Anyone ever look at the moon and think

[Boxingraya]

get this....

despite being a MASSIVE organisation... and despite having more than 50 YEARS experience... and despite somehow consuming TRILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars since 1969...

NASA... had to hire Elon Musk to teach them how to fly a rocket





it really is funny when you think about it

Not funny at all actually. NASA isn't one single person. It consist of thousands of brilliant minds. Elon being a brilliant mind himself it would make sense they work with Elon.

[Boxingraya]

How in the hell did we get there in 1969?

Where are the tapes?

Why can't we go back?

Seriously our tech is so amazing right now (mind blowing actually) and we still can't send a man into orbit

What I don't understand is how someone who claims to be so successful can be so damn ******ed.

[-Kev-]

get this....

despite being a MASSIVE organisation... and despite having more than 50 YEARS experience... and despite somehow consuming TRILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars since 1969...

NASA... had to hire Elon Musk to teach them how to fly a rocket





it really is funny when you think about it

Lol NASA hasn’t spent trillions of tax payer dollars. The US budget for NASA is not that good, it’s less than 1%. The US has spent $600 billion on NASA since it started. A far cry from “trillions”.

[aboutfkntime]

Not funny at all actually. NASA isn't one single person. It consist of thousands of brilliant minds. Elon being a brilliant mind himself it would make sense they work with Elon.

if you think that Elon Musk... with no experience whatsoever before 2004, could help/assist an organisation like NASA with ANYTHING at all... then you need your head read

come on man... NASA should have been DECADES ahead of Musk, and everyone else...

[aboutfkntime]

Lol NASA hasn’t spent trillions of tax payer dollars. The US budget for NASA is not that good, it’s less than 1%. The US has spent $600 billion on NASA since it started. A far cry from “trillions”.

from the same source you got your info...

"When adjusted for inflation the cumulative figure is $1.32 trillion, an average of $22.03 billion per year over its entire history."

FACT: if it is even slightly possible that Elon Musk can rock up and help NASA with... anything at all, even the slightest query... then... FACT: NASA did nothing whatsoever for DECADES

they should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and everyone else

[-Kev-]

if you think that Elon Musk... with no experience whatsoever before 2004, could help/assist an organisation like NASA with ANYTHING at all... then you need your head read

come on man... NASA should have been DECADES ahead of Musk, and everyone else...

You are not answering my post. I said nothing about Elon Musk, or how much money Elon Musk would need to help NASA.

Read carefully.

[-Kev-]

from the same source you got your info...

"When adjusted for inflation the cumulative figure is $1.32 trillion, an average of $22.03 billion per year over its entire history."

FACT: if it is even slightly possible that Elon Musk can rock up and help NASA with... anything at all, even the slightest query... then... FACT: NASA did nothing whatsoever for DECADES

they should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and everyone else

That’s not where I got my source. I got my source from a Governmental Accounting textbook I still have from a few years ago that breaks down the US government budget.

You are grasping at straws here. First the US spent trillions of dollars, now that you see they’ve only spent billions, you adjust it for inflation to $1. Something trillion. Arguing semantics. US has not spent trillions on NASA.

[Boxingraya]

if you think that Elon Musk... with no experience whatsoever before 2004, could help/assist an organisation like NASA with ANYTHING at all... then you need your head read

come on man... NASA should have been DECADES ahead of Musk, and everyone else...

This just doesn't make sense. NASA isn't anything without the individuals who work there. This is not much different than the pats signing a player during off season who helps them win a lot of foot ball games. Elon is talented.

[The Noose]

1) there is no gap between belts
2) we only found that out 3 years ago, so good luck insisting that was the plan back in 1969

Well, they discovered the third belt in 2012, but its not always there. It can form during a surge then disappear.
Its even described in the quote you posted (in bold below).

Either way my point wasnt about 1969, it was about satellites in that region.

also... OSHA are a government agency, they did not even exist until 1971... they said, whatever they were told to say

How do you know they are told what to say?
And we knew about the effects of radiation well before 1971.

it is clearly obvious that radiation which can damage low-orbiting satellites is lethal to human-beings

Obvious how?
Surely it comes down to the actual science?
You made the comparison to x-rays. But thats a very different type of radiation.
A question... how can you know anything about the radiation if you think NASA cant be trusted?
For example, how do you know low earth satellites receive damage from radiation?

"In January 2016, scientists revealed that the shape of the belts depends on what type of electron is being studied. This means the two belts are much more complex; depending on what is being observed, they can be a single belt, two separate belts or just an outer belt (with no inner belt at all.)

"The researchers found that the inner belt — the smaller belt in the classic picture of the belts — is much larger than the outer belt when observing electrons with low energies, while the outer belt is larger when observing electrons at higher energies," NASA wrote at the time. "At the very highest energies, the inner belt structure is missing completely. So, depending on what one focuses on, the radiation belts can appear to have very different structures simultaneously."

What is still poorly understood, however, is what happens when particles from the sun hit the belts during a geomagnetic storm. It is known that the number of electrons in the belts changes, either decreasing or increasing depending on the situation. Also, the belts eventually return to their normal shape after the storm passes. NASA said it isn't clear what kind of storm will cause a specific type of belt configuration. Also, the agency noted, any previous observations were done only with electrons at a few energy levels. More work needs to be done.

Yes, NASA discovered the belts were more complex and still say they need to do more work on geomagnetic storms.
But they knew enough to avoid the most intense radiation during the Apollo missions.

here is the real problem...

"The Van Allen Probes are specially hardened to withstand the intense radioactive environment of the belts.

We study radiation belts because they pose a hazard to spacecraft and astronauts," said David Sibeck, the Van Allen Probes mission scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, in an August 2016 NASA statement. "If you knew how bad the radiation could get, you would build a better spacecraft to accommodate that."

wow, so... the Van Allen Probes need to be especially protected, and NASA admit that better protected spacecraft are required... and yet, they did not use any radiation shielding whatsoever back in 1969

When he was put on the spot, the study's co-principal investigator John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)... "I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky. I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

there is a lot of revisionist science going on bro

and most accurate discoveries regarding the Van Allen belt were only made since 2012

Yes, NASA's probes were designed to go through the most intense regions of radiation to be able to study the radiation.
But i dont see any problem regarding the Apollo missions.
The shielding was adequate. The hull and heat shield absorbed the majority of the charged particles.

The radiation is very different from electromagnetic radiation, and doesnt require the same protection.
They avoided most of the van allen belts and they werent exposed for long enough to get sick.

Seems like you are relying on data from NASA to debunk NASA.

[aboutfkntime]

That’s not where I got my source. I got my source from a Governmental Accounting textbook I still have from a few years ago that breaks down the US government budget.

You are grasping at straws here. First the US spent trillions of dollars, now that you see they’ve only spent billions, you adjust it for inflation to $1. Something trillion. Arguing semantics. US has not spent trillions on NASA.

that was from wiki...

Since its inception, the United States has spent $601.31 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA. When adjusted for inflation the cumulative figure is $1.32 trillion, an average of $22.03 billion per year over its entire history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA


NASA... should be DECADES ahead of Musk, and decades ahead of everyone else