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.

(Discovery)   That's one giant leap backward for mankind   (news.discovery.com) divider line 23
    More: Sad, launch pads, launch complexes, Space Launch System, Vehicle Assembly Building, Kennedy Space Center, dolls, NASA  
•       •       •

6823 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 May 2013 at 9:28 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-27 09:30:18 AM
And that headerbar is one giant leap backward for web design.
 
2013-05-27 09:35:00 AM
Bullshiat. It's a step forward. The fact that private entities have the ability to assume the "routine" LEO missions that used to take up so much of NASA's resources leaves the organization free to concentrate on tentpole stuff like Mars, asteroid retrieval and so forth.

This sort of thing would not have been possible just a few decades ago.
 
2013-05-27 09:36:58 AM
It's a great idea. Privatize at least some of the missions.
 
2013-05-27 09:38:22 AM
Look. Exxon needs another tax break. We just can't afford to go to space.
 
2013-05-27 09:46:40 AM
While I think NASA needs a lot more funding (take a big farking chunk out of the military budget - Scrap anything tank related in particular, and concede that the F-35 is a dead end - and give some of the savings to NASA), biatching about them selling off the space shuttle pad is stupid. Since, y'know, we already sold off the space shuttles.

I agree with  Snapper Carr . Let the private sector handle the shuttle's niche, let NASA focus further out..
 
2013-05-27 09:53:01 AM
The "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space" line was pretty great.
 
2013-05-27 10:04:03 AM
Bullshiat. It's a step forward. The fact that private entities have the ability to assume the "routine" LEO missions that used to take up so much of NASA's resources leaves the organization free to concentrate on tentpole stuff like Mars, asteroid retrieval and so forth.

That's a pretty noble view, and if it weren't for the SLS, I could see it happening. The SLS is going to use solid rocket boosters, which are outdated, dangerous, and outperformed on every count by liquid fueled boosters. SRBs can have no emergency off swich and will keep going until they burn out. Or explode.

As I understand, the reason why NASA is continuing to use the SRBs for the SLS is because the Space Shuttle SRBs were built in a congressional district with an influential congressman. I hope that's not the case, because if that's true, that congressman is willing to put lives at risk using antiquated technology just so he pull in a few more votes in the next election.
 
2013-05-27 10:15:01 AM

Baron Harkonnen: Bullshiat. It's a step forward. The fact that private entities have the ability to assume the "routine" LEO missions that used to take up so much of NASA's resources leaves the organization free to concentrate on tentpole stuff like Mars, asteroid retrieval and so forth.

That's a pretty noble view, and if it weren't for the SLS, I could see it happening. The SLS is going to use solid rocket boosters, which are outdated, dangerous, and outperformed on every count by liquid fueled boosters. SRBs can have no emergency off swich and will keep going until they burn out. Or explode.

As I understand, the reason why NASA is continuing to use the SRBs for the SLS is because the Space Shuttle SRBs were built in a congressional district with an influential congressman. I hope that's not the case, because if that's true, that congressman is willing to put lives at risk using antiquated technology just so he pull in a few more votes in the next election.


Congressmen are willing to waste millions of taxpayer dollars for the same purpose, so what difference is there in in putting a few dozen lives at greater risk?
 
2013-05-27 10:23:20 AM

Baron Harkonnen: if that's true, that congressman is willing to put lives at risk using antiquated technology just so he pull in a few more votes in the next election.


You should look up the word "war" in the encyclopedia, son. It might ejumacate you a bit.
 
2013-05-27 10:45:15 AM

Emposter: Look. Exxon needs another tax break. We just can't afford to go to space.


I have noticed at least where I live, the most vocal critics of the direction of NASA and the privatization of pieces of the U.S. space program are tea Party Republicans who hate big government and are for severe austerity; especially for things not directly stated in the constitution.  They blame "Fartbongo Hussein Obama" for "gutting the U.S. space program and killing the Space Shuttle"; despite these actions are the direct result of people they elected or economic policies they refuse to compromise on.  The biggest irony is a lot of them work for NASA as civilian government employees.  Oh and if they get laid off because of these policies it is also Fartbongo's fault.  At least that is the way a guy we hired in our group who was laid off by NASA tells it, right before biatching about that big government socialist Obama who is "gutting" the military and NASA. (Yeah, complains that Obama is a "big government socialist" and uses examples of Obama cutting big government as an example)
 
2013-05-27 11:16:22 AM

Baron Harkonnen: Bullshiat. It's a step forward. The fact that private entities have the ability to assume the "routine" LEO missions that used to take up so much of NASA's resources leaves the organization free to concentrate on tentpole stuff like Mars, asteroid retrieval and so forth.

That's a pretty noble view, and if it weren't for the SLS, I could see it happening. The SLS is going to use solid rocket boosters, which are outdated, dangerous, and outperformed on every count by liquid fueled boosters. SRBs can have no emergency off swich and will keep going until they burn out. Or explode.

As I understand, the reason why NASA is continuing to use the SRBs for the SLS is because the Space Shuttle SRBs were built in a congressional district with an influential congressman. I hope that's not the case, because if that's true, that congressman is willing to put lives at risk using antiquated technology just so he pull in a few more votes in the next election.


Yes that is correct, SLS is basically just the Ares V from Constellation. Obama tried to kill it but Congress wouldn't let him. Now I would like to see SLS fly, simply because such a rocket hasn't existed since the Saturn V. The problem is that there is nothing to suggest that SLS is the best solution.


It's the best solution to keep shuttle contractors happy but not the best solution necessarily for our manned space program.
 
2013-05-27 12:16:55 PM
I bought the Brooklyn Bridge last week. Maybe I'll look into this as well.
 
2013-05-27 01:20:29 PM
I like how some trolling liberals think increasing corporate taxes is all that is needed to fund NASAs manned missions.

We are 16 trillion in debt, mainly caused by the 2/3 of the budget that is social spending originally projected at a 10th the cost or less.  We are weighed down by costly federal programs that are out of control, thanks to both Democrats and Republicans.

We also happen to have th highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (or second highest), so liberal-progressives are running out of viable options.  Too many people are not in agreement that socialism is the answer, and with high taxes and uncompetitive labor costs already, more government is not the answer.

If half the liberal shills who post here day and night because they don't have still time job would applythe same energy to something constructive in the private sector, from volunteer work to apprenticeships, it would be doing 1000 times more good for the economy and tax revenue.
 
2013-05-27 01:40:44 PM
How is it a leap backward for a government agency to rent out something it's not using or even planning on using?  Hell, a I'm libertarian against even the existence of NASA, but I can't find a single problem with this, and we can find problems with ANYTHING involving government.
 
2013-05-27 02:03:19 PM

Jarhead_h: How is it a leap backward for a government agency to rent out something it's not using or even planning on using?  Hell, a I'm libertarian against even the existence of NASA, but I can't find a single problem with this, and we can find problems with ANYTHING involving government.


So you're against the existence of weather/solar satellites, and publicly funded scientific research? I mean, hell. Its only a solar system and the universe. We don't need to know anything about it right?
 
2013-05-27 02:17:18 PM

bbfreak: Baron Harkonnen: Bullshiat. It's a step forward. The fact that private entities have the ability to assume the "routine" LEO missions that used to take up so much of NASA's resources leaves the organization free to concentrate on tentpole stuff like Mars, asteroid retrieval and so forth.

That's a pretty noble view, and if it weren't for the SLS, I could see it happening. The SLS is going to use solid rocket boosters, which are outdated, dangerous, and outperformed on every count by liquid fueled boosters. SRBs can have no emergency off swich and will keep going until they burn out. Or explode.

As I understand, the reason why NASA is continuing to use the SRBs for the SLS is because the Space Shuttle SRBs were built in a congressional district with an influential congressman. I hope that's not the case, because if that's true, that congressman is willing to put lives at risk using antiquated technology just so he pull in a few more votes in the next election.

Yes that is correct, SLS is basically just the Ares V from Constellation. Obama tried to kill it but Congress wouldn't let him. Now I would like to see SLS fly, simply because such a rocket hasn't existed since the Saturn V. The problem is that there is nothing to suggest that SLS is the best solution.


It's the best solution to keep shuttle contractors happy but not the best solution necessarily for our manned space program.


I'm just going to go with "better than nothing". The US needs a heavy-launch capability, be it government or commercial in order to do the things that need to be done up there. As simple as that. It would be like looking at the DC-2 and saying, "Let's wait until they build the 737 instead." Without that plane, the next and better wouldn't have come along and so on. It's a fact of life that some politician is going to have to be paid off in order to get anything done, anywhere. Just as long as its done.
 
2013-05-27 04:01:34 PM

Animatronik: I like how some trolling blah blah blah I suck dick for a living.


You are the biggest farking idiot on the planet.
 
2013-05-27 04:02:36 PM

bbfreak: Jarhead_h: How is it a leap backward for a government agency to rent out something it's not using or even planning on using?  Hell, a I'm libertarian against even the existence of NASA, but I can't find a single problem with this, and we can find problems with ANYTHING involving government.

So you're against the existence of weather/solar satellites, and publicly funded scientific research? I mean, hell. Its only a solar system and the universe. We don't need to know anything about it right?


we only need to know PROFITABLE things about it.
 
2013-05-27 04:05:53 PM
Our military had more funding in 2011 than NASA has had in its entire history.

NASA should never have money problems and they should never have to be in a position to rent out their shiat.
 
2013-05-27 04:06:43 PM
Hmm... swamp land in Florida for lease.
 
2013-05-27 04:30:36 PM
Well that'll be useful.  Assuming those pads can be converted to launch something that isn't an antiquated boondongle of a project loved by neither its mother or father.

And really that's what space truck was.  It's got to be something when the people floating on the ISS describe the inside of a Dragon capsule as being "like looking inside a space ship".
 
2013-05-27 04:45:33 PM

Animatronik: I like how some trolling liberals think increasing corporate taxes is all that is needed to fund NASAs manned missions.

We are 16 trillion in debt, mainly caused by the 2/3 of the budget that is social spending originally projected at a 10th the cost or less.  We are weighed down by costly federal programs that are out of control, thanks to both Democrats and Republicans.

We also happen to have th highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (or second highest), so liberal-progressives are running out of viable options.  Too many people are not in agreement that socialism is the answer, and with high taxes and uncompetitive labor costs already, more government is not the answer.

If half the liberal shills who post here day and night because they don't have still time job would applythe same energy to something constructive in the private sector, from volunteer work to apprenticeships, it would be doing 1000 times more good for the economy and tax revenue.


2.7/10
 
2013-05-28 03:46:45 AM
SpaceX might want it if you pretty much gave it to them for free.

I wonder if you get to use the VAB as part of the lease.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report