SLS is a boondoggle!!!!

why do we need the SLS?????



https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/remind...e-need-the-sls


lets see who's brilliant idea was to assemble pieces of different rockets into one rocket????


brilliant idea! not!

Manned Space Exploration, (above Earth Orbit), is a huge money pit that will yield few rewards in comparison to the money spent.

Why go back to the moon? We found out the time we had men up there that it is a big dead rock. Period.

Oh, as a launch pad to go to Mars? Well, once we go there a few times, we will find that it also is basically a big dead rock. Sure, it's another Planet, but big deal. There are probably a trillion+ in the entire Universe.

What could putting people on Mars possibly tell us that robotics and sophisticated telescopes can't?.

That "human milestone" thing would wear thin pretty quick. Especially when you consider that you just spent Trillions of dollars to find out something you could have learned in a 10th grade science class.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...nventions.html

The manned Space project of the 1960's produced thousands of technologic advances.
Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions

Nasa scientists have pioneered more than 6,300 technologies during their bid to understand space that are now routinely used in day-to-day living.


Space suit materials are in wide use on Earth Photo: REUTERS






By Sasjkia Otto

12:10PM BST 22 Jul 2009


Here are the top 15 space spin-offs:

1. CAT scanner: this cancer-detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.

2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.

3. Cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.

4. Ear thermometer: a camera-like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.

5. Freeze-dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.
6. Insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.
7. Invisible braces: teeth-straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.
8. Joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover.
9. Memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.
10. Satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.
11. Scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.
12. Shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.
13. Smoke detector: Nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.
14. Swimsuit: Nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world’s fastest swimsuit for Speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.
15. Water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique Nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.







Just a few of the advances above.

Will that effort translate today in Moon and Mars colonization efforts - I am unsure.

The cost must a factor considering our huge budget deficits.

Building a base on the moon does NOT help with space exploration unless we can find raw materials and energy there. The most expensive part of any launch is escaping the gravity well of a planet. The moon also has a gravity well. Every bit of fuel would have to be flown and landed on the moon at great cost. An asteroid or space station makes more sense. Actually, the asteroid is the best idea. It would be larger and more resistant to damage than a thin skinned station. Put big enough engines on a asteroid and you can fly it.

People in zero-gravity for prolonged periods are showing more medical issues .
https://www.space.com/23017-weightlessness.html

Long-term health effects

Astronauts in space for weeks to months can run into trouble. Calcium in bones secretes out through urine. As the bones weaken, astronauts are more susceptible to breaking them if they slip and fall, just like people with osteoporosis. Muscles also lose mass.
But time on the International Space Station has helped NASA run studies on how astronaut health is affected by time in weightlessness. Already the agency has made changes. For example, it replaced the interim Resistive Exercise Device (iRED) with the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device in 2008, allowing astronauts to do weight-lifting without "maxing out" their top weight. ARED is linked to better outcomes in bone density and muscle strength, although all conclusions in space are hard to draw (in the general since) since the astronaut population is fit already and extremely small.
Astronauts typically have an allocated exercise period of two hours a day in space to counteract these effects; this time not only includes cardiovascular exercise and weight-lifting, but also time to change clothes and set up or take down equipment. Despite exercise, it still takes months of rehabilitation to adjust on Earth after a typical six-month space mission. More recently, doctors have discovered eye pressure changes in orbit. NASA has tracked vision changes in astronauts that were on the space station, but nothing so serious as to cause concern. Its cause is still under investigation, although one possible culprit includes spinal fluid that stays constant in microgravity instead of the normal shifting that takes place on Earth as you lie down or stand up. In addition to spinal fluid, a 2017 study tracked changes in both short-flight and long-flight astronauts. Some studies also point out that astronauts experience a slightly elevated level of carbon dioxide on the station because of the filtration system; that gas may also contribute to eye problems.
Former NASA astronaut Scott Kelly participated in a rare, one-year mission to the International Space Station in 2015-16. His twin brother and former NASA astronaut Mark (who retired before Scott) agreed to participate, along with Scott, in several "twin experiments" to compare Scott's health in space with that of Mark's on the ground.
Preliminary results from one study released in October 2017 showed that different genes turn on or off in space. Other studies discussed earlier that year revealed subtle changes as well. For example, telomeres (which slow down chromosome deterioration) in Scott temporarily got longer in space. Scott also had a slight deterioration in cognitive ability (thinking speed and accuracy) and bone formation, although not enough to be concerning.
Scientists who work with microgravity health experiments note that often the changes seen in orbit mimic what happens as people naturally age, although often the processes are different. A group of Canadian researchers — some of whom have expertise in space medicine — have access to a long-term health facility for seniors at the University of Waterloo. There, researchers can measure seniors in their residences rather than bringing them into a lab, where the conditions are artificial and can mask or exaggerate certain health conditions.


These may be real limitations to adapting people to long-term zero-G needed for Moon and Mars exploration
Not to mention the issues of radiation exposure.

Just leave it to the private sector.

Elon Musk has done an amazing job with his launch rocket to the ISS.

Pioneered rocket recovery and re-use - which NASA could not do.

BS has a good point.

Less Government and more private sector initiative.

Space Force!

I thought Dilbert was referring to SwingLifeStyle.

https://www.swinglifestyle.com/

Elon Musk has done an amazing job with his launch rocket to the ISS.

Pioneered rocket recovery and re-use - which NASA could not do.

BS has a good point.

Less Government and more private sector initiative. Originally Posted by oeb11

NASA never had reason to economize.

NASA pulled of a miracle in 1969.

Government usually wastes our tax monies.