If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   Dark side of the moon: NASA's Inspector General paints bleak picture for agency projects   (networkworld.com) divider line 17
    More: Sad, NASA, James Webb Space Telescope, computer networks, security controls, scientific information, European Space Agency, carbon sequestration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory  
•       •       •

1108 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



17 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-14 08:35:44 AM
The International Space Station is slated to retire in 2020?

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!

/I hate congress.
//Doesn't matter how I vote. It's always the same.
 
2013-03-14 09:13:01 AM
You can't vote for brains when people vote with their feelings. Apparently feeling good about space isn't happening that much lately. Not sure why that is. Too much anti-science around in general.
 
2013-03-14 09:29:05 AM
This is playing out like a Stephen Baxter novel.
 
2013-03-14 09:41:38 AM
Just farking great...
 
2013-03-14 10:13:44 AM

Generation_D: Too much anti-science around in general.


No, it's because astronomy is run by geologists and old farts who care more about rocks than people.

I could turn NASA right the fark around because I hate farkin' rocks and I'm as crazy as Dr Krieger and equally qualified. (He's not EITHER kind of doctor, FYI)

NASA got enough money to go to the moon because of the commies. No one wanted to go to the moon. There was no reason to go. There's nothing we've gained by going but bragging rights. But those bragging rights were enough to get billions in funding to stick it to those potato farkers in Russia. That's how the world works.

No one cares about hard science. Especially not astro-geology. We want alien life, big farkin' rockets, and Pluto is a mother-farkin' planet poindexter. Now hold my beer and let's launch a fishin' probe to Europa already! And where's the farkin' moon base? Where's the meteor mining?

If NASA wants funding, they have to give the public boners and deliver. Don't sent Curiosity to drill holes in rocks. That's been done. Send farkin' people to look for farkin' aliens. It doesn't matter if there are none, because we'll be aliens anyway. Man has to walk on other planets. That's just something that's GOTTA HAPPEN. If you don't do it, you're dead. All the hard science in the world is worth jack and shiat next to man setting foot on Mars just because.
 
2013-03-14 10:43:15 AM
Well, at least I'm old enough to have seen the golden age of the United States......
 
2013-03-14 11:31:37 AM

doglover: There's nothing we've gained by going but bragging rights.


Not exactly true.  A quick web search says more than 6300 innovations have their roots in the space program.  Some of the big ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Health_and_me d icine">1 Health and medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Light -emitting _diodes_.28LEDs.29">1.1 Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Infrare d_ear_t hermometers">1.2 Infrared ear thermometers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#V entricular_as sist_device">1.3 Ventricular assist device
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Artific ial_lim bs">1.4 Artificial limbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Invisibl e_Brac es">1.5 Invisible Braces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Scratch -resist ant_Lenses">1.6 Scratch-resistant Lenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Transpo rtation">2 Transportation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies #Aircraft_anti- icing_systems">2.1 Aircraft anti-icing systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Highwa y_safety">2.2 Highway safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Improve d_radia l_tires">2.3 Improved radial tires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Chemical _detec tion">2.4 Chemical detection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Publ ic_safety">3 Public safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Video_e nhancin g_and_analysis_systems">3.1 Video enhancing and analysis systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Fire-r esistant _reinforcement">3.2 Fire-resistant reinforcement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies# Firefighting_e quipment">3.3 Firefighting equipment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Cons umer.2C_ho me.2C_and_recreation">4 Consumer, home, and recreation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Tem per_foam">4.1 Temper foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Enriched_ baby_ food">4.2 Enriched baby food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Portable_ cordl ess_vacuums">4.3 Portable cordless vacuums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Freeze _drying">4.4 Freeze drying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Environ mental_ and_agricultural_resources">5 Environmental and agricultural resources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Wate r_purifica tion">5.1 Water purification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#S olar_energy">5.2 Solar energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Polluti on_reme diation">5.3 Pollution remediation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Co mputer_techn ology">6 Computer technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Str uctural_ana lysis_software">6.1 Structural analysis software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Remot ely_contr olled_ovens">6.2 Remotely controlled ovens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#NASA_Vis ualiza tion_Explorer">6.3 NASA Visualization Explorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Space _Race_Bla stoff">6.4 Space Race Blastoff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Indus trial_pro ductivity">7 Industrial productivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#P owdered_lubri cants">7.1 Powdered lubricants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Imp roved_mine_ safety">7.2 Improved mine safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Food_sa fety">7.3 Food safety
 
2013-03-14 12:51:22 PM
This is bad news for my son, currently studying aerospace engineering.
 
2013-03-14 03:08:37 PM

Crewmannumber6: This is bad news for my son, currently studying aerospace engineering.


There is still plenty of "aero" even if there isn't as much "space."
 
2013-03-14 06:15:08 PM
 
2013-03-14 09:18:32 PM

ristst: doglover: There's nothing we've gained by going but bragging rights.

Not exactly true.  A quick web search says more than 6300 innovations have their roots in the space program.  Some of the big ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Health_and_me d icine">1 Health and medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Light -emitting _diodes_.28LEDs.29">1.1 Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Infrare d_ear_t hermometers">1.2 Infrared ear thermometers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#V entricular_as sist_device">1.3 Ventricular assist device
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Artific ial_lim bs">1.4 Artificial limbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Invisibl e_Brac es">1.5 Invisible Braces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Scratch -resist ant_Lenses">1.6 Scratch-resistant Lenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Transpo rtation">2 Transportation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies #Aircraft_anti- icing_systems">2.1 Aircraft anti-icing systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Highwa y_safety">2.2 Highway safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Improve d_radia l_tires">2.3 Improved radial tires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Chemical _detec tion">2.4 Chemical detection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Publ ic_safety">3 Public safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Video_e nhancin g_and_analysis_systems">3.1 Video enhancing and analysis systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies#Fire-r esistant _reinforcement">3.2 Fire-resistant reinforcement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies# Firefighting_e quipment">3.3 Firefighting equipment
http://en.wikipedia.or ...


That and a cup of coffee will leave you with a cup of cofee.

The space program didn't set out create any of those technologies on purpose and no one funded the space program to get them, they're a direct result of men of action yelling at people in lab coats to "Git yer asses to the moon!" That's what paid the way for these spin off techs.

Same with a trip to Mars. If we take men to mars, technology will advance leaps and bounds. But if we don't make astro-geology a distant 10th place goal or abandon it entirely, no one will want to pay. Elon Musk has the right idea. NASA does not. That's what's happened.
 
2013-03-14 10:40:05 PM
What we need an international space agency at this point to coordinated the big missions at this point. NASA has run out of steam to get us off this rock. We can re-purpose the ISS for a number of purposes such as a assembly and refueling point for deep space missions both manned and unmanned. It could be a test bed for deep space manned mission technology. We could have an manned orbital mission to Mars and Jupiter in under a decade if we focused collectively and set goals and kept at them.
 
2013-03-14 10:43:23 PM

SnarfVader: The International Space Station is slated to retire in 2020?

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!

/I hate congress.
//Doesn't matter how I vote. It's always the same.


Space travel and exploration is costly.

MIR had 15 years. 1996-2001.  ISS has 22 years, 1998 to 2020.  Space station designed today and launched in 5-10 years could probably do 30.  It's space... it's expensive and govt funding is drying up.  From 2020-2050 I'd bet private industry will do more for 'local' (around Earth and maybe to the moon) space travel than any government.
 
2013-03-15 02:00:58 AM

Generation_D: Too much anti-science around in general.


Sadly, weepingly, I agree.  Where I live (Texas North), the government cut the budget for post-secondary education by more than 7%, immediately after the party ran on a pro PSE campaign of 2% increase each year for the next three years.

Further, we were just told that the government would now focus its funding on "applied research," as opposed to "pure research."  What does "applied research" mean? It is research, as our dear leader says, "that we can use to commercialize and diversify our economy."  Research, in other words, that can be used to justify the  tar oil sands and make them moreprofitable.

So, that kind of research that you were doing before, that would actually discover things and make advances in human knowledge?  Nope.  You aren't going to be funded.

Ah, well, at least I teach poetry in Alberta.  I know my job is safe.

That stuff that ristst posted:  that stuff happened because the government threw money at science, at NASA.  That money paid dividends.  Let the smart people do the things they think are smart; let the bankers and politicians figure out how to get them money.  Stop taking it away.

All hail Hadfield.
 
2013-03-15 08:21:42 AM

doglover: That and a cup of coffee will leave you with a cup of cofee.

The space program didn't set out create any of those technologies on purpose and no one funded the space program to get them, they're a direct result of men of action yelling at people in lab coats to "Git yer asses to the moon!" That's what paid the way for these spin off techs.


So you're saying any innovation that was not created "on purpose" has no merit?  Wonder how many lives have been saved (or altered for the better) as a direct result of these spinoffs?  And we haven't even begun to discuss the cosmological advances.

I'm not arguing the fact that the space program was expensive, and still is.  But to trivialize the obvious innovations and advancements that were a direct result, saying they're not worth a cup of coffee?  That's rather extreme, and I do not agree.
 
2013-03-15 08:41:10 AM

Franco: What we need an international space agency at this point to coordinated the big missions at this point.


What we need is a government agency to maintain sentence composition.
 
2013-03-15 07:16:59 PM

ristst: So you're saying any innovation that was not created "on purpose" has no merit?


What I'm saying is you're not gonna get a budget big enough to discover the teflons of the world without a big sexy goal. Space travel isn't THAT expensive, NASA is just bad at publicity.

Curiosity is the poster child for what people don't want: astro-geology. You gotta hide the boring shiat under a search for alien life and some kind of competition. Up till recently, NASA's has a monopoly on American space dollars because the commies were trying to beat us to the moon. We went there and guess what? Russia cried off. Why? They can totally do it. They're every bit as good as us. They cried off because the only reason to go to the moon was bragging rights. Other than that, all you've got is rocks.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, blows up shiat spectacularly. It's beautiful to behold. Congress can't stop dumping money into that bonfire of pork. Why? It's sexy to see mushroom clouds.

If you want astro-geology, step one is admitting you're the odd man out. Step 2 is figuring out how to hide it in a better mission. If you can get money to go to mars in person, some of it can be earmarked for a Curiosity style sandbox mission for "feasibility of human landing site" study or something like that.

What you can't do is set boring, underachieving missions that min-max the science people care about least and neglect the things people care about most. Go to Europa already. It's high time to prioritize astro-biology (on paper, as you'll still just be looking at spectrometer samples)
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report