NASA Launch Discussion

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by TennoWarrior, Dec 4, 2014.

  1. Going to mars Isn't necessarily a waste. The tech spawned from such a project would have far reaching implications on earth. Wonderful stuff comes from the space project
     
  2. If you are trying to say Russia hides it's space program Asland I believe it's very much not the case it's one of the few areas the USA
     
  3. Who cares about space! Let's explore the deep sea!
     
  4. No denying the benefits from space travel but question the allocation of funds. Pros would need heavily outweigh the cons while on Earth bigger problems confront us.
     
  5. What happens when you have a black hole coming to our solar system? We need space tech to prepare for any forcoming events, the sea is a minor aspect compared to space
     
  6. What if giant lizards build a portal in the sea and start destroying everything? 
     
  7. you guys are stupid. everyone knows that the u.s. abandoned the space program when they unlocked the secrets of the stargate.




    btw: i support space exploration
     
  8. Black hole? 

    If we could defend against it we already would have no problems at all here. Thats a size of WE that does not exist nor ever will btw

    Where is that Stargate located? We will need it
     
  9. How to defend against a black hole.

    Option #1: Put everyone in a space craft and fly to Alpha Centauri.

    Option #2: Find a way to fully heat the earth without the sun and shoot missiles behind earth to blow them up, throwing Earth off orbit and hopefully faster than the black hole. Or attach rockets to the earth.
     
  10. I agree with moose. Space exploration could have travel implications on earth. There also are medicinal products that are being studied in zero gravity. Money, however, is a problem. Like it was said (I'm not sure who said it) but congress now would never let George Bush have the credit for that. If they think something gives them a political advantage, they'll do it. No questions asked. And that is hurting America.
     
  11. Yes houston can I come home? The flight crew left and said I was in charge, I have been waiting for the Soyuz to come and pic me up.
     
  12. Colonizing Mars with current technology is impossible. Even if we spend hundreds of years with current technology trying to convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen gas, the atmosphere will simply be ripped away by solar winds due to a lack of a magnetic field on Mars.

    As for those who believe it's better to not help than help other nations:

    It's more stressful for a nation to be in isolation and lose global dominance than to support others. Look at South Korea and Japan. They were both funded by the USA and are now both global leaders. They are also both great trading partners to the USA and are a currently great counterbalance to China in the Pacific. Another example is Germany and West Europe in general. While it may have been costly in the past, the USA today has valuable trading partners and allies that are a counterbalance to Russia.

    By establishing new trading partners and markets, the USA managed to become far richer and stable than if it had let the rest of the world fall in the aftermath of WWII.
     
  13. Obviously moose is a commie
     
  14. MURICA! NUFF SAID!KEEP UR COMMIE MOUTHS SHUT!
     
  15. I have never understood why a computer that could be had for $ 1,000 or even $10,000 "costs" NASA a million bucks. Budgeting and overspending have always been problems. Private sector can and hopefully will fix those things soon. I think its dumb to do a mars trip on 10 year old technology which is about what this rocket is behind im sure (corrections welcome) we have smartphones that do more than all the shuttle computers did combined. Up the tech, lower the price. Should be simple.
     
  16. I think the mars mission would be more symbolic than anything.
    Space exploration is an exciting and wonderful thing that deserves to have a place in human society.
     
  17.  
  18.  
  19. Part of the reasons the the tech seems old is the length of time involved in design and production it's state of the art when it's designed but after 20yrs it's looking dated.

    Look at the euro fighter and F22 both were first proposed and designed in the 1980's and took over a decade to actually get built.
    Compare that to Apollo program went from nothing to getting to the moon in the same time frame.

    It's a matter of national will and budgets.
    No American political leader was going to trash Kennedy's legacy in the 1960's so things got done.

    Would that happen today ? I'd be deeply shocked if it does.