s/fur
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
s/fur
Checking in.
Red pandas are best
I wanna be inside a shark grills belly
My brain is full of fuck and seratonin
>>674861948
That's fuckin cute!
>>674861926
So to get it to say something specific after my name, like get my TC to have a /2 at the end do i have to write something specific?
>>674862173
you need to put what you like it to say into a program that finds the right characters to display the desired text.
So uh, thoughts on NASA's SLS project?
>>674862295
>>674862619
>>674862889
This guy gets it.
>>674862385
Doing it now.
>>674862497
>Cats
>Spiky cocks
>Anal
nope
>>674863074
I've been in support of it for the last couple years.
Glad to see NASA is going to get back to exploring and not just fafing about on LEO with Russia Europe Canada and Japan.
>>674863074
Cost per launch is too high. Would rather stick with reusables long-term to keep cost down.
>>674863660
That was my thought. Was also kinda grossed out by Garver talking about NASA trying to "stick a bike pump" in SpaceX's efforts.
>>674863914
This should do, right?
>>674863927
Please never stop posting!
>>674864198
>having your name in your trip
>>674864198
just use the trip
>>674864263
I technically do
>>674863660
Reusable orbiters in the long run cost more than disposable, the coat to operate just one Shuttle was more than a handful of Soyuz, not to mention safety concerns.
I'm all for reusable but not right now, when governments stop wasting money on other things and fully fund space programs than yes reusable is the way to go as they can dump the money into then to keep them safe and operational.
>>674864465
I dont see it
>>674864128
Yeah, I wish there was more open cooperation between the private/public sector stuff. But I understand everyone's frustrations. NASA is getting shat on by Congress as their budget keeps getting cut, and they would much rather be the leaders in space exploration than some private company that's trying to just turn a profit.
>>674864554
>2stroke
Its a kind of diesel engine
>>674864547
>Reusable orbiters in the long run cost more than disposable
How do you figure?
I've read estimates of SpaceX's deep space project projected at 1/10 the price of NASA's.
>>674864650
thats kinda the same as 8's PIXELS
>>674864790
Yea, just mine is kinda harder to figure out if you don't into automotive
>>674864547
But since they aren't funding the space program, it wouldn't make sense to pour $500 million/launch on single-use systems. That's the SLS right now. It makes much more sense for them to adopt the Space X Heavy system and do it for a fifth of the price and not even have to shoulder the full cost.
>>674864263
>>674864461
Fine, changed it
>>674864626
What's even more sad Is Chinas space agency is makeing massive strides and really is a valuable partner in space and both NASA and the Chinese space agencies really want to work together but arn't aloud too thanks to an out dated US government policy.
>>674864626
I feel like the private sector usually gets things done better but that's my opinion.
>>674864960
ive lost all hope
>>674864554
I could have done like 2A03 but that might be too obscure.
>>674864783
Exactly this. Once Space X nails the recoverable system, it won't matter if they lose one in ten or one in five, they're still turning a profit.
>>674864996
We'll partner up with China when China starts becoming a formidable player in the space field. They still got a ways to go. Putting a rover on the moon and launching a human being into space are worlds apart.
>>674865006
And I'm of the opinion a fully funded government entity can do it the best. I mean, NASA went to the moon.
>>674864783
I suppose it depends on the craft, a reusable capsule I could see being cheaper and add in a reusable rocket it's even better.
But one of the pitfalls of the shuttle program was the cost to ready a shuttle for the next launch was so high it ate most of the budget.
What we need is SSTO orbiters, something I love but strangle my program has spent no time on...eh the British have us coverd with Skylon.
>>674865222
you'd have to isolate it or it would just blend in with the rest of the trip
>>674865339
Yeah, the Shuttle cost $450 million/launch.
And NASA wants to replace it with a $500 million/launch unrecoverable system. Bit of a step backwards.
>>674865318
Well it's hard to say since when we went to the moon NASA was all we had. I just think to things like the USPS nearly getting shut down while UPS has things straight. Plus I love how transparent SpaceX is. No need for classifying everything.
>>674865342
That too.
>closest friend befriends a new person
>they have more in common
>tfw we're drifting apart now
>resort to fur threads for a despair fap for the first time in years
Hello darkness.
Off to go collapse somewhere.
>>674864920
If they didn't kill project constipation they would be further ahead and have the option to adopt Spaces superior systems.
>>674865318
China does send people into space, they even had a space station for a while and are planning a new one as well as a luner outpost and lunar radio teliscope.
>>674865777
But privatizing it could lead to even less transparency in the long run. A company wouldn't be required to disclose anything to the public and can hide behind patent walls. And if they contract with the government, as they surely will, they can still classify everything they need. Even better than a patent block.
>>674865934
*constellation
Thanks phone
>>674865925
Don't do it on a deck when its cold outside. It doesn't help at all
>>674866051
Point taken.
>>674865741
Well you think about it, the shuttle couldent leave LEO ever for any reason where SLS can so thats kind of is a plus
>>674866119
I bet.
In exchange for you advice here is mine. Dont collapse in the bathroom of a random hotel room.
>>674866360
I'll keep that in mind
>>674866051
Yeah that's true, NASA has a non secrecy policy where's a private corporation could.
On the flip side competition in space for tourism and resource development will push us into space faster than just exploration because sadly money is more important than science. ...
>>674865934
Good point.
Lack of money is what has really crippled the US space program, if we want to get down to the core of it.
>>674866343
Yeah, I suppose so.
