EPTNASA and the Private Sector - Page 100
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11845 Posts
On September 11 2016 06:49 cLutZ wrote: No one is going to Mars, not any sane person anyways. They aren't even conducting the appropriate isolation tests on humans right now. There has been some tests done. I can agree they aren't properly done but some indicators can likely be taken from them. The international space station is also a decent indicator of things. There are things to look at but as things are the first people will discover stuff that wasn't tested, if it wasn't so expensive that would be good for mankind, not so great for the people on board. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11845 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:01 cLutZ wrote: They need to put people in a can, underwater, with communications lag built in. That's kinda the standard I would set before I'd think its a go. Using a module or two on ISS and having a crew staying there with no outside view for half a year with communication lag would be even better though a bit unrealistic to happen I guess. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
It would largely be a matter of constructing the modules and testing them since we already basically have the technology to do it right now. So yeah, optimistic, maybe, but I really think NASA seems to have gained some focus regarding a potential manned mission to Mars in the past few years. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:55 a_flayer wrote: since we already basically have the technology to do it right now. That's the issue. While I don't think it's unfeasible that we could construct manned Mars modules, we don't have them. The US doesn't even have the means to go to the ISS on its own, much less the Moon or Mars. Until we have an actual craft built or even at the very least planned, we have nothing. And I'll go on like a broken record and complain about Constellation being cancelled. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote: That's the issue. While I don't think it's unfeasible that we could construct manned Mars modules, we don't have them. The US doesn't even have the means to go to the ISS on its own, much less the Moon or Mars. Until we have an actual craft we have nothing. And I'll go on like a broken record and complain about Constellation being cancelled. They're working on Orion right now, which should be capable of doing that, but is being built specifically with Mars in mind. Constellation was about returning to the Moon. Orion going to Mars was the latter part of Constellation. Why bother with the Moon when you can go directly to Mars? The Americans also have plenty of companies that build rockets to bring other crafts and cargo into orbit (amongst which ULA and SpaceX, despite the recent setback on the surface of the Earth), it doesn't all need to dock with the ISS, you know. The heavy unmanned modules can be sent as soon as they feel confident using the powered landing on Mars. I could easily see Orion being done by 2025, and the unmanned modules could already be there waiting to be manned. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:15 a_flayer wrote: They're working on Orion right now, which should be capable of doing that, but is being built specifically with Mars in mind. Constellation was about returning to the Moon. Orion going to Mars was the latter part of the Constellation. Why bother with the Moon when you can go directly to Mars? The Americans also have plenty of companies that build rockets to bring other crafts and cargo into orbit (amongst which ULA and SpaceX, despite the recent setback on the surface of the Earth), it doesn't all need to dock with the ISS, you know. The heavy unmanned modules can be sent as soon as they feel confident using the powered landing on Mars. I could easily see both of these things happening by 2025. Orion is a pretty decent piece of hardware and the major survivor of the Constellation program. It's also an obscenely expensive program that really reveals what is at the core of NASA's weakness: unstable budgets. Reviving the moribund US human space-flight program requires shooting not just for the Moon, but also for Mars, says a report released today by the US National Academy of Sciences. It lays out three potential paths to the red planet — while warning that reaching Mars will require NASA to rethink how it plans its missions. Continuing on the agency's present course “is to invite failure, disillusionment, and the longstanding international perception that human space-flight is something that the United States does best,” the report says. The shortest route to Mars envisioned in the report would begin with a journey to retrieve a small asteroid in near-Earth orbit — a goal endorsed by US President Barack Obama — followed by a mission to Mars’s two moons and then a trip to the planet itself. More complicated schemes would involve stopping at a gravitationally stable area between Earth and the Moon called Lagrangian point L2, at an asteroid in deep space or at the Moon’s surface on the way to Mars. The report’s plans would put humans on Mars sometime between 2037 and 2050 at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and “significant risk to human life”, the report says. Reaching the red planet would require a decades-long commitment to funding NASA’s human space-flight program at a level that outpaces the rate of inflation, ending 30 years of flat budgets for manned missions. Source So you're a decade or two more optimistic than they are about Mars capabilities. It's an expensive and genuinely technically challenging mission. Going to the Moon first makes sense as well, as a genuinely useful mission that could mark significant progress in the space program. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5599 Posts
On September 11 2016 03:53 LegalLord wrote: You chose your words carefully to make it sound like SpaceX made a major breakthrough that no one else has been able to make. In reality they improved on an existing system, or at least apparently did because it hasn't been tested with actual people inside. Much less impressive. Landing a first stage is not a breakthrough? Who else did that? Nobody tests an abort system with people inside... Who do you work for? On September 11 2016 03:53 LegalLord wrote: The bigger point, however, is that SpaceX has failed to show that as of yet, their technologies are actually useful innovations that justify its existence. They have recovered a rocket, but as of yet failed to show that it can be reused - or, more importantly, that it is actually useful to reuse them. They've recovered 6 rockets and it's been less than a year since the first landing. Wait a couple months until they launch SES-10. On September 11 2016 03:53 LegalLord wrote: History suggests that maintenance costs plus the costs of designing a craft to actually be reusable are more significant than the savings you get from actually reusing rockets, and SpaceX has yet to show that they have overcome this historical difficulty. Orion will be reusable. When you say "history" the only example is the space shuttle, and that's because the space shuttle was an asinine vehicle for the reasons I just said. On September 11 2016 03:53 LegalLord wrote: Their manned craft have yet to even carry a single person so their capabilities cannot be judged one way or the other - many things change between testing runs and real launches. By default, missions that have actually flown and been successful, regardless of their faults, are better than unproven technology. If the status quo is necessarily better because it exists, why isn't the US still flying Mercury capsules? On September 11 2016 03:53 LegalLord wrote: And until SpaceX proves that it has done something particularly useful, it's merely a redundancy that offers cheap prices (which we don't know if it profits on) and average reliability. So far it's survived mostly on government support (financial and technical) and the Musk hype train, and a number of factors make me question if it will ever manage to be anything more than that. What specifically are they redundant with? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I really don't think there's much more to discuss than that, really. We basically disagree on that major point and any further discussion is basically talking in circles around that issue. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:55 a_flayer wrote: Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think NASA could be landing two engineers and two scientists on Mars by 2030 to be honest. The upcoming Mars mission 2020 seems very focused on potential landing sites, even looking for resources to help sustain life, digging into the ground, etc. They talk about oxygen production, and investigating how to go about landing large payloads. Now, that last bit especially makes me think of SpaceX for some reason. I could see them sending heavy cargo vehicles, and a potential return vehicle, as well as the first pieces of a base that could be constructed by remote controlled robotic units as soon as 2025-2030, allowing for a follow-up crewed mission in the next transfer window. It would largely be a matter of constructing the modules and testing them since we already basically have the technology to do it right now. So yeah, optimistic, maybe, but I really think NASA seems to have gained some focus regarding a potential manned mission to Mars in the past few years. All decade+ timelines are ultimately speculative. Theoretically you can brute force the mission with funds, multiple launches and in-orbit refueling. On the other hand there might also be medical breakthroughs totally unrelated to the space missions that make a yearlong flight that pokeys its way there not only feasible, but entirely safe so long as the capsule remains pressurized. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5599 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:51 LegalLord wrote: Ultimately, you are willing to give SpaceX a lot of benefit of the doubt and take a charitable interpretation of what they have managed and will manage to accomplish. My viewpoint is, "I'll believe it when I see it" and that I have my doubts, based on the founder's actions in this and other projects, that it will ever manage to do anything more impressive than building small upgrades to old technologies. I really don't think there's much more to discuss than that, really. We basically disagree on that major point and any further discussion is basically talking in circles around that issue. It's unfortunate you won't engage because those weren't rhetorical questions. NASA has so far spent 11 billion dollars on the Orion program. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 09:03 oBlade wrote: It's unfortunate you won't engage because those weren't rhetorical questions. NASA has so far spent 11 billion dollars on the Orion program. Not rhetorical, but also not worth answering. We're going in circles. On September 11 2016 08:59 cLutZ wrote: All decade+ timelines are ultimately speculative. Theoretically you can brute force the mission with funds, multiple launches and in-orbit refueling. On the other hand there might also be medical breakthroughs totally unrelated to the space missions that make a yearlong flight that pokeys its way there not only feasible, but entirely safe so long as the capsule remains pressurized. Perhaps it's important to also note that most big space ventures like this are pretty unpopular, except in the short period where they seem to be close to success. People are scared of R&D costs. Edit: On September 11 2016 08:41 oBlade wrote: Who do you work for? Yeah, start playing this game and I have nothing more to say to you. If you have shitty enough manners to say that people you don't agree with are just corporate shills then you aren't worth my time. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5599 Posts
On September 11 2016 09:04 LegalLord wrote: Not rhetorical, but also not worth answering. We're going in circles. I'll explain them for interest anyway: -If the status quo is necessarily better because it exists, why isn't the US still flying Mercury capsules? If you were alive in the 50s you'd be against Apollo, if you were alive in the early 70s you'd be against the shuttle, if this conversation was happening in the early 2000s you would be shitting on the Constellation program in favor of the shuttle. "I'll believe it when I see it" is a respectable attitude. Here it is. + Show Spoiler + -What specifically are they redundant with? Is Dragon redundant with Orion? No, Orion is multipurpose for deep space missions. Not LEO trucking. But if it were redundant with Orion and you wanted to axe one of them, we'd keep the $2.6 billion one over the (so far) $11 billion one, right? Is it redundant with Soyuz? No, Soyuz isn't an American vehicle, NASA has no control over it besides renting seats. Is it redundant with the retired, aging remains of the expensive shuttle fleet? No, but commercial crew and commercial cargo are the replacement. Is Dragon cargo redundant with Orbital Sciences Cygnus? Yes, by design: The ISS has such a huge demand for cargo that there's room for two domestic US companies on top of Progress and the Japanese HTV. That capability means with a catastrophic problem in one company, the other can still deliver, guaranteeing US access. Is Dragon crew redundant with Boeing? Yes, by design. For the same reasons: there are enough flights available, get lower prices by fostering private competition, and redundant capability same as above. Redundancy has in fact been part of ULA's long-term rationale for operating the Atlas and Delta families simultaneously. Redundant doesn't necessitate "twice as expensive" or whatever you think it means. Redundant is not a synonym of superfluous. If you want to buy two pizzas and you send someone to Papa John's and someone else to Domino's, you're not spending twice as much as if you bought two pizzas from Papa John's. But if Domino's hypothetically ends up being closed, you can always rearrange to get two pizzas from Papa John's instead. If you were the entire economy, it can actually backfire on you to only support one pizza joint because they might use the opportunity to take over for 30 years at the cost of $1 billion per launch while killing 14 astronauts. This should be an accessible concept, but between this and your refusal to recognize landing a first stage as an engineering first, and thinking that abort systems are tested on manned flights, if you're not being deliberately misleading I really couldn't explain why you're lost with respect to meeting reality halfway. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote: -If the status quo is necessarily better because it exists, why isn't the US still flying Mercury capsules? If you were alive in the 50s you'd be against Apollo, if you were alive in the early 70s you'd be against the shuttle, if this conversation was happening in the early 2000s you would be shitting on the Constellation program in favor of the shuttle. Really? Are you sure about that? Are you sure that that's what I was getting at? No, it was just a strawman attack meant to misconstrue a point about proven technology being better than unproven technology (which may prove itself in the future but has not done so yet) into somehow thinking that it meant that no progress should ever be made. The Space Shuttle was a badly envisioned program. But it was idiotic to cancel the Space Shuttle, a program that performed a necessary function in terms of transport of both personnel and cargo, before a replacement were constructed. Incidentally, even though Constellation was a better plan, it ultimately failed to survive budget cuts, justifying the idea the Space Shuttle should not have been cancelled in the meantime. I could address your other points, about the specific SpaceX technologies you are pushing, about how the existence of private space programs is itself a redundancy with a more functional version of NASA (i.e. what it would be if privatization of space either never happened or happened with a more sane transition schedule)... but that would just end up being an interpretation of how charitably you view the current privatization in general and SpaceX in particular. I have expressed my own doubts about its capability to become much more than a middling quality rocket launching program that eats up lots of government/investor money, that will hamper the development of more reliable projects under the NASA umbrella. You have proven to be rather shitty to discuss the issue with because you argue in circles, strawman my positions, and resort to trying to imply that people who disagree with you must be shilling for somebody. It makes for terrible discussion and I have no interest in continuing on this line of conversation, and this response is already one more than I think your point deserved. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote: + Show Spoiler + I'll explain them for interest anyway: -If the status quo is necessarily better because it exists, why isn't the US still flying Mercury capsules? If you were alive in the 50s you'd be against Apollo, if you were alive in the early 70s you'd be against the shuttle, if this conversation was happening in the early 2000s you would be shitting on the Constellation program in favor of the shuttle. "I'll believe it when I see it" is a respectable attitude. Here it is. + Show Spoiler + But apply that attitude among everyone, not just the people you don't like. If we were having this conversation in 2013 you ought to have been maligning Orion as "redundant" since it had never flown so Dragon was better by default. Despite that they have completely different roles. -What specifically are they redundant with? Is Dragon redundant with Orion? No, Orion is multipurpose for deep space missions. Not LEO trucking. But if it were redundant with Orion and you wanted to axe one of them, we'd keep the $2.6 billion one over the (so far) $11 billion one, right? Is it redundant with Soyuz? No, Soyuz isn't an American vehicle, NASA has no control over it besides renting seats. Is it redundant with the retired, aging remains of the expensive shuttle fleet? No, but commercial crew and commercial cargo are the replacement. Is Dragon cargo redundant with Orbital Sciences Cygnus? Yes, by design: The ISS has such a huge demand for cargo that there's room for two domestic US companies on top of Progress and the Japanese HTV. That capability means with a catastrophic problem in one company, the other can still deliver, guaranteeing US access. Is Dragon crew redundant with Boeing? Yes, by design. For the same reasons: there are enough flights available, get lower prices by fostering private competition, and redundant capability same as above. Redundancy has in fact been part of ULA's long-term rationale for operating the Atlas and Delta families simultaneously. Redundant doesn't necessitate "twice as expensive" or whatever you think it means. Redundant is not a synonym of superfluous. If you want to buy two pizzas and you send someone to Papa John's and someone else to Domino's, you're not spending twice as much as if you bought two pizzas from Papa John's. But if Domino's hypothetically ends up being closed, you can always rearrange to get two pizzas from Papa John's instead. If you were the entire economy, it can actually backfire on you to only support one pizza joint because they might use the opportunity to take over for 30 years at the cost of $1 billion per launch while killing 14 astronauts. This should be an accessible concept, but between this and your refusal to recognize landing a first stage as an engineering first, and thinking that abort systems are tested on manned flights, if you're not being deliberately misleading I really couldn't explain why you're lost with respect to meeting reality halfway. Such passion for spaceflight, lel. I'm still optimistic for some serious progress towards Mars by 2025-2030 in terms of building a base. IIRC I heard they were going to launch a (relatively small) asteroid re-direct mission in 2017. They're using the mission to test a new kind of solar drive. Depending on the results of that, this could be developed into a much larger one to send base modules to Mars once they've successfully tested Orion in high orbit around Earth to meet with the asteroid by ~2023. On September 11 2016 11:06 LegalLord wrote: The Space Shuttle was a badly envisioned program. But it was idiotic to cancel the Space Shuttle, a program that performed a necessary function in terms of transport of both personnel and cargo, before a replacement were constructed. Incidentally, even though Constellation was a better plan, it ultimately failed to survive budget cuts, justifying the idea the Space Shuttle should not have been cancelled in the meantime. Probably cheaper to pay the Russians, really. It was expensive to send that heavy craft into space. So much useless mass and high maintenance... Engineering time that could be better spent developing new shit on the frontier, while the risks of LEO (which is all the Shuttle would ever be good for) have been assessed and can be capitalized upon by free enterprise (even if that means employing other states when necessary). And did they cut the budget because that money is now going to the Russians, or is NASAs budget as it is paying the Russians? How does that work? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 11 2016 11:12 a_flayer wrote: Probably cheaper to pay the Russians, really. It was expensive to send that heavy craft into space. So much useless mass and high maintenance... Engineering time that could be better spent developing new shit on the frontier, while the risks of LEO (which is all the Shuttle would ever be good for) have been assessed and can be capitalized upon by free enterprise (even if that means employing other states when necessary). And did they cut the budget because that money is now going to the Russians, or is NASAs budget as it is paying the Russians? How does that work? The issue is that, yes, the program is expensive and unfeasible in the long term, but ultimately there needs to be some sort of means to send manned missions into space. A large-scale downsizing, and a move towards a cheaper means of cargo transport (commercial or government) is reasonable. However, the fact that NASA no longer has the capability to launch its own rockets to complete these missions makes it awfully fragile and reliant upon outside factors - the financial stability of ULA/SpaceX/others, the willingness of Russia to cooperate with the US space program, reliability of entities it can't really control all that well, etc. It was not a good idea to cancel the Space Shuttle when there was nothing to succeed it but just the promise of a future means to do so. NASA made deals with Russia for a specified number of seats on Soyuz, paid for out of its budget. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
