The Future of Humanity Awaits in Deep Space, NASA Chief Says

Show us some aliens, NASA, and I give you all the money i have

just kidding.

peace

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Biigs
NASA needs some more money.

they get some tiny fraction of the budget NSA, FBI, CIA, armor, navy or airforce.....

and in my opinion they need a huge boost in cash and people.

NASA has great engineers and scientists but, it is a government bureaucracy and a military one at that.

NASA is a civilian agency, you know, like the FAA.

Hmmm, wikipedia seems to agree with that. I was always under the impression that it worked closely with the pentagon.

Still, it is a bureaucracy and, as such, cannot be expected to be innovative or produce competitive solutions.

I am not against NASA btw, I just prefer private space ventures for all but actual military applications.

hmmm yeah well we'll see i guess

proposed concepts like mind uploading and mars travel and living there are a little too far out imo. i just don't believe it's possible any time soon and i'm pretty openminded. earth to nerds, we have more pressing social and economic issues at hand here on earth, poverty, disease, climate change, etc. if depop happens then i guess those problems aren't much of an issue anymore but i don't see it happening. there's too much enthusiasm and optimism on the tech front these days. it's mostly nerds trying to make science fiction real

Humans really do need to get away from chemical rockets, or at least, total dependence on them, more use made of re-usable types of transport, there are plenty of ideas and test vehicles being worked on, NASA really needs 'new blood' from top to bottom, who can think 'outside the box'.

originally posted by: greencmp

Hmmm, wikipedia seems to agree with that. I was always under the impression that it worked closely with the pentagon.

Still, it is a bureaucracy and, as such, cannot be expected to be innovative or produce competitive solutions.

That's interesting since NASA has been cited by many, including The Economist and Forbes as the most innovative US government agency. Most of the advances in technology through the 70s-80s even into the 90s were the result of spin offs from the Apollo era.

Simply repeating dogma, doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: NthOther
This guy doesn't even know if human beings can survive in deep space for any extended period of time and he's saying that's where our future is?

Bit of a stretch.

I know most people would vehemently disagree with this, but I'm highly doubtful human beings can survive off-world for very long (downer, I know). Our biology is inextricably tied to this planet and its processes; they are one and the same. I know we've been to the Moon (or so they say) and everyone survived. They were out there for like a week or something ("but the space station..." yeah, yeah). Permanent colonization of another planet?

Different animal entirely.

There are those who once believed that if a person travelled faster than the speed of sound their lungs would collapse.

Your argument falls into that category of thinking technology will remain the same and that we're stuck on stupid.

we will not being going anywhere....the tech needed for any type of manned craft to exit from our solar system, let alone to get to another solar system, is much too advanced to even hope that it will happen within the next hundred years......you will need a political whole-earth human government to come together to achieve this.....we are still in the self-destructive, bickering, tribal-state, phase of our societal development. trillions of dollars would need to be spent, along with thousands of scientists and engineers working for years........the moon...maybe, mars...possibly....anywhere else, what are you smokin' ?

originally posted by: NthOther

True, but if we go into deep space (assuming we can survive) with the idea that we're going to "conquer" it...

...we're going to have our asses handed to us on a dilithium platter. And rightly so. The universe does not exist for human beings to control and dominate.

How do you know that? Did you hear it from a Klingon?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

Hmmm, wikipedia seems to agree with that. I was always under the impression that it worked closely with the pentagon.

Still, it is a bureaucracy and, as such, cannot be expected to be innovative or produce competitive solutions.

That's interesting since NASA has been cited by many, including The Economist and Forbes as the most innovative US government agency. Most of the advances in technology through the 70s-80s even into the 90s were the result of spin offs from the Apollo era.

Simply repeating dogma, doesn't make it true.

I had been giving NASA a pardon for their monopoly because I believed they had a military role. If they don't then what is the justification for their monopoly on the very advancements in technology that you mention. They should license them out if they aren't going to apply them immediately.

Why can't those elite NASA scientists work in the private sector? Even scientists agree that the majority can't get access to space unless they traverse a gauntlet of qualifications. Not to mention any practical industrial space projects which NASA will never do.

I don't think I need to refer you to your closing argument.

originally posted by: dodol
Show us some aliens, NASA, and I give you all the money i have

peace

They're working on it.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

Hmmm, wikipedia seems to agree with that. I was always under the impression that it worked closely with the pentagon.

Still, it is a bureaucracy and, as such, cannot be expected to be innovative or produce competitive solutions.

That's interesting since NASA has been cited by many, including The Economist and Forbes as the most innovative US government agency. Most of the advances in technology through the 70s-80s even into the 90s were the result of spin offs from the Apollo era.

Simply repeating dogma, doesn't make it true.

I had been giving NASA a pardon for their monopoly because I believed they had a military role. If they don't then what is the justification for their monopoly on the very advancements in technology that you mention. They should license them out if they aren't going to apply them immediately.

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

Why can't those elite NASA scientists work in the private sector?

In many cases they do. For universities like the one I go to: University of Washington, etc.

Even scientists agree that the majority can't get access to space unless they traverse a gauntlet of qualifications.

The prime restriction to space has been the cost to get there.


NASA has a program called "Commercial Crew"which helps companies like SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and others develop manned and unmanned spacecraft which will bring that cost down. I assumed everyone including yourself knew about Commercial Crew but I guess not.




The prime restriction on Commercial Crew has been the NASA budget. And who determines that? The Congress. So your gripe should be with the US House of Representatives if you want more from this public/private partnership in the future.


The NASA Administrator said as much:

Bolden: Fund Commercial Crew to end Reliance on the Russians

Again. It does not good to have great ideas if they aren't funded. The people to blame for the lack of funding are the people you elect on pledges of cutting your taxes at any cost NOT the people at NASA who are asked to make do with less and less.

Not to mention any practical industrial space projects which NASA will never do.

Such as?

originally posted by: JadeStar

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

So, again, if NASA has no military function nor any intellectual assets, what purpose does NASA serve?

In many cases they do. For universities like the one I go to: University of Washington, etc.

So, why do they need NASA?

The prime restriction to space has been the cost to get there.

Which will only ever go down through private competition.

NASA has a program called "Commercial Crew"which helps companies like SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and others develop manned and unmanned spacecraft which will bring that cost down. I assumed everyone including yourself knew about Commercial Crew but I guess not.

The prime restriction on Commercial Crew has been the NASA budget. And who determines that? The Congress. So your gripe should be with the US House of Representatives if you want more from this public/private partnership in the future.


The NASA Administrator said as much:

Bolden: Fund Commercial Crew to end Reliance on the Russians

Again. It does not good to have great ideas if they aren't funded. The people to blame for the lack of funding are the people you elect on pledges of cutting your taxes at any cost NOT the people at NASA who are asked to make do with less and less.

Please.

Such as?

Mining and manufacturing.

a reply to: JadeStar

You're the best, Jade Star!

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

So, again, if NASA has no military function nor any intellectual assets, what purpose does NASA serve?

Exploration of the Universe and expanding the human presence in our solar system pure and simple.

The knock-on effect of that is the development of technologies to help us explore the universe, starting with our solar system, galaxy, etc.

It is not too different from NACA - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics which was key in developing the technologies and infrastructure required for commercial air travel at the beginning of the 20th century.

Learn more about NACA here.

I urge you to read the links and watch the videos I post or my time responding is wasted as most of the questions you persist in asking are answered if you follow the information I post.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

So, again, if NASA has no military function nor any intellectual assets, what purpose does NASA serve?

Exploration of the Universe and expanding the human presence in our solar system pure and simple.

The knock-on effect of that is the development of technologies to help us explore the universe, starting with our solar system, galaxy, etc.

It is not too different from NACA - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics which was key in developing the technologies and infrastructure required for commercial air travel at the beginning of the 20th century.

Learn more about NACA here.

I urge you to read the links and watch the videos I post or my time responding is wasted as most of the questions you persist in asking are answered if you follow the information I post.

Thanks for your patronization, yes I did watch the videos and recent statement from the administrator. I have to suppose that you are dismissing my point for some reason other than a blind allegiance to a bureaucracy which has demonstrated its capacity for waste time and time again.

I am advocating for opening up the private space market and SpaceX is a shining example though you seem to take the "well NASA could have done that but, $17.5 billion isn't enough money" or the even more arrogant, "it was all NASA tech, we did the heavy lifting".

Please pause and reflect on what I am saying rather than avoid the minor inconvenience of analysis.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: lostbook
Check it out, ATS.

I know some here are not fans of Mr. Bolden but in reading this article on Space.com concerning his vision for Soace exploration, I gotta say I'm pretty impressed. Ge sounds like a man of action which is just what NASA needs-someone who comes from the trenches and knows how things work and can get things done.

The NASA Administrator is not a czar.

There have been some very good ones over the years. Charles Bolden is one. Dan Goldin (who fast tracked hte "Origins" programs which lead to Kepler) is another.

However just being good at knowing how things work and getting things done is useless if the Congress doesn't appropriate the money for said 'things'.

Thank you for that, Jade. I think Mr. Bolden is a good one as well. However, even he has detractors, some right here on ATS!

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

So, again, if NASA has no military function nor any intellectual assets, what purpose does NASA serve?

Exploration of the Universe and expanding the human presence in our solar system pure and simple.

The knock-on effect of that is the development of technologies to help us explore the universe, starting with our solar system, galaxy, etc.

It is not too different from NACA - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics which was key in developing the technologies and infrastructure required for commercial air travel at the beginning of the 20th century.

Learn more about NACA here.

I urge you to read the links and watch the videos I post or my time responding is wasted as most of the questions you persist in asking are answered if you follow the information I post.

Thanks for your patronization, yes I did watch the videos and recent statement from the administrator. I have to suppose that you are dismissing my point for some reason other than a blind allegiance to a bureaucracy which has demonstrated its capacity for waste time and time again.

I am advocating for opening up the private space market and SpaceX is a shining example though you seem to take the "well NASA could have done that but, $17.5 billion isn't enough money" or the even more arrogant, "it was all NASA tech, we did the heavy lifting".

Please pause and reflect on what I am saying rather than avoid the minor inconvenience of analysis.

Answer two simple question:

1) Do you understand the Commercial Crew Program?

2) Do you understand Space X receives NASA money from it?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Biigs
NASA needs some more money.

they get some tiny fraction of the budget NSA, FBI, CIA, armor, navy or airforce.....

and in my opinion they need a huge boost in cash and people.

NASA has great engineers and scientists but, it is a government bureaucracy and a military one at that.

NASA is a civilian agency, you know, like the FAA.

I don't think so....

When you factor in the Black project money, Private contractor behind the scenes research and all the other hidden agendas; NASA is in the pocket of the pentagon. How many of those satellites in orbit are military in origin that nasa put up?

N....never
A.....A
S.....straight
A....Answer

Profit will eventually be the impetus into space....not some star trek "where no man has gone before" BS.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JadeStar

NASA doesn't own patents. Contractors do. Your gripe should be with them I suppose. Just because XYZ Corp develops some new innovation as part of a NASA contract, that doesn't mean they will license whatever they've developed out to others (including possible competitors).

So, again, if NASA has no military function nor any intellectual assets, what purpose does NASA serve?

Exploration of the Universe and expanding the human presence in our solar system pure and simple.

The knock-on effect of that is the development of technologies to help us explore the universe, starting with our solar system, galaxy, etc.

It is not too different from NACA - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics which was key in developing the technologies and infrastructure required for commercial air travel at the beginning of the 20th century.

Learn more about NACA here.

I urge you to read the links and watch the videos I post or my time responding is wasted as most of the questions you persist in asking are answered if you follow the information I post.

Thanks for your patronization, yes I did watch the videos and recent statement from the administrator. I have to suppose that you are dismissing my point for some reason other than a blind allegiance to a bureaucracy which has demonstrated its capacity for waste time and time again.

I am advocating for opening up the private space market and SpaceX is a shining example though you seem to take the "well NASA could have done that but, $17.5 billion isn't enough money" or the even more arrogant, "it was all NASA tech, we did the heavy lifting".

Please pause and reflect on what I am saying rather than avoid the minor inconvenience of analysis.

Answer two simple question:

1) Do you understand the Commercial Crew Program?

2) Do you understand Space X receives NASA money from it?

Do you understand that SpaceX has done everything it has done for a fraction of the cost estimates by NASA?

Do you understand that you are saying that NASA made a good decision in farming out the vehicle and thus is itself supporting my point?

I honestly don't think that's the case. The future of space exploration lies in robotics and robots, not humans. Look at the massive scientific success the Mars Science Laboratory has been, and it comes at a significant fraction of what a bulky and useless human would cost to put on Mars.

In the future, we'll more than likely be living vicariously through our space-fairing mechanical creations rather than doing it ourselves. Leave it to the robots.