ISS service extended!

[Seret]

send enough humans and you've got yourself a self-repairing population that can build more of your precious probes in a lower gravity well. High initial cost, low running cost once established. Same as any high-risk startup. That would be my argument, at least.

That's a fair point, but not really where we're at at the moment. The idea of self-sufficient colonies beyond Earth is a loooong way down the track. For the foreseeable future any expeditions or colonies would need to get all their support from Earth, whether they're manned or robotic.

[jwenting]

We will not see a manned trip to Mars in the next 50 years.

I agree. Not because we shouldn't, but because we're a degenerate race of overly risk averse morons and other bureaucrats.

Which isn't surprising as we're devolved from a shipload of telephone cleaners and marketing executives.

We will not see a manned trip to Saturn in the next century, possibly we will never see one. Why exactly should we go to Saturn?

Best reason of all: because it's there!

[Wahgineer]

Space refueling and reusable space-based vehicles are something that still need to be developed.

Restartable engines are not a trivial thing to make. Restartable engines that can be reliable after several months of interplanetary transit are harder. Restartable engines that are man-rated, and can be reused, tested and serviced in space, over several years and multiple missions are really hard. Although it's not impossible, the technology is not available yet.

If we were to design a reusable ferry vehicle, the first iterations would most likely be limited to a reusable hab/supply/power module with an expendable propulsion module (tank+engines).

1: we already have the technology and the experience to do this, no need to develop already existing technology.

2: those super hard engines to create already exist, too: they're called NERVAs (or, in KSP's case, LV-N atomic rocket motors).

[Klingon Admiral]

1: we already have the technology and the experience to do this, no need to develop already existing technology.

Tell me one reusable space-based vehicle. Vehicles that had to undergo months of refitting after each mission do not count.

2: those super hard engines to create already exist, too: they're called NERVAs (or, in KSP's case, LV-N atomic rocket motors).

The problem is that you would need a launch vehicle that is relaible enough. One failure during launch and your funding will drop to 0.

[Nibb31]

Although it was getting close, NERVA wasn't operational when it was cancelled. It also isn't clear whether they would have been reliable to restart after several months in space, or whether they could be refueled and reused over multiple missions. On-orbit inspection and checkout would probably be problematic. It's certainly not what the Saturn-N upper stages were being designed for at the time.

And they don't exist any more. The program was cancelled 40 years ago and the engines were probably scrapped (or buried somewhere in the desert). Restarting it now would require starting from scratch with modern fabrication methods, materials and safety standards.

[Winter Man]

That's a fair point, but not really where we're at at the moment. The idea of self-sufficient colonies beyond Earth is a loooong way down the track. For the foreseeable future any expeditions or colonies would need to get all their support from Earth, whether they're manned or robotic.

No, not yet. Our first Martian colony will probably be built on one of its moons and continue to function in a support role after a surface base is established. That speculation being based purely on the idea that mining and refining the fuel for interplanetary transfers is best in low orbit, which the Martian moons already are.

[Nibb31]

I really wish we wouldn't keep on talking about Mars colonies when we haven't even kept someone more than a few days on any off-world body.

[crazyewok]

I really wish we wouldn't keep on talking about Mars colonies when we haven't even kept someone more than a few days on any off-world body.

Because some people have vision and a will to push the bounderys.

A Mars a colony is the ultimate goal in the near time.

[Nibb31]

Because some people have vision and a will to push the bounderys.

A Mars a colony is the ultimate goal in the near time.

Who's goal? No government agency or organization seriously has that goal (except Mars One, but we all agree that their proposal is either a laughable hoax or a scam). We might get a manned landing in the next 50 years of we're lucky, or a small scientific outpost if we are mind-blowingly lucky, but a colony is science fiction.

This forum is called The Science Lab, not The Science Fiction Lab.

[crazyewok]

Who's goal? No government agency or organization seriously has that goal

Im not a government agency or organization. Are you telling me you wouldnt want to see it? That what I mean by goal it what I would LIKE to see. Ok maybe I wont but for me it is the ultimate goal.

Who's goal? No government agency or organization seriously has that goal

but a colony is science fiction.

[NASAFanboy]

Who's goal? No government agency or organization seriously has that goal (except Mars One, but we all agree that their proposal is either a laughable hoax or a scam). We might get a manned landing in the next 50 years of we're lucky, or a small scientific outpost if we are mind-blowingly lucky, but a colony is science fiction.

This forum is called The Science Lab, not The Science Fiction Lab.

NASA, last time I checked, kept with the Constellation vision for Mars (I checked in 2013).

The Constellation vision for Mars calls for an small research base to be established by 2040. Either that, or I was reading the "Vision for Space Exploration 2004-something" wrong.

Also, I personally believe that we will, in fact, land on Mars in the next twenty years or so. Congress is already starting to show an interest in space, and with the Democrats arguing for an increased budget, several ardent fans of space exploration running in 2016, and the Congressional ban of cancelling the SLS, I am not at all concerned about the next President cancelling the SLS (And yet again, he/she can't). Also, I couldn't find it, but I did write a small post about the SLS and why the next President will likely actually utilize it to its full potiental (ARM, lunar missions, Mars, .etc). Also, several Congressional officers are already petitioning Obama to return to the moon and establish an base by 2022. Since the seats in Congress barely change hands, and with Congressional-wide bipartisan support of the Space Launch System, it actually will survive.

After all, we all know that Obama doesn't really give a crap about the SLS, and it was technically ordered by Congress itself.

[Klingon Admiral]

Also, I personally believe that we will, in fact, land on Mars in the next twenty years or so.

Since when are we "20 years away from Mars"? We are "50 years away from nuclear fusion power" since the 60s.

Vision statements more often than not turn out to be just that ... visions without too much basis in reality.

[NASAFanboy]

Since when are we "20 years away from Mars"? We are "50 years away from nuclear fusion power" since the 60s.

Vision statements more often than not turn out to be just that ... visions without too much basis in reality.

We have accomplished fusion, but not on an profitable scale.

Pessmistic statements like yours are not much mroe than people trying to limit the dreams of the next generation.

[Kryten]

NASA, last time I checked, kept with the Constellation vision for Mars (I checked in 2013).

Constellation was cancelled in 2010. The entire program. People have told you this about five times.

[NASAFanboy]

Constellation was cancelled in 2010. The entire program. People have told you this about five times.

Orion. Part of Constellation.

Not cancelled.

J-2X engine. Part of Constellation.

Likely to be used as upper stage engine on SLS.

Constellation Mars Mission 5.0. Part of Constellation.

Reviewed by NASA, decided to be put into place.

Please go look around and see the obivous.

[Kryten]

You were quoting the actual Constellation plan, which was cancelled. Some technologies were rescued, but they are intended for different purposes as part of a different plan. The bit about the Mars mission thing is bollocks, I'm afraid; again, what you're quoting is the actual constellation document from the Bush era; it's about as relevant to government policy today as the Monroe doctrine.

[CleverClothe]

Being a dull boreing pessimist shooting down every idea and trying to drag everyone down and suck their spirit out just gets in the way, Infact that WHY we are not their already, dull politicans who cant see further than there greedy noses slashing funding thinks like NASA and lumping them with too much burrocracy.

Honnestly would you really be against a bigger funding of our space agencys and a big push?

I think Nibb31 is just one of those guys that would rather sit around drinking beer and remembering the "good ole days" when men shat into bags and counted themselves lucky. Which, admittedly, is a significant improvement over ****ting into holes in the ground.

[NASAFanboy]

You were quoting the actual Constellation plan, which was cancelled. Some technologies were rescued, but they are intended for different purposes as part of a different plan. The bit about the Mars mission thing is bollocks, I'm afraid; again, what you're quoting is the actual constellation document from the Bush era; it's about as relevant to government policy today as the Monroe doctrine.

Both Obama and Bush wanted a manned mission to Mars. They just disagreed on how to get to Mars.

A NASA administrative study in 2013, some three years after Constellation got cancelled (Which I am pointing too), wants to use SLS hardware to get to Mars the Constellation-way with some edits and changes here and there. So yes, one could technically say the Mars stuff was rescued, somewhat.

[Kryten]

NASA has administrative studies on Orion propulsion and manned Saturn missions. There's a very big difference between a study and an actual plan.

[Nibb31]

There is no Mars plan. NASA does all sorts of wacky studies, it's their job and they have a tiny part of their budget dedicated to thinking up paper studies for future missions. Only when Congress votes a budget for a program does it start to exist. Where is the Congress vote for a Mars colony?

I think Nibb31 is just one of those guys that would rather sit around drinking beer and remembering the "good ole days" when men shat into bags and counted themselves lucky. Which, admittedly, is a significant improvement over ****ting into holes in the ground.

Absolutely not. I'm as much of a space geek as anybody. I just despise the handwaving from armchair engineers who say "it's easy" because they read an article about the Albucierre drive. Experience shows that doing stuff in space is hard and expensive. That's all.

People much smarter than you have been wracking their brains for decades to do this stuff. The technology that we have now is the best stuff that they could do with the real-life constraints they have. If they could do better, then they most certainly would. They are not idiots, and I seriously doubt that a couple of kids on a game forum are smarter than an entire space industry made of thousands of scientists and engineers.

It's not about not "wanting" a USS Enterprise, colonies on Europa, or free beer. I want those things as much as anybody. But unfortunately, what we want and what is physically, technically, and economically feasible in the foreseeable future are very different things. Having a overly optimistic or arrogant attitude about it won't change the laws of physics, engineering requirements, or the economy.

Personally, I'm more impressed by the actual engineering that goes into something seemingly mundane like this:

Than in pretty drawings that are totally impractical like this:

That first picture is the NASA Docking System. It's a beautiful piece of engineering with many structural constraints, electrical and fluid connections, electronics, sensors, actuators, etc... It's a relatively small yet crucial component, but it has been in development for over 18 years (and it still hasn't flown). Yes, 18 years for a docking ring. That's how long it takes to develop real space hardware in the real world. So when I hear kids say "we can just build a spaceship and have a base on Mars in 20 years", it simply denies reality and the massive amount of development work that is required to build and design even the smallest pieces of an actual space exploration mission.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

People much smarter than you

Assumption much?

The technology that we have now is the best stuff that they could do with the real-life constraints they have.

Most constraints are financial and political.

They are not idiots,

No but the politicians writing there budgets and signing off on the projects are.

and I seriously doubt that a couple of kids on a game forum

26 microbiologist/immunologist, again assumptions.

are smarter than an entire space industry made of thousands of scientists and engineers.

Nope the scientists and engineers do alot of great work. Again its the suits on top.

what we want and what is physically, technically,

Those are not the problem.

and economically feasible

BINGO!

Having a overly optimistic or arrogant attitude about it won't change the laws of physics, engineering requirements,

No it wont.

or the economy.

Maybe if more people are inspired by space and the solar system they would put pressure on politicians to get more things done. Being grumpy defeatist gits its just going to get even more projects canned.

Than in pretty drawings that are totally impractical like this:

http://www.unmuseum.org/orionlaunch.jpg

Still waiting for you to tell me why Orion was not going to work? Most the papers and books tell a different tale. So why should I take you opinion of just NO over that of as you said scientists and engineers alot smarter than you? Only problem I see with Orion is politics and I spit on politics, all it is in men in suits getting in the way, doesnt mean it can be done just ignorant minds are blocking it. All I can say is more research should have been done, maybe it wouldnt have worked? But not enough research was done.

[Nibb31]

Assumption much?

Yeah. It's not really far-fetched to assume that thousands of aerospace engineers and scientists are collectively smarter than you or me, is it? Arrogance much?

Most constraints are financial and political.

But they are no less real.

Nope the scientists and engineers do alot of great work. Again its the suits on top.

But that's how the system works. Trust me, changing the political system and creating a fair society without politicians, where everybody agrees to fund your particular hobby, is going to be much harder than inventing a warp drive.

Still waiting for you to tell me why Orion was not going to work? Most the papers and books tell a different tale. So why should I take you opinion of just NO over that of as you said scientists and engineers alot smarter than you? Only problem I see with Orion is politics and I spit on politics, all it is in men in suits getting in the way, doesnt mean it can be done just ignorant minds are blocking it. All I can say is more research should have been done, maybe it wouldnt have worked? But not enough research was done.

Politics are part of the system, whether you spit on it or not. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the political and economical environment is just as much a constraint as Newton's laws. You can't just handwave those things away. Yes, we have inefficiencies. We have limited resources. Our system isn't perfect, but it's the one we have to work with.

Let's not get into the Orion drive debate again. NTR is probably feasible, but Orion certainly isn't. Do you really still need to be told again why detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere is a bad idea? Do you really think it would be practical to have hundreds of people working on a spaceship sitting in the middle of a highly irradiated wasteland? Studies from the 50's are no longer relevant. You would need to redo them with modern physics if you wanted to convince anyone that Orion is a good idea.

[Klingon Admiral]

Aerospace engineers most certainly do great work all the time. Like with the Starfighter. Or the 787. Or the A400M.

[crazyewok]

But they are no less real.

No I agree. But unlike problems with physics and engineering these problems can disapear at the wave of a pen, which makes then all the more frustrateing!

Do you really still need to be told again why detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere is a bad idea? Do you really think it would be practical to have hundreds of people working on a spaceship sitting in the middle of a highly irradiated wasteland?

And I still think those issue could have been overcome or at least reduced to marginal levels. The scientists working on the project certainly thought so. Plus these wernt weaponised bombs in the sense we comonly think of them, by the end of the project they were rather refined purposely built "bombs" (hate that term as its not being used as a bombs) with directional explosives.

Studies from the 50's are no longer relevant. You would need to redo them with modern physics if you wanted to convince anyone that Orion is a good idea.

Yup I agree. MORE RESEARCH! Reopen it have a good look with moden physics and moden ways of reduceing its problems. Im not saying we should just built a 8 million ton super orion. Far from it im just saying we should have another good look at nuclear pulse propulsion. Even a pure fusion device may be doable. I was chatting to a particle physicists, fact is we can get fusion going easy enough but the problems are sustaining it (Reactor burns out) or geting a positive energy return on it, well with a engine those problems are non issues really as you not trying to sustain it with pulses which takes the temeprature burden off and allthough a postive energy return would be nice its not essential as you can have another power source on board that makes up the energy deficiet.

[Nibb31]

Aerospace engineers most certainly do great work all the time. Like with the Starfighter. Or the 787. Or the A400M.

They usually do the best they can within the requirements and constraints that they are given.