Nibb31

First of all, Skylon is just a paper spacecraft at this point. Its engine, airframe, TPS, and pretty much every other technology are unproven. In theory, with some very optimistic margins, it should be capable of SSTO with a payload, but that's only theory. In practice, aerospace projects always end up costing more, weighing more and being more complicated. If the SABRE engines slightly underperform, or if the airframe ends up slightly heavier than planned, then there goes your payload and the viability of the project. Nobody can tell what its actual capabilities are, or even if it will be viable, because nobody has any experience in operating SABRE engines, in constructing an airframe like Skylon's, in commercially operating a reusable SSTO spaceplane, or even if the TPS is capable of withstanding the reentry constraints. We don't know how reliable it can be, what the service intervals or operation constraints will be, how much payload it can carry, how much it will cost to buy and fly, or if it can be economically viable. Skylon is practically 100% new unproven technology, yet they claim it will cost much less than an average airliner to design and build, which is wildly unrealistic. So let's not get carried away with what it can or cannot do. Second, ever since Vostok and Mercury, pretty much all spacecraft have always been automatic. Astronauts and Cosmonauts are just a payload like any other. Soyuz can launch, dock, reenter, and land without a human on board, just like a Progress. So will Orion. The only spacecraft that were not designed to fly unmanned were the Space Shuttle, Gemini, and Apollo because of the egos of the US astronaut corps who wanted to be seen as pilots and not test monkeys. Even then, launch and reentry were controlled by a computer, because a human would only get in the way. And the Shuttle only really needed a pilot on board to deploy the landing gear.

"Just because" is rarely a good reason to do anything. The drawbacks and benefits would be pretty unpredictable, so it might be a recipe for disaster.

I guess Steven Hawking doesn't get seat then.

The point is, we dont have enough money to send a manned Mars mission, and we probably won't for any foreseeable future. But we can afford to send robotic probes every couple of years.

Skylon is still vaporware and powerpoint slides. My personal favorite is the LM. It's ugly, yet the purely functional design makes it tremendously elegant. It's also taken astronauts to boldly go where no one has gone before... or since. My second favorite is Gemini, because... gullwing doors!

There are always 2 guns on the ISS. They are part of the standard survival kit of Soyuz. They used to be specially designed "space guns", but they now use standard issue hand guns.

Yes, but at what cost ? And what is the actual scientific value of collecting data in days instead of years? For climate or sismic studies, it is actually more valuable to have years worth of data than a couple of weeks or months. For geological studies, there isn't much urgency that requires data to be collected faster than robots can. It's not like the rocks are going any where and the actual science work will still be done on Earth, where teams of hundreds of scientists can analyze the data. Humans are limited by range, stay duration, and require tons of equipment just to keep them alive. A manned expedition is limited to the immediate surroundings of the lander/base, whereas you can cover the whole planet with a swarm of robots for a fraction of the cost. Yes, but they are getting better. The next generation of exploration robots might well be as agile as the ones from Boston Dynamics. AI is only going to get smarter.

Contraception isn't genocide. And no, we don't know what propulsion technology we will have in 100 years, but it is quite possible that we will still be using chemical rockets to get to orbit. We have been using them successfully for 60 years and after all, we are still using combustion engines from over 100 years ago for most of our transportation.

The whole point of war treatys is to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you. The principle is the same as for the Geneva convention. You treat enemy POWs decently because you expect your enemy to treat your own POWs decently. If the US puts up space-based weapons, then nothing stops Russia or China from doing the same. I don't think the Pentagon is quite fond of the idea of allowing those countries to have the capability of an unstoppable first strike on US soil. The fact that the non-militarization of space treaty has been respected for so long proves the point.

Moving off-planet to compensate for overpopulation is a stupid idea. Have you any idea how much energy would be involved in sending billions of people to Mars? You're talking about millions of tons of human flesh that you need to accelerate from zero to 27000 km/h. If the problem is overpopulation, it's just a tad bit easier to simply distribute contraceptives and condoms.

But we were talking about the X-37B, not random space-based weapons. Putting weapons in space is illegal by the way.

Sending a manned mission just so that people can look out of a window is pretty pointless.

We were talking about the X-37B. Tungsten projectiles are cheap, you'd just put a bunch of them in orbit and leave them there. There's no point in putting them on a reusable spaceplane.

It's from Bobcat's SEV rover from his Constellation pack.

A space bomber is a stupid idea, and the USAF knows it. - Launching on a Titan V is far from "rapid response". You'd be better off with an ICBM. - Any amateur astronomer can calculate its orbit at any given time. A satellite is not exactly stealthy. - Selecting your target from orbit requires huge amounts of delta-v. - A spaceplane reenters slowly, hot, and in a predictable straight line. It would be easy to shoot down.

When was the last time the whole world agreed on something?

There is no obvious use for something like X-37B. If they wanted to service friendly sats or inspect enemy sats, it would be much cheaper to use a low-profile expendable vehicle and they wouldn't need to keep it in orbit for 18 months. Plus, everybody can see where it is, and enemys would know immediately that their being spied on. It's too small to be a weapons platform, and a space bomber simply doesn't make sense. The fact that it reenters and is reusable suggests that there is something super-valuable on board. They could be using it for microgravity experiments on some super-secret new materials or small-scale orbital manufacturing of something extremely valuable. But this doesn't explain why it does all sorts of complicated orbital manoeuvers. It could be carrying some super-secret sensors (not for optical reconnaissance, it's way too small to carry a big telescope), that are so expensive that they can't afford to put them on an expendable satellite. But that sounds really far-fetched when the NOAA has the best observation satellites, and there are cheaper and more flexible ways of gathering data.

No because a hotel for 6 people (4 guests plus 2 crew members) isn't going to be worth billions. Most billionnaires will get bored after a few days floating in zero-g and looking out of the Cupola with no broadband or TV. Also, when the ISS is retired, it will be because it reaches its end of life and it will start costing more to maintain than building a new one. Selling it off to a private investor doesn't all of a sudden reset the mileage counter. It will still be an old leaking space station that will cost more to maintain than building a new one. No they can't. Its not just a bits of Lego bolted together. Everything is interconnected, with power lines, fluid lines, coolant loops, networking, ventilation. It took 10 years of continuous EVAs to build and integrate everything. You can't just disconnect a module and use it on another station.

So we have: - Eugenics - A strong military regime to protect the tiny minority who are genetically acceptable. - A majority of the population who are doomed and who will be shot on site if they argue. How is this preferable to just going extinct? Would this our only contribution to civilization that deserves being saved? If we have to become fascists to allow a minority to live a miserable life floating in a tin can in space, I'd rather just see us wiped out.

Actually, you can't. The solar arrays are rated for 20 years and there are no plans to replace them as they start generating less power. There are only 2 spares of the rotating joints on the station, and no way to send up new ones. One has already failed. The central elements Unity and Zarya or truss elements can't be replaced and they are the oldest parts of the station. If they start leaking, the station is toast.

The only modules that are scheduled to be added are the Russian OPSEK modules, which are destined to be the heart of the new station when the ISS ends.

If all that survives of our species is a fascist eugenist dictatorship floating in space forever, then I say let it go.

Diversity and imperfection are what make us human. I'd rather see Humanity go extinct than watch it turn into genetically-selected fascist dystopia.

"Skylab II" is a moniker for one of the variants of the Deep Space Habitat project. ISS extension is a separate budget, so it should affect the SLS program. Crazyewok's comment was because OPSEK uses the Russian ISS modules, so it can only start when the ISS reaches its end of life. The ISS has only just been completed and the science results are only starting to roll in. Its main purpose is teaching us how to build stuff, work, and live in space. Those are fundamental steps that might look broad and boring to you, but they are absolutely crucial if we ever want to go any further.

Space hardware typically has a limited shelf life. It's not like KSP where you can put something in space and it stays there forever. Mir, for example, went way beyond what was safe. After a while, key components are going to fail, with no proper way to replace them. Seals go brittle, lubricants wear out, fluids boil off and get contaminated, mechanical parts break or fatigue, cracks appear, solar panels lose efficiency, batteries go flat... Zarya has been in space for 16 years already, which is the age of Mir when it was deorbited. It will be 26 years old in 2024, which is pretty old for a functioning spacecraft.