Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's Wrong With NASA?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #61
    That's not even the half of it, boann. Critical systems are triple or quadruple redundant.

    This becomes a huge problem in cost, when your designers don't design for simplicity.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment

    • #62
      So the Russian fired seven rockets. Is that all?

      Meanwhile, launched at least three new projects.

      Plus, there were the existing program like the Hubble and other existing space craft.

      Then there is the extremely important research conducted by NASA, such as developing nuclear powered propulsion, experimental physics programs,

      Then there's the work on projects that will be launched at a later date. For instance, last year, NASA was working on Deep Impact comet mission. Plus there is money spent to develop a replacement for the shuttle. And money spent on developing new engines for aircraft.

      There are NASA projects that monitor and collect information on the earth's environment which is vital to understand and preventing pollution.

      Oh, and then there's NASA education program.

      Much of this is work that will pay dividends in years to come, and most importantly, work that the private sector would never fund because it does not provide a profit in the next quarter.

      Sorry, the idea that the Russian space program is more efficient and does what NASA does on 1/20th of the budget is just laughable.
      Golfing since 67

      Comment

      • #63
        Originally posted by DanS
        Critical systems are triple or quadruple redundant.
        That's not unusual. The typical airliner today carries triple redundancy on major components.
        Golfing since 67

        Comment

        • #64
          Sorry, the idea that the Russian space program is more efficient and does what NASA does on 1/20th of the budget is just laughable.
          That's a straw man. I never said that Russia does what NASA does on 1/20th of the budget.
          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

          Comment

          • #65
            It's not a straw man.

            This is what you said:
            Originally posted by DanS
            They acquit themselves well on a budget that is economical.
            You were trying to say that the Russians are efficient while NASA was not.

            Yet the Russians are doing a fraction of what NASA does. And you haven't shown that the Russians "acquit themselves well on a budget that is economical. " It is clear that the Russians aren't doing a hell of a lot compared to what NASA is doing.
            Golfing since 67

            Comment

            • #66
              Originally posted by Tingkai
              So the Russian fired seven rockets. Is that all?
              The Russian civil space authority launched 7, which is over 10% of the total launched worldwide for the year. In the same period, NASA launched 3.

              Meanwhile, launched at least three new projects.
              And Russia launched one.

              Then there is the extremely important research conducted by NASA, such as developing nuclear powered propulsion, experimental physics programs,
              Most of this is funded by DOE and DOD, not NASA.

              There are NASA projects that monitor and collect information on the earth's environment which is vital to understand and preventing pollution.
              As Russia does.

              Oh, and then there's NASA education program.
              Which is worthless, IMO.
              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

              Comment

              • #67
                Originally posted by Tingkai
                It's not a straw man.
                It is too. Stop being obtuse. The Russians are doing a large fraction of what NASA is doing, but is spending a small fraction of the money. IOW, they are much more efficient than NASA.
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment

                • #68
                  Come off it Dan. The only one being obtuse is you.

                  The idea that the Russian are doing a "large" fraction of what NASA is doing is just stupid.

                  There is no way to prove that the Russians are more efficient because they have different budgets and are doing different things. Your comparision is pointless.

                  And you put forth another strawman with your comment that other US agencies are working on things like nuclear-power propulsion. That doesn't take away from the fact that NASA is working on it and that it is part of the NASA budget.

                  As for you comment that education is useless, well, that's just a classic Conservative response.

                  The problem with you Dan is that you're letting your ideology blind you to reality. You hate government agencies so much that you can't see the important work that is being done by NASA. You're as bad as the idoleague who claim that globalization is simply a bad thing when we both know that there pluses and minuses.
                  Golfing since 67

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Berzerker
                    Probes are mostly a waste too, they sent Magellan to Venus for study. The argument I heard at the time from the weenies at JPL was we wanted to find out why Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect so we could prevent the same thing from happening here. We didn't need to send a probe for that, Venus is upside down, not rotating much at all, and ~ no magnetic field to deflect solar radiation. JPL knew all that and they still sold that waste of money to us with lies.
                    OMFG, Magellan was a evil librul plot to help the eco-nuts and distroy the US economy!1!!1!

                    Magellan's main purpose, if I remember right, was to map the surface. Vesuvian geology was barely known before Magellan, and many scientists wanted to know if Venus has plate tectonics. Magellan confirmed that Venus has no plate tectonics, which supported the hypothesis that subduction requires oceans to work.


                    Anyway, NASA needs to concentrate on exploration (manned mssion to Mars, search for life on Europa) and research (new, better, larger space telescopes; such as a planned space-based interferometer that will search for earth-like planets) and quit being a ferry service for private satellites. NASA shpuld lay the foundations of the colonization of the Solar Sysytem and beyond. I want Humanity to spread across the galaxy, not be stuck on Earth because of shortsighted people who only care about the here and now.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      There is no way to prove that the Russians are more efficient because they have different budgets and are doing different things. Your comparision is pointless.
                      The Russians spend about $60 million to put 3 people in space while the US spends about $1.2 billion to put 7 people in space. The numbers don't lie. The Russians are much more efficient, safe, and capable on manned programs than NASA.

                      I am amazed that me defending a communist-legacy space program leads to me being accused of being ideological.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        No, the shuttle missions typically do scientific reseach, which the Russian missions do not.

                        But yes, if NASA paid poverty level wages, it could do things a lot cheaper, but it can't because it has to compete with the American labour market for people.
                        Golfing since 67

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          See my edit, above, about ideology. And in any event, the research done by the Shuttle on orbit is rather miniscule and not at all timely.
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            IMHO,
                            There is too much emphasis on safety. If you want to go into space you should accept that there is a small chance you will DIE. I think that we would have moved further along the path of exploration if almost every aspect of space travel was not government controlled.
                            I also think that the U.S. should have a government space program that is not a monopoly. A program that does research into areas that are beneficial to Americans specifically and the world.
                            I think that we should take risks and experiment with new ideas and designs at a faster rate and for less money. One good way is to deregulate and take the safeties off. There are more ways to get into space than to rely on spacecraft designs that are older than a modern destroyer.
                            What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
                            What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Typical capitalist: only concerned about "timely" results, no ability to take a long term view.

                              The shuttle provides the only way to do these experiments.

                              You are blinded by ideology. You only look at the dollars spent without looking at the results. And yes, it is funny that your ideological fanaticism puts you in a position where you use one government program to undermine another government program.
                              Golfing since 67

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                only concerned about "timely" results, no ability to take a long term view.
                                Let me put it this way. If you want to do a scientific experiment on the Shuttle, then the waiting list is decades long. As a scientist, you can't do effective scientific research this way. You'll retire before making any headway. The results just aren't timely enough to be of any use.

                                And yes, it is funny that your ideological fanaticism puts you in a position where you use one government program to undermine another government program.
                                That is the only relevant comparison available.
                                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X