DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, tater said: 8-9 Over a dozen, since it involves the DSG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 That's not happening, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 DSG can still happen. Maybe it'll be moved to LLO to better support landings. Either that, or NASA will have to come up with another station/base/something and get funding for it. I think they'll stick with DSG though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 21, 2017 Author Share Posted December 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, sh1pman said: DSG can still happen. Maybe it'll be moved to LLO to better support landings. It won't happen. Moving it to LLO would make it inaccessible to Orion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said: It won't happen. Moving it to LLO would make it inaccessible to Orion. Not if they design a beefier SM for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 21, 2017 Author Share Posted December 21, 2017 Just now, sh1pman said: Not if they design a beefier SM for it. Which they won't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Just now, _Augustus_ said: Which they won't do. Why not? DSG is still on paper, things can be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 I doubt any one would ever seriously consider a permanent Space station in Low lunar orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 A moon base would cost only 10 billion dollars. We could have had a dozen moon bases rather than the useless ISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, DAL59 said: A moon base would cost only 10 billion dollars. We could have had a dozen moon bases rather than the useless ISS. Citation needed Edited December 21, 2017 by Canopus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Canopus said: Citation needed http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a20102/we-could-have-a-moon-base-for-10-billion/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Just now, DAL59 said: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a20102/we-could-have-a-moon-base-for-10-billion/ „could have one for as little as 10 billion“ Could and would most likely cost much, much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Well, if nasa does it, it ends up costing 10-8 times as much. I'm not exaggerating. The James Webb Space Telescope cost 18 times the original prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Just now, Canopus said: „could have one for as little as 10 billion“ Could and would most likely cost much, much more. One SLS launch would cost 1 to 2 billion. And you’re going to need a lot of launches to build it, supply and rotate the crew. That’s not including the cost to actually design and build the base modules. I think it’ll cost a lot more than 10B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Well, if nasa does it, it ends up costing 10-8 times as much. I'm not exaggerating. The James Webb Space Telescope cost 18 times the original prediction. Maybe Ol‘ Musky will do it for 5 dollars and a Mars Bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 minute ago, sh1pman said: ne SLS launch would cost 1 to 2 billion. And you’re going to need a lot of launches to build it, supply and rotate the crew. Use Delta 4 heavy. Or falcon heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, DAL59 said: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a20102/we-could-have-a-moon-base-for-10-billion/ lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, sh1pman said: That’s not including the cost to actually design and build the base modules. Which shouldn't be that much, but NASA has to get studies and subcontractors and subsubcontractors, and ship parts around the country... Just now, PB666 said: lol We could for 10 billion, we most certainly won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman4308 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 35 minutes ago, DAL59 said: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a20102/we-could-have-a-moon-base-for-10-billion/ In addition to "source better than a magazine article" for the cost, I'd like you to cite something for "the ISS was useless". For the cost, you can always find a rosy prediction from people suggesting unproven technologies. I strongly doubt a moon base could be done for $10B without even further drops in launch costs... and the SLS is hardly the epitome of cheap space access. For the ISS, countless experiments have already been performed, and LEO will continue to be the cheapest place to conduct microgravity experiments. I would honestly rather have a replacement ISS (preferably with a centrifuge module capable of 0.1-0.38G) than a lunar space station that will be much more expensive to build and maintain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Which shouldn't be that much, but NASA has to get studies and subcontractors and subsubcontractors, and ship parts around the country... We could for 10 billion, we most certainly won't. 1. The problem is that ISS is an international cooperation with multiple countries contributing. Thats what funny, suddenly the last 2 years many entities want a colony on the Moon. But I hear nothing about international cooperation. 2. The ISS is there at some point everyone will leave, but there is nothing to build, its already built. Getting back to DSG. IMO if its going to get done people really have to want it, and by and large if you were to Ask the 600 or so people who legislate from Washington maybe 10% may know what it is and of those 6% don't want to spend the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Starman4308 said: In addition to "source better than a magazine article" for the cost, I'd like you to cite something for "the ISS was useless". For the cost, you can always find a rosy prediction from people suggesting unproven technologies. I strongly doubt a moon base could be done for $10B without even further drops in launch costs... and the SLS is hardly the epitome of cheap space access. For the ISS, countless experiments have already been performed, and LEO will continue to be the cheapest place to conduct microgravity experiments. I would honestly rather have a replacement ISS (preferably with a centrifuge module capable of 0.1-0.38G) than a lunar space station that will be much more expensive to build and maintain. The microgravity experiments are fascinating, but since you could just have a centrifuge for much less, it isn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJ JAR Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 hours ago, PB666 said: The power output of 20 of these reactors would not suffice to run a ship and 1 VASIMR. The system is designed to run on the ground not in space. Technically isn't a space reactor, its' a surface mounted colony support reactor. Abandon in place. To quote Lee Mason, STMD’s principal technologist for Power and Energy Storage at NASA Headquarters, 'This new technology could provide kilowatts and can eventually be evolved to provide hundreds of kilowatts, or even megawatts of power.' So this could potentially be used as a space reactor to power space electric propulsions such as VASIMR, X3 Hall Effect Thruster and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 There was a module with a centrifuge planned for the ISS, but it got cancelled because of cost overruns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Just now, RAJ JAR said: To quote Lee Mason, STMD’s principal technologist for Power and Energy Storage at NASA Headquarters, 'This new technology could provide kilowatts and can eventually be evolved to provide hundreds of kilowatts, or even megawatts of power.' So this could potentially be used as a space reactor to power space electric propulsions such as VASIMR, X3 Hall Effect Thruster and others. If wishes were horses beggars would ride. Watching NASA over the last 50 years how many things NASA says it could do has it actually done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJ JAR Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said: There was a module with a centrifuge planned for the ISS, but it got cancelled because of cost overruns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module I want to know how efficient it would have been compared to the other type of rotating structure? The Nautilus-X rotating centrifuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts