I read that Orion would carry up to 6 astronauts, I wonder how NASA intends to achieve this?

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Nibb31']The only science that we can get from sending humans into space is to learn more about sending humans into space. Anything else can be done much more efficiently by robotic missions.

Given the cost of sending humans into space, what we need is an actual reason to send humans into space that justifies learning more about sending humans into space. There simply isn't a good enough reason at this point, which is why human spaceflight is stagnating.[/QUOTE]

How are humans anything but more payload? Yes, you do need larger rockets and yes there is more risk involved but at the end you need a large rocket which no one currently has. The contractors already launch satellites and do delivery runs to ISS, they're better at it. Why not let them do that while looking at the big picture?

I refuse to believe everything is about economic reasons, had that been the case we would not have had many science missions.

[Kryten]

[quote name='More Boosters']"[COLOR=#333333]Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals." itself is flat out wrong and I think it's time that you start clarifying your point and making your case. Just opposting makes for one sided discussion.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
It's not 'flat-out wrong', it's accepted fact and the basis of how space programs are structured in most countries. NASA has a human spaceflight directorate that has nothing to do with the planetary sciences or astrophysics directorates, china has a manned space agency that has no connection with the academy of sciences, russian has the manned portion of roscosmos that doesn't fit into their scientific decision making process, et.c. Take a look at the planetary sciences decadal survey or the astrophysics or earth sciences equivalents, and see just how highly they rank wanting a moon base over various uncrewed missions. If you want to argue otherwise, show some proof that actual space science bodies think having humans around is a good idea.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Kryten']It's not 'flat-out wrong', it's accepted fact and the basis of how space programs are structured in most countries. NASA has a human spaceflight directorate that has nothing to do with the planetary sciences or astrophysics directorates, china has a manned space agency that has no connection with the academy of sciences, russian has the manned portion of roscosmos that doesn't fit into their scientific decision making process, et.c. Take a look at the planetary sciences decadal survey or the astrophysics or earth sciences equivalents, and see just how highly they rank wanting a moon base over various uncrewed missions. If you want to argue otherwise, show some proof that actual space science bodies think having humans around is a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Nothing to do is flat-out wrong, not preferable over a wider range other scientific missions isn't. You said the former and defended the latter.

[Kryten]

[quote name='More Boosters']Nothing to do is flat-out wrong, not preferable over a wider range other scientific missions isn't. You said the former and defended the latter.[/QUOTE]
[i]They aren't scientific missions[/i], that's why they're in different organisations. ARM isn't happening because the planetary directorate wants a boulder, they're happening because HEOMD is desperately looking for a mission for SLS and Orion. Russia is trying to do lunar landing to have some symbol of them recovering their glory days after the collapse, not because IKI wants moon rocks.

[razark]

I five billion years, our sun goes out. If we don't go somewhere besides Earth, the species dies. Why not start learning how to do that now?


Sometimes, it's not about the science, and there's some things a probe simply cannot do:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/h0TTjIw.jpg[/img]

[Nibb31]

[quote name='razark']I five billion years, our sun goes out. If we don't go somewhere besides Earth, the species dies. Why not start learning how to do that now?
[/QUOTE]

You're only showing that you have no sense of scale. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans only appeared a few thousand years ago. Do you really expect humanity to still exist in a million years in any recognizable form, let alone 5 billion? At those time scales, 50, 500, or 5000 years don't make any difference.

[razark]

[quote name='Nibb31']You're only showing that you have no sense of scale. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans only appeared a few thousand years ago. Do you really expect humanity to still exist in a million years in any recognizable form, let alone 5 billion? At those time scales, 50, 500, or 5000 years don't make any difference.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't change the fact that if we don't get out of this solar system, our descendants, who/whatever they may be, won't survive.

[prophet_01]

What's the difference between now and 100 years at that time scale?
And now think what humans where capable of 100 years ago. My point is that we currently lack the capabilities to anything more with human space flight than a very expensive sightseeing trip. On the other hand we also were flying bi-planes in 1915. We probably won't progress as rapidly in the field if aerospace as we did back then, but I'm pretty sure that space flight will be a lot cheaper in a couple of decades and definitely in 100 years. And there rly are more important tasks at hand that are worth throwing money at.

Even if we were able to set up a space colony by cutting funds on basically everything else, what's the point? Especially if it's likely not nearly as much of a challenge in, say 50 years. Human space flight is cool, interesting and the stuff that inspires people, but it has a price tag that we can't ignore.

[razark]

[quote name='prophet_01']What's the difference between now and 100 years at that time scale?
And now think what humans where capable of 100 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Uh... if 100 years doesn't make a difference, why should we consider the difference 100 years has made?

But I get your point. 100 years on that scale is meaningless. So we're as well off to start now, rather than wait 100 years.