[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;44669039]NASA is awesome.[/QUOTE]
They were.......
But otherwise they might aswell be a bloated monopolized whale in terms of effectively pushing the space frontier or related technologies.
Cute video either way.
[QUOTE=Tudd;44669677]They were.......
But otherwise they might aswell be a bloated monopolized whale in terms of effectively pushing the space frontier or related technologies.
Cute video either way.[/QUOTE]
Umm...
Good for you I guess? :v:
[QUOTE=Tudd;44669677]They were.......
But otherwise they might aswell be a bloated monopolized whale in terms of effectively pushing the space frontier or related technologies.
Cute video either way.[/QUOTE]
I don't care how they push the space frontier as long as they keep pushing. :v:
[QUOTE=yodafart9;44670464]I don't care how they push the space frontier as long as they keep pushing. :v:[/QUOTE]
I know I'm going to get rated dumb eternally for it at face value, but people should really look into how NASA is just kinda weak overcosted government entity that has no competition.
I know their are other problems in the world we should attend to, but space exploration would probably be alot better if NASA wasn't subsidized and basically exclusively the only satellite, travel, and research entity people have to deal with.
NASA has achieved great things and I think the people who work there are great, but people need to realize we would probably be alot farther in space exploration if commercial companies (Example: Virgin) could atleast try to compete at a larger scale.
erm
that's exactly what's been happening for the past 5 years
why do you think SpaceX has had a Dragon capsule visit the ISS
Commercial space industries are picking up the LEO mundane stuff while NASA can focus further afield and push those boundaries you're talking about
[QUOTE=subenji99;44671038]erm
that's exactly what's been happening for the past 5 years
why do you think SpaceX has had a Dragon capsule visit the ISS
Commercial space industries are picking up the LEO mundane stuff while NASA can focus further afield and push those boundaries you're talking about[/QUOTE]
Oh no I agree it is slowly getting better, but there is undoubtedly a 20 year lag since the cold war ended.
[QUOTE=Tudd;44671061]Oh no I agree it is slowly getting better, but there is undoubtedly a 20 year lag since the cold war ended.[/QUOTE]
Guess it's time to throw in the towel. Were doomed.
[QUOTE=Tudd;44671061]Oh no I agree it is slowly getting better, but there is undoubtedly a 20 year lag since the cold war ended.[/QUOTE]
Launching of Hubble, sending rovers to Mars. That's considered 'lag'?
Don't expect cryoshuttles shipping off to Alpha Centauri any time soon.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;44673543]Launching of Hubble, sending rovers to Mars. That's considered 'lag'?
Don't expect cryoshuttles shipping off to Alpha Centauri any time soon.[/QUOTE]
In terms of what was achieved and what progressed between a 20 year span of 1960-1980, it's considerably slower.
Rate me dumb as much as you want, but you can't refute that if NASA atleast had a decent competitor we probably be alot farther in terms of achievements.
Like if you go look up past SpaceX news from SH all you get is basically everyone agreeing NASA has stagnated space exploration.
[QUOTE=Tudd;44669677]They were.......
But otherwise they might aswell be a bloated monopolized whale in terms of effectively pushing the space frontier or related technologies.
Cute video either way.[/QUOTE]
Monopolized? Space exploration is not really a product, can there really be a monopoly?
And also:
Roscosmos
European Space Agency
Canadian Space Agency
JAXA
Indian Space Research Organization
CNSA
SpaceX
Arianespace
International Launch Services
Sea Launch
Virgin Galactic
Orbital Sciences Corp.
In the space race, NASA was in a super-high-octane-mega-overdrive and had extravagant funding. Expecting that level of funding and development to continue would have been unrealistic.
[QUOTE=michaeldim;44673961]Monopolized? Space exploration is not really a product, can there really be a monopoly?
And also:
Roscosmos
European Space Agency
Canadian Space Agency
JAXA
Indian Space Research Organization
CNSA
SpaceX
Arianespace
International Launch Services
Sea Launch
Virgin Galactic
Orbital Sciences Corp.
In the space race, NASA was in a super-high-octane-mega-overdrive and had extravagant funding. Expecting that level of funding and development to continue would have been unrealistic.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, there can be a monopoly when the companies you listed can't even compete to launch a simple satellite because NASA gets subsidized so much that the other companies don't stand a chance.
The two big ones are SpaceX and Virgin, and even then they barely are able to compete.
Space exploration is not a product, but obviously isn't going to be progressed very fast if only one goverment entity holds the whole future of it.
And no one is expecting "Put a man on the moon" speed progression/funding, but this whole situation could have easily been better.
[QUOTE=Tudd;44673985]Yes, there can be a monopoly when the companies you listed can't even compete to launch a simple satellite because NASA gets subsidized so much that the other companies don't stand a chance.
The two big ones are SpaceX and Virgin, and even then they barely are able to compete.
Space exploration is not a product, but obviously isn't going to be progressed very fast if only one goverment entity holds the whole future of it.
And no one is expecting "Put a man on the moon" speed progression/funding, but this whole situation could have easily been better.[/QUOTE]
Lol watt
NASA doesn't even launch any rockets. How could it be subsidized to outcompete SpaceX? NASA buys rockets from SpaceX. You might have heard about the CRS3 launch which happened last Friday.
I think you guys misunderstand the purpose of NASA. The agency performs extraterrestrial science. It operates the Deep Space Network, Hubble, soon to be JWST, MMS, Curiosity, the International Space Station... All of which are on a relatively shoestring budget compared to what they used to have during the 60's. I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why NASA has been 'slowing down'.
Most of NASA's funding in one way or another goes into developing satellites. NASA and SpaceX aren't even in the same industry. Half of the organizations on that list are launch vehicle manufacturers. And it's not even a big deal that NASA doesn't fly rockets anymore. That's how it was [B]supposed[/B] to happen. The Soviet Union was government centric, while the US was all about private industry. It was expected that Russia would keep flying govt. rockets while the US would transition to letting corporations do their flying for them.
And to all the people saying NASA's bloated... it's really not.
The only reason it seems that way is because we aren't doing anything nearly as 'cool' as going to the moon anymore. The only thing that could compete with that is going to Mars, but no one wants to pay for that. NASA's budget in 1965 was ~5.5% of the GDP, when right now it's coasting at roughly 0.6% of the GDP. If you can convince congress to multiply NASA's budget by 10, we'll be standing on Mars by 2020.
In my experience there are significant identifiable practices carried out by NASA that are (in my opinion) unnecessary, and significantly add to the cost of a rocket launch. The Russians don't employ such methods and still experience successes that rival or even exceed ours in terms of rocket tech. Nonetheless, this is a rather small concern, and speaks very little of the agency as a whole. As far as govt. agencies go, NASA gives the most 'bang-for-your-buck', in my opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.