The troubled Orion capsule

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I am going to be optimistic,

On May 20, 2016 at 8:26 AM, PB666 said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36343542

Well who wants to bet it will not meet the deadline?

 

 

 

 

I'll bet that it will meet the deadline! 5 Kerbucks!

[PB666]

On July 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, James Kerman said:

A new study critical of the Orion: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/07/orion-spacecraft-over-budget-analysis/

I don't think the comparison is valid, here is my logic. 

After hubble's success, following its initial failure. In fact Hubble was to successful, the problem was that there was only one Hubble. Hubble particularly with its upgrades justified more extensive use of an already overused resource, and a resource that itself, at its very core was and will always be flawed. But if we can correct for the flaw in Hubble, why can't we correct for flaws created in ground based telescopes. But how would you know you corrected them unless you have a control. Hubble. So these ground based improvements relieved the need for more Hubble-like instruments, but placed all kinds of new, more heightened demands on the Next generations of telescope. 

We can see all kinds of things in the five billion year range, but the very first smallish blue stars are very difficult to see. To see these you need a bigger mirror, the mirror has to have a special coating because you are now reflecting in the far infrared region, and the temperatures of the light are low so donyou also need cold instruments. The problem is that such cooled observatories have longevity problems, what they need is recycling. Ergo you have a delayed JWST. The fact that we can delay is a herald of the successful and long-lived Hubble, but now there is no back up Hubble or shuttle, so its got to be done or US space astranomy will suffer. 

[ZooNamedGames]

I'll simply say this from the words of Carl Sagan, "all civilizations become spacefaring or extinct". If we don't go now we will put it off until tomorrow, then tomorrow, then tomorrow. It will always be a day away. We will always prioritize it on the bottom as something else will always happen (some grand human injustice, war or financial deficit). If we don't do it now, we will procrastinate it to our expiration date.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'll simply say this from the words of Carl Sagan, "all civilizations become spacefaring or extinct".

I wonder what data that claim was based on.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

I wonder what data that claim was based on.

 

The sun expanding.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The sun expanding.

The lifetime of a species is on a totally different scale to the lifetime of a star. You're talking about billions of years when our civilization has only been around a few thousands of years. 

I don't get what the relevance to Orion is at this scale.

[ZooNamedGames]

18 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The lifetime of a species is on a totally different scale to the lifetime of a star. You're talking about billions of years when our civilization has only been around a few thousands of years. 

I don't get what the relevance to Orion is at this scale.

Granted the statement was not solely locked to the sun expanding; his point was any eventual demise. Nuclear halocaust, asteroid annihilation, global warming, etc etc.

The point is if we don't leave now we never will until it's too late. 

[Tex_NL]

12 hours ago, PB666 said:

... But if we can correct for the flaw in Hubble, why can't we correct for flaws created in ground based telescopes. ...

Ground based telescopes will always have an incorrectable flaw; the atmosphere. You can reduce the effect by placing your telescope on a mountain, you can compensate for it with active optics or reduce the relevance by going ludicrously large. But it will ALWAYS be there. You simply can not remove the atmospheric effect unless you remove it completely by going to orbit.

[Nibb31]

 

Quote

The point is if we don't leave now we never will until it's too late. 

Still irrelevant to SLS/Orion.

[Tex_NL]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Granted the statement was not solely locked to the sun expanding; his point was any eventual demise. Nuclear halocaust, asteroid annihilation, global warming, etc etc.

The point is if we don't leave now we never will until it's too late. 

 

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

 

Still irrelevant to SLS/Orion.

Indeed. Launching now or in a decade won't change a single thing when it comes to long term human survival.

Or do you have any indication humanity will be wiped out in the next decade?

Edited July 31, 2016 by Tex_NL

[adsii1970]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I wonder what data that claim was based on.

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The sun expanding.

Carl Sagan was a visionary and it is needless to state his academic credentials. However, if you go back and watch his television show, Cosmos, the expanding of the sun as it entered its death spiral was only ONE of the scenarios for the extinction of mankind that Sagan presented.

There were also these possible human-ending events:

• Meteor or asteroid impact
• Threat of nuclear war
• Global pandemic
• Collapse of global ecosystem (either natural causes or man-caused)

He never calculated alien invasion or the like for various reasons that would not add to the thread's topic. But the basic premise of his above arguments and the quote he stated, "All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct" was based on the idea that throughout the known universe, there are basically two types of intelligent life - that which is space-fairing and that which is confined to a single planet. For any civilization (this is in the global-species sense, not in our concept of a nation-state or empire) that is confined to a single planet, all it takes is one of the above mentioned extinction level events and presto - your entire species is gone. No more humankind, to use Earth as an example.

Now if mankind is space-faring and has settlement outposts on the Moon, Mars, and even the ESA's concept of colonizing the asteroid belt would expand the potential for mankind's continued existence should the Earth be impacted by one of the above named events. Carl Sagan was one of the pioneers in believing in the fragility of our planet and the need for mankind to explore the cosmos and develop the industries needed to start colonies within our solar system. 

Now, getting back to the Orion program - it will happen, but it will be grossly over-budget and past its projected completion date. As I have mentioned on previous threads, the nations of the Western world, which has been the leader of the astronomical sciences since the Renaissance, are more interested in pseudoscience and societal engineering than discovery, spaceflight, and colonization. And this is most unfortunate.

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by adsii1970

[BagelRabbit]

5 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Ground based telescopes will always have an incorrectable flaw; the atmosphere. You can reduce the effect by placing your telescope on a mountain, you can compensate for it with active optics or reduce the relevance by going ludicrously large. But it will ALWAYS be there. You simply can not remove the atmospheric effect unless you remove it completely by going to orbit.

Space-based telescopes have several flaws: their smaller size; their difficulty to fix; their inability to have various astronomical instruments added or subtracted as they become available, broken, or outdated; and their greater cost relative to Earth-based observatories. In visible wavelengths, adaptive optics have progressed well enough that many large observatories have better clarity than the HST. The Keck, pretty much all of the observatories at Cerro Paranal, and many other large telescopes are currently seeing better, and doing far more research, than Hubble.

The analogy PB666 made breaks down when you consider that adaptive optics were envisioned before the Hubble was launched, surpassed the Hubble within a few years, and are now used widely for scientific research. The Hubble has been relegated to taking pretty pictures and working with frequencies not easily visible on Earth. The JWST will do the same.

Telescopes that take in light our atmosphere blocks (UV, X-ray, gamma-ray, IR, microwave) definitely have their place in space. Telescopes that take in visible or radio wavelengths, however, are far better suited to Earth. This is why another large visible-light space telescope will almost certainly never happen.

As for SLS/Orion: I really, honestly don't care how long it takes. As long as it isn't cancelled, I'll be pleased. Depending on what happens in politics/allocation of resources within NASA though, I'm not sure that's going to happen. (I won't go into politics except to say that it occasionally prevents some decent ideas from happening.)

-Upsilon

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Carl Sagan was a visionary and it is needless to state his academic credentials. However, if you go back and watch his television show, Cosmos, the expanding of the sun as it entered its death spiral was only ONE of the scenarios for the extinction of mankind that Sagan presented.

There were also these possible human-ending events:

• Meteor or asteroid impact
• Threat of nuclear war
• Global pandemic
• Collapse of global ecosystem (either natural causes or man-caused)

He never calculated alien invasion or the like for various reasons that would not add to the thread's topic. But the basic premise of his above arguments and the quote he stated, "All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct" was based on the idea that throughout the known universe, there are basically two types of intelligent life - that which is space-fairing and that which is confined to a single planet.

That's my point. We have only one example of intelligent live. We have zero examples of intelligent life that is spread over multiple planets. So Sagan's claim is meaningless conjecture.

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

For any civilization (this is in the global-species sense, not in our concept of a nation-state or empire) that is confined to a single planet, all it takes is one of the above mentioned extinction level events and presto - your entire species is gone. No more humankind, to use Earth as an example.

The potential of any single event to exterminate 100% of humanity is disputable. We are 8 billion. If only 0.1% survive, it will be a bottleneck event, but we have been through worse. And at any rate, nothing lives forever. The fate of every single species is to evolve into something else or to be replaced by something else, including us. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe.

 

[PB666]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That's my point. We have only one example of intelligent live. We have zero examples of intelligent life that is spread over multiple planets. So Sagan's claim is meaningless conjecture.

The potential of any single event to exterminate 100% of humanity is disputable. We are 8 billion. If only 0.1% survive, it will be a bottleneck event, but we have been through worse. And at any rate, nothing lives forever. The fate of every single species is to evolve into something else or to be replaced by something else, including us. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe.

 

Humanity will not survive in the long run, we will either become genetically manipulated cyborgs (probably) and/or evolve into another type of homo, eventually the homo genera will cease and its daughter genera will dominate. The lifetime of the genera is proably around 35,000,000 however judging by the pace of evolution since the end of the paleolithic its likely much shorter. 

The hope is that a space worthy sentient survives in all this, but for that to happen the average environmental impact of each individual will need to fall, productivity and efficiency will need to increase, and some micro-gravity tolerant evolution will need to occur. 

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That's my point. We have only one example of intelligent live. We have zero examples of intelligent life that is spread over multiple planets. So Sagan's claim is meaningless conjecture.

The potential of any single event to exterminate 100% of humanity is disputable. We are 8 billion. If only 0.1% survive, it will be a bottleneck event, but we have been through worse. And at any rate, nothing lives forever. The fate of every single species is to evolve into something else or to be replaced by something else, including us. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe.

If 0.1% survive, they will be closer to neolithic tech than medieval tech, and incapable of lifting themselves up to the industrial era since there is no longer easily accessible metals or coal near the surface.  This is pretty much our one and only shot: we colonize someplace off planet or we collapse into an eternal sub-Amish lifestyle (which might not be so bad, but don't expect the modern medicine the Amish have access to.  So "not so bad" life ending around age 40.

I also strongly suspect that quote is from before 1989 (he died in 1996) when nuclear weapon jockeys could reasonably assume that any order to "push the button" was the real deal.  There really were plenty of people chosen specifically for their willingness to follow orders ready and able to destroy most of human life at a single command.  It was a crazy time.

[tater]

It was  crazy time that in fact prevented another global catastrophe (a conventional WW3 could have many more than WW2 the old-fashioned way). Like any particular point in human history, generally speaking, the Cold War was the safest time to be alive as a human up until that point.

[adsii1970]

4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That's my point. We have only one example of intelligent live. We have zero examples of intelligent life that is spread over multiple planets. So Sagan's claim is meaningless conjecture.

The potential of any single event to exterminate 100% of humanity is disputable. We are 8 billion. If only 0.1% survive, it will be a bottleneck event, but we have been through worse. And at any rate, nothing lives forever. The fate of every single species is to evolve into something else or to be replaced by something else, including us. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe.

How so? You're assuming that other life out there would be more advanced than us or that we would have already heard from them. What if we are the most advanced life form in the universe? What if there are more advanced life out there that no longer uses radio carrier waves for communication? There are simply too many variables to simply say that Carl Sagan's claim is simply meaningless conjecture.

I am sure the American Indians - the Mexicali, the Mayans, and the Toltec felt they were "it" in terms of civilization. But then there was the afternoon when they discovered that there was more life out there than just what was on the American continents. But remember, before the arrival of the Spaniards, there was NO proof that there was other intelligent life out there beyond the ocean. 

For the first time in human history and for the past 150 years, we have become a species that can, for the most part, overcome certain obstacles, including genetic ones, through technology. Immunizations, organ transplant, artificial insemination, mechanical implants, and artificial limbs, although still in their technological intimacy, are now beginning to become used across the planet by nearly every first-world nation. In some cases, the mass production of such advancements have begun to impact the undeveloped world, too. And the technology goes beyond the medical, but we also see desalination technology, communications technology, and hydroponics developing rapidly. Again, technology has allowed mankind to overcome most geological obstacles.

The one thing that Sagan didn't see was what I refer to as species differentiation. For the first couple of generations, human life on Mars would resemble Terran-bound humans. But what happens after 100 years (four generations)? What biological adaptations would occur to the humans living on Mars? Now that is an avenue that will have to be explored more thoroughly.

[Nibb31]

10 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

How so? You're assuming that other life out there would be more advanced than us or that we would have already heard from them. What if we are the most advanced life form in the universe? What if there are more advanced life out there that no longer uses radio carrier waves for communication? There are simply too many variables to simply say that Carl Sagan's claim is simply meaningless conjecture.

I'm not assuming anything. You don't base science on "what if"s. If you make a claim such as the one in Sagan's quote, you need evidence. We have zero evidence, at this point, of any other advanced life form in the universe. Therefore, although extraterrestrial life is probable, we have no idea of what it's like or if it has ever needed to expand beyond its natural environment to survive. "What if" they found that interplanetary colonization or interstellar travel simply wasn't practical or necessary? "What if" they found other ways to sustain their civilization without relying on constant expansion ?

With no evidence, it is conjecture, just like your own "what if"s. And again, none of this has any bearing on Orion being delayed or over budget.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Nibb31

[DDE]

I particularly like @adsii1970's statements imply that the Orion is the last and only hope for the totality of human manned space exploration.

Edited August 1, 2016 by DDE

[Frozen_Heart]

Really not getting the point of Orion at all. It is way too expensive and overpowered to be a crew ferry to the ISS, while being utterly inadequate for Mars journeys. The only use I can see is an Apollo style Moon mission which isn't planned.

So why are we building it?

[StrandedonEarth]

It's main design purpose is to be able to re-enter the atmosphere return crew from beyond LEO, as part of a grand achitecture for exploring the asteroids and beyond. Once Bigelow proves out their expandable hab modules, and the ACES stage is operational, then there'll be a system capable of exploring out beyond the Moon, maybe even as far as Minmus!

Just like how the Shuttle was supposed to be part of a larger system, building and supplying stations and such. Oh wait, I remember how that worked....

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

I particularly like @adsii1970's statements imply that the Orion is the last and only hope for the totality of human manned space exploration.

Nope. Personally, I think NASA is wasting its resources with the Orion project. I have often referred to it as Apollo-2, which is essentially what it is. In my previous posts,what I was defending is the notion proposed by Carl Sagan  that if humanity will survive, space exploration is crucial to any future. @ZooNamedGames brought up that particular Carl Sagan quote and I was merely defending Sagan's opinion of space exploration and colonization. No where did I apply that Orion is our last hope - because it is NOT. I also do not subscribe to the theory that doing something, even a crappy project, is better than doing nothing. At least doing nothing does not create unneeded expenses...

If mankind is serious about manned Martian exploration and eventual colonization, the entire thought process cannot remain the vision that NASA currently has. The costs are too high. A combined approach - construct a larger craft in Earth orbit using multiple launches would make more sense from a logistical mindset.

1 hour ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Really not getting the point of Orion at all. It is way too expensive and overpowered to be a crew ferry to the ISS, while being utterly inadequate for Mars journeys. The only use I can see is an Apollo style Moon mission which isn't planned.

So why are we building it?

This is exactly why Orion does not make any sense in the long run.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

Nope. Personally, I think NASA is wasting its resources with the Orion project. I have often referred to it as Apollo-2, which is essentially what it is. In my previous posts,what I was defending is the notion proposed by Carl Sagan  that if humanity will survive, space exploration is crucial to any future. @ZooNamedGames brought up that particular Carl Sagan quote and I was merely defending Sagan's opinion of space exploration and colonization. No where did I apply that Orion is our last hope - because it is NOT. I also do not subscribe to the theory that doing something, even a crappy project, is better than doing nothing. At least doing nothing does not create unneeded expenses...

If mankind is serious about manned Martian exploration and eventual colonization, the entire thought process cannot remain the vision that NASA currently has. The costs are too high. A combined approach - construct a larger craft in Earth orbit using multiple launches would make more sense from a logistical mindset.

NASA is planning to build a station in multiple parts; or at least it would be something like Skylab that would ferry the men to Mars and back; but on earth approach from return; they then hop back into Orion and re-enter the atmosphere.

The main point being it would take 2-3 launches to get one mission ready.

Similiar to the concept of EOR.

[DDE]

@Frozen_Heart FYI, the new lunar lander the Orion could have been combined with has been axed. So, it's Apollo 8 Mark 2, at best.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Nope. Personally, I think NASA is wasting its resources with the Orion project. I have often referred to it as Apollo-2, which is essentially what it is.

Apollo was a Moon landing project, for which the Apollo CSM/LM spacecraft were built.

Orion is a multi-role spacecraft looking for a project. It would make sense if we actually did have an Apollo 2 program, which would actually be an affordable and feasible goal. I'll take achievable Moon projects before pie-in-the-sky Mars expeditions any day.

Incidentally, cislunar space is pretty much the only place Orion, in its current form, can actually go. I wouldn't be surprised if the next administration actually comes to its senses and realizes that the purpose of the SLS/Orion infrastructure that it has built is to return to the Moon. We still have plenty of work to do there.

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

In my previous posts,what I was defending is the notion proposed by Carl Sagan  that if humanity will survive, space exploration is crucial to any future.

Which is pure conjecture. We simply don't know.

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

I also do not subscribe to the theory that doing something, even a crappy project, is better than doing nothing. At least doing nothing does not create unneeded expenses...

I disagree. I would rather see us finally achieve something, even limited in scope than to do nothing while we wait for the technology to be ready for a Mars expedition in 30 years.

Doing nothing does nothing to advance technology. You need to actually be doing stuff to develop and mature technological solutions. If you do nothing, then the aerospace workforces move on to other areas and you lose your expertise. 

At worse, Orion is a technology demonstrator that advances the state of the art and develops new solutions.

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

If mankind is serious about manned Martian exploration and eventual colonization, the entire thought process cannot remain the vision that NASA currently has.

But that's the thing. Mankind is not seriously concerned about space exploration, and even less about colonization. Those causes don't even get a mention in the platforms of any Western politicians. There is no political incentive, no driving force, and therefore no budget.