[MightyMouseTech]

Originally Posted by joeinsd

and a minimum of 50hrs a week.

50 hours a week? [sarcasm]oh the horror![/sarcasm]

[minn19]

Originally Posted by R3dliner

Amazes me that the civilian sector had to pull through for this to happen.

Originally Posted by Romo

Exactly !!

How can it be that NASA couldn`t do this? (Yes Ik know Washington Politics)

US space traveling is impossible since the withdraw of the Space Shuttle, sending astronauts to the ISS can only be done by Russian help (witch is a disgrace IMHO)

With upcoming space "markets" like China, India, Russia once again, Japan the US have some stiff competition to meet.

The SLS is developing as we speak, but very expensive, and has been postponed some times already.

I know the US has the ability, the technical know how/expertise, come on let`s do it again, we need another Wernher von Braun.
The stars are the future, there is no other way, the milky way it is..........

It’s always been a private sector/heavily government funded partnership since the beginning of NASA. They just haven’t really gotten the notoriety that SpaceX has been getting as a “private/civilian sector” company. Northrop, Boeing, Rockwell, Grumman and on and on are the companies that have built and continue to build these amazing machines. NASA doesn’t really build anything they are just the managers/schedulers of the equipment and obviously train the staff to run and crew them.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...531-story.html

[Lups]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

50 hours a week? [sarcasm]oh the horror![/sarcasm]

Lol, the nerds are in the class of their own.

My husband clocks 2 hours of gym time, 3 hours of train travel (k. Reading emails) and an 1.5 hour lunch daily. He wants to take it easy now.

It's funny. Nothing but a cool project can make a 40+ year old man do a long day. In the early 2000 when we started dating he was working 15 hours per day, always studying at home too. Now I haven't seen his laptop in threw years.

I'm not sure what makes them age that way but apparently 40 is the point only a space race could make any of the engineers I know wake up at so am.

(mildly edited. I lost my point thanks to a dog which is no rocket scientist.)

[Romo]

^^Thanks, I agree it was always this way.

I do think politics do not understand completely how important space exploration is, how the developed techniques do help al humans on this planet, on future planets.

The 60ties were great because of the race to the moon competition, the Space Shuttle really never delivered its promise.

So between 1972 (last man on the moon), there is 46 years with no really determined goal. Yes we have satellites everywhere in the universe and exploring. But we have to go ourselves, like Columbus discovering the America`s, we need to explore space.

I`m aware of US plans now for bringing mankind to Mars in the 2030-40 range, and I`m really hoping they wil get the job done. If someone can, it will be the US.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by minn19

It’s always been a private sector/heavily government funded partnership since the beginning of NASA. They just haven’t really gotten the notoriety that SpaceX has been getting as a “private/civilian sector” company. Northrop, Boeing, Rockwell, Grumman and on and on are the companies that have built and continue to build these amazing machines. NASA doesn’t really build anything they are just the managers/schedulers of the equipment and obviously train the staff to run and crew them.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...531-story.html

Northrop, Boeing, Rockwell, Grumman have been gouging NASA for years. SpaceX, Blue Orgin and others are showing us there's a better way

[bimmer456]

I'm waiting for the Big F'ing Rocket

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

Northrop, Boeing, Rockwell, Grumman have been gouging NASA for years. SpaceX, Blue Orgin and others are showing us there's a better way

Not neccasarily disagreeing, but how could you know that?

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by minn19

Not neccasarily disagreeing, but how could you know that?

Likely by the quoted cost per launch, compared to Space-X.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Likely by the quoted cost per launch, compared to Space-X.

That would be pretty hard to do considering a lot of different variables, but if true it is definitely something to be commended. I do like having new players in the space race as we’ve already seen new technologies and different ways of doing things.

[minn19]

Huh, after some quick research it does look like they can do it significantly cheaper than anybody else. Very cool!

[Lups]

Originally Posted by minn19

Huh, after some quick research it does look like they can do it significantly cheaper than anybody else. Very cool!

Yeah, but if your kid even remotely interested in science...

Fucking a. I didn't know about this launch but for me, this was a perfect timing.

"mom, we told you about it! We had a deal! We get to watch it if we let you have a quiet migraine "

[M_Six]

I did a 10 week internship at NASA (Johnson Space Center) back in '96. I worked for a "NASA" scientist who was employed by Rockwell, as most of them were. The difference between NASA scientists then and Space-X is that NASA does a shitload of research in many, many areas, whereas Space-X is focused on getting their launch vehicles to work consistently and cheaply enough to turn a profit. Nothing wrong with that, but comparing the two is sort of apples to oranges. And to be honest, when Space-X screws up and blows up a rocket, it's passed off as no big deal. Better luck next time. NASA blows up a rocket and heads are going to roll.

Not saying there isn't waste at NASA, but there is a vastly different approach in how they accomplish a much more varied mission.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I did a 10 week internship at NASA (Johnson Space Center) back in '96. I worked for a "NASA" scientist who was employed by Rockwell, as most of them were. The difference between NASA scientists then and Space-X is that NASA does a shitload of research in many, many areas, whereas Space-X is focused on getting their launch vehicles to work consistently and cheaply enough to turn a profit. Nothing wrong with that, but comparing the two is sort of apples to oranges. And to be honest, when Space-X screws up and blows up a rocket, it's passed off as no big deal. Better luck next time. NASA blows up a rocket and heads are going to roll.

Not saying there isn't waste at NASA, but there is a vastly different approach in how they accomplish a much more varied mission.

I have no issue with NASA doing its own thing. My issue is more on the politics/poor management decisions( ie: challenger and Columbia). I wonder what SLS would be if NASA could design a clean sheet rocket vs being told to take Space Shuttle hardware and repackage it by Congress.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by M_Six

And to be honest, when Space-X screws up and blows up a rocket, it's passed off as no big deal. Better luck next time. NASA blows up a rocket and heads are going to roll.

Not saying there isn't waste at NASA, but there is a vastly different approach in how they accomplish a much more varied mission.

sorry but no. It's not NASA bad! SpcaceX good! It's that NASA has a bureaucracy burden. We humans have to figure out how to prevent that. Or at least shorten its duration.

Originally Posted by quagmire

I have no issue with NASA doing its own thing. My issue is more on the politics/poor management decisions( ie: challenger and Columbia). I wonder what SLS would be if NASA could design a clean sheet rocket vs being told to take Space Shuttle hardware and repackage it by Congress.

NASA disasters are a combo of $ + time. Constant budget crunch + doing it longer than anyone else. I dare anyone to repeat what NASA has done with what they had to work with.

[dmatre]

Space-X isn't competing with NASA, they're competing with Boeing/Rockwell/Northrop/Et al.

NASA can still run their science missions, but now they can do it for much less (or they can do much more for the same money) by using Space-X rather than the others for launching their missions.

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Space-X isn't competing with NASA, they're competing with Boeing/Rockwell/Northrop/Et al.

NASA can still run their science missions, but now they can do it for much less (or they can do much more for the same money) by using Space-X rather than the others for launching their missions.

Cancel SLS we have Falcon Heavy and Big Fucking Rocket and it costs the tax payer nothing.