SPACE THREAD

>>7714521
There are actually a few government-run or funded programs right now.

Currently, the government's most-publicized program is sending astronauts to asteroids and eventually Mars. The problems with that initiative are many. The Space Launch System won't fly more than once every year in the most optimistic projections, and the majority of components we need to develop (Earth-Mars transit habitat module, Mars lander, Mars habitat, Earth-Mars propulsion) haven't even been budgeted and contracted yet. It's really unworkable under the current budget, and the entire thing is designed to give work to certain congressional districts.

The SLS and Orion flights to asteroids and Mars are just one program, however. NASA is funding commercial manned space flight, and that program shows enormous potential.

Meanwhile, NASA's robotic programs, including space-based observatories, have largely been extremely successful and have well-planned, feasible outlines for the future. By 2050, it's planned that NASA will image the surfaces of exoplanets, which will revolutionize astronomy.

So, yes, America has a few diversified and promising programs. It's just that the political nature of NASA forces the agency to take on some not-so-promising, extremely dead-end initiatives. And, even more dangerously, those dead ends are the programs that attract the most hype. It ought be reversed.

But, certainly, the progress in private space flight owes much to NASA both in the lessons companies have taken from NASA's past and the critical funding NASA gives commercial efforts today.

>>7714588
idk about you but I am pretty hype for the James Webb. That's run by Nasa isn't it?

>>7714588
Damn, I wish there was more funding for this stuff. Like enough to send 3 rockets up per month and developing methods to make it easier to get mass off planet.

>>7714598
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

>>7714613
That's actually the idea, but commercial is the side doing it right now. It used to be that NASA led the really experimental stuff and commercial stayed safer. It's completely the opposite lately.

SpaceX wants to eventually reuse their entire Falcon rocket family and Dragon spacecraft. That brings costs down to fuel and maintenance. Blue Origin has very similar ideas, albeit with a heavier focus on tourism.

It's not unreasonable to think we'll have multiple launches every day within a few decades. Not all the same rocket or even same tier of rocket, of course, but the amount of companies could lead a huge increase in America's launch rate. There's lots to be very excited about right now, it's just that it doesn't always attract any publicity, much less positive publicity.

>>7714588
>By 2050, it's planned
Keke

>>7714644
It's a long road, but this plan is tons more feasible than NASA's Orion/SLS roadmap:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/12/20/secure-Astrophysics_Roadmap_2013.pdf

>>7714634
>being born 3-5 decades too early

God damn it.

>focus on tourism
Not likely, too many would see them.

When's our space elevator being made?

>>7714669
As soon as that 5-hour energy guy's people get that graphene rope made. Maybe we can get the tech from him. H's going to put it into the ground to tap unlimited geothermal heat. Kind of like a soda straw for lava without all the volcanic shit happening.

>>7714521

nah, Nasa space program is slowly dying.
Gt ready for SLS to be shutdown after 3/4 launches because it costs too much.
Maybe you will resist with the automated probes (hopefully).

Only one that is trying hard in America is Musk, for better or worse

>>7714521
>Does America still have a space program
This is actually a golden age of space research, specifically based on robotics. The landings on the comet, on Mars and on Titan were all spectacular feats of science and engineering.

This is however not a golden age for MANNED space research and that is just as well since that is far more expensive and dangerous. Also a single death will set space research another 10 years. A probe that explodes is expensive, sure, but not a setback on the same scale.

>>7714521
>>7714683

Are you guys really this new? NASA does a lot. The only thing is that they're between flagship manned programs because Constellation was a mess. The "private sector" in the US is completely dependent on NASA and the USAF anyway. Fuck's sake, the Apollo capsule was built by Gunman and the STS by Rockwell.

It's abundantly clear that neither of you are Americans, as even retarded libertarians here realize that SpaceX is still a defense/government contractor more than anything else.

>>7714613

There's plenty of funding for it. Even the current Tea Party Congress gave NASA back the 9% cuts forced by the sequestration they imposed. It's important to remember that NASA is just a civilian arm of the larger military bureaucracy, with all the problems that brings. Namely, NASA is a fuckhuge bureaucracy that moves at a snail's pace and occasionally shits itself. But it ultimately works and has mostly consistent funding. Also, NASA gets the benefit of having the air force and navy beta test all their things, such as the X-37.

>>7715613
> This is actually a golden age of space research
Oh really.
Name three things important to someone that doesn't have a PhD in cosmology or the like.

>>7715664

name three things about NASA in general that applies to common people

You got velcro and petrolum-based plastics (the latter of which would have developed without NASA though), that's it. In case you didn't notice, space research most effects researchers and scientists, not the average person.

NASA isn't an organization that makes consumer products.

Need to bring launch costs down with these new vehicles

Then we can work on in space nuclear pulse propulsion, to bring large NEO's to orbit.

From there its just a matter of tonnage making a space installation self-sufficient on bulk materials.

>>7714652
It's far from likely to happen in that time frame. JWST bled astrophysics dry, as a result two of the stepping stones in that roadmap were canceled. Those were the only ones which made it past the proposal and study stage. It also doesn't include key tech demos which were canned years ago.

>>7715629
I'm american and never hear or see anything at all about any NASA or Space stuff. I have to actively search it out online now.

Over 25 years ago, I was assaulted my all the media about space programs. So, I think it is just that media and the internet age has really changed how NASA and related space companies market.

>>7715778
>You got velcro and petrolum-based plastics
You are confusing the question.
NASA is tied to lots of miscellaneous scientific
progress, such as general aeronautics. Most people would say commercial air flight is a consumer product.
The question related more to actual space research, such as distant galaxies, composition of asteroids, etc.

File: 11754543_1026671127365818_7446179671210423519_o.jpg (140KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x1067px

Was the Space Shuttle a financial failure?

>>7716935
>Was the Space Shuttle a financial failure?
The point of the shuttle was that each new president inherited a preexisting shuttle fleet, and instead of having to justify a new expense for every launch, they'd just have to not mothball the fleet.
100% political salesmanship/strategy

>>7715778
>name three things about NASA in general that applies to common people
GPS
Satellite TV
Employment

>>7716935

Financial, operational, political.... the Space Shuttle was a failure on literally every level. They managed to launch and service the Hubble and send people up to build the ISS. The rest was a total fuckup. It was supposed to be a space truck to deliver people and payloads to LEO. It ended up being a space Winnebago performing bullshit experiments that nobody needed done. Even the DoD didn't give a shit about the shuttle because it couldn't carry a payload to a polar orbit where the spy satellites are supposed to go.

Space Shuttle was a total failure and one of the main reasons NASA can't get shit funded now. They should have used it to build a round-trip ship to Luna and Mars. What they did was take the same pretty pictures over and over for three decades.

>>7716983

Also, let's not forget the random exploding astronauts on board the only manned space vehicle we've ever flown without a realistic abort system. Once those engines started, either the crew came home according to the flight plan or the ended up smacking into an East Texan sweet potato patch.

>>7716972
>GPS
>Satellite TV
>Employment

Those are OK (employment ???) but the other post alludes that we are CURRENTLY in a "golden age" of space exploration. The items you mentioned stem from yesteryear - 80's and 90's mostly, and I guess with employment from the inception of the agency...

>>7715778
>name three things about NASA in general that applies to common people

You seem to be translating:
>>7715664
"important to someone that doesn't have a PhD in cosmology"
into
"about NASA in general that applies to common people"

Not all science must be immediately accessible at Walmart, however, there is a perception around NASA today that it only produces data and scientific interest among people with graduate degrees studying spectragraphs and such.

In the early days of NASA the public seemed much more enthusiastic about space science.

>>7716983
It should have been scrapped before it even finished
They KNEW it would be a useless disaster

File: Rosetta_s_self-portrait_at_Mars.jpg (615KB, 1024x1133px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1024x1133px

>>7715664
That's a shit metric. As if the importance of science was measured by how much the peasantry gets out of it.

>>7716618
>Over 25 years ago, I was assaulted my all the media about space programs.
That is the Jetson effect. 25 years ago you were in a different age segment and saw different media. Same when the Jetson's aired: it was seen by the younger groups who now look back on a space interested age that never really existed amongst the adults of that age.

>>7714634
>Multiple launches every day
Glorious

Horizon special about Tim Peake on BBC2 right now britbros