NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
http://jalopnik.com/nasa-may-send-astronauts-around-the-moon-on-the-first-t-1792586594
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
blackstar said:
Looks like Space-X is trying to beat them to the punch:
ZacYates said:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
On a interesting side note re. the NASA mission: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mars-astronaut-radiation-shield-set-moon-mission-trial-102722609--finance.html
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
Grey Havoc said:
Yeah, but I think this announcement is more about politics than anything else. SpaceX wanted to remind the decision makers in the White House and OMB and Congress that they could do this much cheaper--and they claim, faster.
The problem is that it still begs the question of what NASA actually wants to do beyond low Earth orbit. The SLS/Orion circumlunar flight is supposed to prove the capability, not be an end goal in itself. But NASA doesn't really have an end goal for human spaceflight anymore.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 5,001
- Reaction score
- 4,857
I don't really bet beyond the British National Lottery, but I wonder who would be the first to go beyond the asteroid belt? NASA with the SLS or SpaceX with the Falcon Heavy?
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
FighterJock said:
The asteroid belt? That's pretty far. NASA has done it a number of times:
Pioneer 10 and 11
Voyager 1 and 2
Galileo
Cassini
New Horizons
And nobody throws a rocket that far, only a payload on top of a rocket. Maybe someday NASA pays SpaceX to throw a payload using the Falcon Heavy, but why would that be all that notable? It's like caring what kind of truck brings the Amazon package to your door.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,051
- Reaction score
- 12,821
blackstar said:
NASA was talking about a manned asteroid rendezvous mission, but that was for a near-Earth asteroid, not one out in the belt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Mission_2
Of course, NASA's mission was premised on a successful Asteroid Redirect Mission first, which seems pretty unlikely in the near term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission
It all comes down to the fact that NASA doesn't have a single specific agenda for manned deep-space missions, so they are kind of grasping at straws to find interesting things to do.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 5,001
- Reaction score
- 4,857
I meant to say to the asteroid belt not beyond. 
:-[
:-[- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
NASA already has the Dawn spacecraft orbiting minor planet Ceres in the asteroid belt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#/media/File:Ceres_Orbit.svg
NASA also has another mission, Psyche, in development to go to the asteroid belt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#/media/File:Ceres_Orbit.svg
NASA also has another mission, Psyche, in development to go to the asteroid belt.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trumps_budget_would_cut_NASA_asteroid_mission_earth_science_999.html
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,897
- Reaction score
- 10,980
Grey Havoc said:
"The proposal "focuses the nation's efforts on deep space exploration rather than Earth-centric research," it said."
Sounds good to me. The asteroid mission will come back when it makes sense.
bobbymike said:
Fine, not with US gov't money. Let those individuals who wish to contribute, do it separately. Set up a NGO or company to do it.
permanent space colonies will be of little benefit to the US gov't and its citizens. Especially, when the residents of such colonies are no longer citizens the mother country.
Byeman said:
This is of course untrue. Militarily, industrially and culturally, offworld colonies done right (permanent, aimed at self-sufficiency, and large scale) would provide immense benefits for the sponsoring country. And, sure, someday those colonies will become their own nations. Would the US be better off if the Moon becomes "the nation Luna, formerly the US colony Luna" than if the nation of Luna is formerly a *Chinese* or *Russian* colony?
As with colonies in the "New World," the mere existence of distant offworld colonies will provide *all* kinds of benefits for the homeland. People living on Ceres, for example, will be interested in advanced propulsion systems and nuclear explosives in a way that the people back on Earth won't be. So when a comet is detected heading towards Central Park, who's going to have the tech to deal with it? And once again... will the US government be better off if those Cerean colonists speak some language other than English and have no allegiance to the US?
The US government *should* be devoting one percent of the federal budget specifically to exploring, claiming, colonizing and exploiting every single accessible corner of the solar system. There's no good reason why, centuries from now, "the United States" can't be spread from inside the orbit of Mercury to the Oort cloud and beyond. If interstellar travel ever becomes practical, there's no reason why the US flag can't replace those fifty stars with a stylized galaxy. Would you rather have the United Federation of Planets be based on the US Constitution, or the dictats of the Holy Russian Putinate, or the fatwas of the Interstellar Caliphate?
Orionblamblam said:
Wrong again. Manifest Destiny is no longer a relevant belief and not even a consideration. Even most flyover citizens don't believe that.
And the US government should not be spend any money on colonization
Byeman said:
Wow. Just... wow. Let me put it plainly: you are entirely wrong. Even if Mars was made entirely of dirt bought at Home Depot and had precisely zero potential for scientific discoveries, the simple fact that there would be people living across the solar system would provide *immediate* economic, social and scientific benefits. Every piece of technology the Martians develop to make their lives better on Mars would have application on Earth. Every bit of propulsion technology developed to make transport too and from easier, safer, more economical would provide materials and power utility on Earth. The knowledge that their are people like out Out There would provide incalculable social benefits.
Byeman said:
Of course it's not. The western frontier closed in the 1890's; at that point there was nowhere left. But *now* we have the potential for a brand new essentially *infinite* frontier. Manifest Destiny can AND SHOULD make a roaring comeback.
Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.
Consider two cultures, A and B. Culture A decides that there's nothing to be gained by colonizing the universe. Culture B decides otherwise. Culture B expends it's treasure to do so, scrabbling and scratching. For decades it has little to show, but after a generation or two it has figured it out. After three or four generations it has a foothold on a few planets and asteroids. A few more generations it has well established colonies on dozens of worlds. A few more generations, it has expanded to the Oort cloud. A few more generations it has reached the nearest star and begins the process over again. In all that time, Culture A has smugly held to the belief that "Manifest Destiny" is a relic of the past.
When the stars belong to Culture B, when it's population is measured in quadrillions... of what relevance will Culture A be?
bobbymike said:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Yes, He's is right,
The current Space Race are not about competition between USA, China or Russia and India
it's about SpaceX and Blue Origins plans for Solar system
If they they manage there Goals, like colonizing Mars and permanent Settlement on Moon, they are Culture B
The Classical national states become Culture A...
The Sci-fi manga series "Battle Angel Alita" by Yukito Kishiro, give quite excellent impression of such a Future
Earth is a Mad Max kind junkyard for the highly Industrialized Solar System...
highly recommended reading !
Orionblamblam said:
Wrong again. Because Mars is made of dirt and will be constant importer of goods, it will be nothing but a drag on the mother country. And hence because propulsion technology is limited and will take months, it won't really help in creating commerce.
Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.
[/quote]
Wrong again and shows a sad, small minded person who has a reading comprehensive problem. I said nothing about humanity. Only the US government. Other people and organizations can do what they want. The job of the US gov't is to take care of it citizens on earth and not elsewhere.
[/quote]
Wrong again and shows a sad, small minded person who has a reading comprehensive problem. I said nothing about humanity. Only the US government. Other people and organizations can do what they want. The job of the US gov't is to take care of it citizens on earth and not elsewhere.
Byeman said:
Just like a baby.
Yes, because if the Internet has taught us anything, it's that there's no money to be made in anything that can't be shipped in a cardboard box.
Byeman said:
The job of the US government (Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution) is:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Expanding the United States out into space will provide not only economic and military benefits to the United States (note how there are no physical resources located in LEO to geosynchronous orbit there to ship back to Earth for direct profit, yet nobody seems to complain much that the US government has sent thousands of spacecraft that have benefited the US and its people directly), but will also make the United States virtually *immortal.* Compared to *not* expanding, and thus ensuring that the US sooner or later comes to an end, official US colonization efforts are *clearly* well within the "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" function of the government.
Byeman said:
A few points:
1: There are lots of things the US FedGuv is terrible at. Doing things collectively that people can and should do themselves - healthcare, charity, retirement, moral policing and so on - have all been nightmarish unkillable disasters. But there are several things the FedGuv *has* been good at... investment in science, technology and infrastructure primarily. NASA, and the NACA before it, were spectacular aids in developing and driving the aeronautical industry.
2: the Internet: again, it bolsters *my* point. It was a government effort begun in the 1960's. And it wasn't until the 1990's that private industry started making money hand over fist from the internet.
So: history has shown that things can work really, really well when the government is involved in driving technological investment and infrastructure construction. No company would have gone ahead and created the transcontinental railroad, transcontinental air travel or the interstate highway system if the FedGuv wasn't shoveling money into the early stages. Once the projects were up and running, privatization was possible and often worked pretty well... privately run highways are apparently some of the best maintained in the West, privatized Social Security is vastly better then the current government mandated Ponzi scheme. But for many major projects, to get over the hump requires an input of capital risk that most companies simply can't sustain.
If installing a successful (self sustaining, capable of growth and survival on its own) colony on Mars was known to take ten billion dollars per year for forty years, no company could or would even bother to try. Because they simply don't have that kind of money to risk in the first place. But the US FedGuv? Ten billion a year is literally chump change for the Feds. Forty years of it is substantially less than will be squandered this year on social welfare programs that not only won't add to the economy, they'll actively promote a system that *drags* on the economy.
If Weyland-Yutani, SpaceX, Drax Industries, Blue Sun or some other major megacorp goes ahead and successfully creates off-world colonies, good for them. But those colonies will be beholden to those megacorps, not to the US. They will be populated by the people the megacorp decided to send. Their culture, language, beliefs and so on may well have absolutely nothing to do with those of the US. Which is again fine... but that colony does *not* aid the defense or general welfare of the United States. If you want to defend the US, you need Americans.
Byeman said:
Indeed they are not. Spacecraft can't make babies or have loyalties. Thus, eventually you need to start sending people.
But you of course missed - or at least avoided - the point. You said that if Mars has no physical resources to ship back to Earth, there'd be nothing to gain economically by going there. Well, there's nothing to mine in geosynchronous... except for information. What do you think the Martians will provide in abundance? Information. Information that will materially improve life on Earth. As I've pointed out and you've ignored, Martians will *need* to be innovative in ways Terrans need not be. And yet those innovations will be damned useful back here. Look at the history of NASA technologies and spinoffs.
Byeman said:
I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse for some reason, especially considering that this has been explained to you already. But, fine, I'll play along:
1: The existence of US-loyal, US-derived extraterrestrial colonies will provide for the US defense because they will be sources of advanced technology. The propulsion systems alone developed to make transit to and from the colonies will aid in planetary and national defense.
2: The existence of self sustaining extraterrestrial US colonies will aid in defense of the US by simply being bits of the US physically separated from the US. If the Putinate decides to launch nuclear Armageddon and destroys all life on Earth, there's a chance that the off world colonies will survive and keep going. The US will survive. A sizable asteroid strike off the eastern seaboard could conceivably destroy the original 13 States but if the western half of the US survive, the US survives. Same principle applies with new colonies. When the US expands to Alpha Centauri and beyond, the sun could *explode* and the US will survive.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Agree completely but for me the macro-issue is always "we have to get off this planet" We know life ending events can happen and humanity must survive and that will only be among the stars.Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
One might argue that things are getting slightly off topic... but then, who cares. Assuming no nuclear apocalypse or zombie outbreak or major solar flare or other such civilization-crashing event, it's looking increasingly likely that mankind is finally, at last, if slowly, getting around to looking at moving off-world. And that's great. Any form of off-world civilization is better than no off world civilization. But since moving off world is a capability open to any sizable government, the question starts to become what sort of civilization we want off world. British colonies on Mars? Great. Canadians on Ceres? Fine. Americans controlling the Oort cloud? Good. The UN having so much as an orbiting Kwik-E-Mart? No. No, no, no, nonononono. Because the UN provides an equal voice to Australia as it does to North Korea; India as to Syria; Japan as to Cuba, the UN is inappropriate as a promulgator of human civilization. There are some civilizations that reasonable people should be able to agree we don't want owning the stars. The Nazis. The Commies. McDonalds. The Caliphate.
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.
Triton said:
Kinda hard to say, since that's unexplored territory. But one thing that seems likely is that if someone other than the US gets back to the Mon or to an asteroid before the US, the *negative* propaganda value within the US could be substantial. It just might be an incentive to move on to the *next* objective, like the Soviets launching Sputnik and Gagarin spurred the US to greater things. Or it might be a general depressant to the national mood, something that would surprise me not at all.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
NASA Advanced Transportation System Studies (ATSS) Technical Area 2 (TA-2) 1995- Started by Triton
- Replies: 2
-
Space Transfer Concepts and Analyses for Exploration Missions (STCAEM) (1991)
- Started by Triton
- Replies: 3