Does Space Launch System rocket and new Orion craft will have chance to land on th...

[Canopus]

From what I heard, the idea is to use the SLS's upper hydrogen tank (retrofitted, of course) as a space station, similarly to how the Skylab was constructed out of a retrofitted Saturn V tank. I've never heard of the Exploration Gateway Platform -- I'll have to go Google it; it sounds interesting!

Apparently, the Mars expedition will use NTRs and orbital construction, and the near-Earth asteroid landing will research the collection of minerals from asteroids. That's definitely an interesting feature; hopefully, the techniques developed and/or researched during this program (NTR use, orbital construction, landing on and mining asteroids) will form the basis of future interplanetary missions and habitation. It seems far fetched, but hey, one can dream, right?

There's one other thing that I've been wondering -- since the Orion Service Module will be constructed in Europe, by the ESA, and based off of an earlier European design, would it be possible to include ESA astronauts (Euronauts?) on the missions it is sent on? Sending astronauts to Mars would be great in and of itself, but if a system was set up where not just American astronauts, but also other countries' astronauts, were involved, that would be a great precedent for developing greater cooperation between different countries' space agencies, which would definitely help in procuring funding for more ambitious space projects, as well as promoting greater cooperation between countries in other fields.

The Exploration Gateway Platform is like a smaller spacestation build from existing modules in LEO and would be brought to the Earth-moon L2 point by Ion propulsion. There it would serve as laboratory and gasstation for a reusable Lunar-lander.

And yes i think Europeans will also fly on the Orion MPCV.

[tek_604]

The main reason NASA passed the deal with ESA was to actually secure funding for those 2 first missions. It's easy for Congress to cancel domestic programs, but it's harder when there are other countries involved. The US has to meet its commitments with its international partners. That's the main reason the ISS hasn't yet been disbanded.

Tell that to the ExoMars team. If the US decides it cannot meet its requirements, it will cancel them. That being said, I'm not suggesting this is an American thing, far from it. If a nation (or national agency) feels it cannot meet its requirements, it will cancel the deal. As has been said before, it all depends on budgets.

[Nibb31]

people vote for whomever promises them the most free money. As soon as 51% of the population depends on the government for their income, the country is lost.

That's the situation in large parts of Europe (in fact in many European countries it's far worse than 51%) and the US is dangerously close to the event horizon (well over 40%).

Nothing to do with corporate sponsors of politicians, everything with graft and vote buying by politicians (who accept that corporate sponsorship with one hand while already planning to utterly ignore that company in favour of a personal pet project they're funding with that money using the other hand).

We're veering off-topic, but it's hard to have a discussion about space policy without talking about politics. Rockets are as much political tools as technological ones.

I have no problem with government spending, because every dollar spent by the government finds its way back into the economy, creating jobs in the private and public sector, which creates wealth and brings in taxes. No country's economy has ever benefited from reduced government spending. It actually only makes things worse by cutting jobs, increasing poverty, and cutting tax revenue. And for some reason, those people who are complaining about government spending never want to cut military spending, but diminishing healthcare, science and education is ok.

I don't really get what the number of government jobs has to do with the problem of having an anti-science Congress. The US is probably the only democracy in the world that has a number of elected representatives who actually believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and that children should not learn about certain fundamental History or Biology subjects. We all have our wackos, but the US is the only place where they get to actually pass laws.

Back to space policy, there is no business model for private space exploration, and there won't be any time soon. So the only incentive is government funding, for both scientific advancement and soft-power diplomacy.

Tell that to the ExoMars team. If the US decides it cannot meet its requirements, it will cancel them. That being said, I'm not suggesting this is an American thing, far from it. If a nation (or national agency) feels it cannot meet its requirements, it will cancel the deal. As has been said before, it all depends on budgets.

I'm not saying it's not possible to cancel an international project. It just adds a stabilizing factor to the deal. When you screw your allies, they lose trust in you, and it gets harder to get them on board future projects. Government officials know that the lack of trust can also affect other fields of negociation further down the line, like trade agreements or foreign policy. Those repercussions can cost more than the few billions saved by cancelling a (rather small) space program.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Nibb31

[Crush]

The current administration has openly stated the US is not exceptional and in should not aim to be in any way special.

They've effectively given on on the can-do attitude Americans have always been known for and replaced it with a cannot-do-its-too-expensive-and-risky attitude.

And they are right about that.

[Person012345]

people vote for whomever promises them the most free money. As soon as 51% of the population depends on the government for their income, the country is lost.

That's the situation in large parts of Europe (in fact in many European countries it's far worse than 51%) and the US is dangerously close to the event horizon (well over 40%).

Nothing to do with corporate sponsors of politicians, everything with graft and vote buying by politicians (who accept that corporate sponsorship with one hand while already planning to utterly ignore that company in favour of a personal pet project they're funding with that money using the other hand).

[citation needed]

[Pawelk198604]

China is not getting anywhere near the Moon during "this administration" or the next. They are focused on their space station until at least 2025. After that, who knows? But it would take 10 to 15 years to land someone on the Moon.

10 to 15 years, why so long, Apollo made first landing in less than 10 years after JFK memorable speech.

[Burke112]

I think too many people have an overly romantic idea about the Apollo program. The whole idea that the United States just "came together as one country to support a mission to the moon" is more or less complete bunk. There was only one single period during the entire Apollo program (both before and during the Apollo landings) where a majority of Americans supported the Apollo program -- and that was right after the Apollo 11 landing, and even then, the approval rate was only 53%. So, even during the period where support for the Apollo program was highest, and exuberance about the space program was at its peak, the Apollo program only managed to eke out an approval rating barely over 50%.

And what about the rest of the time during which the program was active? Public approval virtually never even made it to the 45% mark, and for a relatively long period, it was at 35%. That's right -- for quite a long time during the Apollo program years, almost two-thirds of all Americans thought the entire concept of sending people to the moon was a waste of money! In polls conducted directly after the Apollo 11 landings, many Americans believed that the money spent landing on the moon was ill-spent, and could be better spent combating poverty (mostly due to the rampant poverty present in America during the 1950s and early 1960s -- for most of the fifties, almost a quarter of all Americans lived in poverty).

In comparison, current support for a manned Mars mission is relatively high -- in polls conducted earlier this year, over half of all Americans believed NASA should either send a manned lander to Mars itself, or play a strong role in aiding a commercial company to do the same thing, and a full 75% of Americans were willing to double NASA's budget for the specific purpose of putting a man on the red planet. In comparison to the tepid support for the Apollo landings, current support for a mission to Mars is relatively high.

As far as budget support goes, the current support for increasing NASA's budget is about the same as it was during the late 1960s -- about 14% of Americans in both cases wanted to increase the space budget. Civilian support for cutting the budget, however, is lower -- today, 40% of Americans favor cutting the space budget. During the Apollo years, the percentage of people who believed NASA was spending too much on spaceflight fluctuated between 45 and 60%. As a 1967 New York Times poll indicates, many Americans put cleaning air and water pollution, providing job training for unskilled workers, and spending more on poverty above spending more on space travel, and during the 1960s, several polls indicated NASA's budget as the one that many Americans wanted to cut in order to reduce federal spending.

In short, the rosy image we have of the Apollo program is pretty false. For virtually the entirety of the program, a considerable majority of Americans believed it was a bad idea, and that the money should be spent elsewhere, and only once did public support barely break the 50% mark. Americans during the 1960s were more apt to cut NASA's budget than they are today, and current support for a Mars landing is overwhelming compared to the support the moon landings had in the 1960s.

And, as far as a "can-do" attitude goes...

"The US space program is in decline. The Vietnam War and the desperate conditions of the nation's poor and its cities -- which make spaceflight seem, in comparison, like an embarrassing national self-indulgence -- have combined to drag down a program where the sky was no longer the limit."

- Newsweek article, 1968

Edited July 6, 2013 by Burke112

[Drunkrobot]

In the sixties, NASA's budget was at its peak, 5% of the total US budget. Now, it is barely 0.5%. The idea of cutting NASA's budget to "fix the problems here on earth" might have made an impact then- it won't now. Besides, and I know this will sound a bit elitist of me, but there will always be problems here on earth. If we wait until there are no more problems, and then explore the universe, the sun will implode in our faces before we even get of the ground, so to speak.

In any case, the space program has helped improved the human condition anyway, hasn't it? Both in a purely technological sense-where else would a computer need to be designed to be small and light, except in a spacecraft?-and in a more intangible, human sense-many people in science and engineering-people that humanity needs more of-can honestly say they made their career choice by seeing men leaping across the moon.

[Kryten]

We're talking in the context of people wanting moon bases and mars colonies here. It's not going to be doable with that peak budget, never mind what they've got now.

[Burke112]

In the sixties, NASA's budget was at its peak, 5% of the total US budget. Now, it is barely 0.5%. The idea of cutting NASA's budget to "fix the problems here on earth" might have made an impact then- it won't now. Besides, and I know this will sound a bit elitist of me, but there will always be problems here on earth. If we wait until there are no more problems, and then explore the universe, the sun will implode in our faces before we even get of the ground, so to speak.

In any case, the space program has helped improved the human condition anyway, hasn't it? Both in a purely technological sense-where else would a computer need to be designed to be small and light, except in a spacecraft?-and in a more intangible, human sense-many people in science and engineering-people that humanity needs more of-can honestly say they made their career choice by seeing men leaping across the moon.

My point was that the whole rose-colored image people have of the Apollo program is incorrect. The truth is that it was a controversial idea that a majority -- and in some cases a considerable majority. -- of Americans believed was a useless waste of money, even during and directly after the landings. There was considerable debate over whether or not they should -- or even could -- be done. My father was thirteen in 1969, and he remembers his parents constantly talking about how wasteful the landings were, and how stupid Nixon was for not discontinuing the program -- and that same viewpoint was shared by many Americans at that point.

I support space travel as much as anyone else here. I believe we should travel to the moon, and to Mars, and set up space stations, and refueling depots, and other interplanetary infrastructure. I believe we should continue developing new techniques and technologies to make low(er)-cost space travel a reality, the way SpaceX is today. However, I believe we should not delude ourselves into thinking that such programs will ever receive widespread public support, or that there was some fantastic, idyllic time in the good old days when such programs would. The fact is, space travel will always face entrenched opposition, due to the high cost associated with space operations. Our goal should be to reduce the costs of space travel as much as possible, and to continue pressing forward despite such opposition.

[Rocketscience101]

yes there are plans

Not exactly plans, there are actually no "plans" on what the orion and SLS will actually do. Mainly because it is all the politics who approve of any "plans" NASA does, and they only feel like talking optimism about the subject saying, this is what we "hope to do" by set date, but there are never any "we will do this on this day" which frankly sounds better than "well I am not entirly sure, but we should land on an asteroid by 2143"

[Rocketscience101]

NASA is the only portion of the government that is not crazy funded, or supported because they are viewed as useless. Yet is is also the only one that gets stuff done off of the very little money they receive. Mainly because the people who run it are scientist.

[Burke112]

Not exactly plans, there are actually no "plans" on what the orion and SLS will actually do. Mainly because it is all the politics who approve of any "plans" NASA does, and they only feel like talking optimism about the subject saying, this is what we "hope to do" by set date, but there are never any "we will do this on this day" which frankly sounds better than "well I am not entirly sure, but we should land on an asteroid by 2143"

Under the current plan, the SLS will conduct an unmanned moon flyby in 2017, a manned lunar flyby in 2021, several crew and cargo transfers to LEO and beyond, a Mars soil sample return in 2024, and an asteroid rendezvous in 2025. Of course, that was a tentative schedule that was based upon a worst-case scenario; the actual schedule will most likely be different.

The main reason, as I see it, that we haven't been given a comprehensive schedule for SLS operations is due to the length of time before it will be fully operational. I'm not sure exactly, but does anyone else know how many years prior to 1981 NASA released a comprehensive schedule for which missions the Space Shuttle would undertake?

Edited July 7, 2013 by Burke112

[Kryten]

Only the two lunar missions (the second is actually orbit and return btw) have actually been officially scheduled and had funding earmarked, the rest are essentially what NASA's hoping for.

[Burke112]

Only the two lunar missions (the second is actually orbit and return btw) have actually been officially scheduled and had funding earmarked, the rest are essentially what NASA's hoping for.

The purpose of that list is kind of a "minimum wish list" of sorts -- it was apparently created to represent the absolute minimum the SLS would be used to do; it represents what NASA had the budget to do in a worst-case situation, if their budget was severely cut. Hopefully, as we approach the first launch date, more information will become known. If anyone knows how long prior to STS-1 NASA released a comprehensive schedule of Space Shuttle missions, that would help to provide some kind of context of how much lead time NASA gives when they state mission plans.

As far as funding goes, apparently NASA has received money in the 2012 and 2013 budgets to continue preparations for the "Mars 2033" mission. Obviously, they haven't been given money for the actual launch itself -- it's too far away -- but the fact that they are receiving funding to prepare for such a mission is somewhat promising.

[deadshot462]

My hope is that as China progresses with their space program, the US will decide to properly set goals and fund NASA to "win the race" again.

It's kind of frustrating to hear the US administration brag about how we are the "leading nation in space" when we don't have the capability to send our own astronauts to space.

[jwenting]

unless there's a fundamental shift in attitude in the US, that won't happen. The US have effectively given up wanting to be leading in anything, seem perfectly content to be seen to be a failed society that maybe once was great, not dissimilar to the late stages of the Roman Empire.

[Burke112]

My hope is that as China progresses with their space program, the US will decide to properly set goals and fund NASA to "win the race" again.

“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.â€Â

-- Sir Winston Churchill

The history of the United States tends to be one of extremely profound apathy, followed by some jolting event, followed by frantic, frenzied effort to correct perceived deficiencies.

The meaning of the "leading nation in space" thing is probably due to the fact that the United States operates more satellites than any other country, and has sent more probes to other celestial bodies than any other country. The good news is that, while the Space Shuttle has been retired, the DragonRider is being refitted to replace the shuttle in the mission of sending astronauts into space, as part of the CCDev.

Currently, there are no lift platforms in any country's inventory capable of carrying humans beyond Earth orbit, and there is only one rocket in development that will be able to take astronauts that far -- the Space Launch System. The only other rocket that will be so capable is the Chinese Long March 9, which is currently in the "paper study" stage, and it is unknown if it will be produced. So, depending on whether or not the LM9 gets beyond the concept phase, either the United States will be the only country capable of sending astronauts beyond Earth orbit, or the United States and China will be the only two countries with such a capability.

As far as major planned missions go, the Chinese space agency plans on setting up a small research space station, and there is a proposal to send a taikonaut to the moon in the 2025-2030 timeframe, although like the LM9, that is still in the concept stage, and it is unknown whether or not it will get past the proposal stage and into the planning stage. NASA has proposed using the SLS's upper stage as a new space station, named "Skylab II", but like the LM9 and Chinese manned lunar mission, that is still in the concept stage. NASA's current planned missions include an asteroid rendezvous/landing, sending an astronaut into lunar orbit, and a manned mission to Mars in the mid-2030s (which is in the early planning stages -- with "early" being the operative word). However, the program does appear to be making headway -- President Obama originally wanted to begin production of the SLS in 2015, but Congress accelerated the program and began the design process immediately with the creation of the SLS program in 2011.

Personally, my chief worry regarding space exploration is that both China and the United States are developing ASAT systems. If a shooting war ever started, we could say goodbye to low Earth orbit for the next several decades...

Edited July 7, 2013 by Burke112

[Burke112]

unless there's a fundamental shift in attitude in the US, that won't happen. The US have effectively given up wanting to be leading in anything, seem perfectly content to be seen to be a failed society that maybe once was great, not dissimilar to the late stages of the Roman Empire.

Someone needs to learn him some late Roman history...

[Pawelk198604]

.

Personally, my chief worry regarding space exploration is that both China and the United States are developing ASAT systems. If a shooting war ever started, we could say goodbye to low Earth orbit for the next several decades...

I think UN should pass total BAN on Anti-satellite weapons, in such a way that the U.S. nor China could bypass it.

[tek_604]

I think UN should pass total BAN on Anti-satellite weapons, in such a way that the U.S. nor China could bypass it.

You mean just like the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which is ratified by neither the USA or China.

To be honest, this kind of international treaty makes no sense. When war happens, its supposed to be a messy business, so that when its all finished, both sides say "well, that was messy, we won't do that again". Should a war happen, the gloves will come off, and no matter what international treaties have been signed, they'll be ripped up.

Wars today tend to be fought in a cleaner manner, which leads to problems down the road, in my opinion. Best way to not use ASATs, or cluster munitions, or weapons of mass destruction, is to not have wars in the first place.

[jwenting]

Someone needs to learn him some late Roman history...

yes, you should learn about Roman history. Would be a great eye opener as the parallels to what's going on in both the EU and US right now are enormous.

[Kryten]

yes, you should learn about Roman history. Would be a great eye opener as the parallels to what's going on in both the EU and US right now are enormous.

Have you read a single history that wasn't A) intended for children or written before 1950?

[Pawelk198604]

Wars today tend to be fought in a cleaner manner, which leads to problems down the road, in my opinion. Best way to not use ASATs, or cluster munitions, or weapons of mass destruction, is to not have wars in the first place.

That will be great, but the changes shall begin with superpowers, which should be aware that despite his power are not alone on the planet Earth.

It would be nice if the world was like this in Star Trek

[Burke112]

yes, you should learn about Roman history. Would be a great eye opener as the parallels to what's going on in both the EU and US right now are enormous.

I'll try to keep this brief, since this is a video game/space exploration forum, not a history forum, and I do dislike off-topic discussions...

Whether you observe Constantine's stupendous building projects, Flavius Aetius' campaigns against the Gauls, Visigoths, and Huns, Majorian's construction of a massive naval fleet to attack Geiseric and remove the Vandals from North Africa, or Aegidius' largely successful campaign to secure Gaul from Gothic invasion and defeat the invading Ostrogoths, it is pretty obvious that Rome never lost its appetite for doing great things and "be the best."

The concept that Rome fell due to apathy was first postulated in Edward Gibbon's book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (which did gain great popularity in Britain during the 1810s and 1820s due to the concern many Britains had that their own empire was collapsing, due to its rampant debt -- but that's neither here nor there). The reason for this explanation was that, during the late Roman imperial period, many changes were observed that were, at the time, inexplicable. Rome had been defending its borders very well against the gothic tribes ever since they began attacking with extreme frequency during Marcus Aurelius' reign in 165 -- so why did the barbarians suddenly break through starting in the 370s? The Roman military was one of the largest in the world -- so why, by the beginning of the fifth century, was it virtually nonexistant? The Roman military machine was famous for its discipline and order -- so why, by the Fifth century, were the Romans utilizing undisciplined barbarian foederati to do their fighting for them? The Roman treasury was filled withassive inflows of tax revenue during the height of the empire -- so why, near the end of the imperial period, were tax revenues virtually zero? The only explanationat the time was that Rome had simply given up being great and had gained a feeling of profound apathy.

Today, however, we have access to much greater evidence than Gibbon did. Modern ice core studies indicate that Europe experienced profound cooling starting around 300 C.E.; this cooling became known as the Late Antiquity Cold Period. At the same time, Romans became exposed, through trade, to novel diseases -- illnesses such as Smallpox, the measles, etc first became common in Europe during Late Antiquity, starting with the Antonine Plague in 165 C.E. Because of the dramatically cooler weather, crop yields fell sharply, and these previously unknown diseases took a massive toll on the Roman population. The issue of disease became even more severe when, in a desperate attempt to increase crop yields, Roman farmers began widespread irrigation... and the pools of stagnant water served as great breeding grounds for disease-carrying mosquitoes. Through famine and disease, the Roman population continually dwindled, and deurbanization occurred as many Romans left cities that had become infested with disease (this had a very negative effect, as city-dwellers tend to have a higher average productivity than country-dwellers; hence why urbanization tends to have positive economic effects).

So, what is the effect of a shrunken population? First of all, tax revenue falls through the floor, as there are far fewer taxpayers, and the average economic productivity is lower due to deurbanization. Secondly, due to a much smaller population and lower tax revenues, Rome physically could not support a large army. It isn't like today, where Americans debate the merits and drawbacks of increasing or decreasing the size of their military -- Rome simply could not support a large army with their diminished population. It wasn't a matter of apathy or a lack of desire to field a large army; Rome just didn't have a large enough labor pool.

But Rome was not the only civilization feeling the effects of the colder weather. Northern Europe simply became too cold to support the large tribes that inhabited those regions during the warm period that characterized much of Rome's history. So, the barbarians moved south. However, as they pushed for greener pastures, they inevitably bumped up against other tribes that already inhabited the region, and through warfare, pushed them out. This set off a "domino effect" of sorts, with thousands of barbarians being forced further and further south, until they reached the Rhine river, and along with it, the border of Rome.

And this is where the problem begins. At the same time that Rome physically could not support a large military, barbarian attacks became much larger and more common. In order to defend themselves, Rome was forced to rely more and more upon the aid of foederati, or hired barbarian mercenaries. These mercenaries were not Roman, and so did not display the discipline and organization Roman soldiers are so typical for -- hence the breakdown in Roman military tactics. Also, in order to pay for these soldiers, Rome had to give them land, which led to a vicious cycle of sorts. In order to defend itself, Rome had to hire more foederati. By hiring more foederati, Rome lost tax revenue, and hence could only support a smaller Roman military... and thus had to hire more foederati. This cycle continued until the Roman army was basically nothing more than a relatively small group of unorganized Gothic tribesmen, and all that was left of the western empire was Italy and a single province in Gaul. When Flavius Orestes refused to give the foederati land in Italy as payment, they banded together under Odoacer, and deposed the last Roman emperor (Romulus Augustulus) on September 4, 476 C.E. Odoacer became King of Italy, and the Roman Empire was officially dead.

So there you have it! A (very condensed) explanation of the fall of the Roman empire. Rome fell not because of apathy of a lack of ambition -- it fell because a much cooler climate and novel diseases shrank its population, tax revenue, and military size, at the same time as a cooler climate drove waves of barbarian hordes against their border. When they tried to hire foederati to defend themselves, they gradually lost territory (and the money that came with it) until they had only Italy, which was taken by a starving mob of unpaid goths led by a minor Heruli chieftain.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Burke112