Kerbal7

That depends. We find something swimming around on Titan and all bets are off. And who is to say it isn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

That page says Dragonfly cost about a billion to land on Titan. So, we could easily put at least 50 robots on Titan for the Space Launch System / Orion Moon push money. I put forward 50 robots on Titan would increase our scientific knowledge a whole lot more than the Moon mission. It might even be "cooler" depending on what info and pictures come back too. The raindrops on Titan are very large and fall like snow. Imagine seeing that on a robots video camera. And that's the rub isn't it?

What's the running total ($) on this Space Launch System / Orion Moon push? I'm just wondering how many robots we could have sent to Titan with this money. Are the methane oceans on Titan not "cool" enough?

The politics behind SLS/Orion and the rush to the Moon. It's all about the Chinese it seems. SLS/Orion topic starts at 34:30

What innovations? Unless over-promising and under-delivering massively is an innovation. I don't think SpaceX has any patents. They stand on the shoulders of many other great innovators. The landing rockets shtick was done decades ago. If it saves any real money is unknown.

What are the going odds of putting all this together and getting people on the moon in 2024? I'm thinking 2-5. Mostly negative.

Starlink needs to be cancelled. 5G is fast and cell towers are almost everywhere and soon to be worldwide. No one is going to be interested in laggy expensive internet. I don't like filling up the night's sky anymore with junk for my telescope anyways. This is another of Musk's money losers. Like that silly Mars rocket he's building. It's nothing like a real spaceship and was constructed by a company that makes water towers. It's another of this charlatans PR stunts to hustle money out of investors. We do know Tesla is headed to bankruptcy as soon as investors get wise. It losing billions every year. And now with such bad management Musk is putting SpaceX in bankruptcy jeopardy too. In five years, when the dust settles on Mar's rockets and Martian colonies we'll see what's left. Everything he touches loses money.

My guess is SpaceX is losing money. The reusable booster stunt hasn't been shown to save any money. To reuse a booster you must pay a lot of money in recovery and getting it back to flight. I think SpaceX has only reused boosters up to 3 times so that can't be enough to save money. Elon Musk is wasting so much money on that dumb "Starship" rocket to nowhere that you know investors must be getting nervous. Even early this year SpaceX let go 10% of its workers so you know things can't be going great. I think SpaceX will have fewer launches this year too. Musk is probably driving SpaceX into a ditch of bankruptcy. Just like Tesla.

I feel the same. Robots can do scientific exploration much, much cheaper—safer too. They are only going to get more and more capable. The purpose of manned space flight is to inspire. And that's not a trivial thing. Human beings are emotional animals and inspiration is vitally important. After the Apollo program America experienced a surge of people going into scientific fields. This scientific deluge transformed the country. Apollo also changed everyone's perspectives. But politicians can't see beyond the next election cycle. They'd rather burn money having wars in the desert than an awe inspiring Moon base. That's how they are.

The SLS is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. That being, putting large dollar amounts into the districts of politicians. If it will ever fly isn't near as important. Even if they ever do get the thing off the ground there is very little money to do anything with it. And no political will to get the money. The space program is something everyone likes but no one wants to pay for. Given how expensive manned space flight is... well, you get what we got. Fifty years of going around in a circle. If you want Moon bases and trips to Mars you better pick up a sci fi novel because it isn't happening in our lifetimes.

I've said much of the same here a long time. Elon Musk is a con man who swindles tax dollars with ridiculous promises no expert take seriously. Elon Musk has said he will have BFR cargo missions flying to Mars in 2022. And he will have crewed cargo missions to Mars by 2024. I've said from day one this is absurd and will never happen. Artwork is cheap. Hardware is not. In fact, I've said from day one no BFR will ever fly to Mars. Not one. I still believe this. The BFR is a total scam that'll never make a single trip to Mars. Yes, Elon and SpaceX cult members let me know they don't like me saying this. But it's not too far away until I'm proven right.

What was so amazing about it? We've been launching rockets and docking spacecraft for over 50 years.

I have no doubt there is lots of life in the Milky Way beside us. With numbers of suns and planets out there it seems silly to think life only evolved on Earth.

The USA went to the moon. There is no doubt of that. But that was back during the Cold War when the USA was still a unified country and not just an economic zone. It'll never go back with astronauts again though. The political will can't be mustered up to build a high-speed rail system so you can forget about human moon exploration. Every few years they make a lot of noise about it, they've been doing that for decades. But It'll never happen again.

Example. I'd like to find out what's going on, if anything, under the ice of Europa. That's not going to happen with astronauts anytime soon, if ever. If it's done it's going to be done with robotics. I'd have invested heavily in the robotic explorations of Europa, Enceladus, Titan, etc. I'd have robots all over these moons. Possible life. Human spaceflight is a stunt. And that's fine if it inspires people into science fields and the money invested is secondary to real science.

I was unimpressed with the list you provided knowing it cost $150,000,000,000. For example, LASIK was on your list. I was wearing corrective lenses before the ISS. 150 Billion dollars later I'm still wearing corrective lenses and no worse for wear. I see many other people wearing corrective lenses too. So the ISS hasn't been all that for the ophthalmologist. And I don't believe the meager scientific progress ISS has achieved wouldn't have happened anyways or is too trivial to bother with. E.g., growing lettuce in microgravity. Who cares? Not me. Robotic arms? I have little doubt we'd have seen the same advancements in robotics without the ISS. Maybe more if the money had been put into robotic explorers on the moons of Jupiter. They use robotic arms too. Its political value is dubious. With a $150,000,000,000 cooperative space project, we hear Russia election this and Putin that daily. Start a giant student exchange program, much cheaper. Maybe more effective. I have no problem with having a space station. I have a problem with having a 150 Billion dollar space station when resources are limited. If I'd have had $150,000,000,000 to invest in the space program, it certainly wouldn't have gone into that space station.

Flights to the ISS and activities there are lucky if they get a mere 30 seconds on TV and buried in the newspaper. John Q. Public is completely tuned out having no idea what takes place there. "Something important." I wouldn't place much value in the survey you linked. You can get the results you want to surveys by how you ask the questions. "The ISS cost 150 billion dollars. Is it worth it when that money could have been used for better schools, feeding the hungry and homeless here at home?" What're the results of your survey going to show now?

Hardly anyone finds the ISS inspiring. People rarely, if ever, even acknowledge its existence. The ISS is as inspirational as a routine commercial airline flight to Denver. If the true value of human spaceflight is arousal of passions towards science, (and I believe it is) it's a colossal failure. The scientific value of the ISS is extremely dubious upon reflection of the enormous expense. People living on the Moon or Mars would capture the imagination. Rovers crawling around the moons of Jupiter relaying breathtaking pictures would inspire. Going around in circles for the umpteenth time while growing bean sprouts and discovering mice float in zero-g is flat. And NASA's Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway isn't much better unless it includes occasional landings to the surface with plenty of live action video. Imagine a real picture like this from a Europa rover. Now that would inspire.

Like if Malaysian food tastes better in zero-g. Now that is priceless "science." Malaysian Food Sensory Evaluation in Zero-g

I'm not sure the International Space Station is still "cool." We just had the Insight lander landing on Mars and the MS-11 launch to the ISS. I watched both events. The Insight lander landing on Mars was much more exciting to me. And I'd be more excited to have 5 rovers crawling around on the Moons of Jupiter than the next 5 human spaceflights to the ISS. Is it just me?

I suppose we'll know if the juice was worth the squeeze if they ever try to sell it to the private sector. I don't think there will be any serious interest in buying it. That tells me the research on the ISS isn't worth the cost. But who knows, we'll see. This might work. Perhaps we undervalue "cool." If the ISS inspires a lot of people on to great things in science that would make the cost worth it. But the cost of the ISS could fund many, many landers and rovers to various moons in the solar system. More space telescopes. Etc. Does the ISS inspire people to great things in science more effectively than remote exploration? Good question. I don't know the answer.

I've read it. It's vague. Joe Six-pack doesn't travel to space so the long-term effects of space are irrelevant to him anyway. Everything else could be remotely conducted for less money no?

What valuable science takes place on the International Space Station that requires such an expensive system? Or are we solely having such a thing because a human presence in space is "cool?" How has the International Space Station improved the life of the average slobbering sportsball fan? Joe Six-pack? The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTEVIaoHBtA

Nov.29,2018 NASA Announces New Partnerships for Commercial Lunar Payload Delivery Services. SpaceX is not on the list of companies.

At Insight's Post-Landing Brief, NASA Administrator Bridenstine said he hoped people would land on Mars in the mid-30s. He said this was an "aggressive" estimate. Bridenstine talks to the best and brightest on this subject all the time. The smartest people in the class.I'll take his word, and those of the people around him, over some subsidies hustling charlatan, claiming he's building a "Starship."A Starship that will be building a colony on Mars in 2025. But if you want to believe Musk, go right ahead. I think it's naïve but to each his own. If we see people on Mars in our lifetimes, It will be through the SLS rocket.