Envisioning the world of 2100

[publiusr]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Strictly speaking, since the Russians have stopped using the R-7s as ICBMs, that pretty much makes the Soyuz family the Russian equivalent of America's EELVs.

That's more Angara these days. Zenit would have replaced R-7 and Proton both. It may yet do so.

MCT's overseas competition: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html
Shades of Glushko's RLA http://astronautix.com/lvs/rla.htm

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You may also recall that Von Braun did the exact same thing when he worked for Hitler. His designs for what eventually became the Saturn-V dated back to the original V-2 rocket program.

Don't forget that Medaris got the Saturn IB test stand built. He had to fudge in that "it wasn't really needed for Redstone (replaced by pershing) but in house capability is a good thing. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but in this week's Av Week and Space Oct 22, 2012, page 8), we see a plea for the services own Research Development Test and Evaluation facilities as being superior in knowing their own branch's respective needs. "The highly risk averse, profit centered industry cannot match this capability."

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers. Each branch of the service had to make do with F-35. In house specialty is a must. To wit:

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I don't see SLS surviving the downselect process, or really, even being part of it in any meaningful way.

Now that's where you are wrong. If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort. Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start. SLS will play a part in general rocket-building so Musk won't have to. This actually means his MCT becomes more likely.

Speaking of the MCT project, that has started a great deal of speculation: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...2407#msg972407

Now I don't know if these figures are accurate, but they open up modularity even greater than RLA:

A 4 MCT Falcon X on the other hand would enable far bigger fairings and a much larger Heavy variant. Big enough in fact it has room for error setting 50 mt down on the martian surface. I've assumed Falcon Heavy-like LEO:Mars ratios for payloads. Methane may however allow even bigger Mars payloads due to higher Isp.

Falcon X Heavy-229.14 mt to LEO (56 mt to Mars likely)
Falcon X Heavy with cross-feed-270 mt to LEO (56 mt+ likely)
Falcon X Ultra Heavy-382 mt to LEO (93 mt to Mars likely)
Falcon X Ultra Heavy with cross-feed-450 mt to LEO (93 mt+ likely)

You see you wouldn't need a single-stick core with 300 mt of launch capacity. A 4-MCT Falcon X would be much more commercially viable and you could simply use modularity to scale the payloads from 67-450 mt as needed.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Even the space shuttle never flew the military missions it was explicitly designed for; what makes you think the Air Force is going to pull a 70 ton payload out of their asses just because an HLV happens to exist somewhere?

Again, it is shroud diameter that limits certain missions. Space based radar was a real desire. Over at nasaspaceflight.com, their EELV hack Jim lied about Space based Radar, and I caught him on it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...8396#msg108396
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...0892#msg110892

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

SpaceX has a REASON to develop the the Falcon Heavy

Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops. Which is why Dream Chaser might be scaled up to go atop Falcon heavy to where it may even have self-ferry capability: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=17152

In terms of space debris, this was actually the worst actor:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Re...eport_999.html

Now in terms of depots, I think even the H-2 upper stage, which is to be used right away mind you, had a problem with boil-off as per Av Week. This is due to Japans higher latitude launching point. I'll have to get back to you on that.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The technology to make those kinds of platforms feasible is still in its infancy and maturing very VERY slowly, and this at a time when the types of adversaries that would make such a system useful have either vanished or were never in conflict with us in the first place.

Now we are talking about more limited space based systems.
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/1...n-the-horizon/

Not Good
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...n-xers-lo.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/c...sagan/1644383/

BTW If you wait until you get your house in order to go to space, you never will. By never I don't mean going to space, but getting your house in order. Sadly, no ICBMs, no weathersats.

[sojourner]

Hey Publiusr, I noticed you haven't posted on nasaspaceflight.com in a few years. Did you get banned?

[Crazy Eddie]

publiusr wrote:

---

Don't forget that Medaris got the Saturn IB test stand built.

I didn't forget. It's just irrelevant to what we're talking about (although it's worth mentioning that the Saturn-IB was itself derived from the Redstones).

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers.

And if carpet bombing was still a valid tactic in the age of GPS-guided bombs, that would mean something.

If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort.

Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start.

He learned a hell of a lot more from his OWN rocket program and their experiences with the Falcon 1. This isn't entry level rocket science anymore; Elon Musk is playing in the same league as NASA at this point. If anything, NASA should be learning from SpaceX.

SLS will play a part in general rocket-building

No it won't. The underlying technologies are thirty years old; anything Musk stands to learn from the SLS could be just as easily determined by studying the STS.

Again, it is shroud diameter that limits certain missions. Space based radar was a real desire. Over at nasaspaceflight.com, their EELV hack Jim lied about Space based Radar, and I caught him on it

Cool story, bro.

Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops.

No version -- I repeat, no version -- of SUSTAIN involved using a spacecraft to EXTRACT troops. The concept called for the use of a suborbital spacecraft similar to SpaceShipOne or even dreamchaser as a rapid action delivery system, with troops either landing or air dropping over the target zone. The only significant variation on this was a study from 2005 which implied that small drop capsules could be used to deliver the troops via propulsive landing (kinda like the ODSTs from Halo). Every version of the concept implies extraction by conventional means, usually by helicopter.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Now we are talking about more limited space based systems.

No, we're talking about the ONLY space based systems that have ever been developed. None of them are even remotely feasible, and even the best of them aren't even theoretically as effective as the land/sea bast ABMs currently in service.

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force. That particular proposal was supported by flimsy, overly-optimistic estimates and some technical boasts so laughable they could only have been propaganda. That is exactly the dynamic right now between Falcon 9 and SLS: we know for a fact that the F9 can be evolved into a heavy lift system (the Falcon Heavy) which would more than suffice for the MPCV and anything else NASA has planned in the immediate future.

In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot depending on outside providers to develop their launch systems. That has long since ceased to be an issue; outside providers now have the ONLY working launch systems in America, and have taken much of the initiative in future development of new systems. NASA is no longer the leading agency in spaceflight, and even the SLS -- IF it ever flies -- will be too little too late.

[publiusr]

sojourner wrote:

---

Hey Publiusr, I noticed you haven't posted on nasaspaceflight.com in a few years. Did you get banned?

Jim and I swapped being banned. He used profane PMs against me that Chris Bergin allowed (while banning me), but got himself banned from Bad Astronomy/Universe today the way he treated folks there (not just me.)
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...05#post1973505
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...71#post1967871

From what I understand he does payload integration. Now payloads often have pins in them that are to be removed after launch. I saw sometime ago, a photo of a sat with a tagged pin left in it that also had some black bands around the solar panels. You have to remove those too, or you will have problems as USA-193 did, leading to its shoot-down.

"TheJim" wasn't a friend to space X either:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...t=#post1972991

A real jerk, yes, but still it is good to see passion in the real-space community. I enjoy our battles here, and despite any personal animosity--it proves that people in the business do care about spaceflight, no matter what they champion.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Musk didn't invent the rocket mind you. The point I am making is that--apart from Ariane 6, you are seeing folks all over the planet increase LV size beyond what comsats demand. Which is a good thing. Now lets say we were to put everyone in SLS out of work. That would hurt infrastructure and have less expertise to draw from. I hate that the orbiter folks got the axe--something that wouldn't have happened had we gone the modular Energiya route. If Musk and the alt.spacers got other in-house capabilities destroyed--it also lessons competition. What I want--that you call pork is a robust in-house infrastructure of public as well as private institutions. That's something libertarians can't see because of their Ayn Rand blinders.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The underlying technologies are thirty years old.

There are new wrinkles to the old tech. NASA is a lot like the department of Energy, which I also support for its own sake in that businessmen can always be trusted to be businessmen.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

No version -- I repeat, no version -- of SUSTAIN involved using a spacecraft to EXTRACT troops.

You might have forgotten that STS was to have a form of self-ferry early on, and the Spiral concept was even to have turbojets. I believe TAV might have used self-ferry:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eWb...0ferry&f=false

Now Sustain was going to be an EELV launched vehicle, so it stands to reason that something a bit bigger could be launched via falcon that would be large enough to sport turbojets and have some kind of return capability. The Buran analog and the original Buran concept wouldn't have come back dead-stick--and they had huge payload bays sustain would not have to have. Here is where Dream Chaser needs to focus--on contacting the folks behind HOT EAGLE because they are closer to it than the X-37/X-40 folks who are only playing with automated spaceplanes that were intended to be OSP demonstrators originally

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force.

They said it was cheaper. Now Jim from NASAspaceflight maintains that to this day, even though Titan IV wound up costing the same as a moon-shot counting the payload--and ended up with about the same lift capability that Saturn IB had to begin with. But Jim does payload processing for ULA, which is Air Force, so you can expect him to be biased.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot

Arsenal method still makes sense both in the public and private world for the same reason. More and more people from all walks are developing vehicles--more now than since the 50s-60s. I think this is a good thing to have a lot of approaches--and I hope they all see service. Probably not--but it is a good thing for its own sake to have a lot of aerospace folks employed and staying busy from which private companies must draw. Its not all about economics--that is what I am trying to stress.

Even the EELV people are innovating with dual payloads now, as per page 36 of the Oct 22, 2012 issue of AV week.. It was on page 30 of the Oct 15 issue of the same year that we learn that the second stage of H-IIA will stay with the sat-load for a 5 hr coast, ans may need a white reflective coating to minimize hydrogen evaporation, so I imagine a depot will be more challenging.

For MCT, this may play a role:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...perators-opfs/

Remember, Ares V morphed into SLS via DIRECT's tireless advocacy, and SLS and MCT may combine. Who knows?

[sojourner]

publiusr wrote:

---

Jim and I swapped being banned. He used profane PMs against me that Chris Bergin allowed (while banning me), but got himself banned from Bad Astronomy/Universe today the way he treated folks there (not just me.)
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...05#post1973505
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...71#post1967871


A real jerk, yes, but still it is good to see passion in the real-space community.

The difference between you and Jim? Experience. I don't think I've ever read a statement from him that turned out to be wrong. He knows from where he speaks, unlike a lot of "armchair" space experts. And contrary to what you believe, in those threads you linked of finding an error with what he said, he wiped the floor with you there.

so I imagine a depot will be more challenging.

More challenging? yes. But remember a second stage is not a depot. Different design criteria.

[publiusr]

I guess we remember things differently. Thankfully there are HLLV advocates there, and he didn't know what he was talking about in terms of space-based radar, and when I cited Space News, he attacked them as a news organization. He went after Musk too. Jim isn't the only one with experience. Lots of folks at MSFC have it too--and he and other people look to be trying to put them out of work.

As far as wiping the floor with me? No, he was flat damn wrong:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...3542#msg113542
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...4238#msg114238

Oh, no, NASA and the Air Farce are at it again
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/12102...t-sharing.html

[Byeman]

publiusr wrote:

---

I guess we remember things differently. Thankfully there are HLLV advocates there, and he didn't know what he was talking about in terms of space-based radar, and when I cited Space News, he attacked them as a news organization. He went after Musk too. Jim isn't the only one with experience. Lots of folks at MSFC have it too--and he and other people look to be trying to put them out of work.

As far as wiping the floor with me? No, he was flat damn wrong:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...3542#msg113542
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...4238#msg114238

Oh, no, NASA and the Air Farce are at it again
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/12102...t-sharing.html

Nothing but disinformation, lies and asinine opinion.

What a fucking idiot.

[sojourner]

Byeman wrote:

---

Nothing but disinformation, lies and asinine opinion.

What a fucking idiot.

Are you referring to Publiusr or Jim?

[Crazy Eddie]

publiusr wrote:

---

Musk didn't invent the rocket mind you. The point I am making is that--apart from Ariane 6, you are seeing folks all over the planet increase LV size beyond what comsats demand.

But not by much, and they're not in much of a hurry either.

Now lets say we were to put everyone in SLS out of work. That would hurt infrastructure and have less expertise to draw from.

WHAT infrastructure? SLS isn't part of any mature spaceflight architecture that currently exists, comsats or otherwise. The only spaceflight system that will ever use it is the MPCV, which doesn't actually NEED it and can just as easily fly on an EELV. The "expertise" we're drawing from is also highly specialized in STS-style systems; the open secret in the KSC "save those jobs!" debate is that none of the KSC workforce is really employable anywhere else because they're trained on technologies and techniques that are so woefully obsolete that nobody else in the industry still uses them.

If Musk and the alt.spacers got other in-house capabilities destroyed--it also lessons competition.

Only between the private sector and the NASA shops... but then, there wouldn't BE any competition in the first place if the private sector hadn't stepped in with an alternative.

OTOH, there is now competition between SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origins for commercial crew, as well as between SpaceX and Orbital Sciences and (indirectly) the Europeans and the Japanese for cargo services. Killing off NASA's in-house capability hardly eliminates competition, but funneling the money that would normally be spent on an overpriced/overengineered launch system into a spaceflight industry could make that competition a lot more productive for NASA.

What I want--that you call pork is a robust in-house infrastructure of public as well as private institutions. That's something libertarians can't see because of their Ayn Rand blinders.

1) SLS isn't robust, nor is it "infrastructure." It was designed to provide JOBS, not space launch capability.

2) As you continue to cast about trying to figure out just who it is who opposes the SLS, you now implicitly begin to blame Libertarians/Randians. Evidently, you cannot grasp the idea that many people are looking at the same facts and the same history you are and reaching entirely different conclusions, based NOT on ideology, NOT on propaganda, NOT on op eds in popsci magazines, but on honest-to-god critical thinking.

There are new wrinkles to the old tech.

And there is also new tech. Take your pick (Elon already has).

You might have forgotten that STS was to have a form of self-ferry early on

STS has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSTAIN.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Now Sustain was going to be an EELV launched vehicle, so it stands to reason that something a bit bigger could be launched via falcon that would be large enough...

The Falcon wasn't even a design concept when SUSTAIN was being studied. And again, self-ferry capability has NEVER EVER been part of any of the SUSTAIN proposals.

They said it was cheaper.

And they were bullshitting.

Just like the politicians who favor the SLS are bullshitting when they suggest the system will be either on time or on cost, and they're shoveling it by the heapful if they suggest it will do BOTH.

Now Jim from NASAspaceflight...

Isn't here. Irrelevant point is irrelevant.

Arsenal method still makes sense both in the public and private world for the same reason. More and more people from all walks are developing vehicles--more now than since the 50s-60s. I think this is a good thing to have a lot of approaches--and I hope they all see service.

I agree. And all things being equal, the 40 billion dollars NASA intends to spend developing the SLS would be better spent purchasing large numbers of Falcon 9s and man-rated EELVs. That investment would pay off much larger dividends in the long run, since the Falcon Heavy would provide the heavy lift capability they need for BEO missions -- IF they ever develop them -- while at the same time stimulating development into a Falcon Superheavy once SpaceX parlays their experience with the Merlin into the MCT and/or reusable F9 Grasshopper. I also like multiple providers; man-rating the Atlas or the Delta-IV Heavy is a good secondary system (I am not a huge fan of the D-IVH but it has a very good operational record and doesn't rely on Russian engines).

Any of which would be preferable to the SLS: they provide launch capability for any spacecraft NASA has in service (MPCVs or Dragons and Dreamchasers purchased from SpaceX and Sierre Nevada) and continued use makes those launchers evolvable into the kind of heavy lift vehicles NASA has been dabbling with for BEO missions, especially since one of those providers is ALREADY working on a design that is both cheaper and more efficient than the SLS.

In short, SLS is the OPPOSITE of the arsenal method. SLS is the same kind of crony capitalism "sole-source-no-bid-cost-plus" style defense contract that gave us the F-35.

Its not all about economics--that is what I am trying to stress.

When it comes to the SLS, it's all about POLITICS, and that is what I am saying.

But I'm also taking the long view of this and realizing that politics, unlike economics, isn't going to colonize space. Industry is going to do that, and the sooner we put them on the front lines of this venture, the sooner we'll start to get REAL work done in space.

Remember, Ares V morphed into SLS via DIRECT's tireless advocacy, and SLS and MCT may combine. Who knows?

No, because DIRECT ultimately got their case heard by appealing to Kay Bailey Hutchinson's sense of political expedience. "Oh, you DO want to use the same aerospace contractors for your rocket design? Well, why didn't you just say so?"

[gturner]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

2) As you continue to cast about trying to figure out just who it is who opposes the SLS, you now implicitly begin to blame Libertarians/Randians. Evidently, you cannot grasp the idea that many people are looking at the same facts and the same history you are and reaching entirely different conclusions, based NOT on ideology, NOT on propaganda, NOT on op eds in popsci magazines, but on honest-to-god critical thinking.

Hey, am I a Randian if Rand Simberg asked me to be a coblogger? He makes videos with those cute little bear characters that diss the SLS. We're still not sure what they are, maybe some kind of ring-tailed panda.

[gturner]

BTW, Dragon splashes down today. http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

It's in the atmosphere.

[publiusr]

gturner wrote:

---

Hey, am I a Randian if Rand Simberg asked me to be a coblogger? He makes videos with those cute little bear characters that diss the SLS. We're still not sure what they are, maybe some kind of ring-tailed panda.

Ha Ha! That's not even the best one--remember the old 21st Century Science and Technology from Lyndon LaRouche? They called him a libertarian for some reason but he wasn't. He had a WWF panda eating a human forearm!

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

...the open secret in the KSC "save those jobs!" debate is that none of the KSC workforce is really employable anywhere else because they're trained on technologies and techniques that are so woefully obsolete that nobody else in the industry still uses them.

Again, you see experience as a problem--I see it as a pro-space constituency. And pad tech is pretty much the same all over. MCT will probably enjoy the same folks.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

SLS isn't robust, nor is it "infrastructure." It was designed to provide JOBS, not space launch capability.

Looks robust here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...ays-pad-stays/

The payloads are being looked at: www.space.com/18249-canada-rover-nasa-deep-space-rocket.html
http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...6_SLS_RFI.html

To quote this site:
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4098.pdf

"Greater performance leads to higher payload margins, faster trip times, and less complex payload mechanisms. SLS’s greater payload volume means that fewer deployments and on-orbit operations are required to execute missions."

Another interesting article
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/1...re-expendable/

A quote from the above-described link:
"Any SSTO, and X-33 holds true to this pattern, would require breakthroughs in a number of technologies, particularly in propulsion and materials. And when designers begin work on the full-scale SSTO, they may find that available technologies limit payload size so severely that the new vehicle provides little or no cost savings compared to old launchers."

More work on circumlunar flights.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...s-lunar-orbit/

In terms of a return to the moon, the same company Musk will be working with in terms of the stratolauncher, whose hanger is under construction as we speak:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...b-51937b3bad05

Looks to be expecting work on a new F-1 engine
http://www.dynetics.com/news/309

Looks familiar, what with the simplified Turbopump assembly and simple exhaust duct. Hmm.

Money from SLS is going to new engines that needed a rising tide of some type to float new kerolox engines. This F-1 is to have a "New Hot-Isostatic Press Bond Main combustion chamber" with a 12:1 Channel Wall nozzle. The LFB may even be used for an Atlas replacement. "The F-1 is not a plug and play for an RD-180 on Atlas V"--but a "dual engine booster combined with an upper stage can deliver over 30 tons to orbit--a single stick version of an EELV heavy." http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p40-510024.xml

More on this pages 40-41 of the Oct 29, 2012 Aviation Week. Page 10 has yet another refutation to Dale Jensen's earlier hitpiece on Space X BTW

Now we understand that MCT is not supposed to be RP, but there may already be some cross over. Now, personally, I would like to see the M-1 given new life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_%28rocket_engine%29 That was a previous SLS BTW--for Lunex

Now MCT looks to be private yes, but the technologies allowing for wider body cores is something Musk can benefit from with SLS paving the way for him. I wonder how much truck he has with Dynetics.

What with MCT/BFR, CZ-9 and this new LV being looked at: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html
--it is obvious that the wisdom of standard LV growth is finally being accepted.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The Falcon wasn't even a design concept when SUSTAIN was being studied. And again, self-ferry capability has NEVER EVER been part of any of the SUSTAIN proposals.
And they were bullshitting.

That might be, but now they have a better option

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I also like multiple providers; man-rating the Atlas or the Delta-IV Heavy is a good secondary system (I am not a huge fan of the D-IVH but it has a very good operational record and doesn't rely on Russian engines).

Let's hope new kerolox engines help with that. I want to see that new F-1 fly, SLS or no. It is just that framework that happens to be what is paying for it.

sojourner wrote:

---

Are you referring to Publiusr or Jim?

As per use of his favorite word "asinine" and his profanity, I'd say Byeman is Jim. That or someone doing excellent performance art of one of his posts.

And welcome to the board bye the way. Wave and say hello...

[gturner]

publiusr wrote:

---

Again, you see experience as a problem--I see it as a pro-space constituency. And pad tech is pretty much the same all over. MCT will probably enjoy the same folks.

Looks robust here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...ays-pad-stays/

It says:

The new Space Launch System (SLS) will be able to cope with a minimum of 13 scrubs – or cryo cycles – and remain happily at the launch pad for a minimum of 180 days, according to the latest technical overview document.

Huntsville has a beautiful Saturn V mock-up that's been upright for years, and perhaps NASA could use some of its design features for the SLS, enabling it execute extended one and two year pad sitting missions.

I liked their turn of phrase. "Remain happily at the lauch pad". Inadvertant comic genius.

[Ian Keldon]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

1) We will pretty much never get our "house" in order, so waiting for that day is a waste of time.

Feeding the hungry, curing the sick, housing the homeless is NEVER a waste of time. Bouncing around in micro-g taking pretty pictures of the stars IS a waste of time.

2) Throughout history, industrial powers have always -- repeat, ALWAYS -- expanded into new environments as a way to solve their domestic economic troubles.

Insanity is defined by doing the exact same thing that failed and expecting a better result.

This strategy has the threefold advantage of reliving population pressure (especially the underclass, who can be cheaply exported to the frontier), providing access to new resources, and stimulating growth in new technologies and new industry needed to support the colonization efforts.

The second point bears repeating, because lots of people forget this: colonization is expensive and time consuming, but it pays HUGE dividends economically. Colonization of space is the kind of operation that, once it begins, will invigorate mankind's combined industrial capacity for at least a century.

No it won't. There is no way to make space "cheaper". We are constrained by the limits of resources, technology , and time. There is no place within our reach to send these "surplus" people where they can live and thrive.

Better for us to clean up our own home and make it sustainable for ALL the people, not just the elites.

[Ian Keldon]

sojourner wrote:

---

Imagine where the world would be if this were the majority opinion in europe for the last 600 years.

In the case of space, it literally IS true that there is nothing there we need that we cannot produce or find more cheaply here on Earth. Wild-eyed technophiles always talk about all that there is in space that we can "bring back" to benefit man, because:

1) Nothing we have brought back has served to materially benefit man that justifies the 100s of billions wasted on the bringing.

2) the cost of bringing it back will always be greater than the value gained.