SLS or Constellation?

[NASAFanboy]

Well, it is a really good way to keep a lot of aerospace contractors happily working, I can't deny that. That is short of what I have been saying all along. But I would much prefer to have them working at something worthwhile. Imagine if the money was spent on building in-space reusable (hence, refuelable) stages and putting them on top of rockets (chemical or nuclear, for a near-term personal proposal, I would like to see a methane/LOX transfer stage/unmanned tug). Or fuel depots, or transfer habitats, or multipurpose reusable landers, or waypoint stations, or surface habitats... we could have an inner solar system transportation system set up for what this program will cost, and we would end up going somewhere, while those aerospace contractors keep receiving their paychecks just like they do now.

The only big advantage SLS could have over other launch systems is the 10m diameter of the core stage. And Boeing keeps on showing stuff that throws that away by inserting a 5m adapter, and other people finding neat tricks to get around the launch diameter limitations in the meantime (inflatable heatshields, segmented mirrors, that short of thing). That means they throw that away and look even more silly next to the Falcon heavy, or even ULA's own launchers. Hell, even old Proton can do what SLS is meant to do, cheaper, if you master the crucial in-space techniques like autonomous rendezvous and fuel transfer that we would need anyway. Right now this looks like the old NASA fixation on direct return from the moon and huge Nova rockets. Remember what Churchill said? "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing... after they have tried out every other possibility and seen that they don't work". When is NASA going to do the equivalent of the "go with LOR" decision, and how much money will they burn in the meantime?

Rune. Lots of things to do, and practically none getting done.

I agree. If NASA is to advance, we have to cut jobs, cut contractors, shutdown unneeded centers, and set a clear, highly ambitous goal (Moonbase by 2020.), and then put it out of reach of both Congress and the President. Congress and the President from then on, can only INCREASE funding, and ADD goals to the spaceflight program.

[Kryten]

And why would they do that? Throw all of the science programs away for a moonbase? What would even be the point of having it?

[B787_300]

SCIENCE kryten...

and both plans have their ups and downs, I sorta prefer the Direct 3.0 Juipter rocket that some people were throwing around earlier

[czokletmuss]

I agree. If NASA is to advance, we have to cut jobs, cut contractors, shutdown unneeded centers, and set a clear, highly ambitous goal (Moonbase by 2020.), and then put it out of reach of both Congress and the President. Congress and the President from then on, can only INCREASE funding, and ADD goals to the spaceflight program.

But less contractors = smaller influence on the labour market = less voters work for NASA = lesser incentive for the Congressmen to care about the NASA at all since it won't help them be re/elected. So in the long term it would kill the agency I'm afraid If only NASA get some money from the military spendings... USA, build rockets not bombs! Err, it doesn't sound that good.

[B787_300]

the thing is, NASA doesnt get money from the agencies for launching satelites, they go to the ULA fro rockets, NASA is dependent on Gov funding and with the current clowns in both houses and up top, we are not likely to get anywhere soon. As people have stated, NASA needs a goal that transcendens politics and is stable for more than 4 or even eight years, look what we accomplished during the moon RACE... superfast development that could put more stuff in or bit than we can now. We need a firm deadline for Mars and we need it NOW. A date in a decade would do perfectly, seeing as we have no rocket that is capable of putting men in to LEO much less on a TLO or a TMO (trans-Lunar/Martian-Orbit). With a few years and dedicated funding we should be able to do it.

[Drunkrobot]

Why would we need a huge rocket anyhow? NASA used the Saturn V because they didn't have time to construct a "moon shuttle" in orbit, then dock the CM/LEM on top. Now they can. The ISS is 450 tonnes. If its possible to get that much hardware into orbit, then a transfer stage should be peanuts.

[Kryten]

There's a more fundamental question; why perform a moon landing? What would you get out of it that would justify the enormous cost?

[Drunkrobot]

There's a more fundamental question; why perform a moon landing? What would you get out of it that would justify the enormous cost?

When NASA first landed on the moon, some of the more optimistic scientists and engineers started dreaming up designs for a moon base. Think of that, humanity going to, and living on, another world. Then then the budget got slashed, and the dream died. Our generation can't make the same mistake.

[Kryten]

...you haven't given anything we'd actually get out of it. It wouldn't even be useful for lunar geology, because you'd be stuck looking at one location; you could fund a huge number of Chang'e 5-type missions to differing outcrops for the same price.

[NASAFanboy]

...you haven't given anything we'd actually get out of it. It wouldn't even be useful for lunar geology, because you'd be stuck looking at one location; you could fund a huge number of Chang'e 5-type missions to differing outcrops for the same price.

This creates an arguement of colonization vs exploration. I support the moonbase, as it could easily influence public imagination. People get more excited over actual humans than s machine. Meanwhile, I think building a moonbase is a decisive step step to humanitys process of becoming a spacefaring spieces, while promoting international cooperation and providing a stepping point to the rest of our home system.

[NASAFanboy]

...you haven't given anything we'd actually get out of it. It wouldn't even be useful for lunar geology, because you'd be stuck looking at one location; you could fund a huge number of Chang'e 5-type missions to differing outcrops for the same price.

I support colonization over exploration. First, send robots to find basic information for survival. Land and build a base. All the science can wait.

[Kryten]

Why is 'becoming a spacefaring species' worth that much money? You've just moved it back slightly; if what we get out of it is to 'become a spacefaring species' (by your own arbitrary definition), then what do we get out of that?

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kryten

[NASAFanboy]

Why is 'becoming a spacefaring species' worth that much money? You've just moved it back slightly; if what we get out of it is to 'become a spacefaring species' (by your own arbitrary definition), then what do we get out of that?

Please. Tell me what we will get out of this science. If we gain nothing from becoming spacefaring, then we can gain nothing from science. And we might as well throw away our technologies, leave our cities, and head back to the caves.

Becoming a spacefaring spieces is the only way to survive. That is worth all our money, as our money would be worthless without terran life. I doubt humanity will survive another 1000 years if we do not become spacefaring.

My goal in life is to make humanity a spacefaring spieces, and if anything gets in our way, I will fight it tooth and nail, imposing on it every extreme measure known to man.

So yes, I am technically a John Brown of spacefarers.

Edited April 21, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Kryten]

What do you think could possibly happen that could make earth a worse choice than any place elsewhere in the solar system?

[czokletmuss]

Randezvous with 40km comet in retrograde solar orbit? Global warming a la Venus? Atomics used in a global war? Mutated supervirus? Lack of natural resources?

[NASAFanboy]

Randezvous with 40km comet in retrograde solar orbit? Global warming a la Venus? Atomics used in a global war? Mutated supervirus? Lack of natural resources?

Screw these, lets land on Mars and terraform it.

[Kryten]

Would any of these result in a planet less habitable than Mars or the Moon? The first wasn't enough to wipe out life on earth the last time it happened, so we know it'd still be more habitable than your average dead rockball, the second is impossible (there's simply isn't that much carbon), the third would have similar effects to the first, and in the last, what we run out of that isn't unavailable elsewhere anyway?

[czokletmuss]

You can read about various dangers here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

And there is enough carbon to create irreverisble changes (in the thousands of years scale) - there is a very good webiste about it but only in Polish, you can read more even on the wiki though.

And I totally agree - why leave Africa? The ice age hasn't ended yet, the savanna's climate is warm and pleasant, there's plenty of food. We should stay here forever. Is Europa or Asia more habitable than Africa? Why should we go there? You're talking like one of these "farmers" who think we can grow our food. Nonsense! Everybody knows that hunting and gathering is the only way!

Bottomline: humanity acts like a parasite. We need more and more resources and all of them are finite. And it's not about habitabilty, we're not going out there for a vacations. Staying on these planet forever will inevitably lead to our extinction.

Edited April 21, 2013 by czokletmuss

[N_las]

Would any of these result in a planet less habitable than Mars or the Moon?

Why do you think the only alternative to settling on earth is settling on other celestial bodys? Celestial bodys only have disatvantages. If we colonize the free space between the planets, we don't need s**tloads of dV to escape from gravity wells. And We have much more place for people to live. Once the earth is full, settling on mars wouldn't help, but settling in space will get us places for trillions of people.

[Rune]

Would any of these result in a planet less habitable than Mars or the Moon? The first wasn't enough to wipe out life on earth the last time it happened, so we know it'd still be more habitable than your average dead rockball, the second is impossible (there's simply isn't that much carbon), the third would have similar effects to the first, and in the last, what we run out of that isn't unavailable elsewhere anyway?

That's an easy one to answer: room to grow. A solar system with a few trillion humans will be much more productive in terms of anything you can name, including science, than one with perhaps 10-20 billion at most and zero growth allowed (I won't even get into what kind of society would evolve under such a constrained scenario). Of course, I wouldn't get out of a planet to colonize another, much less a barren rock like the moon, that would be stupid thinking. There is enough stuff in the main belt to build about 300.000 Earth's worth of habitable surface, pick the surface conditions to suit your taste. Never mind using the Oort cloud or the Kuiper belt.

Rune. There is a lot of planetary chauvinism going around.

[Rune]

Why do you think the only alternative to settling on earth is settling on other celestial bodys? Celestial bodys only have disatvantages. If we colonize the free space between the planets, we don't need s**tloads of dV to escape from gravity wells. And We have much more place for people to live. Once the earth is full, settling on mars wouldn't help, but settling in space will get us places for trillions of people.

Hey there! I didn't see you, but I think I like you.

[Kryten]

You can read about various dangers here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

And there is enough carbon to create irreverisble changes (in the thousands of years scale) - there is a very good webiste about it but only in Polish, you can read more even on the wiki though.

Irreversible means the seas will definitely rise, not that we're going to run out of breathable air or something.

[N_las]

Hey there! I didn't see you, but I think I like you.

Insane minds think alike...

[Rune]

Irreversible means the seas will definitely rise, not that we're going to run out of breathable air or something.

Ok, how about a big supernova relatively close? That fries the whole solar system, never mind Earth. Is that enough of a radical thing?

Rune. There are ELE's, and plenty to choose from.

[czokletmuss]

Irreversible means the seas will definitely rise, not that we're going to run out of breathable air or something.

Come on. Ocean's acidification and oxygen depletion will directly influence all societies and the food chain. Extreme weather - floods, droughts, hurricanes - with the rising temperature can not only destroy buildings but will have a great impact on food price. Remember the food riots? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/06/food-riots-new-normal

It seems that you like to play advocatus diaboli or you just negate everything less spectacular then supernova. But really, not only asteroids or black holes can wipe out the humanity, global temperatur rise +5C will be very challenging too. Don't even get me started on peak oil. If we want to evolve we need to expand*. Or we can just sit here and wait for the inevitable.

* In the long term; currently we can barely afford small station 300km above the ground.