Tiangong-1 space station to crash within weeks

[Vorg]

48 minutes ago, Nzo said:

Lets say your an engineer for NASA back when they first landed on the moon. Could you imagine the conversations about how this truly is the first step for man and that a moon base would be just around the corner and their grand children would be flying throughout the solar system. Then for the next 50 years nothing happens except sending a few hobby shop radio controlled toys worth billions to distant planets?

IMHO NASA is a failure... not the engineers or the people working there... just the organization as a whole. They never had any real leader to push for stuff, its always been told what to do. Had they had a leader with some clout, by now I have no doubt we would be on Mars with a base on the moon, maybe a small civilian underground town as well.

It seems that Elon Musk is filling that much needed leadership role that every cause needs. I don't really like the fellow tbh, but he does seems to be able to BS his way to money for funding.

I wouldn't call it a failure as there are still many test that can be performed on the international space station that require space, and not distance to complete. And Mars has a little rover that has saved an astronaut from a one way trip.

[Truthseeker007]

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Where does NASA get its money from ?  

Why ask a question you already know? It certainly don't come from the UK. Do you know of the Queen giving money to NASA?

[toast]

On 10.3.2018 at 8:33 PM, Chaldon said:

Throwing off the boosters hoping they will miss certain ground points is just technically wrong.

Hope isnt involved and its you who is technically wrong here. The return trajectory and splash/touch down areas of boosters/manned capsules is well know in advance to rocket launches.

Quote

And deorbiting a space station without disassembling or simply exploding it first is just as wrong.

You have a wrong understanding of spaceflight in general. Exploding an orbiting space station, or any other artificial Earth orbiting object, would spread around and lift parts of it into higher orbits. This space debris would increase the total amount of it, jeopardising current and future space missions.

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Why ask a question you already know? It certainly don't come from the UK. Do you know of the Queen giving money to NASA?

It was a quasi-rhetorical question, Truthseeker007. A littler earlier, you said that ".... So maybe space exploration shouldn't be based on political decisions. It is holding us all back..."

Now, NASA is entirely funded by the US taxpayer. Expenditure of taxpayers money is a political act, regulated by politicians. How could it be otherwise ? In the case of the USA, I believe this is locked into the Constitution ??

The only way that NASA could be independent of political control, whilst still commanding an expanded budget for a Mars landing, is if it was privately funded. And then, instead of politicians making decisions, it would be financiers, investors and pension funds etc. Now, with that in mind, could you tell me the FISCAL benefits of landing a man on Mars ? The anticipated Return On Investment ?  Because if you can't , then it's back to the politicians again  

For that matter.. what would be the scientific benefits of a human mars landing ? 

[Astra.]

2 hours ago, toast said:

Hope isnt involved and its you who is technically wrong here. The return trajectory and splash/touch down areas of boosters/manned capsules is well know in advance to rocket launches.

Yes, that makes absolute sense toast that everything would be planned properly before launching a rocket. I was wondering, would the boosters also come with some type of transponder for recovery efforts if something was to possibly go wrong ?

2 hours ago, toast said:

 Exploding an orbiting space station, or any other artificial Earth orbiting object, would spread around and lift parts of it into higher orbits. This space debris would increase the total amount of it, jeopardising current and future space missions.

So true.

[Truthseeker007]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It was a quasi-rhetorical question, Truthseeker007. A littler earlier, you said that ".... So maybe space exploration shouldn't be based on political decisions. It is holding us all back..."

Now, NASA is entirely funded by the US taxpayer. Expenditure of taxpayers money is a political act, regulated by politicians. How could it be otherwise ? In the case of the USA, I believe this is locked into the Constitution ??

The only way that NASA could be independent of political control, whilst still commanding an expanded budget for a Mars landing, is if it was privately funded. And then, instead of politicians making decisions, it would be financiers, investors and pension funds etc. Now, with that in mind, could you tell me the FISCAL benefits of landing a man on Mars ? The anticipated Return On Investment ?  Because if you can't , then it's back to the politicians again  

For that matter.. what would be the scientific benefits of a human mars landing ? 

You make some good points. There are countless benefits for starters it would be a step in the right direction for interplanetary travel. It would most definitely invigorate the human spirit. Mars is very similar to Earth and it would help us to understand Earth. What happened to Mars and could the same thing happen to Earth?

[Astra.]

8 hours ago, Nzo said:

 Then for the next 50 years nothing happens except sending a few hobby shop radio controlled toys worth billions to distant planets?

Oh, so you mean the 'few hobby shop radio controlled toys' that helped scientists get information through discovery about our solar system...which have landed on other planets.....which have flown past planets and have taken the most beautiful images for us to see. The very ones that have gone into orbit around these amazing worlds that have gathered important scientific information by helping us better to understand and to plan other space missions such as the one to Mars for example.. ok, got it ..

 

[Merc14]

10 hours ago, Nzo said:

Lets say your an engineer for NASA back when they first landed on the moon. Could you imagine the conversations about how this truly is the first step for man and that a moon base would be just around the corner and their grand children would be flying throughout the solar system. Then for the next 50 years nothing happens except sending a few hobby shop radio controlled toys worth billions to distant planets?

IMHO NASA is a failure... not the engineers or the people working there... just the organization as a whole. They never had any real leader to push for stuff, its always been told what to do. Had they had a leader with some clout, by now I have no doubt we would be on Mars with a base on the moon, maybe a small civilian underground town as well.

It seems that Elon Musk is filling that much needed leadership role that every cause needs. I don't really like the fellow tbh, but he does seems to be able to BS his way to money for funding.

NASA is a publicly funded agency of the government and therefore subject to the political whims of the government in power at any given time which means it is ultimately at the whim of the voting public.  During the later Apollo missions the public turned decidedly against any further manned space exploration beyond LEO and the follow-on Apollo missions (18 & 19) and all further manned deep space exploration was cancelled.  This was NOT NASA's fault, it was ours, the voting public.  I remember it clearly and also remember the arguments on both sides, arguments we hear today.  Just ask around and you will hear just as many people protesting ANY space exploration, manned or otherwise, while we have any kind of problems here on earth. 

The only way around the above is privately funded space exploration, something that NASA has had a helluva lot more to do with than you think.  Just ask Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos how important NASA seed money and guaranteed missions are to the health of their businesses.  SpaceX is moving beyond dependence on NASA and using those research dollars for the BFR I am guessing but calling NASA  a failure is truly opining without knowing all the facts and without considering all the massive and groundbreaking successes they have had.

[toast]

4 hours ago, Astra. said:

Yes, that makes absolute sense toast that everything would be planned properly before launching a rocket. I was wondering, would the boosters also come with some type of transponder for recovery efforts if something was to possibly go wrong ?

Yes. I will take ARIANE boosters as an example, which are equipped with an extensive and autonomous telemetrie infrastruture for all kinds of relevant data.

Quote

SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER (EAP) Flight control, flight termination and telemetry subsystems, connected to VEB via data bus + autonomous telemetry

check page 24 out of 271, arianespace

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 3/12/2018 at 2:59 PM, Truthseeker007 said:

Almost 50 years and still not a man on Mars. They didn't get very far at all with millions if not billions of dollars. I would say NASA is a failure.

I don't think there is anything that NASA would love more than putting a man on mars. It's just that nobody have so far given them the money to do so. Don't blame NASA, blame the people who controls the funding.

Space flight is expensive if you care about safety. We could probably launch a manned mission fairly cheaply, but the chance of failure would be high. Today that is simply not acceptable.

[internetperson]

30 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Space flight is expensive if you care about safety. We could probably launch a manned mission fairly cheaply, but the chance of failure would be high. Today that is simply not acceptable.

Agreed. We want to send humans, not leave bodies. Think how bad Jamestown was this could be far worse if not methodically planned out. 

[Nzo]

10 hours ago, toast said:

Hope isnt involved and its you who is technically wrong here. The return trajectory and splash/touch down areas of boosters/manned capsules is well know in advance to rocket launches.

You have a wrong understanding of spaceflight in general. Exploding an orbiting space station, or any other artificial Earth orbiting object, would spread around and lift parts of it into higher orbits. This space debris would increase the total amount of it, jeopardising current and future space missions.

 

4 hours ago, Astra. said:

Oh, so you mean the 'few hobby shop radio controlled toys' that helped scientists get information through discovery about our solar system...which have landed on other planets.....which have flown past planets and have taken the most beautiful images for us to see. The very ones that have gone into orbit around these amazing worlds that have gathered important scientific information by helping us better to understand and to plan other space missions such as the one to Mars for example.. ok, got it ..

 

Yes, those incredibly expensive toys that we make one of instead of using industries of scale to make thousands of at a time at greatly reduced costs. For example have the chassis already built then add modular components that are needed for that specific mission. By now we should have tens of thousands of satellites all interconnected and possibly rovers(much more expensive) roaming and collecting data around the solar system. Instead we have a handful of satellites exploring the solar system(and I am being generous when I say handful-not including earth) which quite frankly create more questions then they answer.  Not only is NASA a failure but they are severely mismanaged IMHO. For 20 billion dollars a year I could literally get the smartest minds to build me a seriously robust and functional chassis and mission modular components then get Lockheed to build 10k of them. Have Elon use one of those fine heavy rockets to blast 10-20 at a time into space all following their own predetermined missions. Want data on the atmosphere of Venus, lets send 20 satellites that can take the heat or cold because they are all engineered to do so and can give us data for decades.

 

I think like everything NASA has probably become a cash cow for PHds. Why mess with a good pay check?

 

*I want to emphasize how INCREDIBLY mismanaged NASA is now that I think about it and elaborated on what they should be doing and have done by now. Its literally robbing peoples tax dollars IMHO. Its not just NASA, consider all the aerospace agencies in the same boat, except maybe India which for some reason can do the same payload as NASA for a HELL OF  LOT LESS!

[RoofGardener]

16 minutes ago, Nzo said:

 

Yes, those incredibly expensive toys that we make one of instead of using industries of scale to make thousands of at a time at greatly reduced costs. For example have the chassis already built then add modular components that are needed for that specific mission. By now we should have tens of thousands of satellites all interconnected and possibly rovers(much more expensive) roaming and collecting data around the solar system. Instead we have a handful of satellites exploring the solar system(and I am being generous when I say handful-not including earth) which quite frankly create more questions then they answer.  Not only is NASA a failure but they are severely mismanaged IMHO. For 20 billion dollars a year I could literally get the smartest minds to build me a seriously robust and functional chassis and mission modular components then get Lockheed to build 10k of them. Have Elon use one of those fine heavy rockets to blast 10-20 at a time into space all following their own predetermined missions. Want data on the atmosphere of Venus, lets send 20 satellites that can take the heat or cold because they are all engineered to do so and can give us data for decades.

 

I think like everything NASA has probably become a cash cow for PHds. Why mess with a good pay check?

 

*I want to emphasize how INCREDIBLY mismanaged NASA is now that I think about it and elaborated on what they should be doing and have done by now. Its literally robbing peoples tax dollars IMHO. Its not just NASA, consider all the aerospace agencies in the same boat, except maybe India which for some reason can do the same payload as NASA for a HELL OF  LOT LESS!

Well... OK.. umm...... 

Can you give me a citation to support the claim that India can launch "the same payload" for a lot less than NASA ? 

On a separate issue... many countries now have the ability to launch objects into orbit. But how many of them can launch probes to investigate mercury, venus,  mars, jupiter, saturn, neptune ? I mean.. NEPTUNE for goodness sakes ? 

How many have landed probes on mars ? ganymede ? Saturn ? 

Gosh... none. They where all done by NASA ? Granted, some of the satellite/telemetry packages where helped by the European Space Agency, with co-operation with multiple nations. 

But it was organised by NASA. And they provided the taxi !

In that light, aren't your criticisms somewhat .. harsh ? 

Edited March 13, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Merc14]

20 minutes ago, Nzo said:

 

Yes, those incredibly expensive toys that we make one of instead of using industries of scale to make thousands of at a time at greatly reduced costs. For example have the chassis already built then add modular components that are needed for that specific mission. By now we should have tens of thousands of satellites all interconnected and possibly rovers(much more expensive) roaming and collecting data around the solar system. Instead we have a handful of satellites exploring the solar system(and I am being generous when I say handful-not including earth) which quite frankly create more questions then they answer.  Not only is NASA a failure but they are severely mismanaged IMHO. For 20 billion dollars a year I could literally get the smartest minds to build me a seriously robust and functional chassis and mission modular components then get Lockheed to build 10k of them. Have Elon use one of those fine heavy rockets to blast 10-20 at a time into space all following their own predetermined missions. Want data on the atmosphere of Venus, lets send 20 satellites that can take the heat or cold because they are all engineered to do so and can give us data for decades.

 

I think like everything NASA has probably become a cash cow for PHds. Why mess with a good pay check?

 

*I want to emphasize how INCREDIBLY mismanaged NASA is now that I think about it and elaborated on what they should be doing and have done by now. Its literally robbing peoples tax dollars IMHO. Its not just NASA, consider all the aerospace agencies in the same boat, except maybe India which for some reason can do the same payload as NASA for a HELL OF  LOT LESS!

Let's see your data showing the cost per pound each agency spends for launch.  Also, please compare India's most complex mission to NASA's.  You can have any opinion you'd like re. NASA but when you start stag facts that are anything but in order to cast aspersions you will be called on it.  Prove me wrong.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Merc14

[Nzo]

4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Let's see your data showing the cost per pound each agency spends for launch.  Also, please compare India's most complex mission to NASA's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html

[toast]

54 minutes ago, Nzo said:

Yes, those incredibly expensive toys that we make one of instead of using industries of scale to make thousands of at a time at greatly reduced costs.

Different applications require different tools. Thats one of the reasons therefor that you dont drive to the bakery with an A380 aircraft pushback vehicle and why fireworkers dont use pogo sticks during operation.

Quote

For example have the chassis already built then add modular components that are needed for that specific mission.

In such case, the standard rocket size would always be the biggest one available, the standard body, even for missions with a low payload. That would increase the cost for missions with low payload in general so your idea is, not only limited to, viewed from an economical point of view, nonsense.

Quote

Instead we have a handful of satellites exploring the solar system(and I am being generous when I say handful-not including earth) which quite frankly create more questions then they answer. 

Interplanetary probes are well equipped with measuring instruments because its known from the first planning steps on of a mission what is to be measured/investigated during the mission. But anyway, pls back your claim that these probes provide more questions than answers.

Quote

Not only is NASA a failure but they are severely mismanaged IMHO. For 20 billion dollars a year I could literally get the smartest minds to build me a seriously robust and functional chassis and mission modular components then get Lockheed to build 10k of them.

20B/10k is 2M. Do you know the term "costs of operation", especially in the space flight industry? Clearly not. 

Quote

Have Elon use one of those fine heavy rockets to blast 10-20 at a time into space all following their own predetermined missions. Want data on the atmosphere of Venus, lets send 20 satellites that can take the heat or cold because they are all engineered to do so and can give us data for decades.

Nonsense again. Interplanetary probes are not out-of-the-shop products like telecom satellites so the budgets of space agencies would not allow to build 20 interplanetary probes at the same time, simultaneous to ongoing or already budgeted/planned projects and missions.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by toast

[toast]

28 minutes ago, Nzo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html

Did you ever heard the term "CubeSat", do you know what exactly a CubeSat is and its purpose?

From the article:

Quote

Shri G. Madhavan Nair, a former chairman of India’s space program, said newer satellites weigh as little as two pounds, meaning that there is “no limit” to the number that can be launched into space at a time — a trend that he said worried him, as most satellites are operational for only two or three years.

“We are all concerned about space debris,” he said. “After that, it becomes a dead mass floating in space. Personally, I will not recommend such an increase in the number without a practical purpose.”

 

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Nzo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html

Toast has it well covered and the rest of your post #62 means you are in great need of learning what you are talking about.  Start here on launch costs:

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-cargo-price-by-weight-2016-6

BTW, NASA currently does NOT have its own launch vehicle so the basic premise of this argument is, frankly, ridiculous. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Merc14

[Nzo]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Toast has it well covered and the rest of your post #62 means you are in great need of learning what you are talking about.  Start here on launch costs:

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-cargo-price-by-weight-2016-6

BTW, NASA currently does NOT have its own launch vehicle so the basic premise of this argument is, frankly, ridiculous. 

Well I am certainly not going to take the time to discuss every point with Toast... His rebuttals don't change a thing. NASA is a failed organization and giving them 20 billion dollars a year is truly a waste of money for what we have gotten in return. They seem to be extremely mismanaged. Its not like any other space agency is doing better aside from the Indian space agency in terms of cost. The Russians should also be embarrassed with what they have. The Chinese well, lets see what this piece of space junk hits and if it contains any dangerous chemical, radioactive etc. payload that can do more harm when it crashes.

 

If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of NASA, it would be embarrassing. I am all for space exploration but they fail and fail big time. Its going to be 60 years soon since the landing on the moon, NASA's greatest achievement. Hopefully with privatizing launch vehicles etc. we can finally get a decent space station on the moon and really explore the solar system in the next 60 years because if we leave it up to NASA, the only thing being built on Mars will be a barbie and ken mansion.

[Merc14]

9 minutes ago, Nzo said:

Well I am certainly not going to take the time to discuss every point with Toast... His rebuttals don't change a thing. NASA is a failed organization and giving them 20 billion dollars a year is truly a waste of money for what we have gotten in return. They seem to be extremely mismanaged. Its not like any other space agency is doing better aside from the Indian space agency in terms of cost. The Russians should also be embarrassed with what they have. The Chinese well, lets see what this piece of space junk hits and if it contains any dangerous chemical, radioactive etc. payload that can do more harm when it crashes.

 

If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of NASA, it would be embarrassing. I am all for space exploration but they fail and fail big time. Its going to be 60 years soon since the landing on the moon, NASA's greatest achievement. Hopefully with privatizing launch vehicles etc. we can finally get a decent space station on the moon and really explore the solar system in the next 60 years because if we leave it up to NASA, the only thing being built on Mars will be a barbie and ken mansion.

You aren't arguing, you are preaching.  We get it, you don't like NASA but think we should start another agency and spend trillions on space exploration or let a private organization do it  which no one is standing in the way of now sooooo. 

[Astra.]

4 hours ago, Nzo said:

Yes, those incredibly expensive toys that we make one of instead of using industries of scale to make thousands of at a time at greatly reduced costs.

Personally, I'd rather take quality over quantity any old time...(as one gets what they pay for)...

In a nut shell, if I had to choose between NASA and an Indian space agency to launch me to the stars in a rocket...well, no doubt about it... it would be NASA hands down.

4 hours ago, Nzo said:

For example have the chassis already built then add modular components that are needed for that specific mission. By now we should have tens of thousands of satellites all interconnected and possibly rovers(much more expensive) roaming and collecting data around the solar system. Instead we have a handful of satellites exploring the solar system(and I am being generous when I say handful-not including earth) which quite frankly create more questions then they answer.  Not only is NASA a failure but they are severely mismanaged IMHO. For 20 billion dollars a year I could literally get the smartest minds to build me a seriously robust and functional chassis and mission modular components then get Lockheed to build 10k of them. Have Elon use one of those fine heavy rockets to blast 10-20 at a time into space all following their own predetermined missions. Want data on the atmosphere of Venus, lets send 20 satellites that can take the heat or cold because they are all engineered to do so and can give us data for decades.

 

I think like everything NASA has probably become a cash cow for PHds. Why mess with a good pay check?

 

*I want to emphasize how INCREDIBLY mismanaged NASA is now that I think about it and elaborated on what they should be doing and have done by now. Its literally robbing peoples tax dollars IMHO. Its not just NASA, consider all the aerospace agencies in the same boat, except maybe India which for some reason can do the same payload as NASA for a HELL OF  LOT LESS!

Well, I hope you feel a little better after that rant. You've made it quite clear that you have no respect or appreciation for what NASA does and has accomplished so far with some of the best leading scientific minds in the world as far as space exploration goes. I really don't have anymore to say to you on the subject.   

[Truthseeker007]

17 hours ago, Astra. said:

Oh, so you mean the 'few hobby shop radio controlled toys' that helped scientists get information through discovery about our solar system...which have landed on other planets.....which have flown past planets and have taken the most beautiful images for us to see. The very ones that have gone into orbit around these amazing worlds that have gathered important scientific information by helping us better to understand and to plan other space missions such as the one to Mars for example.. ok, got it ..

 

I can't argue with that. You make some great points Astra. I still think though we all need to step outside the box or we are never going to explore space as humans. I am always up for adventure and discovering new things. I would be the first one to sign up for a trip to Mars.lol! Even if I have to get there in a teleport machine.

[Truthseeker007]

9 hours ago, Nzo said:

Well I am certainly not going to take the time to discuss every point with Toast... His rebuttals don't change a thing. NASA is a failed organization and giving them 20 billion dollars a year is truly a waste of money for what we have gotten in return. They seem to be extremely mismanaged. Its not like any other space agency is doing better aside from the Indian space agency in terms of cost. The Russians should also be embarrassed with what they have. The Chinese well, lets see what this piece of space junk hits and if it contains any dangerous chemical, radioactive etc. payload that can do more harm when it crashes.

 

If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of NASA, it would be embarrassing. I am all for space exploration but they fail and fail big time. Its going to be 60 years soon since the landing on the moon, NASA's greatest achievement. Hopefully with privatizing launch vehicles etc. we can finally get a decent space station on the moon and really explore the solar system in the next 60 years because if we leave it up to NASA, the only thing being built on Mars will be a barbie and ken mansion.

I don't understand why people don't understand this. Why is everybody so in love with NASA anyways? I feel they just steal my tax dollars for nothing. I wouldn't even give them half a penny if I had a choice.

[Truthseeker007]

7 hours ago, Astra. said:

Personally, I'd rather take quality over quantity any old time...(as one gets what they pay for)...

In a nut shell, if I had to choose between NASA and an Indian space agency to launch me to the stars in a rocket...well, no doubt about it... it would be NASA hands down.

Well, I hope you feel a little better after that rant. You've made it quite clear that you have no respect or appreciation for what NASA does and has accomplished so far with some of the best leading scientific minds in the world as far as space exploration goes. I really don't have anymore to say to you on the subject.   

They aren't stealing your money so what do you care?

[toast]

52 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I don't understand why people don't understand this. Why is everybody so in love with NASA anyways? I feel they just steal my tax dollars for nothing. I wouldn't even give them half a penny if I had a choice.

Wasnt it you who agreed on the claim that "The Pleiadians" "are here" and "have been for a long time"?