• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

NASA Mars Landing...US still on bleeding edge in technology

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
Well...its quite incredible that we are landing a small compact car on Mars...its good to see the US still on cutting edge in some areas...if the Tea party had their way this wouldn't happen...

http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,649
3,199
126
Don't count your chickens. The process of landing is so complex, the risk failure is quite high.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
Yes, though Obama's gutting of NASA is still terribly disappointing.
That would be the Republicans trying to cut NASA's budget and it was GWB that ordered the retirement of the orbiters without any replacement ready. NASA has also had a number of major cost overruns with big projects that has caused them to postpone or trim missions.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
That would be the Republicans trying to cut NASA's budget and it was GWB that ordered the retirement of the orbiters without any replacement ready. NASA has also had a number of major cost overruns with big projects that has caused them to postpone or trim missions.
Obama tried to stop new orbiter. He wanted NASA to get out of the business of sending people into space. Obama also tried to gut NASA budget significantly.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
Obama tried to stop new orbiter. He wanted NASA to get out of the business of sending people into space. Obama also tried to gut NASA budget significantly.
Constellation was canceled because it was going to cost hundreds of billions that we don't have and that hadn't been budgeted for by the Bush administration. That doesn't represent a cut to present levels of NASA funding.

Even if it was fully funded there would have still been at least a decade (minimum) gap where we would have no manned spaceflight capability.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
Obama didn't gut NASA, where did you hear that?
more like the truth.

The overall budget is much the same as 2012 but in DC a non increase is a cut. Mars exploration is cut by 40% however. The LA Times did do a decent apologist piece though. They cite a heavy booster project (similar to the Saturn V) as questionable because there isn't a planet picked for it, but anyone who knows much about our needs realizes that we've needed it for a long time.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
All of his budget proposal have gutted NASA significantly.
NASA budget in million since 2004

2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 18,448
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
Yes, though Obama's gutting of NASA is still terribly disappointing.
All of our recent presidents have dicked over NASA, which is especially sad considering the relative pittance they get compared to the entire budget, but I wouldn't say Obama has been any worse than our previous presidents.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
All of our recent presidents have dicked over NASA, which is especially sad considering the relative pittance they get compared to the entire budget, but I wouldn't say Obama has been any worse than our previous presidents.
Agree, wish politicians would just stay out of NASA's way...the only thing NASA needs from politicians is some sort of goal...at one time I though human landing on Mars was possible, but in today's environment it seems more and more unlikely it will happen before i die...
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
more like the truth.

The overall budget is much the same as 2012 but in DC a non increase is a cut. Mars exploration is cut by 40% however. The LA Times did do a decent apologist piece though. They cite a heavy booster project (similar to the Saturn V) as questionable because there isn't a planet picked for it, but anyone who knows much about our needs realizes that we've needed it for a long time.
Some of NASA's own projects have gobbled up a lot of their money. The Webb telescope was orginally budgeted at 1.6B and now will hit $8B or more with launch costs before it goes up (hopefully) in 2020.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
That would be the Republicans trying to cut NASA's budget and it was GWB that ordered the retirement of the orbiters without any replacement ready. NASA has also had a number of major cost overruns with big projects that has caused them to postpone or trim missions.
It was LONG past time to retire the shuttle, we should have been working on a new vehicle a decade ago.

I do have a question though, how is it we were able to build from scratch a vehicle to get us to the moon in the 60s when we didn't really know wtf we were doing yet its going to take us MUCH longer to build a vehicle with basically the same capabilities today?
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,690
133
106
more like the truth.

The overall budget is much the same as 2012 but in DC a non increase is a cut. Mars exploration is cut by 40% however. The LA Times did do a decent apologist piece though. They cite a heavy booster project (similar to the Saturn V) as questionable because there isn't a planet picked for it, but anyone who knows much about our needs realizes that we've needed it for a long time.

Truth not found.

NASA has basically the same budget as the previous year, and has had it's budget increased over Obama's time in office. That is NOT gutting of NASA. Lets stop this sensational idiot talk.

With that out of the way, NASA needs a large budget boost.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
It was LONG past time to retire the shuttle, we should have been working on a new vehicle a decade ago.

I do have a question though, how is it we were able to build from scratch a vehicle to get us to the moon in the 60s when we didn't really know wtf we were doing yet its going to take us MUCH longer to build a vehicle with basically the same capabilities today?
When money is no object you can do a lot of cool shit in a hurry.

They should probably look at restarting the X-33 development and the follow on Venture Star. The technological problems that held up the X-33 have been solvable for quite some time now. Maybe they can get the military on board with it too.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,690
133
106
It was LONG past time to retire the shuttle, we should have been working on a new vehicle a decade ago.

I do have a question though, how is it we were able to build from scratch a vehicle to get us to the moon in the 60s when we didn't really know wtf we were doing yet its going to take us MUCH longer to build a vehicle with basically the same capabilities today?
Because it's on a budget, and we want more capability.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
Some of NASA's own projects have gobbled up a lot of their money. The Webb telescope was orginally budgeted at 1.6B and now will hit $8B or more with launch costs before it goes up (hopefully) in 2020.

I don't know why or how the cost overruns are so much but for something like the Webb telescope it should be a no brainer.

I mean come on, we spent almost $70 billion to develop the F22, $8 billion to see and discover things no human has ever been able to before seems rather cheap in comparison.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
Because it's on a budget, and we want more capability.
Given that we have had 50 years of advancement in the field I am taking a wild guess that we can rather easily (as far as building rockets go) make it much more capable.

And the budget has always been a problem, we want a vehicle and we want more capability but we give them shit for a budget and even then their mission can and often is changed every 4-8 years.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
I don't know why or how the cost overruns are so much but for something like the Webb telescope it should be a no brainer.

I mean come on, we spent almost $70 billion to develop the F22, $8 billion to see and discover things no human has ever been able to before seems rather cheap in comparison.
I don't disagree, just pointing out the facts of the current situation.

I'd definitely like to see heavy investment in SSTO, space telescopes, and robotic planetary missions. Significant work on propulsion should also be funded to prepare for human spaceflight beyond earth orbit.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
When money is no object you can do a lot of cool shit in a hurry.

They should probably look at restarting the X-33 development and the follow on Venture Star. The technological problems that held up the X-33 have been solvable for quite some time now. Maybe they can get the military on board with it too.
It is hard for me to get excited about another LEO vehicle. "To boldly go where 100's have gone before" and all that jazz. We need some sort of heavy lifter and it would be nice if it could be dual purpose for LEO but imo not absolutely necessary. Hell, by the time we built the damn thing the private sector will probably be able to ferry our astronauts in and out of LEO.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
I don't disagree, just pointing out the facts of the current situation.

I'd definitely like to see heavy investment in SSTO, space telescopes, and robotic planetary missions. Significant work on propulsion should also be funded to prepare for human spaceflight beyond earth orbit.
Is there something worth the development costs for SSTO? The shuttle was supposed to be "economical" and would have very quick turn around times because it was reusable and it failed horribly at both.

Not a loaded question at all, I am genuinely curious as to the advantages that a SSTO system would offer.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
Truth not found.

NASA has basically the same budget as the previous year, and has had it's budget increased over Obama's time in office. That is NOT gutting of NASA. Lets stop this sensational idiot talk.

With that out of the way, NASA needs a large budget boost.
What did I post which is factually incorrect and what did I actually say (not what you wish I had said) which is untrue?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY