Re-Usable Rockets [Pic+]

Submitted by: captkangaroo 3 years ago in Tech

What the government SHOIULD be spending money on...
There are 15 comments:
Male 17,512
Cajun: "The private sector can get us there dude, just be patient."

Not unless it`s profitable to do so. Some projects, though not profitable, like space exploration, need to be funded, if for nothing else then to keep us on the forefront of technology.
0
Reply
Male 1,454
Pooptart19: so you`re saying this guy says we need to do that so we should do it?

What if he`s just too afraid to face the problem and wants to run away? Just a thought.. :D
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]After the Constellation project was cancelled by Obama, those hopes were crushed.[/quote]

The private sector can get us there dude, just be patient.
0
Reply
Male 5,874
Doh, silly me, never thought of that!
OK, project gets the go-ahead with my blessing.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
"Once they have mastered a system for getting you to the pub and back home again in one piece..."

They already have, it`s called a taxi.
0
Reply
Male 5,874
Before doing this with rockets, they need to be a little closer to Earth and develop it for cars.
Once they have mastered a system for getting you to the pub and back home again in one piece, then and only then is it worth venturing further.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Nah. Space elevator.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Pooptart: I also believe that space exploration is inspirational as well. When astronauts visited my elementary school, they told us that one day soon we would be taking vacations on the moon and sending men to Mars.

I, for one, was really hoping to see that happen. After the Constellation project was cancelled by Obama, those hopes were crushed.

How is America to remain the "Shining city on a hill" when our dreams keep getting crushed by the government?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
747Pilot, I remember Neil deGrasse Tyson answering your concern. Basically, why are we spending money on space when we have so many problems down here?

Because the future lies in space exploration. Without it, humanity is doomed to stagnate. That, and space technology becomes REALLY important when you have a million things out there that could wipe us out, like an asteroid hurtling towards Earth. You sound like a brainless twat.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
As I`ve said before, in a similar post.

This is NOT new technology. McDonnell Douglas was doing better than this in 1994-96 with the DCXA, aka "Delta Clipper". Video

Copying 20 year old technology isn`t innovative, it`s technological plagiarism.
0
Reply
Male 1,454
Good idea! But at the moment there are bigger problems facing the world than trying to make a rocket take off and land 1000 times.

Pride, Greed, Intolerance, Hate, Theft, War, Murders.. the list goes on.

Some say it will always be that way, because it has gone on forever, so we should just focus on other things, like getting into space.

But in this age, the information age, it`s about information. The more information there is, the more knowledge grows, and the more wisdom and understanding is spread.

So yeah it`s a good idea, but we really should be focusing on containing our mess on earth. You know, keep ourselves confined to our planet to sort things out and get harmonized. If we could all working together without ego, intolerance, greed, and pride interfereing with our work, we would be very efficient. In 15 years we sent a few rovers to mars, but if we were more efficient we could have already had a colony there. just a thought..
0
Reply
Male 38,501

We do ... "did" use reusable rockets. Instead of wasting fuel on landing they parachuted into the sea, were recovered, and reused. That`s how the shuttle got up into space.

But yeah, the one in the video is a lot cooler , and 40 years newer technology.
0
Reply
Male 305
Looks like it scared the hell out of the cattle.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
it should spend money on teaching kids to spell words correctly, usable rockets will come later easily
0
Reply
Male 2,766
Link: Re-Usable Rockets [Pic+] [Rate Link] - What the government SHOIULD be spending money on...
0
Reply