Nibb31

The author clearly has an agenda of demonstrating that Kubrick was hiding messages in 2001 to alert the public about false flag operations run by NASA... In conspiracy circles, it is often claimed that Kubrik was hired by NASA to directed the Moon landing movies as a false flag operation. The explanation is not arty, it's just stupid.

More like nonsensical ramblings from a conspiracy theorist.

They can't reasonably have an operational manned launcher before the ISS comes to an end. And cooperation with China seems unrealistic. Countries like India or Iran or North Korea might be able to earn prestige points by doing a Mercury-like program, but Japan is beyond that.

Realistically? You would have to explain to the american taxpayers why 1/3 of their taxes are going into space exploration, when most of them think that NASA's main purpose is to keep the American public away from the alien artifacts that they brought back from the faked Moon landings. It would probably end in a civil war with the National Guard patrolling the streets. Or you'd be kicked out by a coup d'Etat instigated by the military-industrial complex.

JAXA is a government agency, and the Japanese government has little extra money to spare on space exploration since the 2011 tsunami. Also, a manned vehicle only makes sense if it has somewhere to go. There is little to learn by replaying Gemini, so it has be part of a wider program, such as lunar exploration or a space station, which makes it even more expensive.

It's just another of those "new space" businesses. You've got to understand that the main business model of these companies is to design powerpoint rockets to attract venture capital and subsidies. That pays a salary to a CEO and sometimes a small team of engineers who come up with trade studies and CGI to attract more VC... until it wears out. Sometimes they buy outdated hardware or a couple of patents in order to look serious, but companies like this have come and gone for decades. Despite the plethora of "new space" launch companies that are coming up with small sat LEO launchers, there is still zero demand. I'm also dubious about that little tiny spaceplane carrying enough dV to reach the Karman line, let alone LEO. The original Spiral spaceplane that used a similar configuration needed to carry a frigging huge drop tank, but I guess the powerpoints wouldn't look as sexy.

There were plans for a 1.5 stage Saturn V variant, using a modified "S-IB" that would jettison 4 of its F-1 engines to reach orbit with 20-ton payload. http://lostinthisspace.blogspot.fr/2013/01/s-1d-first-stage.html

No launch in 10 years, I'd say it's probably dead. It also depends on demand, and there simply isn't much demand for these small launchers, even though a new one seems to pop up every month or two.

It does now, but it didn't use to.

Probably because it costs more to demolish old infrastructure that to cut down some trees. Building a launch facility involves a complicated logistics line with several buildings that rockets have to go through in a certain order and with a certain distance between them. Those facilities are dedicated to a particular rocket, so it's usually easier to start with a clean sheet than to try to adapt old buildings. Most launch sites abandon old launch pads and build the new stuff a few miles away, including Cape Canaveral, Kourou, and Baikonur. The cases where pads are repurposed is more the exception than the rule.

Soyuz has a launch abort system: The LAS pulls away the Orbital Module and the Descent Module inside the fairing, leaving the Service Module on the stack. The fairing has grid fins that open to stabilise the flight. Then it separates the DM, which lands normally. Note that Gemini never had a LES. They had ejection seats, which would have been of dubious use, especially in case of a pad abort or a hypersonic abort. I think the same method was used for Vostok. Voskhod however was pretty much a death trap, with no launch escape system at all.

A spaceship is something you'd see on SyFy. A spacecraft is something you'd see in the real world.

This topic assumes silliness.

Everything always translates into economics, especially when the cost is high. It's a common trend on these forums to only look at physics and technology, but the world we live in is unfortunately more complex. The laws of economics and politics are as real as the laws of physics, and often more implacable. You simply can't handwave them away.

It's also pretty rudimentary compared to an interstellar probe. It barely survives on a dwindling RTG and most of its instruments are dead.

Feeling good is a perfectly acceptable motivation to spend money. However, there's a subjective element to the price/reward curve. You can justify spending $10 for a movie or a CD because it makes you feel good. You can justify $1000 for a 2-week vacation that makes you feel good. Some people can even justify $200000 for a few minutes of Branson-induced weightlessness. However, getting an entire population to pay a portion of their taxes so that a bunch of space geeks can feel good is a whole different matter. You would, and I certainly would to, but we are a minority. I suspect that most people would prefer to either pay less taxes or see the government spend tax money on their own pet peeves, like subsidizing sports or film makers or any other topic that is at least as important than you feeling good (healthcare, education, research, defense, transport, jobs, etc...) The larger the cost, the more justification you have to provide. You can't spend government money without providing some sort of justification.

That's called entertainment. They are huge businesses that generate revenue because there is demand for entertainment. As an individual, you can also create art yourself for your own enjoyment on your own funds. However, you can't expect governments to spend a significant share of the country's GDP on colonizing space for your entertainment. The difference is that the film industry is an industry. It spends money because it makes more money. Colonization of Mars is just a money sink with no or little potential ROI. Saying it should happen is meaningless until you provide a rational reason why it should happen. And wishes are just wishes. I wish beer was free but it isn't. Life sucks.

I don't think we are technically capable of building any complex system that can last 100 years, let alone a nuclear reactor. Arriving at Alpha-Centauri would get you some nice data on the binary star. I don't think we have detected any planets there (I wonder how stable a planetary orbit could be around a binary star), but even if there are planets, the chances of arriving close enough to take pictures would be practically nil. There is no way you could reprogram the probe since any new commands would only be received long after it has left the system, so it would need some really sophisticated AI to pick a target and divert its course autonomously. All in all, it would be a huge effort, but I'm not sure that the impact be that big.

Please, not the backup of humanity fallacy again. Backing up humanity by colonizing space is like backing up your computer by saving a couple of files to an old floppy disk and then storing it on top of a loud speaker.

It would probably be close to the early orbital rockets like the Juno I or the french Diamant.

Figure out a rational reason to colonize another planet. Pick the best target that fits that reason. ??? Profit! The problem is with step 1, not step 2.

These discussions don't end well. Also I disagree with today's XKCD. The "lost a Mars probe" line should be in the Fahrenheit list, not Celsius

A Delta IV costs over $200 million. A refurbed Peacekeeper is likely pocket change. I don't think they'll be spending more than the cost of a Delta IV on an adapter.

Thanks for the input. That makes sense, juste like Phoenix rose from the ashes of Mars Surveyor.

That's what the factory is scaled for, although I don't think it's realistic in the foreseeable future, although a Falcon Heavy uses 28 engines in one go. With 11 F9s and 1 FH per year, they would need ~140 per year, which is still closer to aircraft production volumes than what's usual in the space industry.