I saw this on the internet. What do you think about the future of our space program?
Also, how do I embed a video here?
EDIT: I fixed it. Thanks, ILB!
This post has been edited by Johnny Hurricane: 20 July 2011 - 06:26 PM
The future of NASA
I saw this on the internet. What do you think about the future of our space program?
Also, how do I embed a video here?
EDIT: I fixed it. Thanks, ILB!
- #1
- 20 July 2011 - 06:09 PM
- Aken
- BCI Member
I for one am optimistic about the future of NASA. I have heard plans to turn over the Low-Earth-Orbit operations to private companies, freeing NASA to be dedicated to exploration.
While its sad to see the shuttle go, NASA needs to move forward. Speaking of moving forward, I visited the Kennedy Space Center a few weeks ago and got to see the prototype of the Orion capsule being developed by Lockheed-Martin. They have started flight testing.
While its sad to see the shuttle go, NASA needs to move forward. Speaking of moving forward, I visited the Kennedy Space Center a few weeks ago and got to see the prototype of the Orion capsule being developed by Lockheed-Martin. They have started flight testing.
- #3
- 20 July 2011 - 08:53 PM
- Treeless Druid
- Member
I just hope we can continue with the task given to the Hubble, and expand on it. There are so many wonderful things out there to find and they will help us gain an understanding of our own origins.
- #4
- 20 July 2011 - 09:05 PM
The Hubble Space Telescope will continue operation until at least 2014. NASA is working on its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, but it will not be launched until 2018 (presuming that it's not cancelled entirely due to U.S. budget considerations).
- #5
- 20 July 2011 - 09:19 PM
- ReyOzymandias
- Childish, as usual.
Member 
Honestly, I really hope NASA starts putting people back on the moon and then beyond really soon. I mean really, in the late 60s we put men on the moon with hastily constructed rockets and computers less powerful than modern graphing calculators. It's such a shame that somewhere along the line something fucked up serious and now there's no money for it and programs are getting cancelled left and right.
- #7
- 20 July 2011 - 09:38 PM
- Ciclopotis
- Member
In my opinion, space programs have too much Attention. Can you believe there is actually more knowledge about space than about ocean floors? I mean, before trying to explore other places, shouldn't we really explore and improve life on our own planet? Obviously, it's important to study the outer space, but maybe not as important as other things.
- #9
- 20 July 2011 - 09:47 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Quote
That's the attitude that was held by naysayers when Russia launched the Sputnik satellite into orbit. Then something happened in 1969.
The situation now is different, though - The US of A is no longer a superpower as much as it was then, and there is no comparable conflict (the Cold War) with Russia, so there is no real incentive for the States to try and surpass them when there are diplomatic relations ensuring at least some information exchange between these two countries. Furthermore, the national debt of the USA is staggering, and money is something they do not have to spare. NASA's budget will likely be cut; whether the new telescope also will be I have no idea, but I would not rule it out.
- #10
- 20 July 2011 - 10:00 PM
I'd like to see more private space agencies pop up in the future, that's for sure. NASA shouldn't be the only big player.
This post has been edited by Marshmallow: 20 July 2011 - 10:15 PM
- #11
- 20 July 2011 - 10:14 PM
- Carcharocles
- BCI Member
Honestly, the future of space exploration is robots and probes. Unless they are specifically doing tests that require human interaction, there is no more need for manned missions.
- #12
- 20 July 2011 - 10:17 PM
The United States is not the only country having difficulty finding money for space study and exploration nowadays. As esalaka pointed out, Russia did just launch a radio telescope, however that telescope was nearly three decades in development, and suffered from continual funding difficulties.
- #13
- 20 July 2011 - 10:23 PM
- ReyOzymandias
- Childish, as usual.
Member
Russia is still struggling because they have a bunch of programs left over from the Soviet Union, and they still haven't really recovered from that yet. The Buran shuttle program was actually looking relatively good, but never got the funding and was abandoned, so there's a random shuttle sitting in plain view in Baikoner.
- #14
- 20 July 2011 - 10:42 PM
- OneLonelyPickle
- Member
That video didn't really state why space exploration was important. It just said 'it is' and spent 4 minutes glorifying NASA. Let's be practical here. Unless somebody finds usable resources on other planets or one that we can live on, why the fuck would we even need to go into space? There's nothing of value out there and currently, these missions are just drainage sinks for cash.
- #15
- 21 July 2011 - 08:27 AM
My whole life I've connected NASA with astronauts and space ships, because that's what it was to me. And honestly, I can't think of anything else it could be, thanks to my lack if knowledge on the subject. Astronauts were always the iconic explorers when I was little, and every little boy or girl dreamed about being one at least once. And now I wonder how long it will take for kids to stop having that dream, and realize that it's not even of the slightest possibility for them anymore.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Nostalgia.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Nostalgia.
- #16
- 21 July 2011 - 08:30 AM
NASA is toning it down a bit because NASA is just a cover for Earth's ACTUAL space exploration program operated by the Unites States Air Force.
The fucking STARGATE PROGRAM BABY. We have Defense fighters (F-302's) and Five (we had six) interstellar battleships. Daedalus, Odyssey, Apollo, Hammond, and Sun Tzu(China operated)
Who needs space capsules when we're truckin around in starships and stepping through wormholes to other planets beeyotch? We got extra Goa'uld cargo ships up the butt like woah. On top of that we have the goddamned city of Atlantis flyin through the air like ya just dont care. Ships bouncing off the shield like "WTF"?
Aint no alien bitches gonna touch our shit fo sho.
*looks at what I've just written*
I...I'm sorry..I'm so sorry...
The fucking STARGATE PROGRAM BABY. We have Defense fighters (F-302's) and Five (we had six) interstellar battleships. Daedalus, Odyssey, Apollo, Hammond, and Sun Tzu(China operated)
Who needs space capsules when we're truckin around in starships and stepping through wormholes to other planets beeyotch? We got extra Goa'uld cargo ships up the butt like woah. On top of that we have the goddamned city of Atlantis flyin through the air like ya just dont care. Ships bouncing off the shield like "WTF"?
Aint no alien bitches gonna touch our shit fo sho.
*looks at what I've just written*
I...I'm sorry..I'm so sorry...
- #17
- 21 July 2011 - 02:46 PM
Stargate is a TV show.
But I do believe that the US Air Force has a lot of advanced technology that the world is not ready to know about yet.
But I do believe that the US Air Force has a lot of advanced technology that the world is not ready to know about yet.
- #19
- 21 July 2011 - 03:00 PM
- matty_batty0
- Member
This guy seems to be glorifying NASA a little bit. I think NASA is pretty much dead unless some special event occurs which suddenly makes people want to go to space again. It is disappointing how much people's interest in space exploration died off after the moon landings, they were more then a generation ago and nothing of similar magnitude has been seen since, space travel seems more like a fad from the past which has came and gone then a modern day opportunity.
@Ciclo, there is nothing saying we can't explore Earth and space at the same time.
@Ciclo, there is nothing saying we can't explore Earth and space at the same time.
- #20
- 21 July 2011 - 03:18 PM
OneLonelyPickle said:
That video didn't really state why space exploration was important. It just said 'it is' and spent 4 minutes glorifying NASA. Let's be practical here. Unless somebody finds usable resources on other planets or one that we can live on, why the fuck would we even need to go into space? There's nothing of value out there and currently, these missions are just drainage sinks for cash.
It would indeed be more practical to use the cash to work on fixing problems here on Earth. However, sometimes you just have say, "Fuck practicality, let's go exploring!"
Space represents the human desire to go beyond the limits of what we already know. Also, space exploration has contributed a lot to scientific understanding of our solar system, and our place in the universe.
- #23
- 21 July 2011 - 03:32 PM
Explorers are We
esalaka, on 21 July 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:
Ven, on 21 July 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:
Stargate is a TV show.
No shit?
Har har. I didnt think anyone was going to ask questions about my completely bullshit post and not expect an obvious answer.
This post has been edited by Ven: 21 July 2011 - 05:17 PM
- #24
- 21 July 2011 - 05:20 PM
^If this were FB, I would like that response.
The calvin and hobbes part.
The calvin and hobbes part.
- #25
- 21 July 2011 - 05:20 PM
Haha, Ven got the reference. Nice job. *thumbs up*
- #26
- 21 July 2011 - 05:23 PM
- Carcharocles
- BCI Member
Ven, on 21 July 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:
Stargate is a TV show.
Wrong. Stargate is a movie from the early 90's. There was a TV series called Stargate SG-1 and a second one called Stargate: Atlantis, but "Stargate" as a title refers to the movie.
Again, why put a person on another planet, in harms way, when remote-control robots and computers could do the job just as easily and with less risk of death?
- #27
- 21 July 2011 - 05:41 PM
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."-JFK
- #28
- 21 July 2011 - 05:46 PM
- Carcharocles
- BCI Member
Johnny Hurricane, on 21 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."-JFK
Except when JFK was alive, they didn't have anything resembling the technology we have today. Even our probes get far superior images than then. Hell, computers of that era didn't even have monitors, they gave you readings via electronic printouts. And they were the size of a room.
Cost is a big issue, as well. Back then, these probes were far more expensive than they are today. The cost of putting one person on Mars is much, much, much higher than putting a probe on Pluto.
- #29
- 21 July 2011 - 05:51 PM
Where did anyone say we needed to send someone to another planet? Admittedly, putting a person on Mars would be a major accomplishment, but as you say, it would be extremely costly, and no one seems to have the money for that these days. For now, it would be sufficient to keep sending out small and cheap probes for different types of scientific missions, so that we can expand our knowledge. Though I do mourn that with the retirement of the space shuttle program, we now have less capacity to even put people into orbit. (I have an old poster of Columbia on the launching pad just before making the first shuttle flight in 1981.)
- #30
- 21 July 2011 - 06:04 PM
Carcharocles, on 21 July 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:
Ven, on 21 July 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:
Stargate is a TV show.
Wrong. Stargate is a movie from the early 90's. There was a TV series called Stargate SG-1 and a second one called Stargate: Atlantis, but "Stargate" as a title refers to the movie.
Again, why put a person on another planet, in harms way, when remote-control robots and computers could do the job just as easily and with less risk of death?
If you want to get technical, then yes "Stargate" is the title of the movie in 1994. But when people use the term stargate, they are usually referring to the TV show because that is what's most popular.
Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis (spinoff) and the final standalone series, Stargate Universe.
- #31
- 21 July 2011 - 07:50 PM
esalaka, on 21 July 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:
Ven, on 21 July 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:
standalone series, Stargate Universe.
Technically still a spin-off.
Technically yes, but I said standalone because that's what it's often referred to as.
- #33
- 21 July 2011 - 09:21 PM
- Purin
- BCI Member
ILB, on 20 July 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:
Quote
That's the attitude that was held by naysayers when Russia launched the Sputnik satellite into orbit. Then something happened in 1969.
The situation now is different, though - The US of A is no longer a superpower as much as it was then, and there is no comparable conflict (the Cold War) with Russia, so there is no real incentive for the States to try and surpass them when there are diplomatic relations ensuring at least some information exchange between these two countries. Furthermore, the national debt of the USA is staggering, and money is something they do not have to spare. NASA's budget will likely be cut; whether the new telescope also will be I have no idea, but I would not rule it out.
This saddens me. I lost my optimism...
- #34
- 21 July 2011 - 09:35 PM
It's okay Purin. Just watch the video again.
- #35
- 21 July 2011 - 09:36 PM
Purin, you can join me in my cardboard box.
- #36
- 21 July 2011 - 09:40 PM
- Daer21
- Member
I'd point out 3 things.1 NASA developed a great deal of tech used today on earth such as non crystalline metals, advanced composites, and my personal favorites computers. The computers used in Apollo kept fledgling integrated circuit companies in business. In fact, the Apollo program reduced the cost of computer chips by two orders of magnitude, allowing the computer revolution. 2. During the Apollo era, NASA was 4 percent of the national budget, now its less than 1/3 of a percent. 3 the 'we could do better things with the money /effort can apply to millions of things. we spent way more money on movie tickets in a year than NASA has budget.
- #38
- 21 July 2011 - 10:10 PM
- DarkfoxSoldier
- Member
Unfortunately, it's going to be put a lot on hold. People these days see it as an empty hole to throw money in and has been getting less money every few years. Unfortunately we don't exactly have the technology or the money right now to get to Mars right now either. That doesn't mean we shouldn't downsize it anymore than it already is. NASA has provided so many jobs and opportunities for engineers and scientists. Its also become an icon. It's part of the symbol of America.
I'm hesitant to hand over privatizing space travel but that's what we kind of need to do now to let even more innovation take hold. At least let's let David become an astronaut first.
I'm hesitant to hand over privatizing space travel but that's what we kind of need to do now to let even more innovation take hold. At least let's let David become an astronaut first.
- #39
- 21 July 2011 - 10:15 PM
- Dr Noyd
- Member
Private sector is going to flourish though. I never said succeed, but in contrast to gov't sector; defiantly flourish.
Heard a joke about today's national space camp in Alabama. Instead of going there to simulate piloting the space shuttle, 30% of the kids get laid off.
Heard a joke about today's national space camp in Alabama. Instead of going there to simulate piloting the space shuttle, 30% of the kids get laid off.
- #40
- 21 July 2011 - 10:30 PM
- ReyOzymandias
- Childish, as usual.
Member
Daer21, on 21 July 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:
I'd point out 3 things.1 NASA developed a great deal of tech used today on earth such as non crystalline metals, advanced composites, and my personal favorites computers.
And velcro, kinda. It wasn't really used by anybody before they used it for fucking everything.
- #41
- 21 July 2011 - 10:39 PM
- matty_batty0
- Member
Privatising space exploration wouldn't do anything would it? Since there is no real source of revenue in it, any company would just reject the offer or go bankrupt very quickly without external funding.
- #43
- 22 July 2011 - 01:47 AM
I don't see the private sector getting into space exploration for quite some time, as they'd get little return from it. Mainly it'd be governments and science agencies who'd continue to send probes to explore the reaches of the solar system.
What the private sector would do is put satellites and even people into Earth orbit. There's profit in communications and space tourism.
What the private sector would do is put satellites and even people into Earth orbit. There's profit in communications and space tourism.
- #44
- 22 July 2011 - 04:32 AM
Dennis Tito was the first space tourist back in 2001, and yes, he did pay $20 million. Six other people have followed in his tracks (one did it twice). All flights were on Soyuz craft, and all went to the International Space Station.
- #46
- 22 July 2011 - 04:46 AM
SPAAAACE!!
- #47
- 22 July 2011 - 04:49 AM
Sub-orbital flights would be more affordable, at about $200,000 per seat initially. However, no company has yet made a commercial sub-orbital flight, though a number are working towards that goal.
- #48
- 22 July 2011 - 04:51 AM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Space travel is so far something that can only be done by astronauts and crazy rich people. I really do not believe it will be made commercially available (as in, to people with less than a million of income each year) any time within the century. Then again, they were planning a space hotel for honeymoons.
The world is not quite sensible, no. ^_^
The world is not quite sensible, no. ^_^
- #50
- 22 July 2011 - 01:18 PM