Orion program delayed 2 years

[Tristonwilson12]

I think that HAVOC will happen before Mars, simply because of the educational opportunity. People will realize that Venus is not just hell on steroids, and be in awe of familiar features like clouds and orange sunrises.

Plus, much less hardware is needed and there's only ED instead of EDL. Everything that needs to be used on HAVOC already exists in some form:

1. Blimps. These have been used to carry people, so they're definitely safe.

2. Air launch to orbit. Used by the Pegasus rocket, a reliable and cheap launch system.

3. Teflon coating and firefighting gear. Needed to protect blimps and humans that are on EVA, both are widespread and used every day on Earth.

To be honest, I don't think we will be going to mars or any other planetary object besides our moon in our life time.

[AngelLestat]

To be honest, I don't think we will be going to mars or any other planetary object besides our moon in our life time.

I think if we are lucky enoght to survive the change, we will be able to see how an AI reach the GOD status (this mean know everything that can be know).

[Zucal]

I think if we are lucky enoght to survive the change, we will be able to see how an AI reach the GOD status (this mean know everything that can be know).

That.. that's not going to happen. The "Singularity" is not a thing. Moore's Law is running out of time, and if someone says "exponential growth" I'm going to kick a wall.

[Mitchz95]

To be honest, I don't think we will be going to mars or any other planetary object besides our moon in our life time.

I would be extremely surprised if nobody -- not NASA, not SpaceX, not some bored billionaire -- sent people to Mars by the 2030s. We have the technology to do it, it's just expensive and somewhat impractical to do so at the moment.

[PB666]

To be honest, I don't think we will be going to mars or any other planetary object besides our moon in our life time.

Going there is not the problem, build a device that can keep a human alive in space for 200 days, not a problem, entering mars atmosphere with a live human, doable. Getting through the lower atmoshere with overkillstruts and chutes, plausible, landing, not easy but a single human in tube capable of keeping alive for say 12 hours, no problem the 500 or so lb device can land using existing technology. Having them live beyond that or get back, thats the problem. Technically speaking we could accomidate a survival place for someone. 10, 20 years, the gravity and other problems.

since the resources are limited, what would rather have humans on mars, or brand new fresh samples from mars brought back to earth. I'de rather see the second.

[Bill Phil]

That.. that's not going to happen. The "Singularity" is not a thing. Moore's Law is running out of time, and if someone says "exponential growth" I'm going to kick a wall.

You are correct. However, computers can be made smaller, just not cheaper. And with parallel computing it could be possible to do quite a bit of mind simulations.

But the AI singularity probably isn't a thing.

[G'th]

snip

Fact of the matter is, the less you fund something the longer its going to take. You are completely out of touch with reality if you think that NASA could have pushed Orion out any faster when its budget almost always shrinks. You also have to consider that even if you include the money spent during Constellation, it still isn't NASA's fault. It wasn't their decision to cancel the program, and it was only because it was hugely underfunded (and because Altair and Ares-1 were poor design decisions) that it had to be canceled.

Again, you completely ignore the reality of the situation. Either that, or you just completely fail to comprehend it.

Under both Constellation and SLS, NASA has not wasted a cent. Its doing what its told to do with whats its given to do it. You are disproportionately putting the blame on NASA where its not deserved.

The government doesn't know what it wants. Fact of the matter is outside of job creation very few in Congress care about NASA or our space program in general. Going to Mars has been proposed countless times and every time no one bothered to go for it because they didn't want to spend the money it would have taken to do it. Thats why Nixon decided on the Shuttle program, because it was supposed to be cheaper than a mission to Mars. Thats why Freedom turned into the ISS. Its why the Shuttle program was ended and why Constellation never got more than a single test flight. Its why SLS has no payloads.

We went the Moon using a budget that was absurdly higher than what it is now, inflation or not. It cost us close to 118 billion dollars (in 2015 dollars) to complete Gemini and Apollo. It doesn't matter that it happened 50 years ago, that doesn't make repeating it any less expensive. (and definitely not to the arbitrary degree you're insisting it should) And you really can't bring up Dragon either, because SpaceX was able to put the full budget they got towards development. NASA can't do that.

[fredinno]

Then the requirements are wrong, make things cost effective is the most important factor to measure how much it can do and the time in will be around.

Your classic statement always is: "the cost is fine.. that is the way to do the things done", defending NASA position and politics. But maybe is like you said, my english is bad and I dint understand you..

You seems more concern about how much money the people make with these projects instead the main point, space exploration.

You are a syndicalist now? XD

Is not about the workers, you can use the same money to make 3 times more of what NASA does if you have good politics. But maybe somebody is always choosing old tech to keep it safe at the same time they keep all the money that instead will be needed for new tech developments, I really doubt it that if somebody analize all the budget with all the employes, for sure it will be still a lot of money missing.

You get much more effect in the economy if you do the things right.. If you really do something that works efficient and can be used. As I said hundred of times, inspiring people doing big things is what attract more investment to the country. Of course this happens because is not about the general benefic, is about the benefic of those few that makes the rules.

I read about Orion life support system, still super simple, and its navigarion and communication system... is just that.

Not sure where those billions are..

Is cheaper, you can use the atmosphere to aerobrake, shorted mission time and travel, which decrease considerable the radiation to 1/4 and the food needed. Only 2 astronauts.

You dont need to land. The same NASA said it is easier, but that it will take a big change in politics to do venus before mars.

So? Any interplanetary mission will probably involve at least 4, as 2 is pretty small and generally not considered very realistic. Airship launch has never been done and tested (though this has been done from planes, these rockets are far smaller, and do not have to deal with hurricane winds. You can use Mars atmosphere to Aerobrake too.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that HAVOC will happen before Mars, simply because of the educational opportunity. People will realize that Venus is not just hell on steroids, and be in awe of familiar features like clouds and orange sunrises.

Plus, much less hardware is needed and there's only ED instead of EDL. Everything that needs to be used on HAVOC already exists in some form:

1. Blimps. These have been used to carry people, so they're definitely safe.

2. Air launch to orbit. Used by the Pegasus rocket, a reliable and cheap launch system.

3. Teflon coating and firefighting gear. Needed to protect blimps and humans that are on EVA, both are widespread and used every day on Earth.

Venus would be more difficult than Mars due to the crazy conditions there. Even in the upper atmosphere, a balloon needs to survive Category 5 Hurricane Winds, while also producing enough power from the hazy, sun-blocking sky, along with being big and light enough to carry a HAB and Venus Ascent Vehicle, which will have to be far larger than Pegasus. Yes, the science would be extraordinary, due to knowing relatively little about Venus, and it's past, but it really isn't going to happen before Mars.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, I don't think we will be going to mars or any other planetary object besides our moon in our life time.

I think we may go to an asteroid (Mars Moon or otherwise) within the next 50 years. That's outside the Earth-Moon system.

- - - Updated - - -

Fact of the matter is' date=' the less you fund something the longer its going to take. You are completely out of touch with reality if you think that NASA could have pushed Orion out any faster when its budget almost always shrinks. You also have to consider that even if you include the money spent during Constellation, it still isn't NASA's fault. It wasn't their decision to cancel the program, and it was only because it was hugely underfunded (and because Altair and Ares-1 were poor design decisions) that it had to be canceled.

Again, you completely ignore the reality of the situation. Either that, or you just completely fail to comprehend it.

Under both Constellation and SLS, NASA has not wasted a cent. Its doing what its told to do with whats its given to do it. You are disproportionately putting the blame on NASA where its not deserved.

The government doesn't know what it wants. Fact of the matter is outside of job creation very few in Congress care about NASA or our space program in general. Going to Mars has been proposed countless times and every time no one bothered to go for it because they didn't want to spend the money it would have taken to do it. Thats why Nixon decided on the Shuttle program, because it was supposed to be cheaper than a mission to Mars. Thats why Freedom turned into the ISS. Its why the Shuttle program was ended and why Constellation never got more than a single test flight. Its why SLS has no payloads.

We went the Moon using a budget that was absurdly higher than what it is now, inflation or not. It cost us close to 118 billion dollars (in 2015 dollars) to complete Gemini and Apollo. It doesn't matter that it happened 50 years ago, that doesn't make repeating it any less expensive. (and definitely not to the arbitrary degree you're insisting it should) And you really can't bring up Dragon either, because SpaceX was able to put the full budget they got towards development. NASA can't do that.[/quote']

Shuttle ended because there was little point to continuing it, aside from servicing the ISS. If they decided to make the Shuttle more reusable by recovering a new set of liquid boosters, either by rocket power, or parafoil, onto land, Shuttle might have a future, at least until ISS dies. Then, a more reusable system should be made, like the Shuttle was intended to be, but that's something entirely different for another day.

That, and SLS/Orion would be what would happen in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world.

[AngelLestat]

Venus and the Singularity were discussed already in their respective topics. Nothing is for sure, but I did a lot of research in those topics, I dont really like to make claims when I am not pretty sure about something. However this does not seems to be the case.

Fact of the matter is' date=' the less you fund something the longer its going to take. You are completely out of touch with reality if you think that NASA could have pushed Orion out any faster when its budget almost always shrinks.[/quote']

If their change all the NASA burocracy, take some risk and try to designs cost/efficient things, then yeah.. everything changes.

Not sure how I am out of reality with my critic to the budget...

You know the Sky City, the new chinese building in development that would reach 860 mts with double cover surface.

But the capsule which does not have nothing new, it will cost 11 times more than the biggest building in the world that will be made.

You also have to consider that even if you include the money spent during Constellation, it still isn't NASA's fault. It wasn't their decision to cancel the program, and it was only because it was hugely underfunded (and because Altair and Ares-1 were poor design decisions) that it had to be canceled.

It was their design mistake from the begining.

Going to Mars has been proposed countless times and every time no one bothered to go for it because they didn't want to spend the money it would have taken to do it.

No even one single serious study from nasa about how to go to mars.

We went the Moon using a budget that was absurdly higher than what it is now, inflation or not. It cost us close to 118 billion dollars (in 2015 dollars) to complete Gemini and Apollo. It doesn't matter that it happened 50 years ago, that doesn't make repeating it any less expensive. (and definitely not to the arbitrary degree you're insisting it should) And you really can't bring up Dragon either, because SpaceX was able to put the full budget they got towards development. NASA can't do that.

Yeah they can. About that 50 years does not matter... I am not sure even how to anwer that.

[fredinno]

Venus and the Singularity were discussed already in their respective topics. Nothing is for sure, but I did a lot of research in those topics, I dont really like to make claims when I am not pretty sure about something. However this does not seems to be the case.

If their change all the NASA burocracy, take some risk and try to designs cost/efficient things, then yeah.. everything changes.

Not sure how I am out of reality with my critic to the budget...

You know the Sky City, the new chinese building in development that would reach 860 mts with double cover surface.

But the capsule which does not have nothing new, it will cost 11 times more than the biggest building in the world that will be made.

It was their design mistake from the begining.

No even one single serious study from nasa about how to go to mars.

Yeah they can. About that 50 years does not matter... I am not sure even how to anwer that.

There has been plenty of serious studies of going to Mars. That's not the problem.

[AngelLestat]

There has been plenty of serious studies of going to Mars. That's not the problem.

no, there are not.. NASA doesn´t want to use ISRU, that increase a lot the cost, they want to sent at least 6 astronauts. They dont know how to land heavy payloads without waste a lot of fuel in supersonic retro propulsion (which is also a risk). THe inflatable heat shield is not enoght.

Radiation and safe life support habitat + space suits + psicology + muscle deterioration. All those issues can be easily solve if just NASA accept to use new technology instead those crap of 1980. They need to use the brain too to decide what is the most cost efficient strategy and admit some risk.. We will be still all in Africa if old explorers would be so carefull in each stone they step.

But NASA is the antithesis of these requirements, until this not change, we would need to look in other place if we want to find inpiration and hope.

[Nibb31]

no, there are not.. NASA doesn´t want to use ISRU, that increase a lot the cost, they want to sent at least 6 astronauts.

ISRU is not practical for an early manned expedition. You're going to have to make sure that it's reliable, which means many years of operation and several iterations of hardware. What happens when your crew lands after a 6 month journey and finds out that the ISRU machine is stuck or that the fuel is polluted and not usable?

They dont know how to land heavy payloads without waste a lot of fuel in supersonic retro propulsion (which is also a risk). THe inflatable heat shield is not enoght.

Radiation and safe life support habitat + space suits + psicology + muscle deterioration. All those issues can be easily solve if just NASA accept to use new technology instead those crap of 1980.

As usual, you are displaying your ignorance of reality and the huge advances in space bilogy that have happened thanks to research on the ISS. We are way beyond 1980's technology.

We have a lot more experience with Mars reentry techniques and a much better understanding of Mars' atmosphere than deploying balloons on Venus.

They need to use the brain too to decide what is the most cost efficient strategy and admit some risk.. We will be still all in Africa if old explorers would be so carefull in each stone they step.

And it would be great if you stopped those claims that the people at NASA are idiots. Get yourself a degree in aerospace engineering or astrophysics, and then you might be qualified to judge.

[Frozen_Heart]

And it would be great if you stopped those claims that the people at NASA are idiots. Get yourself a degree in aerospace engineering or astrophysics, and then you might be qualified to judge.

Its nothing to do with whether the ppl at NASA are idiots. I have all faith that they're some of the best engineers around. The problem is the fact that the vehicles are designed just to make jobs, and so the most expensive and most time consuming design will get chosen. And then most likely be cancelled in the late design phase or after a flight or two.

[AngelLestat]

ISRU is not practical for an early manned expedition. You're going to have to make sure that it's reliable, which means many years of operation and several iterations of hardware. What happens when your crew lands after a 6 month journey and finds out that the ISRU machine is stuck or that the fuel is polluted and not usable?

Wow... "several iterations of hardware" that sounds too complicated.. XD

ISRU is not only a lot more cost efficient, is also more safe. In the zubrin idea they launch the first vehicle without crew that is able to make its own fuel, then you launch an equal vehicle but with crew.

Of course you check from earth first if the vehicle in mars has full fuel or not and its composition, with redundancy in the sensors (too easy).

Then when you arrive, any issue you find, your vehicle is also capable to produce fuel, and in case 1 of the two ships gets damage or you need to abort launch, you still have the other.

Tools to extract water or other resources does not require much extra mass, and they can save you in case any contingency.

As usual, you are displaying your ignorance of reality and the huge advances in space bilogy that have happened thanks to research on the ISS. We are way beyond 1980's technology.

We have a lot more experience with Mars reentry techniques and a much better understanding of Mars' atmosphere than deploying balloons on Venus.

If I am the ignorant why I get tired to correct you all the time? Then you make your disapear act or just denied the true. Besides, all those words and not evidence to support your case.

No mission that has been targeting the atmosphere of Venus failed. We can not said the same with mars and its 50% / 50% chance to land. And its know that landing 100 Tons is not the same than 1 T in mars, is a question of volume and density, parachutes does not help in those cases, you need something more.

Also I am not saying we dont have advances... I am saying that NASA does not want to use them.

And it would be great if you stopped those claims that the people at NASA are idiots. Get yourself a degree in aerospace engineering or astrophysics, and then you might be qualified to judge.

Why I should get one? You dint have one of those? How has it helped you? :S

The only thing you do is to criticize all new tech and ideas, and defending all the things just as they are.

I have a theory that you are incapable to judge an idea or tech by its own merit, so you take the position that if something is not used in the normal life... then there is a higher chance that it will be a good reason behind it, or apply the inverse logic with all the things already in use.

Really, try to point me wrong in this.. Show me one time where you have defended something new without a lot of support or evidence behind it.

[Nibb31]

Wow... "several iterations of hardware" that sounds too complicated.. XD

ISRU is not only a lot more cost efficient, is also more safe. In the zubrin idea they launch the first vehicle without crew that is able to make its own fuel, then you launch an equal vehicle but with crew.

Of course you check from earth first if the vehicle in mars has full fuel or not and its composition, with redundancy in the sensors (too easy).

Then when you arrive, any issue you find, your vehicle is also capable to produce fuel, and in case 1 of the two ships gets damage or you need to abort launch, you still have the other.

You can't check everything. If the lives of your astronauts rely on a working ISRU system, you need to be 100% sure that it's going to work flawlessly. The only way to prove that a system works is to test it in the exact same situation. The principles of ISRU fuel production might be simple, but the engineering implementation isn't. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. What happens if the tank laminates under the thermal constraints and debris block an internal valve? What if the fuel transfer doesn't work, or the quality of the fuel isn't good enough to provide enough dV? What if something unexpected breaks due to the temperature, dust or atmospheric conditions?

If you launch your second vehicle with the same ISRU system as the first, then it will have the same flaws. This is why spacecraft don't usually launch with two of every system. Backup systems typically use completely different methods or a combination of other components that have a different primary purpose.

Mars ISRU is TRL 2. To make it a vital system for a Mars expedition requires reaching TRL 9. There is no other way to achieve that other than through many iterations of experimenting, prototyping, and unmanned testing.

Tools to extract water or other resources does not require much extra mass, and they can save you in case any contingency.

How do you know that? Have you seen any proven implementations of water extraction systems for Mars?

If I am the ignorant why I get tired to correct you all the time? Then you make your disapear act or just denied the true. Besides, all those words and not evidence to support your case.

I'm not here for your entertainment. I have a life outside of the KSP forums, and honestly, I get bored from correcting your misunderstandings or your flawed vision of the world. When confronted with ignorance, sometimes it's better to just ignore it and move on. Past conversations have proved that there is no point trying to move you from your stubbornness and arrogance.

Also I am not saying we dont have advances... I am saying that NASA does not want to use them.

HSF is always more conservative. For the reasons I've explained above, you don't test new technology on manned spacecraft. You only use TRL 9 technology for vital manned systems. NASA uses unmanned missions to test and develop the less mature technology so that it can be used later. This takes time and multiple iterations.

The only thing you do is to criticize all new tech and ideas, and defending all the things just as they are.

One day you might get through your head that there is a difference between defending and explaining. Defending either position makes no sense at our level. What you or I think about NASA's policies will never have the slightest effect. You can argue with me as much as you want, it won't change reality.

The only thing we can do is to sit back and try to understand how things work and why things are the way they are. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

I have a theory that you are incapable to judge an idea or tech by its own merit, so you take the position that if something is not used in the normal life... then there is a higher chance that it will be a good reason behind it, or apply the inverse logic with all the things already in use.

I don't know if I should be flattered or worried by the fact that you take this to such a personal level.

And yes, if smart people don't implement a groundbreaking idea, there are two possibilities. You typically think it's because they are stupid and that you know better. I think it's because they probably have good reasons for not doing so.

Really, try to point me wrong in this.. Show me one time where you have defended something new without a lot of support or evidence behind it.

I'm not here to justify myself for your entertainment. I think I've pretty much explained my position enough. Take it or leave it.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Nibb31

[Requia]

no, there are not.. NASA doesn´t want to use ISRU, that increase a lot the cost, they want to sent at least 6 astronauts. They dont know how to land heavy payloads without waste a lot of fuel in supersonic retro propulsion (which is also a risk). THe inflatable heat shield is not enoght.

Radiation and safe life support habitat + space suits + psicology + muscle deterioration. All those issues can be easily solve if just NASA accept to use new technology instead those crap of 1980. They need to use the brain too to decide what is the most cost efficient strategy and admit some risk.. We will be still all in Africa if old explorers would be so carefull in each stone they step.

But NASA is the antithesis of these requirements, until this not change, we would need to look in other place if we want to find inpiration and hope.

Then why exactly did they go through all the trouble to test sabatier reactor on the ISS? That sounds like a pretty serious ISRU push, given the minimal benefit over CO2 scrubbing+electrolysis this close to Earth.

[AngelLestat]

You can't check everything. If the lives of your astronauts rely on a working ISRU system, you need to be 100% sure that it's going to work flawlessly.

The only thing you will need to be sure, is that sensors that measure the amount and composition in the fuel be working properly. Those kind of sensors are very lightweight and you can have redundancy.

The only way to prove that a system works is to test it in the exact same situation. The principles of ISRU fuel production might be simple, but the engineering implementation isn't. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. What happens if the tank laminates under the thermal constraints and debris block an internal valve? What if the fuel transfer doesn't work, or the quality of the fuel isn't good enough to provide enough dV? What if something unexpected breaks due to the temperature, dust or atmospheric conditions?

I guess just with the sensors I answer your main concern. If something goes wrong and you can not take off, you still have the second ship, the one which you arrive, you just make the fuel transfer.

And if you still said that "something" may happen with the engine.. Ok.. but is not related to the fuel, so nothing change with you carrying your own fuel from earth.

If you launch your second vehicle with the same ISRU system as the first, then it will have the same flaws. This is why spacecraft don't usually launch with two of every system. Backup systems typically use completely different methods or a combination of other components that have a different primary purpose.

What flaws? You can measure the fuel harvested and its quality in mars before the crew leaves the earth. Use your head.. not think "ah if nasa does not do it, it may be for a good reason behind it", is what I am telling you, that reason does not exist. Your golden organization not always take the best decisions the same as goverment not always choose the best politics.

Mars ISRU is TRL 2. To make it a vital system for a Mars expedition requires reaching TRL 9. There is no other way to achieve that other than through many iterations of experimenting, prototyping, and unmanned testing.

You mean there is not way to achieve that in time with all the NASA burocracy and silly methods who needs hundred of certifications as if they were making a capsule for profit with turists?

What is weird about those basic chemical reactions that are used in earth or in the ISS all the time that will need decades of development to include them on the mars vehicle? If does not work, then you have a command module with its tank in mars without fuel in it. Dont sent the crew and problem solve.

If you land on mars with your tank almost empty (just enoght to land), then the density of your vehicle decrease a lot, so you need less retro burn to land --> less fuel --> less risk in the re-entry.

Also they dont need to be included in the Orion. so there is not delay there.

How do you know that? Have you seen any proven implementations of water extraction systems for Mars?

You dont need to make something that for sure will save them, because it will not be needed if the mission goes well, is something you carry in case you are out of possibilities. Is an extra!

Something that for sure NASA will not include, so if their resources are lost by some reasons, they dont even have an alternative.

About the design, it may be a long stick of titanium with holes and a resistence in the bottom that will go 1 or 2 meters into the ground, it will heat the bottom of the stick melting any trace of ice, at that depth you will have pressure (maybe close to 1 bar) So the vapor or liquid water can be harvested by end of the stick (which working pressure will be lower than the bottom allowing to suck without pump), then you filter the remain and tadaaa!!! water..

If does not work.. well, they will be screw it in anyway. (comparing against a normal NASA plan)

One day you might get through your head that there is a difference between defending and explaining. Defending either position makes no sense at our level. What you or I think about NASA's policies will never have the slightest effect. You can argue with me as much as you want, it won't change reality.

The only thing we can do is to sit back and try to understand how things work and why things are the way they are. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Not, but we can convince 2 or 3, those would convince others, people start to comment and point NASA fails, then those comment are readed by a journalist that decide to look into the criticism searching for evidence to see if are well funded.

Then some politics and Nasa people may read those reviews, which may be an extra push to change the way they do things.

In the case this does not happen, then we have learned something anyway from this discussion. I always do.

And yes, if smart people don't implement a groundbreaking idea, there are two possibilities. You typically think it's because they are stupid and that you know better. I think it's because they probably have good reasons for not doing so.

Ok, that was all I wanna hear... Then I am not sure why you bother to comment? If we already know what it will be your opinion, as a simple program that always chooses the position that comes from the most popular source. You do not question, or think by your own. That is why even if you get flooded by counter evidence, you keep your posture.

And would be fine by me if it were not for the fact you walk through the forum systematically criticizing each original idea or new technology we discussed.

Sometimes you made good info contributions and analysis which I give you rep for it. But if that is the rule of your logic and you can not change in opinion unless your high ground source change its opinion, then not sure what is the value to discuss with you.

Then why exactly did they go through all the trouble to test sabatier reactor on the ISS? That sounds like a pretty serious ISRU push, given the minimal benefit over CO2 scrubbing+electrolysis this close to Earth.

Ok I dint knew that, Everytime that I read about the ISS life support system, they always mentioned that the hydrogen was vented.

But I look into this, and I find that it was an external company who come out with the savatier design to be installed in the ISS, NASA did not encourage this or pay for it, they just said.. well if it works, we will paid for the water saved. And they are doing just that, a lot of millons just because they dint wanted to try it first.

But I hear (and I guess everybody in this forum hear) that NASA does not want to use (or avoid always they can) ISRU in any manned mission.

[sojourner]

AngelLestat, I recommend you research more. Most of your posts tend to be full of less than accurate information and poor logic coming from a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.

A big red flag here is you being taken in by the "Singularity" nonsense. You might as well believe in the Rapture.

[Bill Phil]

AngelLestat, I recommend you research more. Most of your posts tend to be full of less than accurate information and poor logic coming from a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.

A big red flag here is you being taken in by the "Singularity" nonsense. You might as well believe in the Rapture.

Wait: the underwater city of the 40s?

Don't delays just result in increased costs?

[AngelLestat]

AngelLestat, I recommend you research more. Most of your posts tend to be full of less than accurate information and poor logic coming from a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.

A big red flag here is you being taken in by the "Singularity" nonsense. You might as well believe in the Rapture.

If I provide wrong info, then point me where and explain why.

About the singularity, read all this topic with its links +spoiler sections:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/132357-Everything-wrong-with-our-predictions-(The-Singularity-is-coming)

Then take a look to the critics that I receive and my answers. Then you can point any critic you want.. as I said, the only thing about the singularity that is in doubt, is the exact date we would accomplish a HardAI. At that point the tech "can" increase super exponential, of course it will be not our call, it will depend on the AI, but after that point, is impossible to make any prediction and the world as we know it will change, and that is a fact.

So if there is a possibility that we are close to our final step, then lets leave the "live as we know it" with a hell of accomplish visiting another world.

[PakledHostage]

AngelLestat, I recommend you research more. Most of your posts tend to be full of less than accurate information and poor logic coming from a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.

A big red flag here is you being taken in by the "Singularity" nonsense. You might as well believe in the Rapture.

Ha ha! Ha ha! Ha... Heh? Oh, what, you weren't joking? That is the most ridiculous post I've seen on here in a long time... I could have sworn you were joking.

Here's a hint: If you are going to make an ad hominem attack on someone for their lack of research, maybe do a little research yourself first? "The singularity" may not be imminent, but that certainly doesn't put it in the same category as fairy tales. And if you've done "research" that supports your position that it is in the category, please share some of your references with us so that we don't have to just take you at your word.

[sojourner]

Sorry, but you've been drinking the Kool-Aid and have no idea what the experts in the field think of strong AI. Kurzwiel is not an expert. He's in it to sell books. Get a clue, if the people in a field tell you something can't be done, most likely they are not the "stupid" ones. There is no evidence that can prove that exponential advancement will continue and mounting evidence that it won't. There is a point of diminishing returns with all technology.

The rocket engine is a perfect example. For the first 20 to 30 year thrust and ISP was improved greatly. These days a new engine that has 2-5 more ISP than existing engines is considered a break through.

Remember when Mhz was the big measure of CPU speed back in the 90's? That quietly went away as the clock speed of CPU's plateaued and suddenly it was multi-core CPU's that were the big thing. As that peters out the industry will find another method to measure improvement by. But don't confuse that for exponential growth.

NASA is not "stupid". NASA is a victim of having to garner good will with congress to get funds. The way they achieve that is to spread projects to as many Congressional districts as necessary to win votes. This drives up the cost of their projects immensely, but it's the price of doing business. No votes, no Buck Rogers.

Calling anyone "stupid" who doesn't do things the way you think they should be done is doing you no favors. Read more. Comment less.

Or as the saying goes, better to be silent and possibly thought of the fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

[PakledHostage]

Sorry, but you've been drinking the Kool-Aid and have no idea what the experts in the field think of strong AI. Kurzwiel is not an expert.

Please show me where I ever said he was. I actually think he's a nut. And how could you possibly know what I know about the opinions of experts in the field and who I regard as an expert?

[Nibb31]

The only thing you will need to be sure, is that sensors that measure the amount and composition in the fuel be working properly. Those kind of sensors are very lightweight and you can have redundancy.

You don't know what kind of sensors are required to analyse a chemical product automatically, and neither do I, because that development work has not been done.

What flaws? You can measure the fuel harvested and its quality in mars before the crew leaves the earth.

You can't be sure that there are no flaws in a system before you have certified it, which means going through the whole harvesting/transformation/storage/transfer/utilization cycle several times with unmanned in-situ testing. Hence iterations. With Mars windows opening every two years, and assuming that testing results could be translated into design changes instantly, it would take at least 2 years between each iteration from TRL 6 to 9. And that ignores the actual R&D that needs to happen in between each iteraration.

Sending up the same equipment twice doesn't protect you against a design fault. For example, the backup plan for the star tracker on Apollo was to use a sextant. The backup plan in case the docking ring failed was to use EVA. The only possible backup plan for an architecture that relies on ISRU is to bring your own fuel with you.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

You don't know what kind of sensors are required to analyse a chemical product automatically, and neither do I, because that development work has not been done.

You can't be sure that there are no flaws in a system before you have certified it, which means going through the whole harvesting/transformation/storage/transfer/utilization cycle several times with unmanned in-situ testing. Hence iterations. With Mars windows opening every two years, and assuming that testing results could be translated into design changes instantly, it would take at least 2 years between each iteration from TRL 6 to 9. And that ignores the actual R&D that needs to happen in between each iteraration.

Sending up the same equipment twice doesn't protect you against a design fault. For example, the backup plan for the star tracker on Apollo was to use a sextant. The backup plan in case the docking ring failed was to use EVA. The only possible backup plan for an architecture that relies on ISRU is to bring your own fuel with you.

Use your head.. not think "ah if nasa does not do it, it may be for a good reason behind it", is what I am telling you, that reason does not exist. Your golden organization not always take the best decisions the same as goverment not always choose the best politics.