SLS or Constellation?

[Kryten]

What do those have to do with Moon trips becoming viable for the average person? That investors will give money if they see big handouts from nasa at the end want in doubt.

[B787_300]

It has to do with the cost of spaceflight coming down because of the free market. also the market has a dearth of heavy lifters, sls and Falcon Heavy should help to rectify that problem

[Nibb31]

and yet we have a couple of companies that have developed rockets without too much government funding (SpaceX and Orbital), now i know that they both received some money from the US gov, but they had their rocket pretty well in the final stages of design. Also dont forget about Falcon 1, completely in house design and funded.

Both Falcon 9 and Antares were both funded in majority by NASA. Both SpaceX and Orbital expect to recoup their additional private investments with the government COTS contracts because there is no other market for launches to LEO. Falcon 1 didn't make any money.

The only money to be made in space is from government contracts and the traditional comsat market.

It has to do with the cost of spaceflight coming down because of the free market. also the market has a dearth of heavy lifters, sls and Falcon Heavy should help to rectify that problem

The launch market is currently saturated. But competition doesn't magically make things cheap, because in this case the demand is constant. Rockets are, and always will be, expensive. They are labor intensive, high precision, high technology, high complexity products. You will always need a highly qualified workforce and expensive facilities to build, test and transport the rockets, to produce the fuel, to monitor the launches.

It costs around $100 million dollars to launch a satellite. Massive new markets are not going to emerge if you cut that price in two or three or even ten.

The probable outcome of the current situation is that the weakest competitors will fold and only the fittest will survive, but prices are likely to remain in the same order of magnitude.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[N_las]

Of cours the costs of spaceflight will go down in orders of magnitude. All the blabber about the rocket equation and the amounts of energy is not relevant. Lock up how much a rocket cost, then look up what the Fuel for that rocket cost. Its just a fraction.

[czokletmuss]

Folks need to stop applying pseudo-historical analogies to space. Space is the not the American Far West. Space is not a new continent. Spaceships aren't airplanes or sail ships. Colonizing the Moon or Mars is nothing like colonizing America or Australia. History doesn't repeat itself.

This. There is a strange tendency, especially in the USA, to compare the space exploration to the "Mayflower" or Colombus expedition. It MAY be accurate but only if the founding fathers were trying to settle on radioactive Antarctica. Still, in the long term I think that staying on a just one planet would be irrational, especially taking into consideration finite resources and a vast number of potential hazards which could end the happy adventures of a homo sapiens.

It has to do with the cost of spaceflight coming down because of the free market.

I support the free market wholeheartedly but supply or demand won't change the physics. It takes 9-10 km/s delta-V to the LEO only. No matter how good car you have, riding from Alaska to Argentina will always be expensive.

Edited April 22, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Nibb31]

Of cours the costs of spaceflight will go down in orders of magnitude. All the blabber about the rocket equation and the amounts of energy is not relevant. Lock up how much a rocket cost, then look up what the Fuel for that rocket cost. Its just a fraction.

And your point is?

If the rocket equation is just blabber, then there are a lot of people at NASA and in the space industry who are eager to hear about your ground-breaking new physics theories that will allow reducing the cost of getting to orbit.

[Rune]

Folks need to stop applying pseudo-historical analogies to space. Space is the not the American Far West. Space is not a new continent. Spaceships aren't airplanes or sail ships. Colonizing the Moon or Mars is nothing like colonizing America or Australia. History doesn't repeat itself.

For one example of "heavier than air flight", there are hundreds of examples of other technologies that ended up being dead ends because they simply weren't practical or they ended up being useless.

Air travel is a bad example, because there were destinations, places where people wanted to go. There was a massive demand for people to travel before there was an economical offer. In space, there is no habitable place for the masses to go, no destination. At a stretch, you might one day be able to build a Moon base or an orbital hotel for a few hundred people, but a few hundred travellers a year is not going to bring the prices down.

Space flight will never be cheap, because the amount of energy that is required to accelerate a given mass from zero to orbital velocity will always be the same. There is no evidence that energy will ever be cheap. The price might go down, but even if it is divided by 10, it will still be too expensive for the masses.

I was actually going to rep you for that comment on history (space is most definitely not the Far West, you are right on that), then I kept reading (and this response also sums up some other points made by other people on following posts, not only about what you said).

Rockets don't have to be expensive. What is expensive about a rocket? Fuel? The cost of metal? No, what makes them expensive is building them like works of art, in a clean room, with the tightest tolerances in any industry, and by highly skilled aeronautical engineers, and then throw them away after 5 minutes of use. Now study how the V-2 was built, and the launch cadence. You could even trace a reasonable parallel with the mass production of cars. And then you could even look a little bit further, and start thinking outside the box and see that a rocket is not the only way to get something to orbit.

The rocket equation may not be going to change, but a space elevator (and this is just an example) could in theory be a fully conservative system, even be used as an energy source. And energy IS cheap, at least right now.

Now, there might not be any destinations to go to right now. But neither were any destinations when the first Atlantic crossing was done. Neither was there any reason to leave Africa because of lack of resources. The fact that those things, those motivations, don't exist at the moment, doesn't mean they never will.

Rune. Besides living, I want to dream the future into existence too. Sue me.

[Rune]

Oh, I want to also point out, you folks make a fair amount of valid points about expendable present-day rockets and their inherent limitations. But while you are very right, vacuum tubes also had their own limitations, and we found a way around them to build impossible computers. If I tried, I could find thousands of other examples.

And while we are at it, I will also say that I find a moon base to be a big waste of time at the present moment, just like SLS would be (see my feeble attempt to try to get back on topic? ). But we all have our opinions, right? Mine is a bit more informed than some, and less than others. Don't discount any of them until you have analysed them with an open, critical mind.

Rune. Who knows? You might learn something or refine your position, I do that all the time, and don't feel ashamed when I do.

[Kryten]

...Now study how the V-2 was built...

In numbers far higher than there would ever be payloads available for an orbital rocket, with a manufacturing process that resulted in a 50% failure rate, with literal slave labour, and still for several million pounds a unit. Rockets are never going to be easy to manufacture, that's the main issue.

[B787_300]

3d printing can change that. There are Laser Metal Sintering machines that can construct parts out of any metal dust you care to use that are very precise and that can be used for rockets. If i remember correctly, and i will try to find the source again, a 3d printed metal part is being tested on the J2X power-plant. If the tests go well then whos to say that 3d printing will bring the costs of rocket building down. Right now the hardest part about building a rocket is the manufacturing of the parts that have to precise, a 3d printer can make the parts better than humans can and faster. If it is proven that the parts are as good as human manufactured parts, then the hardest, most expensive part of rocket building is taken care of. (and please don't reference the maker-bot, or Mendel or any other home-built 3d plastic printer)

[B787_300]

here is the source i was talking about.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/3d-printers-to-build-nasas-spare-parts-rocket-engines-15146569

[Nibb31]

I was actually going to rep you for that comment on history (space is most definitely not the Far West, you are right on that)

Now, there might not be any destinations to go to right now. But neither were any destinations when the first Atlantic crossing was done. Neither was there any reason to leave Africa because of lack of resources. The fact that those things, those motivations, don't exist at the moment, doesn't mean they never will.

And there you go ;-)

The point of my comment about comparisons, is that in Human history, people voluntarily migrate for only one reason: to improve their wealth, their comfort or their safety. It is part of human nature because we are a nomadic species. We will go where the food and shelter is.

In the past, colonization was only possible because it was funded by governments as a means to increase their wealth (and therefore power) through trade, or by individuals who were seeking to find a "better life", but those destinations always had in common the perceived promises of food and shelter once they got there.

Space provides neither wealth, nor comfort, nor safety. There is no food, no shelter, no living off the land and not even any breathing without life support. You are totally reliant on supplies from home and technology. I don't want to be around when the conditions on Earth make living in a -60°C radioactive desert with only CO2 to breath a "better life".

Oh, I want to also point out, you folks make a fair amount of valid points about expendable present-day rockets and their inherent limitations. But while you are very right, vacuum tubes also had their own limitations, and we found a way around them to build impossible computers. If I tried, I could find thousands of other examples.

And you are doing biased comparisons again. There even more examples of technological dead ends that went nowhere or were simply bad ideas: Dirigeables, daisywheel printers, insane medical treatments, nuclear cars, the Segway...

We tend to take note of our successes but forget all the failures that we have left on the side of the road. Space tourism might end up being as much a bad idea as the Ford Nucleon or time travel.

However, I don't doubt that we are going to improve the cost of getting to orbit. I think that reusable spacecraft are promising (I hope SpaceX delivers a reusable Falcon one day), but the amount of energy required to get to orbit will always be prohibitive and I don't think spaceflight will ever be a recreational activity for the masses.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[NASAFanboy]

There is money to be made in space. Anyone who does not realize that is a stupid, ignorant fool. Helium-3 is a gold mine of the future, as fusion power plants are being developed as we speak. I can see human colonies in space in the future, anyone who says we should just stick in LEO might as well shut up and go to the pyshc ward. Space traveling will vet cheaper, and we will colonize jn the next 100 years, you cannot stop it.

Currently, I have a feeling that some people in this thread are horribly underestimating the potiental of the human race. A race who refuses to accept the fact they need to spread out, might as well have everyone commit suicide. What you are implyingis that we are insignificant, and should just allow ourselves to wither and die. People like you are exactly the ones that will destroy our race. No point in living in a race agianst spacefaring.

You all going to give up on our manned spaceflight program? Do something, you fools!

[NASAFanboy]

Ok. Lets get back on topic. Let us all believe what we wish. Now, who likes the SLS? I know for one that I do.

[Nibb31]

There is money to be made in space. Anyone who does not realize that is a stupid, ignorant fool.

A fool and his money are easily parted. You should try Kickstarter to fund your asteroid mining company ;-)

Helium-3 is a gold mine of the future, as fusion power plants are being developed as we speak.

No it isn't and no they're not.

You know the annoying thing with you is that you make all these extraordinary claims based on what you want, but fail to even do any basic research.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_3#Extraterrestrial_abundance

I can see human colonies in space in the future, anyone who says we should just stick in LEO might as well shut up and go to the pyshc ward. Space traveling will vet cheaper, and we will colonize jn the next 100 years, you cannot stop it.

Again, you make all these claims and ad hominems on people, but you have nothing to back them up. Other than "I see" or "I have the feeling". Basic facts contradict you.

Currently, I have a feeling that some people in this thread are horribly underestimating the potiental of the human race. A race who refuses to accept the fact they need to spread out, might as well have everyone commit suicide. What you are implyingis that we are insignificant, and should just allow ourselves to wither and die.

And you are basing that on what evidence?

Actually, lessons from nature teach us the opposite. Some of the oldest living organisms on Earth survived basically because they were in isolated ecosystems. They might seem insignificant to you, but they have been around for much longer than us. They survived this long because they were perfectly adapted to their environment, and had no predators.

Maybe reaching out of our solar system will get us wiped out by another predator species. And you will be the one who got us all killed

People like you are exactly the ones that will destroy our race. No point in living in a race agianst spacefaring.

Erm... Yeah. Whatever.

You all going to give up on our manned spaceflight program? Do something, you fools!

lol again. How old are you?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[czokletmuss]

I enjoy this thread, please do not force the mods to close it

[NASAFanboy]

A fool and his money are easily parted. You should try Kickstarter to fund your asteroid mining company ;-)

No it isn't and no they're not.

You know the annoying thing with you is that you make all these extraordinary claims based on what you want, but fail to even do any basic research.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_3#Extraterrestrial_abundance

Again, you make all these claims and ad hominems on people, but you have nothing to back them up. Other than "I see" or "I have the feeling". Basic facts contradict you.

And you are basing that on what evidence?

Actually, lessons from nature teach us the opposite. Some of the oldest living organisms on Earth survived basically because they were in isolated ecosystems. They might seem insignificant to you, but they have been around for much longer than us. They survived this long because they were perfectly adapted to their environment, and had no predators.

Maybe reaching out of our solar system will get us wiped out by another predator species. And you will be the one who got us all killed

Erm... Yeah. Whatever.

lol again. How old are you?

My friend, I lol at your stupidty. Do you not understand how far we've come in spaceflight? DO you not understand many people agree with me that space colonies are something of the next fifty years? (Small-scale ones, like small outposts on moon and mars.) Helium-3 is a goldmine, waiting to be discovered, and fusion plants are being developed. Please, come out of under that rock you have been for the last thirty years or so.

If we meet an alien spieces on their own territory, they may be much more accepting and willing. If they meet us while we are still stuck in LEO, we will be like the Indians meeting Columbus. The chances of a parasitic setient speices are low, stop watching hollywood, for gods sake!

And, by the way, the link you showed me? I looked at it, and it supports my views. Find a better one.

I am willing to do ANYTHING for our manned spaceflight program, from committing suicide to starting a riot.

[Kryten]

Helium-3 has the same rough power output as standard deuterium-tritium fusion (incidentally, that's the mixture all current or concretely planned fusion reactors use), and is far, far harder to collect. The only advantage it would have is no neutron production, but that's only in theory. In practice, Helium 3-helium-3 fusion is almost impossible (activation energy too high), and deuterium-helium-3 fusion will inevitably produce deuterium-deuterium fusion as well, making the whole exercise pointless.

[NASAFanboy]

Helium-3 has the same rough power output as standard deuterium-tritium fusion (incidentally, that's the mixture all current or concretely planned fusion reactors use), and is far, far harder to collect. The only advantage it would have is no neutron production, but that's only in theory. In practice, Helium 3-helium-3 fusion is almost impossible (activation energy too high), and deuterium-helium-3 fusion will inevitably produce deuterium-deuterium fusion as well, making the whole exercise pointless.

Despite that, the moon could serve as a gold mine. Literally. While we pretty much exhaust our resources of precoius metals on earth, the moon might have a motherload.

[Kryten]

Gold is effectively useless. The amount actually used for applications like soldering is far behind the amounts hoarded by human magpies and fox news viewers, and that only happens because of the rarity. Start importing gold in large amounts, the bottom falls out and you might as well be importing dirt. That is, of course, assuming you could actually return it cost-effectively, which is certainly not a given.

[czokletmuss]

Despite that, the moon could serve as a gold mine. Literally.

Materials on the Moon's surface contain helium-3 at concentrations on the order of between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas, and may contain concentrations as much as 50 ppb in permanently shadowed regions (...) Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3

Certainly not if we speak about helium-3. And it would be easier to mine asteroids, they have greater concentration of metals and much smaller gravity well.

[NASAFanboy]

Certainly not if we speak about helium-3. And it would be easier to mine asteroids, they have greater concentration of metals and much smaller gravity well.

Ah yes, but we can also mine new metals on the moon, new metals never discovered by man. And with these new metals we can create newer alloys, and open up the way for new technology. Not only that, we could colonize the moon, spread out over it, live in inflatable habitats, and which the moon can serve as a stepping stone to Mars.

[Kryten]

Ah yes, but we can also mine new metals on the moon, new metals never discovered by man.

...

This. Read it.

Seriously, how old ARE you? It looks like you haven't even done the periodic table yet.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kryten

[NASAFanboy]

...

This. Read it.

Ah yes, but we could use the moon as a solar panel farm, we could use it to observe things, since it has no asmostsphere.

[Relick]

Ah yes, but we could use the moon as a solar panel farm, we could use it to observe things, since it has no asmostsphere.

You clearly have many ideas, and I commend that. Don't stop dreaming them up.

However, DO stop sharing every single one of them without research. If you aren't sure, google and wikipedia usually have the answer. Sadly chances are it either isn't feasible, or has been done before or can be done better already.

When you have a decent idea which is possible and has not been done before that may require us to go to the moon as opposed to LEO stations or Earth, then we'll gladly hear it!