Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_
 Share

Recommended Posts

You guys would have hated the Saturn V. Adjusting for inflation it‘s development costed nearly 50 billion dollars. 

Just now, DAL59 said:

I agree, and I know that.  I'm just saying that the overall budget does not need to be increased, just redistributed.

Yeah let‘s just give it all to Elon, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Canopus said:

hated the Saturn V.

It launched several times, and met the deadline, and did what it needed to do.    

Just now, Canopus said:

So? Just like SLS then.

 

The SLS has no clear goals, and has taken longer to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

You guys would have hated the Saturn V. Adjusting for inflation it‘s development costed nearly 50 billion dollars. 

Yeah let‘s just give it all to Elon, right? 

Try 75 billion plus. It was half the total cost of Apollo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

I agree, and I know that.  I'm just saying that the overall budget does not need to be increased, just redistributed.

Something which is impossible, and will never, ever happen. Might as well argue for the sun to rise in the North tomorrow.

Hint: money spent by governments is political. Always has been, always will be. In a democracy, that means that money will be spread around to buy votes. Mars is not the goal of NASA, nor is science, or even engineering. NASA exists to provide technical jobs in certain districts, and it incidentally does science, advances engineering, etc.

Anyone set on Mars should get a job with SpaceX, or become a billionaire and do it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

It launched several times, and met the deadline, and did what it needed to do.    

 

The SLS has no clear goals, and has taken longer to develop.

Thats all problem of governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

You guys would have hated the Saturn V. Adjusting for inflation it‘s development costed nearly 50 billion dollars. 

Manned spaceflight is a stunt. There was a geopolitical motivation for the space race, so it happened. That will not be repeated.

Apollo had a narrowly defined goal, unlike SLS, which is unfit for any useful purpose as I see it. Cost matters. Not just dev costs, but when the project is to "build capability" which SLS is claimed, that must come with making that capability cost effective enough that it can actually be used. When the launches are billions, they demand similarly expensive payloads. If SLS was cheap, then they could launch all kinds of stuff, even wasting capability.

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Thats all problem of governance.

No, it's not, really. NASA does what it is supposed to do, it employs people.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tater said:

No, it's not, really. NASA does what it is supposed to do, it employs people.

Even more people would be employed if it did stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, NASA does go to Mars all the time. We have an awesome rover there. People on Mars is a waste of money.

1 minute ago, DAL59 said:

Even more people would be employed if it did stuff.

It does do stuff. It's just not doing what you apparently want. Those are different issues.

Human spaceflight to Mars is a massive waste of money.

(I'd love to see it, mind you, but it's not cost-effective compared to probes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Human spaceflight to Mars is a massive waste of money.

Are you arguing against manned exploration in general, or doing you the moon or venus atmosphere would be better, or o'neill cylinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Are you arguing against manned exploration in general, or doing you the moon or venus atmosphere would be better, or o'neill cylinders.

@tater is just being truthful. Manned spaceflight is a waste of money. Now, if wasted in the right way, it can provide large economic benefits (Apollo Program).

Also:

12 minutes ago, tater said:

(I'd love to see it, mind you, but it's not cost-effective compared to probes).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Are you arguing against manned exploration in general, or doing you the moon or venus atmosphere would be better, or o'neill cylinders.

In general. If the goal is to explore/learn about the universe, sending people is grossly inefficient. Dollar for dollar any human program will achieve less than a robotic program.

I want human spaceflight just because it's cool. That said, I realize that it is not required.

Moving humans to space in a meaningful way is a science fiction future I'd love to see, but it requires an economic driver, not government expenditure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tater said:

In general. If the goal is to explore/learn about the universe, sending people is grossly inefficient. Dollar for dollar any human program will achieve less than a robotic program.

I want human spaceflight just because it's cool. That said, I realize that it is not required.

Moving humans to space in a meaningful way is a science fiction future I'd love to see, but it requires an economic driver, not government expenditure.

That said, the only real reason to send people off Earth, aside from coolness, is to colonize so that all our eggs are not in one basket. 

Of course, that would require industry. Maybe when earthly industry can be done robotically, we can start robotic space industry. 

While Dextre has taken over some ISS EVA tasks, spacewalks are still required for some work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Probably a very stupid question from non-American) Why does the Congress decide how NASA spends its money and dictate which projects should be pursued? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if, instead of saying “here’s the moneys, build us an SLS with these exact capabilities and use it to fly a couple of missions around the Moon”, they said “here’s the money, we need a Moon base by 2025, do it however you want”. Are congresspeople experts on space exploration and know the best way to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

(Probably a very stupid question from non-American) Why does the Congress decide how NASA spends its money and dictate which projects should be pursued? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if, instead of saying “here’s the moneys, build us an SLS with these exact capabilities and use it to fly a couple of missions around the Moon”, they said “here’s the money, we need a Moon base by 2025, do it however you want”. Are congresspeople experts on space exploration and know the best way to do it?

Because congress sets budgets, and it’s the people’s money. As such, they all try to get a share spent locally to their district, or they trade support for NASA for support for their own pet project.

All other governments do the same, except totalitarian states, but even then, dear leader likely micromanages.

For all the complaints about NASA, no one else on earth seems willing to do it. The EU has a comparable gdp to the US, why doesn’t esa have 20 billion/yr to play with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

(Probably a very stupid question from non-American) Why does the Congress decide how NASA spends its money and dictate which projects should be pursued? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if, instead of saying “here’s the moneys, build us an SLS with these exact capabilities and use it to fly a couple of missions around the Moon”, they said “here’s the money, we need a Moon base by 2025, do it however you want”. Are congresspeople experts on space exploration and know the best way to do it?

Probably because it's national which implies the government says and NASA does.

@tater has a very good point. Robots, unlike humans, don't eat, don't suffocate and don't die from radiation/eventual cancer.However, IMO we NEED to leave this planet sooner or later or at least build some sort of infrastructure eventually. There are many benefits of doing so. The Sun will eventually die and sooner or later there will be a killer asteroid crossing the Earth's path just in the right place and in the right time to cause a mass extinction. And space infeastructure is what we need to stay alive when that happens.

I also (though I might be wrong) feel like if there is a sustainable colony somewhere else in the solar system the need for nuclear weapons disappears. What's the point of killing one another if there's somebody left untouched anyway?

That is why I think the sooner humans go interplanetary the better. Not only will we get everyday useful technology from all this but also achieve immortality as a species. That's why spaceflight matters to me. I don't care if NASA or SpaceX or any other company/organisation lands humans on Mars. I care about them getting there and being able to live on their own. We might be the only ones in our cosmic neighbourhood able to do this so we better do.

Btw, I've had a few beers so I'll probably regret this post but I don't care for now.

Edited by Wjolcz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Probably because it's national which implies the government says and NASA does.

@tater has a very good point. Robots, unlike humans, don't eat, don't suffocate and don't die from radiation/eventual cancer.However, IMO we NEED to leave this planet sooner or later or at least build some sort of infrastructure eventually. There are many benefits of doing so. The Sun will eventually die and sooner or later there will be a killer asteroid crossing the Earth's path just in the right place and in the right time to cause a mass extinction. And space infeastructure is what we need to stay alive when that happens.

I also (though I might be wrong) feel like if there is a sustainable colony somewhere else in the solar system the need for nuclear weapons disappears. What's the point of killing one another if there's somebody left untouched anyway?

That is why I think the sooner humans go interplanetary the better. Not only will we get everyday useful technology from all this but also achieve immortality as a species. That's why spaceflight matters to me. I don't care if NASA or SpaceX or any other company/organisation lands humans on Mars. I care about them getting there and being able to live on their own. We might be the only ones in our cosmic neighbourhood able to do this so we better do.

Btw, I've had a few beers so I'll probably regret this post but I don't care for now.

Hear, hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tater said:

The EU has a comparable gdp to the US, why doesn’t esa have 20 billion/yr to play with?

Probably because space exploration is not as high a priority for the EU. 

6 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Probably because it's national which implies the government says and NASA does.

Yes, government should set the goals for its space agency, I’m not questioning that. But maybe the agency should be able to develop its own strategy, the way of achieving these goals, using the money that they were given. Or propose such a project first, and then receive the funding for it. I think it’s better than the situation like “listen up folks, you’re going to build an SLS using parts from these contractors, and nothing else. We don’t care if this rocket is not going to be very useful or lead to any major breakthroughs, you don’t have a say in this” .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Probably because space exploration is not as high a priority for the EU. 

Yes, government should set the goals for its space agency, I’m not questioning that. But maybe the agency should be able to develop its own strategy, the way of achieving these goals, using the money that they were given. Or propose such a project first, and then receive the funding for it. I think it’s better than the situation like “listen up folks, you’re going to build an SLS using parts from these contractors, and nothing else. We don’t care if this rocket is not going to be very useful or lead to any major breakthroughs, you don’t have a say in this” .

Elections. Interests, etc. Vast sums of money in the offing... it's always gonna be a mess, that's how the sausage gets made.

Business, OTOH, is easy to understand. Profit is an excellent, and predictable motivator. Trading a vote for SLS for a reciprocal vote on funding a community project someplace else, etc, is a lot more complex than Collect underpants, ?, profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Now, if wasted in the right way, it can provide large economic benefits (Apollo Program).

 

1 hour ago, tater said:

but it requires an economic driver,

Every dollar spent returns 7 to the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One huge problem with the "manned spaceflight is a waste, we should send more probes" argument is the question of what the probes are for. If we are never going to go to Mars, for instance, why are we bothering to send probes there? What advantage is there is learning about Mars? If we are never going anywhere except Earth, then we should be spending all that space science money on programs that study the Earth and gather data about Earth.

Who cares if there is/was life on Mars if we're never going to Mars anyway?

30 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Every dollar spent returns 7 to the economy.

Nothing magic about space. If every space dollar returns 7 to the economy, then that means every highway dollar would also return 7 -- plus we would have a highway. Every health care dollar would also return 7, plus we would be healthier. Etc.

If the argument for space exploration is that it is a government stimulus program for the economy, then it's stupid. We could have government stimulus programs that also have more direct benefits for us right here at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

Probably because it's national which implies the government says and NASA does.

@tater has a very good point. Robots, unlike humans, don't eat, don't suffocate and don't die from radiation/eventual cancer.However, IMO we NEED to leave this planet sooner or later or at least build some sort of infrastructure eventually. There are many benefits of doing so. The Sun will eventually die and sooner or later there will be a killer asteroid crossing the Earth's path just in the right place and in the right time to cause a mass extinction. And space infeastructure is what we need to stay alive when that happens.

I also (though I might be wrong) feel like if there is a sustainable colony somewhere else in the solar system the need for nuclear weapons disappears. What's the point of killing one another if there's somebody left untouched anyway?

That is why I think the sooner humans go interplanetary the better. Not only will we get everyday useful technology from all this but also achieve immortality as a species. That's why spaceflight matters to me. I don't care if NASA or SpaceX or any other company/organisation lands humans on Mars. I care about them getting there and being able to live on their own. We might be the only ones in our cosmic neighbourhood able to do this so we better do.

Btw, I've had a few beers so I'll probably regret this post but I don't care for now.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

One huge problem with the "manned spaceflight is a waste, we should send more probes" argument is the question of what the probes are for. If we are never going to go to Mars, for instance, why are we bothering to send probes there? What advantage is there is learning about Mars? If we are never going anywhere except Earth, then we should be spending all that space science money on programs that study the Earth and gather data about Earth.

Who cares if there is/was life on Mars if we're never going to Mars anyway?

Nothing magic about space. If every space dollar returns 7 to the economy, then that means every highway dollar would also return 7 -- plus we would have a highway. Every health care dollar would also return 7, plus we would be healthier. Etc.

If the argument for space exploration is that it is a government stimulus program for the economy, then it's stupid. We could have government stimulus programs that also have more direct benefits for us right here at home.

Killjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Nothing magic about space. If every space dollar returns 7 to the economy, then that means every highway dollar would also return 7 -- plus we would have a highway. Every health care dollar would also return 7, plus we would be healthier. Etc.

Unless... you know. :wink:

Spoiler

989.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...