I don't follow commercial spaceflight because it isn't going anywhere. 40+ years ago this government, working together with aerospace companies like Grumman, put a man on the freaking moon. Only just now are private companies on their own even getting things to the ISS, which is barely even space. If we wait for the private sector to develop space travel on it's own, no-one alive today will ever see another man walk on the moon, or any other heavenly body. There's simply too much risk involved. If we do what we did in the 60s however, the government can take the financial risk while still contracting to the private sector.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7397508-what-makes-space-blobs-glow

Apparently, there is a 300,000 lightyear sized hydrogen gas.. blob. Seems they have found evidence that there are galaxies inside that are causing a severe amount of radiation and light to come out.

That scale is mind-boggling. God I wish we could freaking go there already.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44221621/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Seems they found some micro-fossils that are around 3 billion years old, containing cells and bacteria that thrived, in an environment that lacked oxygen.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/22/patchwork-galaxy/

Not exactly new, but informative for all. Bad Astronomy is an excellent source of astronomical news and such, and excellent photos in cases like this.

You underestimate our need for resources and how quickly that makes otherwise risk averse people do crazy things.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44257065/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/russian-space-ship-fails-reach-orbit/?gt1=43001

Well, I'm not sure how well this bodes for the future or space travel at all. Seems the third stage rocket booster failed.

What is more worrying is the fact they haven't been able to tell how much of a loss the shuttle or the cargo is. :<

Elfprince, we are nowhere near the point where we will need to mine the moon. Unless you meant political power or satellite coverage as a resource, then I don't really see your point.

By the way, did you know the Ares Program technically hasn't been officially cancelled yet? I hope the delays keep coming until someone gets into office who sees some sense and brings it back from the dead.

The sad thing is that the shuttle would have been great to fly 100 more times. It's not unsafe. Anybody who says it was is either lying, believed a liar, or doesn't really understand. Also, it was designed with hundreds upon hundreds of voyages in mind. The engine casings alone could be reused 20 times, and they were never reused once. Sure, having the Ares would be great, but keeping the Shuttle would be cheaper and far faster. There was no reason to retire it yet.

I don't see why Gov. Space flight has to stop for private space flight to kick off.

Actually the shuttle was pretty a expensive for what it did. From what I understand, the Ares would have done the same job much cheaper and much more efficiently. From what's been explained to me, the shuttle was a bad idea in the first place. The only reason it was designed with wings was so it could take off, deploy a military satellite, and then land in the same orbit, something it was never called upon to do. Then there's also the whole issue of it's hardware and computers being 20+ years old.

There reason Gov. Space flight has to stop entirely is because governments are so much much better at it than any single private entity could be. What people don't understand is that Gov. space flight doesn't succeed because government is doing everything, just look at Russia. Gov. space flight succeeds because they bring several private aerospace companies together, working toward the same goal without having to risk their own financial security. Richard Branson will never put men on the moon, because to do so would risk his entire company. But if the government contracted to him to build part of the space vehicle that gets men there, he could do it because his company and his PR isn't taking the hit if it goes wrong. That's why we need to fund public space flight if we want to get anywhere. Funding NASA creates jobs, they hire people, and the people they contract hire people. Together they create astounding new technologies in pursuit of a seemingly impossible goal. These new technologies than create new opportunities in the private sector. The private sector alone can't do any of that. Cutting off NASA to let them do it by themselves will only result in the stagnation of human spaceflight.

Yes, it would have cost less overall than the shuttle, but it would cost less to keep using the shuttle than to build the ares. That's the key difference.

Do you really think it would be so hard to upgrade the computers in the thing? We're talking billion dollar budgets. Upgrading tech is significantly cheaper than scrapping the whole thing.

And yes, the whole plane shape was weird, but once the thing was built, it was built.

Can't say I argue with you on the second paragraph much.

We lived in a fixed resource environment and have a global obsession with growth - population wise and economy wise, neither of which are sustainable without an injection of resources. As cool as I think space travel is, I think we'd be better off learning to live sustainably (in terms of ecosystem and economy) with what we already have, but since that is never going to happen, I'm happy to enjoy the side benefits (like motivation to go to space) our gluttony will provide. Are you unfamiliar with Hubbert Peak Theory (as applied generally, rather than just to oil as is traditionally done)? We are approaching the Hubbert peak for a lot of our natural resources, and space is the place to get more.

Also, why in the bloody hell would you suggest the moon over the asteroid belt as a sensible first stop for space mining? The wtf-cost of going to space is nearly ALL about breaking orbit.


No, it is all about pork-barrel spending for legislators looking to maintain jobs in their congressional districts.

Do you have any idea how bidding on federal contract works?


A) Cost/benefit analysis dude. Putting a man on the moon has the potential to yield a huge P.R. boost to his company - significantly greater than a failed attempt would negatively impact it. Failure in a noble cause can always be spun into martyrdom.
B) His "Virgin" brand extends well beyond the aerospace industry. Don't think for a moment his cell phone sales would be seriously impacted by a problematic moon trip (and I doubt his airplane ticket sales would be much either).

If those are true, why hasn't he f*cking done it yet? The technology to go to the moon was created via government contracts nearly half a century ago, and yet his "virgin galactic" isn't going far beyond the stratosphere. Either his private company does not have the resources to do this alone, or he doesn't want to take the risk on his own. Both those problems are fixed when a government contracts a company like his to build a space vehicle, which is EXACTLY what we did in the 1960s(please don't argue this, it's a historical fact. I know you neo-cons have trouble accepting those but it's easier for everyone if you just do).

1. Again, leave politics out of this.

2. Neo-Cons were branched from the Democrats, as per what Wikipedia said. I know elfprince doesn't associate himself with the Dems.

To put this back on topic, and keep it that way pending posts start getting deleted.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44273287/ns/technology_and_science-space/

A news report from NASA said that their newly installed Japanese module for deep space scanning seems to have picked up the beginnings of a star being sucked into a black hole. This is quite exciting, since it's never been discovered before, we've just caught the ending phases of such things.

http://io9.com/5834103/a-destroyed-star-becomes-a-planet-made-of-diamonds

Kerm posted this up in the Doctor Who thread, but I thought it warranted being posted here.

They have discovered a planet made entirely of diamonds! They say they believe it was really a star that has burned out and lost its mass to that of it's pulsar neighbor. Cool stuff out there.

Very cool, and imagine the temperatures and pressures that must have been at the heart of that star for the entire planet-sized core to have fused into diamond!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44276582/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/saturn-has-rings-planet-has-diamonds/?gt1=43001

Alternate article on the diamond planet

That must be whereall those minecraft videos come from.

awesome -> http://io9.com/5834837/astronomers-have-spotted-the-supernova-of-a-generation-and-its-exploding-right-now


The technology, yes, but the engineering experience to do so doesn't exist in any modern company. A brand new CivE would be retarded if he thought he could build the Golden Gate Bridge or Petronas Towers on his first go. It takes time to accomplish these things and build a team with the experience for such a project. It has taken little more than half a decade to bring us from SpaceShipOne's first suborbital flight to SpaceX preparing to dock with the ISS.

We're also still lagging on the economic incentive as far as peak resource production is concerned (we're only just at or approaching most of our peaks), but it is foolish to pretend we aren't getting there.


Again, I'll ask, do you actually know ANYTHING about the federal contracting process?


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5619940265_30ed7c1f62.jpg

I'm pretty much as far south as can be, so you picked the wrong troll-title.



That is awesome =D Reminds me of a certain portion of a certain Arthur C. Clarke story as well.

I don't begrudge commerical space-flight companies to play around with their model rockets and do things we already did half a century ago, but that doesn't mean we should stop funding NASA so they can catch up. Let Richard Branson play with his toys, and let NASA do stuff that actually matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44315210/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Sadly, seems I called it. Russians are going to kill off our being in space :<

The article talks about a possible evacuation of the ISS and leaving it unmanned. NASA says that they can still run the station from the ground, however it will slow down progress with research that was being done up there.