limited on how long they can use it, before they have to let another person use it.

If we were to launch both with the James Webb, alot more deep space discoveries could be made.

>>5576621
It's not about what you want it's about what is possible. The mars program and the planetary science program do not share budgets with astrophysics, central government gives the budget to each section who then pick their programs subject to approval from government.

Room was made for a new rover at the cost of other planetary science programs, there was room for it. There is no room in astrophysics after the JWST melt down. Until it is safely launched no one will be going to congress to ask for another chance to fuck everything up. So there is no room in the existing budget and NASA won't ask for more until after JWST is launched at which point there will be room.

These telescopes will not be Hubble 2.0, the science is totally different, these are wide field instruments and will be used for surveys.

>I hear people are limited on how long they can use it, before they have to let another person use it.
People don't get to "use" it. The spacecraft is operated solely by the ops team.

>If we were to launch both with the James Webb
I don't know if you mean at the same time or in the same rocket but neither can happen. There is no room in the budget for this right now. They do not have overlapping science goals so there is little to loose in launching it later. It can't happen.

>>5576621
It's not how it works. The real questions is if you are willing to do not buy 2 tanks and send humans to toher planets and help mankind to unify.

>>5576648
in other words "nasa does not have the money, and congress doesn't want to give it"

bill gates needs to spend a couple hundred million on a "save nasa" campaign already instead of trying to kill mosquitos in africa

>>5576754
you dont understand how the flow and generation of money works, do you?

This remimds me about a math professor me and my dad met in a party.
Apparently he worked for the secret government program StarWars in a orbiting laser weapon that could focus a beam to a target on earth. He said that the focusing mirrors had been made and were sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
Do t know if it's real but it was an interesting talk.

>>5576754
NASA doesn't have the money because of their failings. JWST has had many problems but many of them can attributed to internal failings.
It's not that congress have said no it's that NASA aren't willing to ask. Say congress say yes and in 3 years the budget doubles and congress not only cut funding to the new project but to JWST as well.

Bill Gates earned his money and can spend it how he likes. If you want change devote your own time and money. As a quick tip, if you ever want to make the case for science and space funding never mention real charitable causes like malaria. It's not an either/or situation and if you put the two together NASA will loose support. Make the case for more science funding not cuts elsewhere.

NASA is defunct and for decades it has contributed to nothing but national debt. It needs seriously streamlining

>Let's just leave one sitting around until at least 2020, so it can become obsolete and irrelevant.

God damn, people. I hate NASA.

I'd understand if they said, "You know, it's launching them that's the expensive part. We didn't budget for this, so we'll just hang on to them until we can send them up for cheap as a secondary payload on a Falcon Heavy or something."

>>5576808
except all the stuff that it contributes, some of it continuously since long time ago?

>>5576817
>let's spend billions so a $250 million part doesn't become obsolete

>>5576817
It's not just launching them. They don't have instruments and they don't have buses. All this will cost at least 500 million to a billion likely more for one telescope. Then there is a massive testing regime and years of support which will run into hundreds of millions.
This can't really be a secondary payload, it will likely fill the fairing and is going to an orbit that no other spacecraft will fly to for years.

These spacecraft aren't going anywhere and they are not becoming obsolete.

>>5576825
Mostly, it has contributed obstruction of private spaceflight.

For decades, the line on private spaceflight had been "Yeah, we could do it, if we didn't have to deal with NASA."

SpaceX happened about as early as it could possibly have been allowed to happen, due to government agencies and military contractors having a poorer and poorer reputation at orbital launch, and increasing political pressure to let someone make actual progress in cost effectiveness.

>>5576840
SpaceX only happened in a big way because they got an enormous grant and contract from NASA to build falcon 9 and dragon for ISS resupply.

NASA were never the ones obstructing anything. They are a small player in just the US launch market never mind the international one.

>>5576837
>All this will cost at least 500 million to a billion likely more for one telescope. Then there is a massive testing regime and years of support which will run into hundreds of millions.
Only because it's NASA.

They got the things for free. They don't have to approach this like it's a new project and they have to squeeze every penny of value out of it. They can just put them up at minimal cost, accept a reasonable risk of failure, and get them doing some kind of work.

>they are not becoming obsolete.
Sure, just like the shuttle didn't become obsolete.

Technology moves quickly. If you don't move quickly, as NASA doesn't, you end up doing some extremely silly things. Projects need to be started and finished quickly, before science marches on and your original idea no longer makes sense.

These things didn't get launched because they were, in fact, already obsolete. It was already more cost-effective to make new ones out of lighter materials and with superior instruments than to launch these.

This stuff is surplus junk, and they need to be looking at the cheapest way to get some value out of it rather than thinking of making huge investments.

>>5576860
>SpaceX only happened in a big way because they got an enormous grant and contract from NASA to build falcon 9 and dragon for ISS resupply.
This is bullshit.

When NASA wasn't permitted to stomp SpaceX out, they realized they had to do something so they could claim to be a part of what they're doing and get some credit. SpaceX could have had commercial customers easily enough.

NASA is, unquestionably, the reason that the Dragon was developed so early, but they deserve no credit for the Falcon 9 except for grudgingly letting it happen.

Look at NASA's ridiculous spin on their relationship with SpaceX. They're trying to claim that orbital launch is now a trivial chore, while NASA's launch capabilities are aimed at breaking new ground.

In fact, NASA's other launch system work is pedestrian and pointless, while SpaceX is doing revolutionary work. Orbital launch is actually about 99% of the problem of doing things in space. Expansion of space activities hinges on orbital launch cost-effectiveness.

>>5576872
Your definition of value is low science return and do it quick. The science community idea of value is high science return and wait. They might be free but you can still waste an opportunity.
The astronomy community wants a telescope to explore the expansion of the universe now dubbed WFIRST. This is the most likely candidate for one of these telescope. Now NASA could launch one telescope at a cost of 400 million with poor instrumentation and a cheap bus, this would completely ruin the performance of the telescope and it could not meet the goals of WFIRST. Now NASA must replace the telescope at a cost of say 300 million because things get more expensive but to save money it is smaller just like WFIRST intended. The telescope assembly will still cost a couple hundred million dollars. Now not only has NASA had to pay to replace the telescope but they had to pay to launch the other one which did not provide a good return.
This is why it makes sense to wait. If they didn't waste money sending the first telescope and replacing the telescope assembly another mission cold have been done.

>Sure, just like the shuttle didn't become obsolete.
You're comparing apples to oranges. It's a set of mirrors it's not getting outdated. In fact it's already outdated in it's construction because it's heavy but launching faster won't change that. There are no computers or detectors that are getting outdated because it doesn't have them.

>Projects need to be started and finished quickly, before science marches on and your original idea no longer makes sense.
Telescopes and more importantly instruments take decade to build, you can't change that. You don't build missions for science questions that have only been around a few years. You don't build missions on hunches so that the science cannot vanish.

It is not junk. It needs to be used to reduce future costs not incur more.

>>5576921
>Now NASA could launch one telescope at a cost of 400 million with poor instrumentation and a cheap bus
>Telescopes and more importantly instruments take decade to build, you can't change that.

You're just wrong. The way NASA does things is not the best way. They're incredibly inefficient. They do get a small amount of work done with their enormous amounts of money, but history will remember them as a general waste of resources, a laughable chapter of human ineptitude in spaceflight.

It's not "you can't change that". It is, in fact, possible to stop horribly mismanaging things.

>>5576766
i understand half of one penny on every tax dollar per year
i understand healthcare (in various forms), the public school system, and the military are the absolute lion's share of the budget (and debt)

>>5576903
>When NASA wasn't permitted to stomp SpaceX out
NASA has never competed in the commercial market since challenger. They were never competing.

>SpaceX could have had commercial customers easily enough.
No, in 2006 when SpaceX were awarded COTS 1 they had 1 failed launch of a falcon 1 under their belts.

>NASA is, unquestionably, the reason that the Dragon was developed so early, but they deserve no credit for the Falcon 9 except for grudgingly letting it happen.
Bullshit. NASA gave money though COTS 1 and CCDEV for falcon 9 and dragon.

>They're trying to claim that orbital launch is now a trivial chore, while NASA's launch capabilities are aimed at breaking new ground.
>When NASA wasn't permitted to stomp SpaceX out, they realized they had to do something so they could claim to be a part of what they're doing and get some credit.
>NASA's other launch system work is pedestrian and pointless, while SpaceX is doing revolutionary work.
Where are you getting this nonsense from? It's all just opinion and rumor you can't back up.

>Orbital launch is actually about 99% of the problem of doing things in space.
More opinion.

>>5576957
>>When NASA wasn't permitted to stomp SpaceX out
>NASA has never competed in the commercial market since challenger. They were never competing.
They were always involved in regulation. They had a completely infeasible set of safety requirements for any launch vehicle and just bent the rules for themselves and their closest contractor buddies.

The political situation had to change for something like SpaceX to emerge. It was just not permitted before.

>>5576938
>You're just wrong.
You're just claiming that things can be done super cheap, they can't. Today a launcher will cost 200 million dollars, if falcon heavy comes that will be 150 million. Now you have 200-250 million to build detectors and a spacecraft, that's very little money for these things. NASA isn't the only player in this market.

>It's not "you can't change that". It is, in fact, possible to stop horribly mismanaging things.
Mismanagement is different from development. Normal development takes that long.

All you're doing is claiming it can be done cheaper and better but you don't give any evidence or insight. There are dozens of manufactures and agencies out there who all want the cheapest product the fastest but they want it done right.

>>5576969
>They were always involved in regulation. They had a completely infeasible set of safety requirements for any launch vehicle and just bent the rules for themselves and their closest contractor buddies.
A claim that size requires some evidence.

>>5576974
It's a fairly well-known thing to anyone who hasn't just been reading NASA's propaganda.

I'm not sure where to start. It's like I said "Government is inefficient when it takes over stuff from private industry." and someone asked for proof.

I guess here's something for you:
http://www.chris-winter.com/Erudition/Reviews/G_Klerkx/Space_Lost.html

>>5576998
>It's a fairly well-known thing
And yet you can't cite it. That link provides no evidence of any wrong doing. The three points it makes are half baked. The Mir thing is conjecture, it was not really a private company and there is no evidence provided NASA were a deciding force. There is no evidence given that the end of the space construction facility was malicious. DC-X was a project between McDonnell Douglas and the DOD it was not private. The prototype was squired to continue testing and there is no evidence the X-33 competition was unfairly awarded to Lockheed.

Where is the evidence of them fixing regulations?

>>5577029
>prototype was acquired*

>>5576784
>Apparently he worked for the secret government program StarWars in a orbiting laser weapon that could focus a beam to a target on earth. He said that the focusing mirrors had been made and were sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

That was likely the project excalibur, a nuclear pumped x-ray laser. Project was allegedly scrapped when after some tests it was deemed that 'current' technology and materials (circa 1980's) were insufficient for the completion of the project.

Or was this a cover story?

but this has been in the news already a year ago or so

>>5577060
the star wars program was actually kind of cool, and was a unique peace-oriented use for nuclear weapons (a nuclear weapon was used to prime and fire the laser, it would instantly vaporize an ICBM at the top of its ascent arc, but wouldn't be able to penetrate the atmosphere.

most of the objections to star wars at the time seemed to be "Reagan made it, i hate it"

>>5577383
Those were not the reasons SDI was criticised. It threatened treaties and lead to the stalemate at Reykjavík, there would be far fewer warheads if it was abandoned earlier. It could never hold back an all out attack.

>>5577418

Who says not many existing nuclear warheads could be modified as nuclear directed energy weapons and give ground based defenses at least a little chance of intercepting the remaining icbm's coming at them.

>>5577418

Who says not many existing nuclear warheads could be modified as nuclear directed energy weapons and give ground based defenses at least a little chance of intercepting the remaining icbm's coming at them? Besides, project excalibur would've in it's completion, been capable of pre-targeting and intercepting several warheads at the time.

>>5576808
>contributed to nothing but national debt
ha ha ha, no! for every dollar spent on NASA the Government receives 5 dollars in revenue. if anything more money in NASA would reduce the national debt

bump for cool thread.

How should we reform nasa?