NASA given two spy satellites

[JelloStorm]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/0...opes-808435022/

While I think that's pretty awesome, I also find it kinda shitty that NASA has been given a shoestring budget and forced to upgrade Hubble five times while the NRO is like "here have some hand me downs" which are comparable to Hubble.

Kinda makes you wonder if we poured more into our space program, where we'd be and what we'd be able to see and know.

 

[Guest]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

Once WW II was over, many at the war suppliers tables an holding office, realized Military readiness/ability was in favor with the public. A cash cow was born, to keep the cow growing an fed, many have paid a heavy price.

Research were the funding came from an went, prior to Korea and beyond. One must have a formidable enemy to justify certian levels of expenditures, be they real,.... or created because of.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

Maybe if we poured a couple hundred million in, they could produce another remote control car to drive around on Mars...

I think that money is often largely wasted. Private sector companies could do more with less. The government should not have its own company to compete with the private sector.

I was off I guess, the first mission cost 812 million dollars, and the second was budgeted at 2.5 billion dollars. The computer nerds should get a less expensive hobby, and pay for it themselves like everyone else.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

If we don't find a way off this rock our species is doomed. It happened to the dinosaurs, and it'll happen to us unless "those nerds" find a way to take a sizeable genetic sample to another planet that will sustain life. Think about the energy and material requirements of that the next time you leave the lights on all night or jackrabbit start from a traffic light.

 

[DixieOutlaw]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

The earth isn't doomed. Jesus said he is coming back and all the believers are going to heaven with him. The earth isn't going to burn up or anything like we will all be long gone by then

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we don't find a way off this rock our species is doomed. It happened to the dinosaurs, and it'll happen to us unless "those nerds" find a way to take a sizeable genetic sample to another planet that will sustain life. Think about the energy and material requirements of that the next time you leave the lights on all night or jackrabbit start from a traffic light.</div></div>


do most people really have that kind of drive to carry on the species?

I mean really, I'm all for trying to protect the planet for ourselves, future generations, etc... but not at the expensive of ruining life now... NASA can stop wasting my $$$ anytime they want (yes, I know they'll never want to stop).

besides thinking it's damn near hopeless to build a "space ark", I think it'd be a damn sight cheaper to stop being so damn spoiled. I can live w/ a very small carbon footprint, in fact I personally do ( compared to most Americans ), and I could get by w/ a LOT less if I wanted, and be comfortable doing it.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DixieOutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The earth isn't doomed. Jesus said he is coming back and all the believers are going to heaven with him. The earth isn't going to burn up or anything like we will all be long gone by then </div></div>

Well, I guess that just leaves me screwed, huh? There's a reason we don't do religion and politics on here, Cletus.

 

[SQUATCH]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

In my opinion I wish there is a restart button because it needs to be pushed right now. Over population and people still breeding like rabbits. That is our downfall. Either that or put shit in the water so we skip a couple gens.

 

[Victory]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DixieOutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The earth isn't doomed. Jesus said he is coming back and all the believers are going to heaven with him. The earth isn't going to burn up or anything like we will all be long gone by then </div></div>

Well, I guess that just leaves me screwed, huh? There's a reason we don't do religion and politics on here, Cletus. </div></div>

Lol, nicely played G.

Dixie- WWJD, probably not post pics of his girl in the Motivational Pic thread, just saying.

 

[Early Cuyler]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dixie- WWJD, probably not post pics of his girl in the Motivational Pic thread, just saying.
</div></div>

But I bet Mary Magdalene was HOT!

 

[TOPO-sniper]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

GA, I typically just ignore your drivel, but this new declaration of ignorance was outstanding brother! Have you even spent more than about 3 seconds to consider what it takes to actually design something that can operate outside your sorry ass? Nice one!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe if we poured a couple hundred million in, they could produce another remote control car to drive around on Mars...

I think that money is often largely wasted. Private sector companies could do more with less. The government should not have its own company to compete with the private sector.

I was off I guess, the first mission cost 812 million dollars, and the second was budgeted at 2.5 billion dollars. The computer nerds should get a less expensive hobby, and pay for it themselves like everyone else. </div></div>

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

Wasn’t the space program originally the research and development lab for defense due to the soviet threat?

So until we have a reason to believe we will be annihilated and a public that cares I don’t see much funding in the future. Now if a country puts weapons on the moon... we may hear of a moon base constructed “for launching to mars”.

 

[BALLISTIC]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DixieOutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The earth isn't doomed. Jesus said he is coming back and all the believers are going to heaven with him. The earth isn't going to burn up or anything like we will all be long gone by then </div></div>

Please watch this, and expand your mind.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/guXirzknYYE"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/guXirzknYYE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[Veer_G]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

See you, and raise you ...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RHlLmYVCzKY"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RHlLmYVCzKY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[zmann]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

Don't forget Building 7

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BALLISTIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DixieOutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The earth isn't doomed. Jesus said he is coming back and all the believers are going to heaven with him. The earth isn't going to burn up or anything like we will all be long gone by then </div></div>

Please watch this, and expand your mind.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/guXirzknYYE"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/guXirzknYYE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

 

[HPLLC]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOPO-sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GA, I typically just ignore your drivel, but this new declaration of ignorance was outstanding brother! Have you even spent more than about 3 seconds to consider what it takes to actually design something that can operate outside your sorry ass? Nice one!
</div></div>

You're not my brother, I have a damn good brother and he isn't a spoon-fed liberal NASA supporter.

People are always pointing at technologies NASA has brought us, but are never making any cost comparisons for what private sector companies could have done with the same funding so this is a blind connection. I really doubt the corporate side of the government is much more successful than the government at producing results within a budget.

This is the myth of the more recent NASA- putting a remote control car on Mars? What does it accomplish for us that justifies the 2.5 billion dollar price tag? The mission was to study rocks on Mars. What was the return for American taxpayers?

Energy crisis? Putting sizeable portions of the population on other planets would add to the energy burden we already have.

Rather than believe in Sci-FI movies, we need to realize we're here for the duration. There are no life-sustaining planets within reasonable traveling distance of Earth. There are also no systems capable of transporting numerically significant quantities of people out of the atmosphere. Travel to other planets is not cost-effective. Rather we should be putting money where it helps us- missile defense systems, satellites, cost effective vehicles for launching and maintaining satellites, etc.

The Shuttle was put on display, but we don't know the background behind that. The vehicle might be beyond repair from years and years of use, or may have been deemed no longer cost effective to maintain. Certainly a vehicle that can be brought down by an in-effective O-ring must be a challenge to keep flight ready for decades as various thousands of synthetic components age and have to be monitored and replaced.

Do we need spacecraft like the Space Shuttle? Absolutely. Does that mean the Space Shuttle should have continued to serve that purpose? Probably not. No doubt technology has improved to the extent that satellites of the future may be smaller than those the Space Shuttle was designed to launch. So the Space Shuttle may be a poor choice of launch vehicle going forward.

 

[Early Cuyler]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not my brother, I have a damn good brother and he isn't a spoon-fed liberal NASA supporter.
<span style="color: #FF0000">I take offense to this. My grandfather was and my uncle currently is working with NASA. Neither were/are "spoon-fed liberals". While I don't like the amount of money they pour through nowadays, I do respect the contributions NASA has made to science and everyday life. I used to drink Tang everyday and loved it.</span>

People are always pointing at technologies NASA has brought us, but are <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">never making any cost comparisons for what private sector companies could have done with the same funding so this is a blind connection.</span></span> I really doubt the corporate side of the government is much more successful than the government at producing results within a budget.
<span style="color: #FF0000">If the comparisons were never made, isn't it just as ridiculous to claim that private corporations could do more with NASA's budget? </span>

This is the myth of the more recent NASA- putting a remote control car on Mars? What does it accomplish for us that justifies the 2.5 billion dollar price tag? The mission was to study rocks on Mars. <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">What was the return for American taxpayers?</span></span>
<span style="color: #FF0000">I agree. Short of finding an unlimited source of unobtanium and making Avatar sound less ridiculous, the benefits we're going to see here are minimal. </span>

Energy crisis? Putting sizeable portions of the population on other planets would add to the energy burden we already have.

Rather than believe in Sci-FI movies, we need to realize we're here for the duration. There are no life-sustaining planets within reasonable traveling distance of Earth. There are also no systems capable of transporting numerically significant quantities of people out of the atmosphere. Travel to other planets is not cost-effective. Rather we should be putting money where it helps us- missile defense systems, satellites, cost effective vehicles for launching and maintaining satellites, etc.
<span style="color: #FF0000">A lot of people believed Christopher Columbus would fall off the earth if he sailed west. It had never been done in their society but someone finally nutted up and did it. My point is while everything you say is true, I don't believe it will always be so. Mankind is constantly curious and we will always push the envelope be it how deep a submersible can dive, or how far we can travel in space. Hell, there are plans to ship people one way to Mars for reality TV. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/mars-one-one-way-ticket-red-planet-192011042.html Maybe we can send the Jersey Shore cast first....</span>

The Shuttle was put on display, but we don't know the background behind that. The vehicle might be beyond repair from years and years of use, or may have been deemed no longer cost effective to maintain. Certainly a vehicle that can be brought down by an in-effective O-ring must be a challenge to keep flight ready for decades as various thousands of synthetic components age and have to be monitored and replaced.
<span style="color: #FF0000">I can't think of a combustion engine that doesn't have at least one critical gasket that if ineffective would not cause the engine to fail.</span>

Do we need spacecraft like the Space Shuttle? Absolutely. Does that mean the Space Shuttle should have continued to serve that purpose? Probably not. No doubt technology has improved to the extent that satellites of the future may be smaller than those the Space Shuttle was designed to launch. So the Space Shuttle may be a poor choice of launch vehicle going forward.
<span style="color: #FF0000">I didn't think the Shuttle was a primary launch vehicle for satellites. I could be wrong but I thought the Shuttle was more for maintenance of existing satellites and just transport.</span></div></div>

 

[HPLLC]

Re: NASA given two spy satellites

Obviously the country has a budget problem right now. The liberal reference wasn't for working for NASA as much as for walking the line with NASA and suggesting 2.5billion dollar Mars rock inspection is a good deal. A job is a job and back when your grandfather worked for NASA they were in a Cold war fight with the Russians, not inspecting rocks on Mars. That was a critical time period, and NASA is probably an agency that should stay around, because there will need to be some government involvement in space, particularly DOD side of the house.

The one way ticket Mars colony is the point- they are sending people to die on Mars, not to really live there. If we think Earth is screwed, how much more an inhospitable planet like Mars? It is a non-solution. Like saying water is short in Atlanta, so we should move settlers to Kuwaiti Sand dunes to solve the problem. Without oxygen, and the ability to efficiently produce food, life on Mars will only be sustained by a constant supply of consumables at the cost of a burden to Earth.

Nasa may have been a model for government efficiency for all I know, but with the government agency relationship, it would be hard to think the apple would fall far from the tree.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/43048654#43048654

Sir Richard Branson seems to think private companies can replace the shuttle program for a fraction of what it cost NASA, and I'm sure some of that is the difference between pioneering and working in the 60's 70's and 80's and working today with the ability to look back on that with modern technology.

Still his opinion seems to suggest that private companies can do more with less, and I would expect that, as governments usually waste a good deal of money, because historically, it hasn't been a problem to be over budget as the US Government, where it is a HUGE problem if you are an over-budget private company.