• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Orion shows how it's done

What is SpaceX doing to improve the chances of humans surviving on a mission to Mars?
...
To me, the push for Mars is a marketing ploy to get investors and contractors on board.

SpaceX is a booster and spacecraft manufacturer, not a self-contained, private space program. And obviously Mars is a glamorous marketing ploy. But even NASA did not shoot straight to the Moon after Kennedy's speech. They had to develop all the technology and know-how of navigating, docking, living in space, etc. It's likely that any private "Mars mission" will include the Moon as a stepping stone to test technologies that will be used on Mars. Such Moon missions do not have to be permanent colonies, but could become "spin-off" endeavors that further fund the goal of Mars.

I don't see an Apollo 8-style orbit of Mars with no landing as useful in any way. The "hail Mary pass" of Apollo 8 was a political stunt to get Americans "to" the Moon before the Russians.
 
The Space Shuttle program had reusable rockets - the sold rocket boosters on either side of the external tank were recovered at sea and reused. So, SpaceX is improving on what has been done before.
No, even the most generous in the field wouldn't call the srb's "reusable". They were crude metal casings that had to be disassembled, refurbished, reassembled and then filled with solid propellant.

To call what SpaceX is doing with a stage that will return to the launch site, soft land, and then be ready for launch in a matter of days " improving on what has been done before " a gross over simpification and reveals a lack of understanding for the advances in engineering involved.
 
What is SpaceX doing to improve the chances of humans surviving on a mission to Mars?
Operating actual spacecraft in Earth Orbit and improving on their hardware/software based on data collected in the field. They're also developing a spacecraft (the Dragon V2) that would be capable of a propulsive landing on Mars after entering the atmosphere. More significantly, there's also that rather weird initiative to send colonists to Mars on a one-way trip; it's much easier to put humans ON Mars than it is to bring them back safely, but the "bring back safely" itself becomes easier if you've had people go there and gather practical knowledge and experience on how to survive there.

There is also the possibility -- slim, but real -- that some of the "suicide colonists" will actually manage to survive there long enough for a robust followup mission to revisit them. They still wouldn't be able to make it back to Earth, but if they can tough it out for two years we can send reinforcements.:bolian:

As for the Orion, it will be attached to a Deep Space Habitat.
And who's gonna develop the deep space habitat? NASA is sinking almost its entire budget on the development of the capsule and the SLS; it doesn't even have a working service module, last I heard they were outsourcing that to the ESA.

Powerpoint space missions are a dime a dozen. But NASA's graphic artists have always been 30 to 40 years ahead of its actual capabilities

If this goes from concept to construction...
This is NASA we're talking about, so that's a bit like saying "If I win the Lottery..."
 
Last edited:

space-shuttle-challengerjpg-ff9375e2f0d3b75c.jpg


hi-852-columbia-debris-03916459.jpg
 
Classy...

This guy is "Jim" from www.nasaspaceflight.com

He doesn't play well with others
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7237132&postcount=302
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7336552&postcount=243
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7330429&postcount=236

He is also a sock puppet:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=8548078

He works on Gov't launches too--sort of how Ayn Rand--who bashed gov't, died while on public assistance.

He got banned from Phil Plait's site

A very different Orion--what gov't could have done for us, had we the right leaders
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2714/1
 
Last edited:
^ Unscheduled catastrophic disassembly.

However, I agree. Many cases of culpable negligence (say, in driving a car) are called "accidents," suggesting an act-of-god blamelessness in the event.
 
Seriously dude, no one gives a flying frig about comments on another forum. If you disagree with them maybe you should bring it up there. Or did they already ban you?
 
I suppose I fall into that category known as the haters.

In 1991, it was estimated that a Mars program would cost between $300 and $500 billion. It has probably gone upwards since then.

The problem is that government projects rarely fall within budget and often exceed the stated cost of the project.

We are still finding out if humans can actually live in space on long-duration missions. So far, the answers have been discouraging. Humans suffer during their sojourn in space and after they return home. NASA recently sent a twin into space and kept the other twin at home as a control. The twin in space will spend over 500 days in space - this is still short of an actual mission to Mars.

Of the nations that have sent humans into space, the United States is falling behind the other developed nations in many standards, Russia is a third-world nation struggling to maintain its prestige as a first-word nation, and China is using technology borrowed and adopted from the Russians. So, two of the three space-faring nations are "sick".

If being realistic is being a hater, so be it.
 
I suppose I fall into that category known as the haters.

In 1991, it was estimated that a Mars program would cost between $300 and $500 billion. It has probably gone upwards since then.

The problem is that government projects rarely fall within budget and often exceed the stated cost of the project.
That's a feature, not a bug. Government projects, especially in aerosapce, are designed for maximum profitability of the contractors involved. The reason they go over budget is because the contractors want to be able to make more money than they asked for and they know the government is not going to call them on it.

We are still finding out if humans can actually live in space on long-duration missions.
They can. Next question?

Of the nations that have sent humans into space, the United States is falling behind the other developed nations in many standards, Russia is a third-world nation
Russia is nothing of the kind. They're a major industrial power with an economy and a military that BOTH rival the European union in scope and capability. I also need to remind you that "not as rich as America" is not the definition of "Third world country."

China is using technology borrowed and adopted from the Russians...
Technology which nevertheless remains competitive with -- if not superior to -- ours.

The simple reason for that is that the Chinese and the Russians actually USE that technology and refine it based on practical experience in space. NASA only develops new technology after lab testing and powerpoint presentations and 90% of what they develop never actually flies.

So, two of the three space-faring nations are "sick".
Really, it's only one. And it's easy to tell which one: it's the country that doesn't have spacecraft or launch capabilities of its own.

Fortunately, SpaceX and orbital are helping to close the gap, but that's not government work so NASA's dragging its feet.
 
Let's talk about something that people experience in our world everyday. It's isolation. There have been studies on isolation. What Would Being In A Bunker For 15 Years Really Do To Your Head?

The celebrated Mars 500 crew, who spent 17 months in isolation to simulate the effects of a trip to Mars, was entirely made up of dedicated and trained people - and they still had huge problems with their sleep schedule. For quite some time, scientists assumed that people confined for any long space mission would eventually fall into a 24-hour rhythm. The subjects of the Mars 500 experiment fell into all kinds of rhythms, including one that was twenty-five hours long and one that split the day into two 12-hour periods. These sleep period problems were minor, but over time they built up. The group suffered periods of excruciating insomnia and resulting lethargy.

Soviet scientists, studying long-term space flight, dubbed this sort of thing an "asthenic reaction." Exercise and rest can only do so much. Confined and isolated, people will undergo periods of debilitating weakness. The Mars 500 crew was able to fight the effects, in part because they volunteered to do important research for a cause that they believed in, but they couldn't avoid the physical consequences.

The missions that have been performed to date have been short-to-moderate duration missions. Long duration missions are those which take two to three years to complete. No human has been in space that long. The current mission on the ISS is stretching the envelope a little bit, but it still falls short of the time needed for a mission to Mars.

All studies on humans have shown that we decline when in isolation and when we are living on limited sources of stimulation. A group isolated might help or hinder the individual depending on the group dynamic.

My concern is that the astronauts that we send beyond the Moon will upon arriving at their destination will be suffering from the effects of physical exposure to the dangers in space and from the psychological effects of long term isolation from human society.

I have read about the Russian space agency. This agency has ambitious plans; however, the problem, as in the US, is one of money.

When these independent space ventures become serious about moving humans past low Earth orbit or middle Earth orbit and have successes in those ventures, then I will agree with you that they are actually moving us into being a species living in deep space.

Russia is a third-world country because of their spending priorities. The United States is becoming a third-world nation because of our spending priorities. Before I was born, the education system was supported by the states. Our education system was affordable to anyone, and our country prospered in STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics). Our country is struggling with keeping our excellence in STEM, because colleges have become much less affordable as a result of states cutting funding to education. When it comes to spending priorities, education spending is among the first to be cut. How can we be a first world nation when our citizenry is poorly educated?

I am aware that government projects can overrun and that this happens frequently. What I have trouble with is that our country is spending over a trillion dollars on a plane that doesn't work. A plane whose engines catch fire, a plane whose engines are allergic to heated fuel, a plane whose best flying hours are when the weather is sunny and temperate, a plane whose hours on the ground are greater than its hours in the sky.
 
Nearly all combat aircraft spend more time on the ground than in the air. Nature of the beast.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top