- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 32,111
- Reaction score
- 15,141
I sincerely would like to see NASA's budget boosted back up to 1966 levels, if not more, and outer space and space exploration pushed back to the forefront like it was then.
Only so expensive, I think, because of all the funding shenanigans making it so delayed. Man, those kinds of delays are agonizing. I thought I was going to rupture something waiting for the LHC to go online. When they blew the magnet and flooded the place with helium, I think I started bleeding from my asshole LOL.
But woot!
"June 22, 2017
NASA's Webb Telescope Gets Freezing Summertime Lodging in Houston
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope was placed in Johnson Space Center’s historic Chamber A on June 20, 2017, to prepare for its final three months of testing in a cryogenic vacuum that mimics temperatures in space."
I sincerely would like to see NASA's budget boosted back up to 1966 levels, if not more, and outer space and space exploration pushed back to the forefront like it was then.
I agree man, and not just because I'm a space science junkie. It's such a worthwhile investment on the whole and the people you see actually complaining about NASA's budget on comment sections of articles and such comes down to incredibly woeful ignorance. Aside from the NIH which is concerned entirely with bio-medical research, NASA is probably the most valuable scientific entity in the United States and therefore (by default), one of the most important in the world. Hundreds if not thousands of institutes and universities in an array of fields all across the globe depend greatly on it and the data it produces.
Its very existence has made for more contributions than you can shake a stick at where human medicine and health, computer software, weather tracking, mapping, highway safety, oil spill clean up and a multitude of consumer products are concerned and that's merely a result of secondary spin off benefits, nevermind the actual achievements, advancements and knowledge obtained in space exploration, earth science and observational astrophysics. The latter isn't even a thing without NASA, or at best: still in the stone age.
Yes, more funding please. To me, it's unfathomable that there is no massive effort to get humanity off this rock before something really big hits it and ends humanity for good. However unlikely it is at any given moment, there are real existential threats that could strike without warning, and with catastrophic results. A low chance doesn't mean no chance. We need to establish a presence off-world as soon as possible, imo, just so all our genetic eggs aren't in one planetary basket but it doesn't seem urgent to most.Not to mention how much it brought people together back then and gave everyone something to look forward to and hope for on a national level. It'd be nice to turn on the news everyday and see what's new with NASA and science and space exploration rather than all the ridiculous and usually fake drama being spewed.
I still get goosebumps watching docs and movies about 60s - 80s NASA. It was amazing. There's nothing much out there anymore in that regard that gives me goosebumps and gets me excited.
Yeah, don't ask me to explain that shit. I'm just repeating what I read.Explain. What do you mean, "...they have no idea how that is working." My recollection is the design is based upon sound, well-understood principles.
EDIT:
Well, that's funny, I have to admit. An article I just read suggests they don't know how it works. It seems likely they will. I wouldn't worry.
No problem, but you started the sentence with "what worries me is..." Don't worry. It doesn't mean they're going to open a worm hole to another dimension or something. It just means there's some aspect of the way it works they have failed to take into account, I'm sure; if not, it points to new physics, which is always a good thing.Yeah, don't ask me to explain that shit. I'm just repeating what I read.
No problem, but you started the sentence with "what worries me is..." Don't worry. It doesn't mean they're going to open a worm hole to another dimension or something. It just means there's some aspect of the way it works they have failed to take into account, I'm sure; if not, it points to new physics, which is always a good thing.
Yeah, fair enough. That's certainly problematic, you're right. There's a significant chance it just doesn't actually work if it appears to contradict known physical principles. It could go either way. Hopefully we get to find out before too long.No, I'm worried because what I read leads me to believe the EM drive isn't going to pan out the way I would hope it does - that they may find their experiments were faulty somehow because they didn't take into account some variable that was actually creating the thrust.
That looks awesome. One of the things I need to do is see a live launch in person. I never got to see a Space Shuttle launch and that's hugely disappointing to me. It's hard to think of anything in NASA history that was as awesome or awe inspiring as the shuttle. Speaking of which, why did they end it in the first place?
It will be awesome to see the Shuttle launch live, if I can go to the USA in the future going to Florida is in one of my things to do list.
They say that Shuttle is very loud and sounds so huge, maybe in the future you can see the Orion spacecraft launch they say the full set up of the Orion will be larger than the Shuttle and even the Saturn V so the blast off will be so powerful.
I think NASA ended the Shuttle program because of the cost of maintenance of older parts and increasing stress on the orbiter itself not to mention the Colombia disaster which has a good potential to happen again if they can't effectively prevent foam from hitting the tiles.
Speaking of the Saturn V rocket I wasn't even born yet in the late 60s so watching the play by play coverage in Youtube of the Apolo 11 launch really gets me!!
Warning long video but it might interest you.
Spacex landings are really cool to watch its really bizzare its like they just reverse the tape of the launch!
The shuttle program was shut down years ago.
You're leaving out the part where the solar system was born in a cloud of such dust and gas and radiation. Then it migrated to its current position over billions of years. Nothing stops other systems from doing the same thing. It was in a much denser region in the past. Add to that there are billions and billions of solar systems, so even if you eliminate 99.99 percent of them, it still leaves a lot that could harbour life.According to a How the Universe Works program on The Science Channel, over 55% of stars exist in two or three star systems. This means our system isn't considered normal. We are also in a much less dense part of the Milky Way than most stars which makes us less subject to the radiation from novas and supernovas.
To me this seems to lower the number of stars and systems that could harbor life as they would also likely be in a less dense area.
I want to dive into a hypernova just to see what will happen