K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 45,896
- 32,700
- 136
What did I post which is factually incorrect and what did I actually say (not what you wish I had said) which is untrue?
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.
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.
Being able to service stuff we put into orbit and retrieve it if desirable when the mission is complete. Payload capability to LEO comparable to shuttle and much faster turnaround. More survivable than disposable launchers.
A lot of the X-33 development was done or in process. Restarting the program which Lockeed has kept in cold storage wouldn't be all that hard.
Service what stuff? What stuff do we have up there that servicing would be a hell of a lot cheaper than simply replacing? Over its lifetime, the space shuttle cost about $1.5 billion per flight. http://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html (And, let's not forget to factor in inflation, since we're thinking in today's dollars.) Let's say you can do it for 1/5 that cost. For the vast vast majority of things, it's still cheaper to replace. And, for many of the things worth repairing, the space shuttle's capability wasn't even remotely ready to head to them. Geosynchronous orbit is 22,236 miles in altitude. Let's round that off to 22,000 miles. Space shuttle flights were at an altitude roughly equal to that rounding error. The space shuttle was as capable of getting to those satellites as an electric car is capable of driving (the distance) completely around the Earth at the equator on a single charge.
Oh they reversed the canceling of the James Webb Telescope, nice to see they simply capped spending at 8billion so it's only going to be a 4x cost overrun.
NASA's problems are more related to administration and execution than budget.
Any experiments we would like to park in low orbit, optical space telescopes for example. Also being able to service and man the ISS independently. I'm not saying the shuttle program should be resurrected. I'm saying it should have been replaced long ago with a cheaper reusable alternative. A SSTO with a launch cost of 10-15% of a shuttle mission is well within our present technical capability.
Even the Russians get it right sometimes.
Just use existing technology to make a tried and true mulitple stage to orbit with an expendable capsule.
It could be built with existing technology very quickly and at a far lower cost than any new kind technology.
I said Obama didn't gut NASA, where did you hear that?
you replied with
You think that is gutting NASA?
I disagree completely. It DOES need a much larger budget and it needs a long term goal to spend that budget on. Currently it spends a ton of money on project A just to have the next president come in and say fuck that project we are going to do project B. Those, imho, are probably NASA's biggest two problems.
Granted 4X budget is a big ass miscalculation but they are kinda building shit that no one has ever built before that then has to get shot by a huge fucking rocket into space and then operate in space for hopefully a decade or longer. Just sort of a tough job, just saying.
Service what stuff? What stuff do we have up there that servicing would be a hell of a lot cheaper than simply replacing? Over its lifetime, the space shuttle cost about $1.5 billion per flight. http://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html (And, let's not forget to factor in inflation, since we're thinking in today's dollars.) Let's say you can do it for 1/5 that cost. For the vast vast majority of things, it's still cheaper to replace. And, for many of the things worth repairing, the space shuttle's capability wasn't even remotely ready to head to them. Geosynchronous orbit is 22,236 miles in altitude. Let's round that off to 22,000 miles. Space shuttle flights were at an altitude roughly equal to that rounding error. The space shuttle was as capable of getting to those satellites as an electric car is capable of driving (the distance) completely around the Earth at the equator on a single charge.
Did I say it was? There are claims made and as an fyi I posted the facts. No, nasa isn't being gutted but i'd say that in the specific instance of mars exploration a 40% reduction is substantial, perhaps "gutting". I presented the facts as I could find them for clarity of discussion. I even backed your overall contention. The problem again?
I don't disagree that NASA needs a better budget, but giving them more money when they are having these kinds of cost overruns is simply going to turn them into something like the military and the F22 or F35 projects.
With better management even modest increases in budget will have a much bigger impact than a poorly managed entity getting a faucet of cash.
I don't disagree that NASA needs a better budget, but giving them more money when they are having these kinds of cost overruns is simply going to turn them into something like the military and the F22 or F35 projects.
With better management even modest increases in budget will have a much bigger impact than a poorly managed entity getting a faucet of cash.
Since we haven't built an expendable capsule since Apollo and have no human rated launch vehicle presently available it would be more involved than you'd think.
I don't disagree that NASA needs a better budget, but giving them more money when they are having these kinds of cost overruns is simply going to turn them into something like the military and the F22 or F35 projects.
With better management even modest increases in budget will have a much bigger impact than a poorly managed entity getting a faucet of cash.
Yes, though Obama's gutting of NASA is still terribly disappointing.
That and then there is this....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-new-mission-for-nasa-reach-out-to-muslim-world/article/1780
What we really need is a global space agency... but that will never happen because govts treat space as a pissing contest.