The dream catcher is a Low Earth Orbit craft and completely incapable of leaving the near vicinity of our planet, it was not designed or intended for Mars or even the moon. Any craft that travels to Mars or any other celestial body will require a far more robust and intentional platform with MASSIVE protection and life support abilities. Personally, I find human exploration of Mars to be loaded with challenges and wasteful use of resources as robotic missions have proven quite capable and far less logistically intensive. Humans will probably do it anyway because that is what we do and have always done...explore and expand. The SLS and Orion or Mars One, SpaceX will probably work together eventually to accomplish this but I expect space tourism./Asteroid mining to happen first.
Mars is a dead planet. and it'll stay dead. But if being interested in dead planets floats your boat, who am I to complain?
Hopefully you eventually understand that by trying to make fun of words you do not understand you are actually making fun of yourself in the minds of everyone else.
Oh come now. I know of 3 cosmonauts who came down with helmets off and a pressure valve malfunctioned so they were literally "spaced" on the decent. Maybe there are a few more. Yet - - - How many fried on the side of the Land Of The Free And Te Home Of The Brave? Does Apollo 1 count, although it was still on the ground. Bad workmanship and a 100% Oxygen atmosphere - and we laugh about the Hindenburg. One Shuttle going up and one coming down. What does that add up to? The ole Sovietsky engineers sure made a "Russian" (heavy duty) system when they designed the Soyuz. Something to be admired like the DC-3. Significant longevity beyond their origins of engineering! Moi I remember Sputnik And Khrushchev's American "road show". It ended in Hollywood with live "roasts" by ole Russian/Ukrainian today Jewish studio owners broadcast live on local TV. In Hollywood we had 3 more TV channels than most. Point: "It" can be defused so well, like a spark. Soon after K was kicked out.
The issue is that Soyuz is in use right now, not 40 years ago (though the technology is nearly that old) and this discussion centers on what is happening right now. By the way, There have been a total of five fatal in-flight accidents that we know of for Cosmonauts, . Russia however seldom tells anyone anything....lots of blown up rockets however.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you actually think this work started under Trump??? Do you have ANY idea of the lead time required for anything involving space, even if it's just cargo?
That's pretty much how anything gets done. You're just implying that it is wasted, but aren't supplying evidence of that.
I can't rule out it started under Trump. Look at the rapid progress of Elon Musk. Also they have a vast wealth of designs from even the Bush years. Obama was no fan of the space program. Hell he was no fan of oil pipelines either. Obama cuts NASA budget "When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding...the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating." Space policy of the Barack Obama administration - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
Trump's proposed NASA budget was a reduction and it cut stuff, too. Plus, his moon shot is incredibly expensive and will require more science to be cut - even with the additional funding he has proposed (without congressional approval). Your comment on Musk doesn't change anything at all. He and NASA work together. NASA works with other private space ventures, too. NASA is there to get the job done, not to compete. When Trump decided to make it the law that NASA land someone on the moon in 2024 it totally screwed up the NASA plans to land someone there in 2028. Large amounts of new work will be required to figure out how to make the more aggressive date as the work for 2028 gets turned into a bone yard to be picked over. Outside of Trump bragging rights, why do we need a man on the moon in 2024??? Why should we spend billions on that date change and cancel science missions in order to achieve that date instead of 2028??? Suggesting Obama was no fan of the space program just doesn't sail. Pipelines??? Please stay on topic.
You hate talking about Obama. I too hate having to discuss him at all. My point with Musk is he started but did not quit. And the man is advancing rapidly. i believe NASA can afford to pay him for his research and engineering.. America already proved how to get to the moon. Also new tools and new research will assist in quicker action than last time. As I understand it, it would cut billions of dollars by starting from the Moon to Mars as opposed to a more special ship to start from Earth. We could send more ships to Mars faster than from Earth.Ships could be sent to the Moon as fabricated units.We did that for the orbiting space platforms in use. As well as past platforms. A platform now in space it seems to me is not a very acceptable launch platform for a trip to Mars. Obama as I proved killed about 4 ships that would be useful for our space program. I bring up oil pipeline to show how dumb Obama was. I did not trust him to quit killing our space program. His mild increase i believe had to do with climate.
I don't think you're getting it here. NASA has tasks that are required by LAW. Congress passes specific space missions that NASA must carry out as a legal matter. And, NASA will help others provide pieces such as lift capability and use those pieces if/when they are successful. NASA and Musk are on the same team. They are not competing and NASA is NOT interested in duplicating the construction of necessary equipment. The NASA plan IS to use what Musk and others provide in any mission they have where such use is appropriate. And, NASA lets all comers know what it is that NASA needs for its missions. Says who? Anything we build on the moon would have to be lifted into space out of the moon's gravity. It would be better to construct stuff in space, so that isn't necessary. Beyond that, there are other reasons as well. For example, the dust of the Moon is so fine and electrostatically charged that keeping clean is essentially impossible. NASA kills projected programs all the time. They have many times the missions that their budget would allow, and juggling them is a constant effort. Your analysis of Obama is just plain silly. And, bringing pipelines into this is preposterous.
That's OK. There is a lot of waste in government spending, and it's no secret. It's common knowledge, really. It's also not too big a deal as long as the government can afford it. But it's problematic that government borrows big in order to spend big, and has a crooked tax system that allows the mega-rich to keep so much of their riches while the working and middle classes pony up a large portion of their earned income to keep everything humming along.
I agree. I will say that large corporations waste a lot of money, too. And, we military spending where the whole requirements and acquisition process is carefully designed to be hugely wasteful. For example: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ongress-navy-pentagon-400-million-pork-214009
Say lone Ranger, some of your opinion I value though i have no idea what makes you believe you are the forum expert but when you make sense, i also accept that. The gravity on the moon is a lot less than on Earth. As to the moon dust, that could be a very good point. By the way, I don't think i call what you say preposterous. Are you aiming to cause me to be your foe? Calling me out that way is a good way to create for yourself a foe. You saying Nasa and Musk are a team is what I will look up now to see if you are pulling a con job or are telling the truth. Express. Home of the Daily and Sunday Express. SpaceX news: NASA and Elon Musk team up for mission to CRASH into asteroid NASA is teaming up with SpaceX to launch one of its most daring missions to save the world from an apocalyptic wipeout. By LUKE HAWKER PUBLISHED: 14:11, Sat, Apr 13, 2019 | UPDATED: 14:11, Sat, Apr 13, 2019 The space agency has instructed the help of Elon Musk’s aerospace company with the first-ever attempt to deflect an asteroid by purposely crashing into it. At an astonishing cost of £53 million ($69 million) the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) will look to divert any asteroid which threatens the earth’s atmosphere. DART will launch a Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in June 2021. This sounds like something brand new as opposed to a long standing contract. Here is good enough for me proof you are correct about them operating as partners. Is SpaceX partnered with NASA? Space Exploration Technologies Corp., doing business as SpaceX, is a private American aerospace manufacturer and space transportation services company headquartered in Hawthorne, California. ... SpaceX has flown 16 resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) under a partnership with NASA. SpaceX - Wikipedia OK, what I marked in blue, you get the forum seal of approval as true. Red text by you makes a lot of sense. I grant the article is good proof in your favor. And your closing statement makes sense so we can rate it as true too. What makes it bad is your insults. Those are not needed.
Thanks - quite generous of you. NASA would be happy not building another rocket, but Musk doesn't have anything with enough lift capacity for astronauts on the Moon until somewhat later. So, NASA will be required to build the SLS in order to meet the 2024 date. It may be that the Block 2 upgrade to the SLS won't be needed. By the way, my personal view is that we don't need humans in space - other than the ISS, which can be serviced without the SLS. When humans are involved, the expense just plain skyrockets. Plus, the moon is an absolutely deadly environment (temperature, no O2, full exposure to deadly radiation, moon dust, gravity to fight when leaving the surface or bringing in material, etc.) and we have rapidly improving robotics. Having no astronauts outside Earth orbit would allow budget for an amazing array of important science missions. Men on the moon means killing a good number of missions. The Trump budget proposed killing Earth observation (which is used by US agriculture, etc.), killing the analysis of data already returned by missions around our solar system, and killing science outreach (disseminating science NASA has developed). To me, that's an unacceptably high cost.
I'll tell you something you don't know, smartypants - in the very unlikely event that the cat ever does get out of the bag, you're gonna look far more stupid in your gullibility than I would by my skepticism if it doesn't? But then while there are easily-fooled individuals around who blindly believe every word they hear and read, irrespective of how utterly ludicrous, it probably never will. Question for ya - What do you do to ensure a lucrative job for life for yourself and all your family and friends for zero physical effort? Answer - dream up a chimera which can never be found, and convince the world that you're searching for it; then you'll perpetuate the myth for your own generation and all those generations that follow in your footsteps in the faux science industry. I'll leave you with this definition in the hope that you might learn from it - there's no need to thank me . . . chimera (kaɪˈmɪərə; kɪ-) or n 1. (Classical Myth & Legend) (often capital) Greek myth a fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, body of agoat, and tail of a serpent 2. (Art Terms) a fabulous beast made up of parts taken from various animals 3. a wild and unrealistic dream or notion https://www.thefreedictionary.com/chimera Over and out.
I don't know about the States but there's plenty of evidence of wastage here, the most recent being the imminent aborting of the HS2 rail link, where hundreds of homes have been compulsorily purchased along the proposed route which need not have been; and worse than that, a change in the welfare system which was supposed to simplify it by combining all qualifying payments into one single payment, has resulted in total social chaos, including suicides, because entitled individuals weren't receiving them owing to a failed administration: that was 4 years ago and it still hasn't been resolved. And I could go on. In fact literally every project our governments involves itself in, especially IT ones, crashes and burns. It's euphemistically called 'the dead hand of government'.
If you want that stuff to work better, you're undoubtedly going to need to buy better people to do the work and then given them the budget to get the job done. What you seem to be suggesting is that you can pay less and get more. But, you certainly haven't shown any evidence of that. As for your transportation comment, one would have to get a clear understanding of the issue. We had a similar such issue here, only in the other direction. The initial government solution was to buy half of people's yards and put a raised commuter line through, with the trains passing people's second story decks by as little as 5 feet, leaving the homeowner a shaded first story cove below. That would have made living there essentially impossible. Obviously, the final solution required more right of way.
