_Augustus_

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, tater said:

8-9

Over a dozen, since it involves the DSG.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not happening, either. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sh1pman said:

Not if they design a beefier SM for it. 

Which they won't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, _Augustus_ said:

Which they won't do.

Why not? DSG is still on paper, things can be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt any one would ever seriously consider a permanent Space station in Low lunar orbit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A moon base would cost only 10 billion dollars.  We could have had a dozen moon bases rather than the useless ISS.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DAL59 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.