- 47,554
- 102,459
Doesn't help when the plan is changed every 5 years and it's never properly funded.Idk, theyve got kind of dumb lately when it comes to designing a launch vehicle.
Im glad you've managed to figure out how to solve the entire space program in a few minutes, Im sure the thousands of hours of NASA engineers have spent on it was a big waste.Id say its been going on longer than that. The Space Shuttle was a incredibly stupid idea(though the air force may of fucked it up?) in hindsight.
What they need to do is build a modern Saturn V to sling loads into LEO and then use NERVAs to leave LEO. The fact that they are talking about leaving LEO and not using nuclear rockets is pretty dumb. We perfected the technology in the damn 60s.
SO much this. NASA runs on 4 year cycles due to presidents, sometimes 8. Then it all changes, new congress, etc and the programs get defunded and are forced to re-pitch ideas/start again or change direction due to new leadership.Doesn't help when the plan is changed every 5 years and it's never properly funded.
Those engineers aren't being asked how to do it, they're being asked how to do it eventually with forty dollars and a half pack of Mentos.Im glad you've managed to figure out how to solve the entire space program in a few minutes, Im sure the thousands of hours of NASA engineers have spent on it was a big waste.
I have thousands of hours in KSP.Im glad you've managed to figure out how to solve the entire space program in a few minutes, Im sure the thousands of hours of NASA engineers have spent on it was a big waste.
20 years? It took us 11 to go from Explorer 1 to landing on the moon. Shit like the JSF takes 20+ years because LM is milking the tax payer for every dime possible while the military thinks you can somehow design a jet that is every bit as capable as 4 radically different jets.It takes them 20 years from concept to launch of most major military vehicles (JSF program started in 1996 and we are just seeing a few f35's active now), and a space vehicle is infinitely more difficult/complex to build. Nasa should be operating on timelines of 10-20 years with enough funding to get shit done (see 1960's moon race)
Sureis an angle here.CISAmakes it law that the Government can have 100% access to any of your online activities without pesky things like courts or judges. CISA was rejected previously after huge internet backlash and fighting.Congress will give NASA nearly $20 billion next year
Is there an angle here? Or has congress actually done something decent?
The problem with this thing is if there's an accident it will shit radioactive material all over the atmosphere. It's not a lot of radiation, but if you remember people were panicking over the idea that radiation from Fukushima would make it over here despite being dissolved in the entire Pacific Ocean. Just imagine the panic if one of these were to explode on launch.I have thousands of hours in KSP.
20 years? It took us 11 to go from Explorer 1 to landing on the moon. Shit like the JSF takes 20+ years because LM is milking the tax payer for every dime possible while the military thinks you can somehow design a jet that is every bit as capable as 4 radically different jets.
NERVA was completely tested, working and ready to go into space until Apollo was canceled. We already build rockets as best as we can, it doesnt get any better than liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
Thats exactly my point dude, the Apollo program succeeded in such a short time because they were given more than 4 years of the same program AND they were given WAY more of the budget (around 3-4% of total GDP, compared to 0.5% now). If NASA wants to do shit at the same speed as they did in the 60's they will need much much more money. The other consideration is that even though the budget was 4%, it was spent almost entirely on a single program (the Apollo program), that is ALL NASA did back then. These days NASA is working on a lot of projects, both long and short range. LEO and Geo Orbit, probes, science missions, satellites. Etc etc. So that 0.5% isn't even being fully applied to the Mars missions etc.20 years? It took us 11 to go from Explorer 1 to landing on the moon. Shit like the JSF takes 20+ years because LM is milking the tax payer for every dime possible while the military thinks you can somehow design a jet that is every bit as capable as 4 radically different jets.
NERVA was completely tested, working and ready to go into space until Apollo was canceled. We already build rockets as best as we can, it doesnt get any better than liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
Mariner ProgramThe other consideration is that even though the budget was 4%, it was spent almost entirely on a single program (the Apollo program), that is ALL NASA did back then. These days NASA is working on a lot of projects, both long and short range. LEO and Geo Orbit, probes, science missions, satellites. Etc etc. So that 0.5% isn't even being fully applied to the Mars missions etc.
Ok I did a bit more research and Apollo Spending was about 40-50% of the NASA budget from 1962-1970. That is still a massive chunk compared to today and we had way more money in general.Mariner Program
Ranger Program
Gemini Program and Manned Orbital Laboratory
Syncom Satellites
Telstar Satellites
Keyhole Satellites
Surveyor Program
Other communications satellites following Telsar too
Orion was hilarious. That was actually one of Freeman Dyson's actual real-life projects.Whoops, thought Phoenix was talking about project Orion. I'm not familiar with this NERVA stuff.
Fair enough, no argument sir! I would love to see a bunch more work for NASA.Ok I did a bit more research and Apollo Spending was about 40-50% of the NASA budget from 1962-1970. That is still a massive chunk compared to today and we had way more money in general.