/sci/ - Science & Math

Obligatory
>"It's just a theory"

>why not let technology give every earthling his/her own spaceship and the problems are over

>>6235806
Go away.

>>6235806
do you actually believe they drive flaming dump trucks of cash into outer space?

>>6235814
musta been a college grad that made that sign

>Pop-Sci kids not showing me the math behind stuff they're interested in.
>They still believe they understand it better than I do.

>>6235815

Yes.

>>6235809

Head on over to /x/ for loads of that.

>>6235806
Considering that what American citizens spend on chapstick in one year is more than the entire budget of the Apollo program. Yeah, I'm sure that space money could have solved a lot more problems here on earth.

>>6235806
Shit like this

i personally think we should divert space funds into genetics and cybernetics. I wanna see what happens when we make a hyper intelligent human, hopefully they wouldn't go into an introverted shell or kill themselves or something.

>>6235909
What space funds? Very little is spent on space exploration. NASA's budget is a pittance.

>>6235909

>divert space funds

hurr

Yeah let's take the minuscule space spending, but keep up with the pointless trillion dollar military spending and luxury bullshit for the top class!

>>6235908

My oh my, I wonder how they came about this information.

>>6235913
Our volunteer military creates sizable economic and social benefits for the lower classes.

>>6235914
They learned about it in a "how to make up silly bullshit" book.

>Wouldn't the money be better spent curing disease?

>>6235911
That's still a lot of money.

>>6235953

Damn, I can't believe she's only 16
>still legal tho amirite?

>Why do people kill other people to show that killing people is wrong?

>>6235806
>We should put money into helping people with autism rather than into silly things like physics
Was actually told this in 6th grade by someone, can't remember who though

>>6235969

When you're talking about how innovation comes about, have you ever asked yourself how it generally happens?

When it comes in bulk, it's generally when conditions are dangerous or so different that inventions and discovery come hand-in-hand. You don't generate creativity by venturing into the known and comfortable in terms of the mind or physical nature.

You have to push the boundary of these things and it takes the incredibly smart individuals to come up with a solution. What's more dangerous and unknown than space travel? It's inevitable that doing something so rigorous will net countless advancements of technology, economy, culture, etc.

If you have doubts, all you have to do is look in the past. When man had to survive the wild with limited physicality in the natural order, he had to invent countless things to accommodate survival. When you collected into civilizations and had to venture into vast oceans and other strange lands, there had to also be more inventions and important discoveries to substantiate that. There's honestly too many to list.

When you collect the greatest mind current civilization has to offer in order to challenge the face the unknown and dangerous, something has to give.

>most evidence supports a certain thing
>"but anon, some scientists say X"

So what? Scientists are human and can make errors or be biased, it's about what the evidence is not opinions.

>>6235929

Perhaps if the spending and jobs were shifted to science and space exploration, it would create sizable economic and social benefits for the lower classes as well.

>>6235806
sometimes you got to look the problem with a simplistic point of view. If we can take the problems on Earth and ship them into the space, then we got no more problems on Earth.

>climatologists are pushing a green liberal agenda, there is no global warming! oil and coal investors said so!

>>6235914
>It is known.

>>6235806
>we have problems on Earth to solve with military spending
How's that working for you, Anon?

>People and the mass media use the term "organic"
>They have no idea what it means

>>6235809
i had a moron on /pol/ that told me we didnt have proof the earth was round and that it was just a "theory"

>>6236353
>moron on /pol/
isn't that a tautology?

>>6235959
Not for a space program.
Especially not enough as it deserves.

What needs to be downgraded it's the fucking military budget.

>>6235806

Point of order: It's not that space sciences and exploration is a waste when you compare the spending to more Earthy problems. The space sciences and exploration scam is a 100% pure waste since it will never result in colonization.

Never ever. There's no acceptable economic model that permits it.

>>6236475
"Heavier than air flight will never happen."
-Lord Kelvin

Never is a long time

There is a point where diverting away from space funds just saturates other research fields. People need to start thinking about decisions at the margins, and not look at the system in terms of totals. It is really just basic budget making...

>>6236415
>The war economy country.
>Cutting military budgets.
Good luck with that.

>>6236637
>birds are lighter than air

>>6235806
Why not fund both?

>>6235814
Oh my god hahahahaha how do people not know there Roman Numerals by now!

>>6236475

A lot of the modern inventions are a direct spinoff of space technology. Satellite communication being the most prevalent. : P

add these to the rage list then.
>never
>impossible
>can't
>it's just [stupid uneducated opinion]

>>6235806
>implying space sciences hasn't lead to discoveries that benefited earth sciences and problems.
>implying energy efficient CFL and LED lights weren't developed from research started by NASA
>implying red tide tracking wasn't made possible by space scientists
>implying so, so, so much more that's wrong

>>6237010
How do people not know the simple differences between there, their, ans they're by now?

>>6235908
shit like your image

>Drake equation implies existence of aliens

I know when it's posted on /sci/, it's a troll. But I've seen people on /x/ who actually believed that shit. Made me cringe.

>>6237020

The spinoff myth is precisely that. It's a tiny return found with the massive losses of the space investment. It's like saying you're OK with burning piles and piles of $100 bills because a few of them will end up fluttering away unburnt in the heat of the conflagration to land in the yard of some welfare person.

>the cat is in superposition

>free will doesn't exist

>Smarter aliens will find us first
>Dumber aliens will have no use other than the fact they might be war-hungry
>It's already painfully obvious that we will never actually contact aliens

>>6236353
Did you see it with your own eyes?

>>6237076
>If aliens don't exist we will be searching for them for eternity because we can't actually prove there's no other life than on earth

Why isn't all the money going into quantum computers which can in turn crunch all the data about a billion times more efficiently?

>>6237082
Go to bed Rene

>>6237110
Why so gullible?

If we don't spend money on space programs or physics then humanity is stuck at this point.

I doubt we have reached a point where everyone can have a perfect life, and no amount of money will reverse that.

To stop science is to stop the progress of humanity, then what's the point?

>>6237163
But that's wrong, you uneducated dumbfuck. Space travel is not the only frontier of scientific progress and it is by far not the most important one. Go jerk off to sci fi movies somewhere else and don't come back until you are more familiar with science than occasionally abusing that word in reference to your childish daydreams.

>>6237174
I didn't said that, I don't think I don't even disagree with you.

>>6235809
A GAME THEORY
THANKS FOR WATCHING

>>6237051

Drake equation implies very probable existence of aliens. You're making me cringe, anon.

>>6237390
What numbers are you plugging in?

>>6237174

Is this bait or are you just a reactionary retard? Way to put words in his mouth, you uneducated dumbfuck.

>>6237062
That's complete horseshit. Take the UK, space agency funding: 250 million pounds, space industry: 9 billion annually. The space industry is worth vastly more than space research spending.

>>6236726
US Marine here. If we got our budget cut, we would literally be fighting with completely outdated shit weapons and equipment. Seriously. Fuckin Army takes all the funding.

>>6236415
It's too fucking much for NASA, and much more than NASA deserves.

Look, if you threw money at NASA, they'd spend it on shit like the space shuttle: a launch vehicle that cost more and did less than what they had when they started, which they then operated for decades with minimal improvements, and the ISS: a space station which is basically just a can for a few people to hang out in while their health deteriorates from low gravity and radiation.

If you increased their budget tenfold, they'd probably spend it all on a plan for a flag-planting Mars mission... which they'd intend to launch thirty years later, but which would still not actually have launched fifty years later.

Fuck NASA. Seriously.

>>6237413
or you could...I don't know, stop paying for soldiers in every fucking country

>>6237073
It doesn't

>>6237430
>Japan
Why?

>>6237397
he's just a complete arse

>>6237443
We're still not convinced they've fully surrendered, evidently, Germany either.

>>6237443
Japan has no military of its own as part of the surrender signed at the end of WWII

>oh you're a mathematical physicist
>you're like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory

Nothing makes me want to lie about what I do more than that dribbling idiot

>>6237426
The shuttle program was cheaper than Apollo, a shuttle launch was also cheaper than a Saturn V launch.
The ISS has done good science, you shouldn't try to ignore that.

Notice the two things you complain about were programs initiated by government. NASA doesn't get to make decisions like that.

Typical unfounded criticisms.

>>6237474
>The shuttle program was cheaper than Apollo
No it wasn't. Any way you measure it, the shuttle program cost more.

>a shuttle launch was also cheaper than a Saturn V launch.
It was more expensive on a per-kg of LEO payload basis, and it couldn't put a man on the moon, either. It was a more expensive and less capable system, despite the experience gained from developing Saturn V and the general advance of science and technology.

Meanwhile, less expensive launch systems *were* being developed, just not by NASA.

>The ISS has done good science
Vanishingly little of note has been done on the ISS, in relation to the extraordinary program cost.

>>6237494
If you can develop a self-sustaining colony on Mars, you can do it anywhere. People who are thinking about this problem could develop technology with enormous potential. This sort of thing has happened before with space exploration, though its impact has obviously been proportional to its budget.

>little happens on the ISS
It's not just about what happens on it, but also the innovation (and inter-governmental co-operation) that goes into making and sustaining it.

>>6237494
>No it wasn't. Any way you measure it, the shuttle program cost more.
Wrong, see graph and source. The shuttle program never ate up as much of the budget as Apollo.

http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Programcosts.html

>It was more expensive on a per-kg of LEO payload basis
Which is not what I said, and a very useless metric of a launcher. Saturn V was more expensive.

>Vanishingly little of note has been done on the ISS, in relation to the extraordinary program cost.
That's a completely arbitrary statement. It's been a powerful tool for research. Apollo cost an extreme amount of money and what noteworthy research was done? In my field there was some, but there is some on the ISS too.

>>6237529
Forgot graph.

>1=0.9999

>>6237529
>>6237530
What that shows is that the space shuttle and Apollo both ate up most of NASA's budget when they were running, and that NASA had a higher budget during the peak of the Apollo program.

There are certainly years of the Apollo program that were less than the average of the shuttle program, at least one year of the shuttle program that was more than the average of the Apollo program, and the total spending on the shuttle program was more than the Apollo program.

Furthermore, Apollo added new capabilities. The shuttle was just a more expensive way to do things they could already do.

There is not one single mission that cost less because they used the shuttle to do it. It made everything cost more.

There is not one single mission that could not have been done without the shuttle. It added no new capabilities.

The development of the shuttle was a complete waste of resources. The point of spending that time and money was to reduce launch costs.

>>It was more expensive on a per-kg of LEO payload basis
>Which is not what I said, and a very useless metric of a launcher. Saturn V was more expensive.
Are you fucking insane? Cost per kg to LEO is the benchmark for launch vehicle cost-effectiveness.

Anyway, the Saturn V wasn't the only launch vehicle they had before the space shuttle. They had vehicles which cost less per flight than the shuttle. Generally, much less.

>>Vanishingly little of note has been done on the ISS, in relation to the extraordinary program cost.
>That's a completely arbitrary statement.
Yes, at some point you have to be the arbiter, you have to apply judgement. Think of a billion-dollar research project, what amazing things it could produce. Now imagine cancelling 120 of them to pay for the ISS.

By any reasonable judgement, that's a criminally stupid decision. Fuck NASA.

>>6237430
100% agreed. it pisses me off how much money we spend on foreign military aid.

>>6237571
>It technically cost more so it was pointless
>We should just skip to doing the most hightech and perfect space programs ever, let's get started on that warp drive
>Fuck the learning steps and the places where we learn what works and what doesn't
>Implying we didn't learn stuff along the way
To say that it wasn't as efficient or whatever floats your boat is fine, but saying it was a complete waste is not.

>>6237571
>What that shows is that the space shuttle and Apollo both ate up most of NASA's budget when they were running, and that NASA had a higher budget during the peak of the Apollo program.
No, that's a plot of piloted programs i.e. manned spaceflight spending only. It doesn't tell you anything about the rest of NASA.

You're just making excuses here, a year here and there, Apollo was more expensive.

Total spending is irrelevant, the shuttle lasted longer that doesn't make it more expensive as a program.

>The shuttle was just a more expensive way to do things they could already do.
Couldn't capture and repair satellites. Couldn't return anything substantial.

>There is not one single mission that could not have been done without the shuttle.
Hubble servicing. Long Duration Exposure Facility.

>There is not one single mission that cost less because they used the shuttle to do it.
Disproven with examples that couldn't be done without the shuttle.

>Cost per kg to LEO is the benchmark for launch vehicle cost-effectiveness.
No it's not. Even normally it's not because there are more constraints than mass. For example fairing size or the fact that sometimes your payload is much less than maximum.

We're talking about manned spaceflight, not launchers. What do you count as payload? If you only count what the shuttle could carry some 25 tonnes then you can't count the Apollo CM/SM in Apollo launches which gives it very crappy numbers. With Saturn 1 that leaves you with a payload of what they could carry in the CM/SM, I'm guessing a few hundred kilos at best. Very poor indeed.

In summary it is not a helpful metric. You are flying manned missions because you want to fly manned missions not because you want a good payload to money ratio.

>Now imagine cancelling 120 of them to pay for the ISS.
Apollo cost about the same if not more in today's money. What do you say to that? Would the money really have gone elsewhere? No, we would have had more shuttle flights.

>>6237584
The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the space shuttle program was to substantially reduce launch costs. They deliberately sacrificed things like crew safety to that end. There was a US government policy that all American payloads were supposed to go up on the space shuttle, in order to ensure that there would be enough volume of launches to amortize the cost of developing the shuttle.

...and then it turned out that the marginal cost of a shuttle launch, never mind the development and construction expenses, was more than the marginal cost of an expendable launch vehicle.

It was a monumental failure. Not only did it fail to reduce launch costs, but the shuttle system couldn't launch the volume of payloads it was supposed to. It was supposed to be highly available, and instead it was a hangar queen, and simply couldn't be relied on for any time-sensitive missions.

And the idiots continued flying it for decades, pretending it was worthwhile rather than face the embarassment of admitting otherwise. It was obvious to outsiders even before the first launch that it wouldn't do the job it was designed for:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

As a first try at reusability, it would have been a forgiveable failure... if they had faced that it was a failure, learned from their mistakes, and tried building something else. But they flew it for decades. When one blew up and killed the crew, they built a replacement, instead of trying something different that might actually work.

Fuck NASA.

>>6237620
>was more than the marginal cost of an expendable launch vehicle
[citation needed]

> it was a hangar queen
The low flight rate was due to cost cutting.

>And the idiots
The goverment

>>6237600
>Total spending is irrelevant, the shuttle lasted longer that doesn't make it more expensive as a program.
Okay, so if country A has a moonshot program that takes 10 years to land one man on the moon and costs $10 billion/year, and country B has a moonshot program that takes 40 years to land one man on the moon and costs $9 billion/year, then you're saying that country A's moonshot program is more expensive than country B's?

The fact that more dollars were spent on it makes the shuttle more expensive as a program.

Getting the job done for the same money but faster is doing a better job. You don't call something "more expensive" just because the work got done faster, so the rate of spending was higher.

Anyway, the Apollo program developed real new, worldbeating capabilities. The shuttle didn't add any capabilities. It was supposed to be a cost-reducing program, so NASA would be able to afford to do cool stuff with the savings. There were no savings, so NASA spent decades mostly just twiddling with their cost-reducing program that wasn't reducing costs.

>>6237631
>>was more than the marginal cost of an expendable launch vehicle
>[citation needed]
For fuck's sake do some background reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

>> it was a hangar queen
>The low flight rate was due to cost cutting.
The low flight rate was due to the fragile and overly complex thermal protection system and the combination of a main engine that needed heavy maintenance after each flight with a design that required the back half of the shuttle to be basically disassembled for heavy maintenance to be done on the main engine.

That's aside from the times they lost vehicles and had to stop flights while they figured out how to spend even more money and time on each flight trying to avoid losing more vehicles.

They couldn't have had a higher flight rate just by spending more money. They'd have had to build a lot more shuttles. The individual shuttles couldn't fly nearly as often as they were designed to.

>>6237430

b-but we need to cut frivolous space and science funding!

>>6237635
Where your logic breaks down is when you have permanent programs. The shuttle didn't have one goal like that, your analogy is invalid. NASA never intended to cut Apollo after success had been achieved.

Apollo was a more expensive program. What it got done faster was cancellation.

> The shuttle didn't add any capabilities.
You continue to post things I've have shown you are wrong.

It reduced costs, the cost of a manned program.

>>6235814

I dont even know roman numerals far beyond X but horey sheet how can someone be that retarded.

>>6237645
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

You need a lesson in accounting. The marginal cost is the cost of adding on item to a production run. In this case the cost of adding a mission to the flight manifest, that is not listed in that article. All that is listed in the article is the cost if you take the program cost over a year an divide by the number of missions, not the marginal cost.

I'll ask you again.
>[citation needed]

>The low flight rate was due to the fragile and overly complex thermal protection...
Wrong again. That's not true, the vast variations in missions per year show that's wrong. If it was due to maintenance alone this would be a smooth curve downwards as air frames aged, instead we see peaks showing there is more at play.

They could have done more flights.

>>6237657
>It reduced costs, the cost of a manned program.
Please tell me you're not assuming that the only way NASA could have sent astronauts into space other than the shuttle was a Saturn V.

You don't remember Mercury? Gemini?

Saturn V was a behemoth. It was built to send astronauts to the moon with all of the equipment they needed to land, launch from the moon, and fly back to Earth.

Saturn V was about 2800 tons. The Space Shuttle was about 2000 tons. Using that much rocket just to fly some astronauts to LEO is ridiculous.

The Atlas LV-3B, used for Project Mercury, to put the first American astronaut in orbit, was only about 120 tons. The Titan II GLV, used for Project Gemini, was only about 150 tons.

Not only were they smaller, they were much simpler, cheaper rockets. These were options that existed long before the shuttle program. And they were safer for the astronauts, too, because of the launch abort system in the capsule.

>>6237682
>It reduced costs, the cost of a manned program.
Notice I never said it was the cheapest program yet, I said it was cheaper than Apollo.

>And they were safer for the astronauts, too, because of the launch abort system in the capsule.
That is bullshit. Abort systems are fine but abort was not possible in all phases of launch and it would not guarantee the survival of the crew. You have no idea if it would be safer.

>>6237666
>You need a lesson in accounting. The marginal cost is the cost of adding on item to a production run. In this case the cost of adding a mission to the flight manifest, that is not listed in that article. All that is listed in the article is the cost if you take the program cost over a year an divide by the number of missions, not the marginal cost.

Hmm... let's go to the article I linked and see how far we have to read to get that...
>Criticism of the Space Shuttle program stems from claims that NASA's Shuttle program has failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues.[1] More specifically, it has failed in the goal of reducing the cost of space access. Space Shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs ultimately turned out to be considerably higher than those of expendable launchers:[2] by 2011, the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million

Oh look, there it is, halfway through the first paragraph:
>the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million

Let's compare the marginal cost to the all-in cost:
>the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million,[3] or $18,000 per kilogram (approximately $8,000 per pound) to low Earth orbit
>When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO

...and to the goal of the program, the shuttle's raison d'etre of cost reduction:
>This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $118 per kilogram (approximately $53 per pound) of payload in 1972 dollars ($1,400/kg, [approximately $630 per pound] adjusting for inflation to 2011)

Ouch. Do you want to compare that $1,400 to $18,000 or $60,000?

>>6237693
Again not what I asked for. You make bold claims you can't back up.

I'm not going to debate cost per mass ratios because as I have explained it means very little.

>>6237689
The space shuttle program didn't start with a goal of "reducing costs" in the sense of being funded less per year on average than the Apollo program. You're playing word games here.

It was supposed to actually be inexpensive to fly, and be able to fly often, therefore reducing costs compared on a flight-by-flight basis to other launch vehicle options.

This was the whole point of doing the shuttle. They didn't decide, "Let's make a spaceship that looks like a plane, because it's cool." They decided, "Let's make a rapidly and efficiently reusable spacecraft, because it will be much cheaper than building a new rocket for every launch."

This cost savings was where NASA was supposed to be able to afford to do all of the cool manned mission things that were supposed to happen over the decades where they just fucked around with the shuttle. This was going to get us a space station and propellant depot in the 80s, then a moon base, and a Mars landing.

>>6237693
>Attend college and produce peer reviewed articles
>Use Wikipedia in debates

Pick both. Stay /sci/

>>6237710
>I'm not going to debate cost per mass ratios because as I have explained it means very little.
You haven't "explained" anything. You asserted that in defiance of all rationality.

The "cost per mass ratios" were the whole justification for the space shuttle to be built. It was supposed to reduce the cost of putting a ton of payload in orbit by roughly an order of magnitude.

>>6237720
I said it above, I'm not repeating myself.

>>6237720

>>6237711
I'm not playing word games, it was a true statement. You certainly are playing games and I'm not interested. I've said nothing about the motivations of the Shuttle, that's all you. You're trying to change the discussion completely.

>>6237748
It's not very effective...

>>6237666
>>The low flight rate was due to the fragile and overly complex thermal protection...
>Wrong again. That's not true, the vast variations in missions per year show that's wrong. If it was due to maintenance alone this would be a smooth curve downwards as air frames aged, instead we see peaks showing there is more at play.
Looks fairly evenly-spaced to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

After Challenger, there was a pause, and then they extended the minimum maintenance period to try and prevent further crew losses, since it was such an unsafe vehicle. After Columbia, something similar happened.

Now, talking about a "smooth curved downwards as air frames aged" is ridiculous with the shuttles. They were practically rebuilt for every mission. Major structural material was sometimes replaced. That's a big part of the variability. Major structural work meant extra long downtime.

Look at how many Challenger and Discovery flights there were leading up to the loss, while Columbia was hardly flying at all. They were having some trouble with Challenger and serious trouble with Columbia.

They flew them as often as they could manage. The launch schedule wasn't limited by budget for launches, it was limited by the maintenance needs and unreliability of the shuttle.

A bigger budget could have lead to more launches, but only by building more shuttles.

>>6237748
>I've said nothing about the motivations of the Shuttle, that's all you.
Yes, you're trying to assert that the shuttle program wasn't a failure by refusing to acknowledge the goals of that program.

The goal was cost-reduction, per-flight and per-pound, and a high launch rate. The program failed to achieve its goals, but was continued even though it meant wasting most of NASA's budgets.

>>6237765
I disagree but you made a positive statement, why don't you find a citation.

>>6237765
Good counter point but straying from the objective of the thread itself.

>>6237774
Citation was wiki apparently.

>>6237773
Pretty sure it was cheaper to lunch the Shuttle rather than multiple Saturn's during the construction of the ISS. And cargo bays 'n' shit.

>I'm just watching/shitposting. Don't expect actual contribution.

>>6237776
The thread is whatever people say about /sci/-related stuff that makes us rage.

People trying to claim NASA deserves more funding make me rage, and here I am, raging right in the thread.

I'm more on-topic than anyone.

>>6237776
It wasn't covered in the wiki, that was for something else.

>>6237396
The most likely ones.

>>6237783
Saturn V could have put up the ISS faster, cheaper, and much earlier than the shuttle.

Even disregarding the shuttle's development cost, the Saturn V was a better deal than the shuttle for putting mass in orbit.

A Saturn V cost $1.18 billion, while a shuttle launch had a marginal cost of $0.45 billion (both figures in constant dollars), but the Saturn V could carry 120 tons to LEO, while the shuttle could only carry 22.7 tons.

You can see that a Saturn V cost considerably less than three shuttle missions, while carrying more than five times the payload. The shuttle figure also doesn't cover the shuttle's construction, general upkeep, or the risk and cost of losing it flying the mission.

It gets worse. Since the Saturn V development budget was already spent before the shuttle program was undertaken, and the construction of a space station was one of the key missions the shuttle was designed for, we can reasonably compare the all-in cost of the shuttle program divided by the number of flights to the marginal cost of a Saturn V launch.

Now we're looking at a Saturn V costing $1.18 billion and carrying 120 tons, while the space shuttle costs $1.5 billion and carrys 22.7 tons.

By not developing the shuttle at all, the ISS launch costs could have been under a fifth what they were. Every other shuttle mission could also have been done more cheaply on some other expendable launch vehicle.

>>6237816
>Now we're looking at a Saturn V costing $1.18 billion and carrying 120 tons, while the space shuttle costs $1.5 billion and carrys 22.7 tons.
Falcon Heavy (coming in 2014): $135 million and 53 tons.

Electric Universe Theory and Tesla drones both rustle me tenderly.

>muh unlimited energy!

Because not spending money on space exploration does not equate to that money being spent on solving worldly problems.

Also, problems are not magically solved by throwing more money at them. Especially something as vague and unattainable as "worldly problems."

>>6236353
the earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid

>>6238101
Oblate spheroids are round.

>>6236353
Sounds like a troll.

>>6235814
>2015
>can't into MMXV

>>6235953
>>Wouldn't the money be better spent curing disease?

But this is TRUE you fucking dipshit.

>>6235806
>implying science isn't how you solve all the problems here on earth

>>6237577
Yet you voted for Obama.

Good job idiot.

>>6238397

No anon, you are the dipshit. People who say "Wouldn't the money be better spent curing disease???" think that you just take the money from space sciences and it magically transfers to medicine. It doesn't work that way and never will.

But OP, the Earth is in space. Space science IS Earth science!

>>6238397
If curing diseases is so important, did you go out of your way to try to learn medicine and research cures for them yourself? If not, what was more important?

>Donate to the XXX Awareness Fund!

>>6239356

Sarcastic or not, it does annoy me how people act like the Earth and the space and universe beyond us are two totally separate places without any interconnection. What happens up there matters down here.

>>6235953
I'm even a medical student and this statement bothers me

>>6238110
define round.

>'murkans could cut their defence budget by 90% and still have the biggest defence budget in the world

Honestly, this really russles my jimmies, think of what NASA could do with all that budget. Or better yet, pump it into the education system so there are less dumb ass Americans.

>>6235806
>implying science is true

>>6237451
>JSDF is not military

toplel