Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
I urge you to actually read the appropriations on pages 5 through 7.
I have, and it's entirely what I'm talking about. They had the funds appropriated specifically to pay for these items split over several years. They split it across three years so that the entire cost fits within each year's budget, not because those are the running costs of those projects.
They didn't need less funds in 2011 than they did in 2013, it's just that the cost was split that way to fit within the fiscal budget as a whole.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
I urge you to actually read the appropriations on pages 5 through 7.
I have, and it's entirely what I'm talking about. They had the funds appropriated specifically to pay for these items split over several years. They split it across three years so that the entire cost fits within each year's budget, not because those are the running costs of those projects.
They didn't need less funds in 2011 than they did in 2013, it's just that the cost was split that way to fit within the fiscal budget as a whole.
Right, they have the funds to do development and flight test of Orion MPCV and development but not flight test of SLS, through 2013 (plus continuing resolutions). Congress has not approved the development, test, production, and operation of the long list of other stuff that they'll need for their Mars By 2030 plan.
Similarly, in the sixties Congress did indeed appropriate funds for the Department of Energy to develop and ground test the NERVA nuclear thermal rocket engine, and the DoE did so, and NASA planned on using that engine for their Mars By 1985 plan.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
I urge you to actually read the appropriations on pages 5 through 7.
I have, and it's entirely what I'm talking about. They had the funds appropriated specifically to pay for these items split over several years. They split it across three years so that the entire cost fits within each year's budget, not because those are the running costs of those projects.
They didn't need less funds in 2011 than they did in 2013, it's just that the cost was split that way to fit within the fiscal budget as a whole.
Right, they have the funds to do development and flight test of Orion MPCV and development but not flight test of SLS, through 2013 (plus continuing resolutions). Congress has not approved the development, test, production, and operation of the long list of other stuff that they'll need for their Mars By 2030 plan.
There's a fix for that called "talking to your representative ".
Holy shit. They are going to splash down like 1.3 miles away from where they initially thought they would land from launch estimates.
That is fucking amazing.
Edit: Everyone should be watching the stream!
Radiation on
PSN: jfrofl
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Yeah, orbital mechanics are pretty precise. SpaceX is aiming (Har har) for a landing zone the size of a helicopter pad.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yeah, orbital mechanics are pretty precise. SpaceX is aiming (Har har) for a landing zone the size of a helicopter pad.
Yup, once you are able to get rid of pesky things like an atmosphere and all the variables it brings, you can predict movement pretty damn easily. Space is where spherical cows really do live.
Also, has anyone seen a great horned owl do a breast stroke? No? Well, you have now
The video was captured in the middle of Chicago after the owl plunged into Lake Michigan to avoid a pair of peregrine falcons, where the owl then proceeded to do it's best Michael Phelps impersonation (edit: before flying away on it's own, unharmed).
Yeah, orbital mechanics are pretty precise. SpaceX is aiming (Har har) for a landing zone the size of a helicopter pad.
That, and what most people don't realize is capsules are in fact steerable objects that can generate lift, thanks to having a non-symmetrical center of gravity.
You can experience this yourself in KSP, plenty of people have done so for skimming probes around Jool's upper atmosphere.
Yeah, orbital mechanics are pretty precise. SpaceX is aiming (Har har) for a landing zone the size of a helicopter pad.
Yup, once you are able to get rid of pesky things like an atmosphere and all the variables it brings, you can predict movement pretty damn easily. Space is where spherical cows really do live.
Also, has anyone seen a great horned owl do a breast stroke? No? Well, you have now
The video was captured in the middle of Chicago after the owl plunged into Lake Michigan to avoid a pair of peregrine falcons, where the owl then proceeded to do it's best Michael Phelps impersonation (edit: before flying away on it's own, unharmed).
I still haven't seen a great horned owl do a breast stroke. That's the butterfly.
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
SpaceX is going to attempt to land their first stage on a ship in the Atlantic on Tuesday.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
A bit light on substance, but in light of the news that SpaceX is ramping up hiring for the development of the Raptor Engine - to propel the BFR to orbit - here's a concept image of a BFR launch.
Note that the blue tint to the rocket exhaust isn't artistic license, that's what methane rocket exhaust actually looks like:
DARPA recently released a video showcasing the technology, in which the rifle intentionally aimed slightly off target. You can see how the bullet manages to successfully change its flight path and connect with the intended target despite being aimed to the right. Check it out here:
Their new “Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordinance” (EXACTO) bullets seem to function in a similar manner to the laser-guided bombs developed by US scientists during the Vietnam War. The technology marries .50 caliber maneuverable bullets with a real-time guidance system that allow the projectile to change direction during flight in order to correct for anything that may throw it off course.
The EXACTO bullets are complete with optical sensors positioned on the surface of the nose that collect in-flight data which is then sent to internal systems for interpretation. The data gathered is then used to adjust the position of a series of external fins on the projectile, which changes its direction.
According to DARPA’s website, the system should “greatly extend the day and nighttime range over current state-of-the-art sniper systems,” minimize the time required to engage with targets, and also reduce misses.
This is much neater than the laser guided bullet that came out several years ago. Though that had a nifty gimbal dealy in the middle of the bullet that wiggled the back end around to steer rather than fins.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
And people said Wanted was unrealistic!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I've said it before, I'll say it again: these bullets aren't really for people on the ground. They're for adding .50 cal sniper rifles to drones.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but .50 cal isn't that accurate. A sniper could definitely benefit from having a round like that. They could even come in handy on a machine gun.
DARPA recently released a video showcasing the technology, in which the rifle intentionally aimed slightly off target. You can see how the bullet manages to successfully change its flight path and connect with the intended target despite being aimed to the right. Check it out here:
Their new “Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordinance” (EXACTO) bullets seem to function in a similar manner to the laser-guided bombs developed by US scientists during the Vietnam War. The technology marries .50 caliber maneuverable bullets with a real-time guidance system that allow the projectile to change direction during flight in order to correct for anything that may throw it off course.
The EXACTO bullets are complete with optical sensors positioned on the surface of the nose that collect in-flight data which is then sent to internal systems for interpretation. The data gathered is then used to adjust the position of a series of external fins on the projectile, which changes its direction.
According to DARPA’s website, the system should “greatly extend the day and nighttime range over current state-of-the-art sniper systems,” minimize the time required to engage with targets, and also reduce misses.
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Tastyfish on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
+2
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
If you are going to stay in the atmosphere, Jupiter may be a better choice?
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
It's the hottest planet in the solar system,has clouds of sulfuric acid, and 100's of giant super volcanoes. So probably?
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
It's only the worst place ever if you try living on the surface. Go about 55km up or so, and you have one of the more habitable places in the solar system. Earthlike temperatures, and about 1/2 an atmosphere of pressure of mainly carbon dioxide. And with the outside air being mainly carbon dioxide, an oxygen/nitrogen mix would act as a lifting gas, with about half the lifting power that helium has on Earth.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
It's only the worst place ever if you try living on the surface. Go about 55km up or so, and you have one of the more habitable places in the solar system. Earthlike temperatures, and about 1/2 an atmosphere of pressure of mainly carbon dioxide. And with the outside air being mainly carbon dioxide, an oxygen/nitrogen mix would act as a lifting gas, with about half the lifting power that helium has on Earth.
Yes, but aren't the clouds (as was pointed out previously) made up of what is essentially Dip for humans?
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
Mars is cold and terrible, why go all the way there when there's somewhere much more interesting that might have life already there and has places more tolerable to human life*? NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
It's the hottest planet in the solar system,has clouds of sulfuric acid, and 100's of giant super volcanoes. So probably?
I'm not all that convinced of manned Venus missions until long after we've had a base set up on Mars. For one, you actually have a solid object to land on on Mars; one more point of failure (the lifting mechanism) on an atmospheric Venus mission makes it a lot less attractive based on risk alone. I could totally see unmanned platforms being very attractive though; there's been quite some speculation that Venus could support life in its more temperate upper atmosphere, as there's plenty of chemical energy alone to sustain microbial life there and we've found live microbes very high up on Earth.
Mars is better than Venus for plenty of reasons--the biggest one being that Mars actually has water. Venus is extremely dry, and you're going to be stuck trying to condense water out of an atmosphere that is 200x drier than Earth's whenever you want to drink something, or grow crops, or electrolyze it into rocket fuel. Mars, or even Earth's moon, has abundant water by comparison.
Plus, mining on Mars works much as it does on Earth, although you'd be wearing pressure suits for anything not done remotely. It's unclear how you'd harvest any material on Venus that isn't an atmospheric gas. We don't have the capability to operate even robotic equipment under the conditions on the surface.
Mars at least gets the occasional few hours of T-shirt weather near the equator during the summer (a high of 68 F, with a maximum recorded high temp of 95 F), even if it is bitterly cold most of the time and the atmosphere isn't breathable.
Mars at least gets the occasional few hours of T-shirt weather near the equator during the summer (a high of 68 F, with a maximum recorded high temp of 95 F), even if it is bitterly cold most of the time and the atmosphere isn't breathable.
The things I'd do and give up to be able to hold my breath and walk with just a shirt and (maybe) pants on the martian surface...
+2
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Or just a scba mask.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Posts
I have, and it's entirely what I'm talking about. They had the funds appropriated specifically to pay for these items split over several years. They split it across three years so that the entire cost fits within each year's budget, not because those are the running costs of those projects.
They didn't need less funds in 2011 than they did in 2013, it's just that the cost was split that way to fit within the fiscal budget as a whole.
Right, they have the funds to do development and flight test of Orion MPCV and development but not flight test of SLS, through 2013 (plus continuing resolutions). Congress has not approved the development, test, production, and operation of the long list of other stuff that they'll need for their Mars By 2030 plan.
Similarly, in the sixties Congress did indeed appropriate funds for the Department of Energy to develop and ground test the NERVA nuclear thermal rocket engine, and the DoE did so, and NASA planned on using that engine for their Mars By 1985 plan.
That is fucking amazing.
Edit: Everyone should be watching the stream!
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yup, once you are able to get rid of pesky things like an atmosphere and all the variables it brings, you can predict movement pretty damn easily. Space is where spherical cows really do live.
Also, has anyone seen a great horned owl do a breast stroke? No? Well, you have now
The video was captured in the middle of Chicago after the owl plunged into Lake Michigan to avoid a pair of peregrine falcons, where the owl then proceeded to do it's best Michael Phelps impersonation (edit: before flying away on it's own, unharmed).
That, and what most people don't realize is capsules are in fact steerable objects that can generate lift, thanks to having a non-symmetrical center of gravity.
You can experience this yourself in KSP, plenty of people have done so for skimming probes around Jool's upper atmosphere.
I still haven't seen a great horned owl do a breast stroke. That's the butterfly.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Note that the blue tint to the rocket exhaust isn't artistic license, that's what methane rocket exhaust actually looks like:
It looks like it spirals out of the nozzle.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but .50 cal isn't that accurate. A sniper could definitely benefit from having a round like that. They could even come in handy on a machine gun.
From the bullet's perspective, it's already a moving target.
NASA is apparently thinking about cloud cities on Venus, or at least dirigible research bases.
* Places may not be tolerable to human life
Link brings it back to this page on the thread.
Isn't Venus supposed to be the worst place ever?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's the hottest planet in the solar system,has clouds of sulfuric acid, and 100's of giant super volcanoes. So probably?
But not necessarily the targeting system's.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yes, but aren't the clouds (as was pointed out previously) made up of what is essentially Dip for humans?
Ok, ok
But how are we gonna harvest Tibanna gas?
With its magnetic field, probably not.
You haven't been to Utah, have you?
Plus, mining on Mars works much as it does on Earth, although you'd be wearing pressure suits for anything not done remotely. It's unclear how you'd harvest any material on Venus that isn't an atmospheric gas. We don't have the capability to operate even robotic equipment under the conditions on the surface.
Mars at least gets the occasional few hours of T-shirt weather near the equator during the summer (a high of 68 F, with a maximum recorded high temp of 95 F), even if it is bitterly cold most of the time and the atmosphere isn't breathable.
The things I'd do and give up to be able to hold my breath and walk with just a shirt and (maybe) pants on the martian surface...
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.