/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10992824

>>10992824
>Do you think the US will land on the moon again by 2025?
With purely NASA efforts? No. They don't even have a general design for a lander. There's no way NASA with it's current management to be able to develop such a lander in 5-6 years considering that it's expected to take them 6 years to make a new spacesuit. NASA's track-record is abysmal, they would need to be cleaned up and restructured completely to bring them back to even half of the competence of Apollo-era NASA.

If NASA went commercial with the significant elements? Probably. Blue Origin has a lander that will be ready by 2024 supposedly. Bigelow has lots of development in space habitats. And, of course, there's SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and BFR that can definitely send the required mass to the moon. However, with the current political environment NASA is in, and the management it has, this will be very difficult for NASA to do as this is an unpopular option to some Senators who have complete control of NASA's plans and budget.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:00:48 No.10992862 Report

Quoted By: >>10992867 >>10992868 >>10992872 >>10993278 >>10993294

>>10992851
Pretty good answer, but I hope you're wrong. Why are some NASA programs (manned flight, James Webb) such fucking shit shows but other programs are going well (Mars rovers, probes, ISS, etc)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:00:59 No.10992863 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992851
Falcon Heavy is a bit too small to send something manned to the moon if you want them to be able to come back again without in-situ propellant production

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:03:14 No.10992867 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992862
James Webb is taking so long and costing so much largely because there isn't a vehicle large enough to launch it without it being incredibly complicated. The deployment process necessitated by modern launch vehicle payload constraints is extremely complex.

If they just built a bigger rocket, they could have gone with a much simpler design and launched it 10 years ago.

Here's the absurd process it has to go through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ihVeEoUdo

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:04:35 No.10992868 Report

Quoted By: >>10992889 >>10993288

>>10992862

>other programs are going well

>Mars rovers

Heh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:11:26 No.10992872 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992862
>Why are some NASA programs (manned flight, James Webb) such fucking shit shows but other programs are going well (Mars rovers, probes, ISS, etc)?
First, remember that NASA isn't a homogeneous organization. It has lots of separate departments in it that can act somewhat independently from the main agency. So some departments can be under garbage while others can be fine.

Second, stuff like manned spaceflight and James Webb require lots of money and thus needs more convincing of Congress to have them agree on the budget. Congress in-general aren't spaceflight fans so non-spaceflight benefits of a given suggested expensive program weigh very heavily in their opinions. Which results in something like the SLS, a program that started off with a good idea but got bogged down by Congress' requirement that the SLS doubles as a jobs program (there's lots more going on, but I'll keep it simple). Rovers and probes tend to be tight with their budget so little messing around with Congress is required. The ISS is an international effort, so NASA isn't the only player in that.

Third, NASA's management has degraded since Apollo. There's lots of stuff that has happened and are still happening, but to keep it simple, NASA of today is less worried about pushing boundaries and exploring the unknown and more worried about just not getting disbanded as their relationship with the government can be fragile. This allows for some pretty terrible decisions being made both intentionally and non-intentional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 05:23:28 No.10992889 Report

Quoted By: >>10993283

>>10992868
You're a complete moron if you think the Mars rovers from the past 20 years thru today have not been extremely successful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 09:48:51 No.10993260 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992824
After this official statement I supporse anything can happen. For exmample spacex mission to Moon be success, but they see few ufos on the way.

statement:
US Navy confirms UFO videos are the real deal"
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/20/senators-take-interest-in-ufo-sightings-orig-jm.cnn

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9133563.png, 312KiB, 477x500

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 09:51:19 No.10993262 Report

Quoted By: >>10993278

>2025
>a government or spacex announce they're going to land a man on mars
>tumblr and sjw community throws a fit
>IT HAS TO BE A WOMAN
>mfw they're ignored and they land a man according to plan

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO main-qimg-d818258ca68443486a0e59 (...).png, 478KiB, 378x600

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:04:12 No.10993278 Report

Quoted By: >>10993287

>>10993262
I don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a women. why would anyone legitimately care?
also why the fuck would human ever need to be on the moon again?
it wasn't necessary the first time and it wont ever be.
>>10992824
who cares?
why would they focus on such an arbitrary task?
they could just blend a human up. put the human into a nice can. shoot it out in a rocket and then you'd have the exact same atom contents.
nothing would change or matter.
>>10992862
>but I hope you're wrong
why?
what difference would it make?
are all engineers this mentally ill?

____

life is generally unamusing. nothing is of serious significance. Space development isn't important or meaningful. ascending to the stars means nothing. where we are is just a place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:10:24 No.10993281 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992851
Literally just make Apollo again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:11:34 No.10993283 Report

Quoted By: >>10993288 >>10994835

>>10992889
You are the moron. If NASA had any sense at all, Mars would be dotted by dozens of rovers by now, along with every other body in the solar system. That is what we should expect for the countless billions and decades spent on it. Where the fuck are even their probe mass production lines? You think building one for the price of a $ billion is anything else than taxpayer money embezzlement? You dumb fuck.

Robotic missions are just a slighly less of a shitshow than manned space program. But they are still a huge shitshow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:14:07 No.10993287 Report

Quoted By: >>10993301

>>10993278
>hurr durr nothing matters muh dr manhattan
fuck off pseud

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:14:32 No.10993288 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992868
>>10993283
Mate, they made a new copy-paste rover based on the old design except that it has less features, costs just as much and only launches in 2020.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:17:37 No.10993294 Report

Quoted By: >>10993300

>>10992862
>ISS
>let's spend $100 billion to build a station the size of a mere house, and study whether roses smell different in zero-g in it

After two decades of ISS existence, we still have no idea whether mice can reproduce in zero-g, and still no closed loop life support prototype. Don't get me wrong, ISS is the best thing we have done since the end of Apollo, providing permanent human presence in space and serving as an anchor for commercial industry. But it is still just a thinly disguised theft of federal funding at it's core.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:23:08 No.10993300 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993294
no variable gravity testbed either

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5def63a750031a0c14d627d37a9ee293.jpg, 89KiB, 750x750

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:24:35 No.10993301 Report

Quoted By: >>10993303 >>10993307

>>10993287
>he doesn't like dr manhattan and forces his delusions onto the world
if YOU personally want to get to the moon then do it yourself hurr durr PsEuD
seethe less loser.
dr manhattan is based as fuck. philosophy is actually cool and engineering is an industry cuck job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:25:07 No.10993303 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993301
kys shitposter

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1565199113479.png, 261KiB, 785x1000

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 10:27:34 No.10993307 Report

Quoted By:

>Anonymous 09/22/19(Sun)03:25:07 No.10993303?
>>>10993301 (You)
>kys shitposter

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1557497658973.png, 381KiB, 680x768

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 13:08:25 No.10993479 Report

Quoted By:

>SLS WILL NEVER FLY
>ORION WILL NEVER FLY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 15:50:50 No.10993758 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992824
I would say there is a 50% chance the US will crash on the moon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:41:49 No.10993884 Report

Quoted By: >>10994842

The fact that these private orgs have been doing huge strides past NASA with less funding and time should tell you everything.
NASA is a fucking joke

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 22:22:55 No.10994835 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993283
You'll never be satisfied no matter what they do because you'll always just say it's not good enough so that you can find a reason to feel smarter than them. You're just a cynical dumb faggot and a pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 22:24:12 No.10994842 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993884
None of them have accomplished shit except SpaceX and that wouldn't be possible without massive govt support they received

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches