-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NASA: We are going to the Moon. To stay, so we can go beyond. To MARS, and further
- Thread starter Greigor the FellHand
- Start date
Don't you dare question or governments ability to spend effectively! They need more funding.
Nah, they're outsourcing the design of their new rocket to the ULA. It's super expensive and not even reusable
No. In fact if Russia hadn't okayed the Soyuz in time for an early launch of MS-11 next month, the ISS would have been temporarily without crew rotation capability.
Whatever gets me new footage of humans on the Moon that wasn't shot with a potato 40 years ago I'm in. I can't wait to see for the first time in my lifetime new videos of astronauts jumping around the moon with the earth in the background in 4K. Maybe even with sound (does any sound can even be heard in the moon's tiny atmosphere?)
1) NASA's budget isn't very much compared to all the shit we pay for in the States. We have a lot of money.
2) NASA has needed a real project for decades because real projects lead to funding through more discoveries (increasing private donation and public support), and through patents on new technologies. If NASA was actually given the reins to go to Mars, then they'd likely be churning out very lucrative patents on the tech they'd need to get out there. The ability to get humans to Mars would require some insanely valuable tech.
I really enjoyed this video about the benefits of a moon base;
Compared to our budget, its relatively cheap.
Compared to our budget, its relatively cheap.
Isn't the reason for moon because construction of space things out in space be cheaper?
Ummm can whichever mod edited this post please: a) reveal yourselves; and b) never pull this shit again.
Are you serious? Editing another user's post to remove something idiotic? We are ADULTS here. Are we too stupid to recognize some fool's conspiracy theory nonsense? There is zero need to coddle a community of adults, to "protect" us from dumbass opinions.
I am absolutely shocked this is somehow okay to do. I don't give a fuck if Meus Renaissance is spewing lies about the pyramids or saying Alex Jones shit about frog water. Don't silence users by editing their text. What the fuck?
I'm glad that NASA is building the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. Previously every time a new administration came in, the plans would change as for what to do. With this, it seems going to the moon/Mars/an asteroid/whatever is way more achievable.
You do realize the only reason those companies exist at all is because of NASA, right? No company is going to invest in going to the Moon or Mars without significant government support.
Assuming that it doesn't get cancelled. You know, like Constellation, Asteroid Redirect, NASA's previous Mars plans, etc...
Seriously, the only NASA programs that you can reasonably assume will happen are satellites, space probes and rovers, and that's just because they're way cheaper and smaller in scope. Also their ISS programmes since the thing already exists.
Last edited:
If they actually do it I won't won't say the mission to the moon was fake because in the world we live in today it's hard to hide the truth
Until they launch and it's recorded live I call bull and won't believe it
Until they launch and it's recorded live I call bull and won't believe it
Last edited:
The moon is the logical next step, not going straight to Mars (with a manned mission). People come up with these edgy ideas like stranding someone on Mars with a one way trip as a heroic sacrifice for mankind, but nobody responsible is really going to do that shit.
You go to the moon first to develop and test technology and strategy. The Moon is literally a giant, free, completely stable orbital platform a short distance away. And it's the size of, well, a moon.
You go to the moon first to develop and test technology and strategy. The Moon is literally a giant, free, completely stable orbital platform a short distance away. And it's the size of, well, a moon.
Right, that's the point of the LOPG. It's part of NASA's (and other countries) replacement for the ISS, which is getting old. Something that has to happen, regardless what administration is in power.
With the LOPG, it's easier to go to the Mars, Moon, or wherever. And we can do it pretty soon too, Both NASA's SLS or SpaceX's BFR will have the delta-v and thrust to easily build a space station in the cis-lunar orbit.
The way NASA is beginning to operate is to plan out long term projects like the ISS and LOPG that don't change between presidents. Which makes sense, no point in planning to go to some planetary/planetoid destination in space if it'll get cancelled in ~8 years.
NASA is tired of fucking around. There's a plan to shoot congress into the sun, as soon as the "bill to mine unlimited oil from the moon" is signed and passed.
Constructing things in space makes sense. But doing it on the moon is entirely counter-productive.
The moon is a terrible staging ground for going anywhere other than the moon. If you could start at the moon, maybe. But once you've gotten the stuff off of the Earth, there's no reason to go stick it down in another gravity well on the way to Mars.
If there are any more Sam Bells left on Moon, they could probably speed up the construction process of any new base. I'm sure they will want a trip back to earth in exchange for their services at the very least, though.
Do NASA have a reusable vehicle in the works in the same ballpark as the space shuttle? Because I loved that thing.
Yeah, god knows medicaid needs that 0.5% of the US budget NASA has to stay functional.
NASA, for all the wonderful things it accomplished, is a relic of a former age, subject to the funding whims of a fickle Congress and the meandering goals of feckless Presidential administrations. Manned spaceflight requires long-range planning, funding, and most importantly, a goal; a Vision. NASA lacks all three. Its primary focus should shift entirely to unmanned missions and scientific research, which is cheaper, less visible, and has historically been the best scientific return on investment for the agency and its labs.
The new commercial companies are run by people with singular visions, who can plan for the long-term and fund their ventures from a variety of sources, including private investment, as well as government and commercial launch contracts. If any human enterprise is going to put boots on another world, it will be these companies or their successors. This has been the model for most exploration since at least the Enlightenment. No one's doing it because it's inspiring, or for some noble purpose. It's done to make money.
It sort of does. If we're capable of sustaining life on Mars, we can sustain life anywhere there's sunshine. Currently, one of the biggest problems in space exploration is closed system ecologies -- the ability to have a fully functioning, stable ecology that grows food and provides oxygen. That's research that'll be necessary to sustain any colony that's not getting constant, insanely expensive, cargo drops. And while no one wants to consider what happens when the environment is so wrecked it can't sustain us, I'd rather have the ability to create closed ecologies than not at that point.
And mars will be cheap? We're gonna fly straight to mars and know how to build and construct bases and ships in space off the bat?
Not like it matters anyway, they've been making these announcements since forever.
When I was a kid I always wanted to be an astronaut, then I discovered I was afraid of flying. Kinda put a damper on that dream lol
We can, I just don't know if that's the responsible thing to do. Of course I'm no NASA scientist, I don't know what it would really cost and what it might gain us.
I have a hard time imagining that a location with very little to no water, no oxygen, no plants or animals, and a few hundred degrees the wrong temperature will be even close to as easy/cheap to survive in compared to even the worst places on earth's surface after climate change hits us. No, I don't think it does do anything for Indonesians unless you expect that we're going to be shipping hundreds of millions of them off to space colonies? Even then, I can't imagine living in a space colony with basically no oxygen, natural resources, or water is going to be better than even hard hit areas of earth. If we can sustain massive mars bases I think carbon capture or whatever other climate engineering problems on earth will have already been long solved.
I guess if you're concerned about humans literally going extinct for some reason? I'm talking about the billions here and now that will be fucked by climate change. I sure won't care that much that we're a step closer to getting a few people in a self sustaining environment to avoid complete and total human extinction if millions of climate refugees flood our country and the native population elects Hitler 2.0 to put them in death camps.
When we can figure out a cost effective way of getting payloads off the surface of the earth and onto space, that's when we will win big. Until then each exercise or mission to the lunar surface will be expensive.
This is great and I hope it happens.
But the video also reminds me of the kind of things that companies in sci-fi movies make before everything goes very wrong.
But the video also reminds me of the kind of things that companies in sci-fi movies make before everything goes very wrong.