If NASA had more funding...

[Drunkrobot]

I would expand on Orion/SLS. Instead of a single rocket, with another, bigger one coming at some point, maybe, there would be a whole family of rockets, with payloads ranging from small probes to larger than that of the Saturn V. The rockets would be made of common componants, each one mass produced to bring down costs. With the infrastructure in place, all proposed future missions (Skylab II, Moon landing, asteroid capture, Mars mission etc), at least manned missions, would be possible with the minimum of development.

[Nibb31]

Is it possible for NASA's EML-2 spacestation outpost to service/repair the James Webb Telescope?

Just wondering

There are no on-orbit serviceable parts on the JWST. Apparently they have planned to put a passive NDS on it, just in case, but there are no EVA hand rails, doors, or swappable racks like those on Hubble. Any of those provisions would have added extra mass and decreased performance, so they were omitted in the design. Also, some of the part sun shield parts might have cutting edges, protruding parts or too hot to touch, so they could be a hazard for EVA astronauts.

[Nibb31]

I would expand on Orion/SLS. Instead of a single rocket, with another, bigger one coming at some point, maybe, there would be a whole family of rockets, with payloads ranging from small probes to larger than that of the Saturn V. The rockets would be made of common componants, each one mass produced to bring down costs. With the infrastructure in place, all proposed future missions (Skylab II, Moon landing, asteroid capture, Mars mission etc), at least manned missions, would be possible with the minimum of development.

Sounds like Saturn and Apollo Applications Program...

[NASAFanboy]

Personally, I, instead of setting a goal for Mars by 2030, would set an long-term goal of interstellar travel for the space agency.

After all, Mars is not the end of the solar system. And why?

First of all, interstellar travel needs many, many, many new technologies. We could use these technologies that we are researching for interstellar travel, and slowly apply them to build lunar colonies/Martian colonies, while sending ships to explore the outer planets. Also, interstellar travel is what will get the agency up, running, and excited. Sure, it probably won't be accomplished in the current adminstration (Unless some miracle happens and we all of a sudden get a working acclubierre drive), but its not Mars..its not another world close to ours. Its another goddamn solar system.

Yes, the goal won't be accomplished, but think of the progress we'll make while trying to strive for that goal. And maybe, someday in the future, say....2150, we'll send the first starship to another system.

[OrtwinS]

Sorry to squash some of your interstellar dreams: Anything with mass can NOT reach the speed of light.

And it will take absurd increasing amounts of energy the close you get to c (energy=fuel, that you need to get up there as well, requiring even more fuel).

The effective result of this is that we are stuck in this solar system. Sorry.

(Oh, and alcubierre drives are not possible, the dreamers who still promote the idea ignore a few key primary principles of science and they make stuff up like negative energy. And then still an alcubierre drive would require more energy than the mass it is supposed to transport could ever produce. Even if you turn that mass directly into energy)

So if NASA would have a significantly larger budget, we better spend it by:

• Long duration stays in space, can centrifugal force be an sufficient replacement for gravity?
  
• Space telescopes, we can still learn lots of interesting things by just looking up (very closely)
  
• Experimental terra-forming of Venus or Mars (thought he lack of liquid water will significantly inhibit any engineered extremo-phile bacteria we send there)

[NASAFanboy]

Sorry to squash some of your interstellar dreams: Anything with mass can NOT reach the speed of light.

And it will take absurd increasing amounts of energy the close you get to c (energy=fuel, that you need to get up there as well, requiring even more fuel).

The effective result of this is that we are stuck in this solar system. Sorry.

(Oh, and alcubierre drives are not possible, the dreamers who still promote the idea ignore a few key primary principles of science and they make stuff up like negative energy. And then still an alcubierre drive would require more energy than the mass it is supposed to transport could ever produce. Even if you turn that mass directly into energy)

So if NASA would have a significantly larger budget, we better spend it by:

• Long duration stays in space, can centrifugal force be an sufficient replacement for gravity?
  
• Space telescopes, we can still learn lots of interesting things by just looking up (very closely)
  
• Experimental terra-forming of Venus or Mars (thought he lack of liquid water will significantly inhibit any engineered extremo-phile bacteria we send there)

I mean't something like investing in an Orion Drive.

Basically, we split the program into two ships. First Orion Drive arrives at habitable planet, and sets it up for the colonists.

Second Orion Drive goes to the habitable planet and settles it.

Or, we could throughly look at the Valkeryie Starship, which, to me, is one of the few ways of interstellar travel that is plausible. We need not reach the speed of light, but simply reaching ten percent is enough. However, I will likely completely ignore Venus while focusing efforts on colonization, since Venus is...well, Venus is hell.

If I was administrator of NASA, this would pretty much sum my tenure up.

"Colonization, Colonization, and more Colonization".

[Nibb31]

Orion drive is a totally idiotic idea. Assuming you could actually build a ship that could withstand hundreds of nuclear blasts without killing everyone on board, do you have any idea how many nuke bomb pellets would be needed to propel your ship to interstellar speeds? I doubt the entire world's uranium reserves would be enough.

It's an idea that goes back to the 60's when Ford was designing nuclear cars and the Russians were using nukes to dig artificial lakes. Just because someone thought it might be a good idea in those crazy days doesn't mean it still is.

And your Valkyrie is science fiction. Dude, Avatar is not reality.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Nibb31

[NASAFanboy]

Orion drive is a totally idiotic idea. Assuming you could actually build a ship that could withstand hundreds of nuclear blasts without killing everyone on board, do you have any idea how many nuke bomb pellets would be needed to propel your ship to interstellar speeds? I doubt the entire world's uranium reserves would be enough.

It's an idea that goes back to the 60's when Ford was designing nuclear cars and the Russians were using nukes to dig artificial lakes. Just because someone thought it might be a good idea in those crazy days doesn't mean it still is.

And your Valkyrie is science fiction. Dude, Avatar is not reality.

Not that Valkeryie. We don't have unobtanium, sure, but the Valkeryie Starship is a fully good idea. It could work and give us affordable interstellar travel.

Please give me a example on why it's not.

Sure, Avatar is not reality, but it's still pretty hard scifi (Except for all that nature-crap)

[Nibb31]

It's spelled Valkyrie, and again, the burden of proving that something works is on you, not me. I can't prove that it doesn't work because it's as much science fiction technobabble as star trek warp drives. I'm not going to waste my time explaining how fantasy and magic don't really work. This forum is supposed to be about science.

[NASAFanboy]

It's spelled Valkyrie, and again, the burden of proving that something works is on you, not me. I can't prove that it doesn't work because it's as much science fiction technobabble as star trek warp drives. I'm not going to waste my time explaining how fantasy and magic don't really work. This forum is supposed to be about science.

I'll call it V-ship.

It's not magic. It's science. This forum IS about science.

If it's such technobabble, prove it. If it's not gong to work, prove it. Don't just say, "You prove it."

It's not a fantasy. It's plausible, and might work.

[Duxwing]

I'll call it V-ship.

It's not magic. It's science. This forum IS about science.

If it's such technobabble, prove it. If it's not gong to work, prove it. Don't just say, "You prove it."

It's not a fantasy. It's plausible, and might work.

Whether he proves his negation of your position or not, your position remains unproven.

-Duxwing

[Mr Shifty]

Not that Valkeryie. We don't have unobtanium, sure, but the Valkeryie Starship is a fully good idea. It could work and give us affordable interstellar travel.

Please give me a example on why it's not.

I already gave you an example of why it wouldn't work in another thread: 738426

To your replies: I'd think that both VASIMIR and solar sails would be useless for interstellar transport (the first because it requires enormous amounts of electricity (200kW for 5N of thrust), the second because the sun is merely one star among many in interstellar space.) Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm ensure how you generate any thrust from a photon sail in interstellar space.

[NASAFanboy]

I already gave you an example of why it wouldn't work in another thread: 738426

To your replies: I'd think that both VASIMIR and solar sails would be useless for interstellar transport (the first because it requires enormous amounts of electricity (200kW for 5N of thrust), the second because the sun is merely one star among many in interstellar space.) Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm ensure how you generate any thrust from a photon sail in interstellar space.

I was hoping for a perihelion speeding manuveur, where a spacecraft goes in close to the sun, gains speed, and then ejects the solar sail when it is nolonger of use.

[Kryten]

I was hoping for a perihelion speeding manuveur, where a spacecraft goes in close to the sun, gains speed, and then ejects the solar sail when it is nolonger of use.

How exactly would it be supposed to slow down upon arrival?

[Moon Goddess]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm ensure how you generate any thrust from a photon sail in interstellar space.

What you're missing is you don't....

You use the sun, or lasers, to accelerate aiming in the direction of the destination star. Once you get up to say .1c then you coast across the interstellar void, when you approach the destination you turn the ship and use the sail to slow you.

[Nibb31]

NASA also pays pretty much that price to launch a Mars probe or an Earth observation satellite. My point was that 185 million dollars for a Moon shot would be cheap by today's standard. Wikipedia says that the cost of a Moon shot in 1969 was more around 375 million dollars, which equates to ~1.8 billion dollars today.

By comparison, an SLS launch will cost somewhere between 500 million and 2 billion dollars. This doesn't include the cost of the payload. Each Orion CSM will cost around 700 million to 1 billion per unit, and you would have to add the cost of a lander or whatever mission module you want to bring along.

[OrtwinS]

Before anyone continues to derail the thread with ludicrous manned interstellar vessels, Orion-engines or Anti-matter drives, please follow these three steps:

• Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article concerning the Danning-Kruger effect.
  
• Question yourself if you really REALLY understand Atomic Physics (focus on Fission, Fusion and anti-matter).
  
• Reconsider what you are about to post to prevent making yourself look like a self-deluding fool.
  

Please note as well I didn't even suggest for anyone to study astronomy and actual space-faring tech. Understanding of these physics should suffice in this case.

Freshening up on the scientific method never hurts either.

[NASAFanboy]

Before anyone continues to derail the thread with ludicrous manned interstellar vessels, Orion-engines or Anti-matter drives, please follow these three steps:

• Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article concerning the Danning-Kruger effect.
  
• Question yourself if you really REALLY understand Atomic Physics (focus on Fission, Fusion and anti-matter).
  
• Reconsider what you are about to post to prevent making yourself look like a self-deluding fool.
  

Please note as well I didn't even suggest for anyone to study astronomy and actual space-faring tech. Understanding of these physics should suffice in this case.

Freshening up on the scientific method never hurts either.

1. Uh-huh. Got it.

2. I (mostly) understand Fusion and Fission. All I know about antimatter is its so koddamn hard to store, and blows up when it comes into contact with air, with an effienency rate of 100%. Tis a dream fuel, but near impossible.

3. I've already done so.

So, what? I'm just an optimist for technology

[OrtwinS]

... a self-deluding fool.

1. Uh-huh. Got it.

2. I (mostly) understand Fusion and Fission. All I know about antimatter is its so koddamn hard to store, and blows up when it comes into contact with air, with an effienency rate of 100%. Tis a dream fuel, but near impossible.

3. I've already done so.

So, what? I'm just an optimist for technology

Haha! At least you are consistant in your inconsistancies. Thanks for the laughs, I'll give you that

[NASAFanboy]

Haha! At least you are consistant in your inconsistancies. Thanks for the laughs, I'll give you that

Nah, I've tested 73% positive for being bipolar-along with constantly shifting views from when I read forum posts.

[ultimatevirus]

Maybe the constellation program wouldn't have been canceled and we would be putting outposts on the moon! (I forgot the year in which they wanted to launch) but it would have been great.

[CpPolar268]

"If NASA would have more funding...."

Launches:

Monday - Shuttle

Tuesday - Shuttle

Wednesday - Shuttle

Thrusday - Shuttle

Friday - Shuttle

Saturday - Shuttle

Sunday - Shuttle with Probe

[NASAFanboy]

"If NASA would have more funding...."

Launches:

Monday - Shuttle

Tuesday - Shuttle

Wednesday - Shuttle

Thrusday - Shuttle

Friday - Shuttle

Saturday - Shuttle

Sunday - Shuttle with Probe

I got an idea.

Why not create a fleet of fifty LEO shuttles, and have one take off everyday, come in for maintaince, and then another one is launched the next day, then it comes in for maintance, and so on, and a month later, the first shuttle is launched again...

Y'know, launch a day.

[Joshington]

Finally build an SSTO VTOL-type vehicle, that can take off from Earth and land on other moons/planets (after refueling in orbit)

[Nibb31]

Finally build an SSTO VTOL-type vehicle, that can take off from Earth and land on other moons/planets (after refueling in orbit)

Why would you want to waste actual payload weight by carrying wings all the way to other moons or planets?

I got an idea.

Why not create a fleet of fifty LEO shuttles, and have one take off everyday, come in for maintaince, and then another one is launched the next day, then it comes in for maintance, and so on, and a month later, the first shuttle is launched again...

Y'know, launch a day.

Because:

- They are damn expensive to build.

- They are damn expensive to maintain.

- They would have nothing to do.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Nibb31