State Of NASA 2018 event LIVE

It's little wonder why Pence is so involved with all of this, if all goes according to plan he'll have the first lunar landings in the early 2030s.

>supersonic airliners
Supersoniclets, when will they ever learn?

>$400 million budget increase for 2019.
Nice.

lunar space station is some shitty meme to justify the SLS, just like the ISS was justification for the shuttle

So nothing practical at all, nothing real, just fucking hand waving about stuff happening 10 years from now despite doing no work on it tomorrow

The fuck does "small lunar landers" even mean when SpaceX is talking about BFR in a couple of years

That's it? What a joke, lemme guess their new project is sending an inflatable raft to LEO?

>growing number of people from all works of life

affirmative action in space gg burn NASA to the ground

LEO is a fucking joke, there is no reason to do anything in LEO
Direct to the moon or nothing at all

>sls will be the one take people to the moon
Commercial on suicide watch

>LEO is a fucking joke, there is no reason to do anything in LEO

propellant depots? space station?

>Direct to the moon or nothing at all

nope, direct to the moon makes no sense from orbital mechanics perspective

direct to the moon gets you Apollo, meaning a HUGE rocket that ultimately only lands a small lander

it is OK if you want mere footprints and flag missions but not for any sustainable settlement of the Moon

there is a reason why SpaceX based their architecture around copious refueling in Earth orbit

What is the state of the funding for commercial space and Kilopower reactors?

all other things are mere pork really

>implying bfr will fly
>implying if it does it'll ever be allowed to carry crew

Orbital bases will be vital to bootstrapping up to a sustainable moonbase you spaz

A lunar space station is useful for things like managing things happening on the Moon's surface, like probes designed to setup radio relays or inspect soil for use as fuel.

inflatable spacecraft are a very real proposition, given the massive weight savings (pic related)

Reminder we need at least another five decades of micro gravity study before we understand the actual risk posed to human lives in the long zero gravity journeys to the moon and mars.

Anything less is utterly irresponsible and inherently inhumane.

How his their inflat-a-hab working out? Spring any leaks yet?

>we need lunar space station for radio control
The 50's called they want you back.

What happened with Apollo is what you get when you attempt a space program using fuel cells, you simply can't stay any meaningful duration
Without needing to return they could have carried much more to the moon.

You need HUGE rockets to do anything practical in space, plus reusability in as much as possible.

BFR mission architecture is direct to the moon/mars, refueling in LEO is still direct.

There is no need to talk about LEO stations, or Lunar orbit stations, or propellant depots, or whatever other memes that scammers/NASA want to sell.

Inflatable space craft is not about weight savings, they don't save weight, its about fitting a greater diameter on the rocket when the fairing size is the limitation. Overall its a just a meme.

A lunar station means a larger data pipeline and higher bandwidth, which means a greater variety of things that can be controlled on the ground without ground-based relays or other orbiting relays. It also provides an emergency escape if ground crews have a problem and need to evacuate (say because of a blow up battery) or if there's something wrong with an incoming crew during their insertion flight.

>its about fitting a greater diameter on the rocket when the fairing size is the limitation. Overall its a just a meme.

more volume = more space for pressure sensitive cargo (like people). You're being an idiot.

Then they should send parts to be assembled/welded together, that would ensure the maximum volume

Because we need Earth space stations to do things on Earth? What are you saying
Why would a lunar station serve as an emergency escape for people on the moon? Fucking nuts

Utterly ridiculous.
A commsat is doable, cheaper, and better than iss tincan (manned!) for that. More than one can be added too.
As for safety that is incredibly poor and outright stupid argument because if there are any landings then it is quite likely they will be in places where orbital planes do not match at the very least. The same applies for countless other scenarios involving orbital maneuvers.
Troll better or go back to plebbit. I refuse to believe you are some grant nigger dreaming of leeching off in nasa.

that increases labor costs and requires specialied equipment

you're bring a total moron now

>because if there are any landings then it is quite likely they will be in places where orbital planes do not match at the very least

wow, an artificial operational constraint that an orbital hab would negate. Go back to eddit, kid.

Correct your mom's greatest mistake. Abort yourself today.

enjoy your inflatable houses

Gaaaaaaaaayyyyyy

Also, since Lyndon Johnson the Veep is traditionally the top cheerleader for NASA.

Help me understand this.

How is it more economical to lift fuel to a big fuel-dump in the sky than it is to just carry it with you when you launch?

Either way, you have to boost the mass into orbit, right?

I guess at some point maybe we're mining fuel on the moon, in a less-deep gravity well, but before then, I'm not sure I see the benefit.

(NOT claiming there is no benefit, just wanting to understand what it is.)

pussy

The tyranny of the rocket equation means that you gotta do a lot of launches to be efficient

Besides, it’s better to completely separate the earth to orbit and orbit to elsewhere components. Vacuum engines and all.

A: It's the whole staging concept, the more stages the more mass efficient things are, to a point.
B: Rockets just aren't big enough, having a 5 ton payload to lunar surface means jack shit

NASA has no ability to produce anything new either, so they want to never have to deliver
Just want to run out the clock forever.

>$19.2 billion dollars,

That's a lot of grant chasing bux. Too bad they won't put it to good use for NASA.

Fuel depots = maintenance = budgets and jobs. Of course they'll be suggested all the time.

>hey user, haven't seen you in what 10 years!? Waht have you been doing?
>"oh, not much, I'm a fuel depot attendant..."
>oh I see.
>"....on the Moon. "

Play some Kerbal Space Program and tell us which gets you farther
As for an actual answer putting more fuel on your rocket means bigger engines to actually lift the fucker and by the time you've burnt out your new shiny first stage you have about the same amount of ΔV as you would have with less fuel.
t. 3000 hours in KSP

Don't believe their lies

>Another 400m

Wew daddy Trump breaking out the big bucks. What a fucking joke, you cunts should pull back all your overseas troops and other assorted warmongering garbage and give all that cash to SpaceX. At least they don't charge 10000 dollars to stamp a piece of fucking paper like NASA does.

NASA is the one studying this, no one else is doing it. That means grant chasing is being done to the fullest extent, meaning there's little push to do real science. The longer it takes while giving enough results to continue getting funding is better for the short-sighted grant chasers. Once the private sector is in space fully, this sort of research will explode and things will be known and done in a very short amount of time.

>Anything less is utterly irresponsible and inherently inhumane.

That doesn't matter.

In short by refueling you make a 3 stage rocket out of standard 2 stage one.High energy missions or round trips to the moon are now as easy and your rocket booster can be 5-10x smaller

Sadly, this is just as terrible as everything else past administrations have proposed. We really need a reason to kill SLS and get NASA out of the rocket business if we want to do these goals with the budget that is there.

Sorry, Ivan/Chang. The hegemony ain't ending yet.

Only rockets that use coal get funding from now on.

Artificial gravity or bust.

Artificial gravity is an untested technology. We need at least another one hundred years of spin testing before we risk sending humans to the moon and Mars with artificial gravity.

>Supersonic airliners
Didn't they learned from France and UK' mistake ?

This. Even though spin gravity is known to be possible, we have never actually done sufficient study to figure out how exactly it affects humans both physiologically as well as psychologically. In spin gravity the rocket ship would spin to produce the gravity - and we have never actually studied how humans behave in environment that rotates so fast. It is entirely likely there might be great many health hazards involved in utilizing such technology as well as many unknowns as how people would live comfortably and safely in closed environment with the stars and planets rotating around them. And until we do proper research to understand what is going on we cannot take the risk. Sadly, the current administration is not at all interested in science and research, and it is very likely the much needed funding for that technology would not be provided. I sincerely hope politicians will change their minds and do the right thing, allowing scientists to study this incredibly promising technology in the next decades, so that our great grandchildren are given the possibility to visit worlds other than our own. It is certainly a dream worth chasing.

Truly impressive NASAposting

>We could have done it at any point in the last several decades
>Its actually dwarfs the impotance of all the joke "science" that is done on the ISS for 20 years now
>But we never got our gibs budgets and so we will just blame Trump for NASA incompetence

So many fucking people want to blame politicians for NASA bureaucracy & decision making
The only reason that NASA is locked into these specific budgets is congress TRYING to get NASA to produce results.

Fuck off NASA, the whole organisation is fucked from beauracracy, bloat and "diversity". We could pump another 10 billion towards NASA and it would just disappear into paperwork and pockets. I'm so glad a private company is finally giving you guys the finger and actually getting shit done. At this rate SpaceX is going to be shipping people to Mars while NASAfags are still whinging about funding and lack of diversity in SpaceX.

>I'm so glad a private company is finally giving you guys the finger and actually getting shit done.

Building upon the scientific and engineering expertise of several decades worth of research efforts that others have conducted.

It's kind of easy to pick up where others have left off and say, look, it took you 20 years to figure this out, we can do it in 2.

And NASA built it's program off kidnapped Nazi scientists and their research, Russia built it's program off industrial espionage, etc... No one has the high ground here so what's your fucking point?

Besides I don't see NASAs reusable rockets, it's almost as if that was entirely developed by SpaceX. Get out of here NASA shill, your organisation is dead, get over it.

>the concord was a mistake