[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 12 KB, 334x270, NASALogo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3387461 No.3387461 [Reply] [Original]

In 1961, John F. Kennedy said that, within 10 years, America would send a man to the Moon and safely return him to Earth. 8 years later, Neil Armstrong landed on Luna's surface.

In 2005, the Constellation program was approved to go to the Moon by 2020. 15 years it would have. Before even 5 years had passed, it was cancelled. Now, 2025 has been set as a time for a journey to an asteroid, no doubt to face budgetary mixes and risk cancellation.

I tell you why this is, /sci/: Because 15 years is longer than a President can be in office. In a decade, a President who has two terms can be assured that the accomplishments will appear within his time in office or will be too far along to be cancelled by the time he's out of it.

What can we do to change this, /sci/? How can we get a mission to the Moon or an asteroid before 2020? How can we make people see that we could have possibly even been there by 2015?

>> No.3387468

Simple.

Kill the Batman

>> No.3387475

>...will be too far along to be cancelled by the time he's out of it

Not that Constellation was actually worth keeping or anything. It was a public relations stunt and it might, might have worked if it had been done right.

>> No.3387480

vote.

get your friends to vote.
stop puting republicans in office, stop wasting votes on indi candidates that won't get elected.

>> No.3387517

>>3387475

The Apollo missions were a PR stunt, that doesn't make them any less incredible. Apollo was a nuclear launch platform show-off.

>>3387480

The Democrats aren't exactly helping. Remember, Obama cancelled Constellation.

>> No.3387538

>>3387517

>Remember, Obama cancelled Constellation.

No space program is arguably better that some money black hole.

>> No.3387543

>>3387517
dems are the lesser of two weevels though.

given climate denial, biology denial, geology denial, and utility of research denial currently found in the GOP, I can't imagine why any scientist or fanboy would want them in office.

sure, the dems are about as bad in many ways, but they aren't coming from an apocalyptic science-is-useless constituency. Unfortunately they (we) tend to look at our own faults and become discouraged rather than looking at their destructive goals and deciding to fight.

>> No.3387547

Start a party.

>> No.3387549

TELL THE POLITICIANS "YO I'LL VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU FUND SPACE EXPLORATION"

>> No.3387553

>>3387480
Wat? GWB was a R. Obama is a D. If GWB was still in office we would still be going to the moon.

>> No.3387560

>>3387553
If GWB was still in office we'd be eating dirt for dinner.

>> No.3387569

>>3387553

>If GWB was still in office we would still be going to the moon.

Because we were going to the moon with Bush, yes?

>> No.3387571

>>3387553
also, it's congress that sets budgets... or cuts them. our current dems in congress aren't in charge of science budgets, and those budgets are being cut.

notice that war budgets won't be touched though. Nor corporate contracts in the defense sector. or oil subsidies.

nor will the wealthy be taxed at a higher rate.

>> No.3387574

>>3387538

But it's not a black hole; the future of Constellation was a permanent moon base. At the very least, you can rework the program; make it more ambitious, instead of just cancelling it and leaving it in limbo for potential future cancellation.

There's a lot of better options than just cancelling it and creating another project for someone else to cancel later.

It's like watching lions kill the offspring of the last lion, then create their own that you know will be slaughtered by the next male to take control of the pride.

>>3387543

When faced with two evils, you shouldn't give up. Giving in just perpetuates the problem.

This isn't just an American problem either. No other country is even approaching anything remotely ambitious. Even China, probably the most ambitious country at the moment besides the States, won't be doing anything manned on the Moon until the 2020s.

>> No.3387585

>>3387574

Except that it was. There was no plan for a 'moon base' or anything. NASA renders are not portrayals of the future. It was just some drip-feed fund to some random corporations. The Shuttle was ruined in essentially the same way, the difference is that the Shuttke was actually carried out, and now people even miss it.

>> No.3387589

>>3387574
there's a few great points made ITT regarding specific NASA projects and their merit or lack.

my concern in trying to get people voting in every election is to change the general attitude towards science though.

historically the republicans have funded R&D on a grand scale. For some reason they've decided to do the opposite for now.

>> No.3387590

>>3387571

I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't mucking stuff up, I'm just saying the Dems do too.

If the US can spend trillions bailing out Wall Street, why can't it give NASA an extra 18 billion, doubling its funding, and get people on the Moon and a base setup started?

Bah, I'm just ranting at this point.

>> No.3387636

Also, anyone blaming Obama for the cancellation should think further back to why he HAD to cancel it,
Taking office after a Bush isn't an easy task now, they know how to leave a shit-pile before they go.

>> No.3387853

>>3387571

People attribute way more power to the president than he actually weilds by virtue of just holding the office.

>> No.3387891

>>3387461
going into space won't make america's penis any bigger.

>STOP WHINING

>> No.3387979

We get to a mission to the moon or another celestial body by 2020 by creating a device that works well with minimal risk. We create a new way of leaving the planet instead of a giant money wasting fire cracker on a stick and hoping to god today is not another Challenger.

But honestly, why the fuck do we want to go to an asteroid? What's the benefit? What's the reward?

>> No.3388019

Allow presidents to remain in office longer. So long as people vote them back in.

I'm not entirely sure why they're limited to 2 terms.

>> No.3388140

>>3388019
I think it's partially for the good of the country as well as for the good of the president. I can't mention any specific examples but considering how common it is for elections to turn into popularity contests as compared to acual politcal events a popular, but aging and senile (without showing, at least) president might be continually re-elected into office.

At the same time why they limit the president to only 2 terms and don't do something similiar with senators or representatives doesn't really make any sense to me...

>> No.3388431

We need to raise awareness of China's space plans. Most US citizens sees China as those gooks who are doing better than us. And if America cannot stand one thing, it's gooks doing better than us at anything.

We could also talk about the military applications of a Chinese space station or Russian moon bases. If NASA got attached to the defense budget, they would get more funding, probably to develop an equivalent system. Which would cause Russia to develop a better one. Which would cause us to develop a better one. Before you know it, hey, new space race.

Must make commercials. Flags everywhere, fearmongering, racist undertones, images of miners and firefighters, drawling narrator... standard political commercial style.

>> No.3388492

well we can get a really good start by lowering the national deficit and our overseas military spending. private corporations don't have the profit potential to make the new launching systems needed for more effective spaceflight to further colonize LEO, moon, mars, scientific space observatories/probes, and landers. provided there is still a NASA by the time we're reading to get the ball rolling again,i would imagine a lot more of their budget would be going to susidized scientific research and spacecraft production rather than spent on internal operations and managment.

>> No.3388500

>>3388492
>reading
*ready

>> No.3388512

>>3388492
I agree with you for the most part but
>don't have the profit potential to make the new launching systems
What are you talking about? SpaceX has designed all of their launchers by themselves. That's pretty much the main industry for private companies - launch systems.

>> No.3388527

>>3388512
they've been getting paid mostly by NASA and the DoD, with a few commercial contracts. as our technology stands right now, wealth needs to be concentrated from redistribution for spaceflight development and operations to occur.

>> No.3388540

>>3388512
sorry i guess i didn't elaborate what you quoted from me
i meant profit in terms of strictly commercial consumption, no government funding whatsoever

>> No.3388628

How close are we to reaching the full potential of rocket technology as a means of exiting earth? If the price per kg launched into orbit can be decreased by further research, I think that is a very important factor in the future of space travel. No-one can afford expensive prestige-projects anymore.

>> No.3388728

>>3388628
What would be a acceptable weight/cost ration? A Falcon 9 can manage $500 a pound.

>> No.3388776

>>3388728
Well, I have no idea really.

>> No.3388871

Barring straight-fusion rockets, I don't think we can squeeze that much more performance out of solid or liquid-fuel rockets in atmosphere. We will have to slog through high prices and risky launches to get anything into orbit, at least for a while.

SSTO systems, like the Skylon, are also another way. They are more expensive up-front but they are much, much cheaper over time.

>> No.3389649

>Lockheed-Martin has black projects far excelling anything seen at NASA
>Never release it to the public thanks to paranoia and greed
I welcome catastrophes from anthropogenic climate change, because at this point progress is a mockery of what civilization used to be capable of.

>> No.3389691
File: 27 KB, 400x330, spacelaunchsystem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3389691

Obama cancelled Constellation, but we're still doing nearly everything it entailed under a different name. We're still building the same rocket, but just the heavy lifter and not the light crew lifter.

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

And instead of going to the moon and mars, we're going to an asteroid and Mars. So basically it's Constellation with one less rocket and one of the two destinations changed.

>> No.3389696

>>3387979

>>But honestly, why the fuck do we want to go to an asteroid? What's the benefit? What's the reward?

Feasibility study for an asteroid mining operation. That's the obvious subtext.

>> No.3389705

fuck nasa, fuck america, china's taking over and ur economy's already in the stormdrain.

>> No.3389891

Just this:

http://xkcd.com/893/

And be sure you read the mouse-over text.

>> No.3390373

Are hope lie in the private sector if any thing it will at least have its own infrastructure i.e. manned spacecraft or habitat system which should reduce cost.

>> No.3390504

Move to another country.