Karriz

Could be going to Texas test facility. The return to flight mission is either Echostar from KSC or Iridium from VAFB. I don't think it's been confirmed yet which one will fly first. But in any case the stages go to Texas first.

There's research on the radiation issue that goes both ways. This says that lifetime cancer risk would rise from the usual 12-16% to about 20%: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1_NAC_HEO_SMD_Committee_Mars_Radiation_Intro_2015April7_Final_TAGGED.pdf For solar mass ejections there would have to be a water-covered shelter. Zero-g is another issue of course. I think the muscle loss is not that big of a problem, as ISS astronauts can stand on their feet after landing. https://www.quora.com/After-floating-around-in-the-ISS-for-many-days-how-does-it-feel-to-use-your-feet-and-walk-when-you-get-back-to-Earth Some other things caused by zero-g like decreasing eyesight may be a big problem for longer stays in zero-g, but for a 6-month transit it's not a show-stopper. Of course robots would go first, SpaceX's plan includes several red dragons and and at least one unmanned MCT landing before anyone sets foot on the planet. You have to send people at some point though, or not send them at all.

The first few missions will be very much about scouting I think. They'll stay for a couple of years, maybe build some infrastructure for a future colony and seek water ice and other resources, but it's not some kind of a suicide mission like you are suggesting. Radiation won't be an issue during that two-year mission. There will likely be some increased risk of cancer decades afterwards, but nothing to be immediately concerned about. Actual colonists who are determined to stay would then go underground. I don't think it would have to be much different than urban lifestyle on Earth. Buildings close to each other, some open spaces with trees and stuff. Occasionally you could go outside for a rover trip or something.

To be fair, he was being very civil at first and just stated that the mod wasn't for him. No need to get upset about that, or is there something I missed?

Thaicom was already late May I think. No indication that it would be the first re-launch of a stage, they already have a stage for that mission anyways.

Okay, in that case it'd work, if all that's needed for an impact is a small nudge, but such a scenario would be somewhat rare. You said " Assuming that all nearby asteroids have comparable velocities" in the op, by which I thought you meant similar orbits.

While this could work, wouldn't it be more efficient to just redirect the asteroid that's in collision course with Earth? You're going to use quite a bit of energy regardless. There could of course be some situation where some other asteroid is in a easier orbit to reach, and is nearly in a collision course with the other asteroid, so only a small nudge is needed, but I'd expect that to be rare. EDIT: In your scenario you mention a bunch of asteroids having roughly the same orbit, and one of them is going to collide with Earth. Then a smaller one would be redirected towards the bigger one. But the amount of energy that you need to add to the smaller asteroid is the exact same you'd need to add to the bigger asteroid in order to avoid a collision with Earth, if I'm thinking this right.

Reaching orbital velocity, even from the upper atmosphere, would be really difficult as the delta-v requirement is at least the same as when launching from Earth. It's hard to see the usefulness of a manned Venus mission, because the astronauts couldn't do anything other than sit inside their capsule. I really doubt Russians had any real plans for that. The concept that NASA released a while back just seems to have caused this idea that it's a better than Mars.

Well yeah, mostly the ships don't have to worry about orbits and delta-v because the have the "epstein drive" which is essentially a really efficient engine that can burn 1g or higher for months. They burn halfway to the destination, flip around and burn away the other half. It's technologically basically magic, but in terms of inertia and acceleration it checks out. The distance thing is a bit weird. I suppose the nearby ship is just assumed to have a fairly close velocity vector, and with the epstein drive catching up shouldn't take long. What I do like that stuff like artificial gravity isn't magic in this series, it has to come from linear acceleration or centrifugal forces. Being focused in our solar system is also refreshing, no FTL needed.

It's far more accurate than most sci-fi out there, in terms of physics. The hair thing is something that I'm willing to let pass, most characters have fairly short hair anyways. What do you mean the ships stop when they shut down engines? I don't recall such moment.

Very impressive, this could really lead into something big if they manage to start an affordable space tourism business. Also, they do have plans for scaling up the technology for an orbital rocket, but it would obviously be a whole new vehicle. Having the hovering ability certainly helps, which is something that F9 lacks.

While ESA does have some kind of a partnership with SNC, it doesn't seem like much is going on there yet. CRS-2 is Dream Chaser's best shot at actually getting to fly anytime soon. Maybe NASA will take the risk and choose SNC, since it's just for cargo missions this time. But most likely it'll be SpaceX and Orbital, both of which have proven designs.

Building up affordable space infrastructure should be the goal. SLS doesn't really help with that. I'm not sure why you hold such a negative view of space exploration. It's incredibly exciting and has helped to spawn tons of new technologies. And ultimately, space is the only place where we can truly expand. But I suppose this went off-topic, sorry about that.

It's supposed to travel 4 kilometers and is bigger than Opportunity, so it's not quite that flimsy. No idea what its hill climbing capability is though.

Isn't Falcon Heavy 50 tons to LEO in expendable mode? I know there's been a lot of debate whether that's the actual figure, but with the F9 Full-Thrust upgrade the numbers have probably changed again.

Solar Electric Propulsion. NASA is looking into using ion engine tugs as part of their mission architecture.

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to plan 20+ years ahead at this point. By that time SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin should be flying fairly cheap, semi-reusable launch vehicles. It'll become really difficult to justify a plan where you need an expendable monster rocket for every single launch.

I don't mind the name, and I'm definitely excited to see this flying. It's not quite as flashy as Dragon but hopefully it'll be a part of the future's LEO infrastructure.

So are the cargo ramp and space shuttle engine going to be in 1.1? http://imgur.com/a/NkzMp They're not mentioned in the article for some reason.

I think if we had the technology to colonize space we could definitely also knock any harmful asteroids to less dangerous trajectories. All it takes is a little change in velocity and it misses Earth. Assuming it's a 10+km asteroid we'd detect it decades in advance. There are of course other threats we can't stop in near-ish future, like gamma ray bursts and supervolcanoes. The backup humanity is a valid argument for space colonization, but I think more importantly it's about expanding the scope of humanity.

At least as much as we currently have, to keep things rolling. It just gives me hope that there's a future for humanity out there. If we stop human spaceflight then the future suddenly looks very boring. Manned exploration isn't so much about pure science in my opinion, and that's fine. That's what probes are for.

Let's not make this into a manned vs unmanned thread. There will be a time for a manned mission, but it'll be at least a decade after 2020. I'm really interested in the sample return aspect, though it's pretty weird that they use the 2020 rover to store samples for a later mission. Wouldn't it be simpler to do sample collection and MAV in a single mission? I suppose that would limit the amount of science instruments though. I suppose the balloon would have to be very big, considering the thin atmosphere. It's a much bigger factor than the low gravity. It could be done, but the payload would have to be lightweight. Besides, most of the interesting science is on the ground, or under it, because that's where signs of water and potentially life are. For atmospheric science they might as well go with an orbiter, like MAVEN.

Once there's enough infrastructure in space to mine and process materials in large scale, I don't see any particular show-stopper why an Earth-independent colony couldn't work. The same building blocks we have here do exist in space. They just happen to be in more convenient form on Earth.

Even without the hydrogen thing, I think it'd be a good idea to build a Lunar base using private partnerships. Something like the Commercial Crew program, but for the Moon. Building a big telescope on the far side of Moon for exoplanet research for example, might be worth doing.

I feel that saving time and money in itself is a great incentive to have infrastructure in orbit. I often do waypoint contracts using hardware that's already in space. Your two first suggestions (not covering the launch cost/time) seem redundant in that sense. I would rather just do the normal contract for more money. But I do agree that there should be space station expansion contracts for adding new modules, station tourist contracts, and also satellite contracts which don't require a new launch. It's something the game is definitely missing.