SpaceX Dragon 2 Launches... US regains independent manned launch capability!

[Techno-Druid]

The entire Kardashev is a load of non-scientific nonsense that needs to fade into obscurity. And Michio Kaku is deeply irresponsible as a scientific popularizer for promoting this kookery, among others.

I'm not sure how the Kardashev Scale is that nonsensical, but I will concede to its subjectivity and vagueness. There really does not seem to be an objective way to quantify civilizational development in general. Mostly because we are the only species that we know of on this planet to have civilization and said civilizations have never been linear in development.

[Ubermensch]

At the point where we can almost abandon fossil fuels in place of nuclear fusion, we would likely be a Type I Civilization.

Yes, but there is a small gap before we can gain Nuclear Fusion or a Dyson Ring around our star. In my opinion, we're going to have to take some steps before we reach it, it'll take a while before Nuclear Fusion is even a possibility with the way we're going.

[Techno-Druid]

Yes, but there is a small gap before we can gain Nuclear Fusion or a Dyson Ring around our star. In my opinion, we're going to have to take some steps before we reach it, it'll take a while before Nuclear Fusion is even a possibility with the way we're going.

A Type I civilization wouldn't be using dyson swarms (which is probably the most realistic of sun-harnessing tech) in the first place, at least according to the original scale.

[Ubermensch]

A Type I civilization wouldn't be using dyson swarms (which is probably the most realistic of sun-harnessing tech) in the first place, at least according to the original scale.

I think they changed that later on, if I'm not mistaken. I saw the original one too. And again, it's my opinion that Dyson Swarms are clunky, messy and risk exposing us as an advanced species. If other civilizations saw our star with a megastructure or megastructures around it, they'd know we were there and might try to destroy us first. But with a Dyson Sphere, it conceals all sunlight and hides our civilization, which is why I like it better.

[Skroe]

What do you mean? The whole stainless steel hull/''sweating gas'' design they've decided to go with? And even if Starship is at best 75% of the supposed capabilities, isn't it very good for what NASA wants to do - haul large amounts of cargo, people to and from Moon, maybe even Mars some time in the 2030's?

It really depends on the Starship we're talking about. For simplicity's sake, when I say Starship, I'm referring to Starship+Super Heavy.

I think the 100+ ton launcher Starship is too ambitious for SpaceX and the economics in the near term are questionable for reasons I outlined earlier in this thread. Elon Musk is right that Starship in that form (and larger) are the right solution for an enduring Mars program and colonization. Especially infrastructure building. It is the right vehicle for it. The problem is his Mars dream has to be underwritten by something. With respect to Dragon 2 and the increasing capabilities of the Falcon 9, including landing, that's all been underwritten by commercial launch contracts, NASA competitions it won, and Air Force / NRO money.

What is the analog for that for a huge launcher like Starship? Right now I don't see one. And don't say asteroid mining.

That is why the way I think it will go is that Starship technology (including the Raptor Engine) will replace the entire Falcon 9 / Merlin launcher stack with a ~50-60 ton launcher, and maybe a 25 ton variant, and it will fly those, on missions SpaceX currently flies Falcon 9s and Heavys, before scaling them up for the 100+ ton launcher later on. This makes complete sense as it is exactly what SpaceX did with the Falcon 9. The original Falcon 9 was a 13 ton payload launcher, and it crept up, iteration by iteration, to about 23 tons, and if they kept iterating, they could probably go over 30 tons before capping out. Few launches need that payload. Most satellites are between 6 tons and 18 tons. But some, particularly national security launches, are at the upper end of that. And to the wider solar system, it can enable faster routes.

the SLS will happen. 100%. The question is, does SLS make it past 2030? That I have severe doubts about. It'll build, with SpaceX, the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. But beyond that, Starship will probably be more mature for it. In fact, NASA has already taken a step in that direction. They want to move the Europa Clipper probe from an SLS Block 1 (flight 2 or 3) to a Falcon Heavy.

Basically if I worked at Boeing in Alabama making the SLS, i'd plan to move and find a new job in the next 6 years. Because Starship, regardless of launch capability, will be vastly more economical than the SLS, which simply is not. Remmeber: one RS-25 engine on the SLS costs as much as a Falcon 9. Two are more expensive than a Falcon Heavy. It won't last. Not as a disposable launch platform. Reusable with the Shuttle? $60 million RS-25s are an acceptable cost. But expendable? It's a black hole of money.

Don't you think that all those big guns who have been involved in that conglomerate will come out in force to protect all those projects? After all, that's an awful lot of engineers and scientists that will be, at the very least, redirected from a relatively fresh progam. Then there's the issue of industrial base and know-how - once you loose it, it's hard, near impossible to get back on track if there is in fact a competition.

They've been trying for years. They've completely failed. You have to look no further than the Air Force for that.

The Air Force trusted SpaceX even less than NASA did (which wasn't much). They thought Elon Musk was erratic. They thought the technology unproven. And they had a very viable long term relationship with ULA. But they gave SpaceX a chance. And SpaceX took advantage of it.

Now? The Air Force is trying to drop ULA like a bad habit, and ULA is hanging on only through challenging contract awards to SpaceX in court.

The Air Force went from defending the EELV program to wanting to wash its hands of the Atlas V (less so the Delta IV). Due to its high launch rate, the Falcon 9 will pass the Atlas V in total launches this summer... and it will have done it in a third time. And Air Force SpaceX launches cost $70-90 million, instead of around $150-$280 million for an Atlas V, and $400+ million for a Delta IV. The Air Force is eager to wash its hands of the Delta IV heavy once the Falcon Heavy, flight cost $120 million for national security launches (insurance premium), starts launching for them.

They turned on ULA in about 2 years. And NASA has as well, with Falcon being lined up for deep space launches across the coming decade.

The only people really defending them are in Congress, and yeah, that'll go on for a bit, but the wall defending the old guard is nothing what it was even 24 months ago.

So yeah all those jobs are doomed. But the word for that is "fair". Because ULA dragged its feet while SpaceX innovated.

And who knows how SpaceX will work out. Tesla will most likely go under this year and Musk is seemingly ready to sacrifice the entirety of SpaceX just to get funding for Starlink/Starship as quickly as possible.

We're well past the point of speculating how "SpaceX will work out". SpaceX is not Tesla. SpaceX is the leading service-launch provider on Earth, and it does it with a big vehicle.

This is not a company that has to still prove its worth. This a company that already has, and is now murdering the competition in cold blood.

There's nothing more scary than Jeff Bezos having a monopoly on large vehicles. By the way, why there is such lack of news about New Glenn and everything else that they've got planned? They keep releasing new CGI every year but we've seen fuck all.

Blue Origin is doing the right thing and going slow, developing a technology base to build on that will enable, like SpaceX, self sufficiency from engine to launch and landing. They're basically trying to do a sort-of-compressed SpaceX, bottom-up company building approach.

It's 100% right and if ULA had any brains (they don't), it is exactly what they would do rather than build their miserable Vulcan-Centaur joke of a rocket. Jeff Bezos realized that in order to compete against what SpaceX already has... in order to just catch up... his company has to diligiently try and recreate similar technology, as quickly as possible, and offer comparable services when they're ready. The worst thing they can do is start flying poor-mans Falcon 9s that don't land. Also, the New Glenn has it's payload capacity quietly downsized to ~50 tons this year... around a Falcon Heavy and same as where I expect Starship will end up starting at. They'll probably go bigger later, but there is an actual market there.

Also it's worth noting that Blue Origin has a very tight relationship with the Air Force, which has been financing development of the BE-4 engine for years. The renamed EELV program mandates by law that the Air Force support two launch vehicle families, incase one is grounded (this is called assured access to space). My bet? Over the next 5 years it'll be SpaceX and Blue Origin that pay their bills off EELV launches, mostly of Falcons/New Glenns and eventually first generation Starship rockets. I think ULA will focus o Second Stages and side-mount boosters, but will abandon Vulcan.

[kasuke06]

Why are you so eager to fight me? Why do you think I'm against you just because I'm not taking your tribalistic side? I am on your side, just not in the way you think I should be.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out that you're fundamentally wrong. Your entire stance is incorrect and based on faulty logic that runs counter to reality.

If you're so desperate for an offensive to be performed against you, I can oblige. This is an attack:

You attempt to foster some faux intellectual persona in an attempt to deflect the fact that anyone refuting your "arguments" is us just not understanding your enlightened point of view when it's you whom has outright refused to even consider the possibility that you could in any potential sense of the word be "incorrect" in any way. Its also kind of funny that your username evokes a psychological construct of the greater man, but instead of trying to be one in example, you simply attempt to call all others as lesser than yourself while your chosen avatar is that of a technologically superior force that made one of the most basic possible mistakes which lead to their entire attempt to conquer the planet failing. These choices both mark your persona as one that is both self aggrandizing and self defeating at the same time. You more than happily promote your own greatness but at the same time acknowledge that you can and will do nothing to realize your greater ideals, pleased to wait while someone else makes your better world. It's also hilarious that the Ubermensch as an original construct relished work with joy and sought intellectual pursuits while existing as a foil to nihilism and yet you so perfectly stand in example of nihilism after the death of god! The Ubermensch is supposed to be an inspiration to all of mankind, grandiose in both deed and word to show that one may become better than they are! You may have taken the name, but you are no Ubermensch.

I mean, you don't even have the umlaut.

[Techno-Druid]

I think they changed that later on, if I'm not mistaken. I saw the original one too. And again, it's my opinion that Dyson Swarms are clunky, messy and risk exposing us as an advanced species. If other civilizations saw our star with a megastructure or megastructures around it, they'd know we were there and might try to destroy us first. But with a Dyson Sphere, it conceals all sunlight and hides our civilization, which is why I like it better.

Why would you want to conceal sunlight? That's ridiculous. You would literally destroy all life on Earth and any attempts at spreading life on other planets within our system.

[Ubermensch]

Why would you want to conceal sunlight? That's ridiculous. You would literally destroy all life on Earth and any attempts at spreading life on other planets within our system.

In the context of a Type 1 or Type 2 Civilization, we're likely not going to need an ecosystem anymore as with that energy output, we may be able to maintain a post-scarcity civilization, therefore losing the need for a lot of the things that binds us to Earth right now.

[Techno-Druid]

In the context of a Type 1 or Type 2 Civilization, we're likely not going to need an ecosystem anymore as with that energy output, we may be able to maintain a post-scarcity civilization, therefore losing the need for a lot of the things that binds us to Earth right now.

That seems very shortsighted and anthropocentric. We rely on various biotic mechanisms to survive, from oxygen providing organisms to the micro-animals that live on our skin and clothes.

[Ubermensch]

I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out that you're fundamentally wrong. Your entire stance is incorrect and based on faulty logic that runs counter to reality.

If you're so desperate for an offensive to be performed against you, I can oblige. This is an attack:

You attempt to foster some faux intellectual persona in an attempt to deflect the fact that anyone refuting your "arguments" is us just not understanding your enlightened point of view when it's you whom has outright refused to even consider the possibility that you could in any potential sense of the word be "incorrect" in any way. Its also kind of funny that your username evokes a psychological construct of the greater man, but instead of trying to be one in example, you simply attempt to call all others as lesser than yourself while your chosen avatar is that of a technologically superior force that made one of the most basic possible mistakes which lead to their entire attempt to conquer the planet failing. These choices both mark your persona as one that is both self aggrandizing and self defeating at the same time. You more than happily promote your own greatness but at the same time acknowledge that you can and will do nothing to realize your greater ideals, pleased to wait while someone else makes your better world. It's also hilarious that the Ubermensch as an original construct relished work with joy and sought intellectual pursuits while existing as a foil to nihilism and yet you so perfectly stand in example of nihilism after the death of god! The Ubermensch is supposed to be an inspiration to all of mankind, grandiose in both deed and word to show that one may become better than they are! You may have taken the name, but you are no Ubermensch.

I mean, you don't even have the umlaut.

Wow, that's a hell of an analysis but it's wrong. I chose the name "Ubermensch" fully knowing what it means but not because of the meaning, but because it's a cool sounding word. Though the concept behind it is pretty cool, it's doesn't match or have anything to do with my views of the universe. The avatar displays one of the most awesome and in my opinion, practical alien war machines I've ever seen and I enjoy writing sci-fi about these kind of things, so I chose it as my profile picture, since the previous one I chose was mistook for a hairy anus with the tiny resolution available. The tripods made a mistake because they never encountered bacteria or disease in the millions of years as an advanced civilization, so they couldn't have imagined anything like it existing and thought themselves invincible, which they were to the human race but they fell because of disease and bacteria.

I don't think I'm above others, like I keep saying, we're all of the same importance as we're all part of the same species. My logic is faulty because I consider all progress made by humans to be progress made by humanity as a species? Well, that's a hill I'm willing to fight to the death on, no matter what.

You're pretty hyper-aggressive and I'm just telling you that you don't need to be. I consider you my family and my species, I don't pity you. I just wish that you'd understand where I'm coming from.

- - - Updated - - -

That seems very shortsighted and anthropocentric. We rely on various biotic mechanisms to survive, from oxygen providing organisms to the micro-animals that live on our skin and clothes.

I'm just saying that it's very possible that we're going to be capable of creating our own ecosystem, free from the Earth's ecosystem. I don't know how but I don't imagine it would be difficult when we've invented Nuclear Fusion or Dyson Swarms, imagine what else we'll have invented.

[Techno-Druid]

Wow, that's a hell of an analysis but it's wrong. I chose the name "Ubermensch" fully knowing what it means but not because of the meaning, but because it's a cool sounding word. Though the concept behind it is pretty cool, it's doesn't match or have anything to do with my views of the universe. The avatar displays one of the most awesome and in my opinion, practical alien war machines I've ever seen and I enjoy writing sci-fi about these kind of things, so I chose it as my profile picture, since the previous one I chose was mistook for a hairy anus with the tiny resolution available. The tripods made a mistake because they never encountered bacteria or disease in the millions of years as an advanced civilization, so they couldn't have imagined anything like it existing and thought themselves invincible, which they were to the human race but they fell because of disease and bacteria.

I don't think I'm above others, like I keep saying, we're all of the same importance as we're all part of the same species. My logic is faulty because I consider all progress made by humans to be progress made by humanity as a species? Well, that's a hill I'm willing to fight to the death on, no matter what.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm just saying that it's very possible that we're going to be capable of creating our own ecosystem, free from the Earth's ecosystem. I don't know how but I don't imagine it would be difficult when we've invented Nuclear Fusion or Dyson Swarms, imagine what else we'll have invented.

You just said we wouldn't need an ecosystem and now you're saying we can just build them? How is that attainable without a sun? Why would you even want to do that?

[Skroe]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/stat...76575671721987 ???

(1) The SLS as a Cargo vehicle always made more sense than the SLS as a crewed space vehicle.



(2) The Orion capsule has to launch on something. The options are SLS and maybe Delta IV Heavy. SpaceX has no plans to human rate Falcon Heavy and it's payload to Translunar injection at 23 tons (if fully expended), is too small for the Orion capsule + Service module combined mass of 26 tons unfilled. Dragon Crew and Starliner cannot go to the moon, even if their boosters could get them there as they'd be traveling too fast compared to LEO missions. Their heat shields are not strong enough to protect them from lunar return re-entry.

Berger is also being insincere in his later tweets. The Delta IV heavy can launch the Orion capsule to Earth Orbit (it already did). But it can only do about 10 tons to Trans-lunar injection, less than half of what Orion and its service module requires. Turning Delta IV Heavy into a rocket capable of sending 25 tons to the moon would require a fundamental redesign of the rocket, likely with a much more powerful upperstage as well. And on top of that the Delta IV Heavy's unit cost of $480 million only makes it marginally cheaper than the non-recurring unit cost of the SLS, which is $600 million. This is why Delta NASA examined the Ares V and SLS in the first place, instead of just manrating and improving the Delta IV Heavy. They looked at this, years ago, and found Delta IV Heavy would be fine if the goal was just to put Orion into LEO. Sending it to the moon though? Now way.

Berger knows this. He's not stupid. But rocket stuff is highly ideological in its own way and people have wanted to kill the SLS for years. So he's doing what he (and Keith Cowing, and others) always do, which oversimplify a much more complex question and pretend these questions haven't been asked before.

Want to turn the Delta IV heavy into a rocket that can launch Orion to TLI? Strap on another 2 cores, add $150 million+, and give United Launch alliance another 5 years to work it out. Oh and by the way, everyone was set on retiring the Delta IV heavy by 2024-2025.

It really sounds like then, the "out" is not the Delta IV heavy, but dropping a wad of money on Elon Musk's desk and pay him to human rate the Falcon Heavy and give it a more powerful upper stage to boost its TLI mass to around 35 tons. For SpaceX, that' like $3 billion dollars and 4 years of work. Because those are the options - (1) SLS, (2) improving the Falcon Heavy, (3) massively growing the Delta IV Heavy.

Eric Berger should be ashamed of himself.




(3) Fundamentally, it is not up to NASA to decide. Obama's man at NASA, Charlie Bolden, tried to engage in anti-SLS shenanigans for years and all Congress did was make him report in to them in person every 6 weeks (they didn't trust him) and mandated use of the SLS for one purpose or another through the law.

Or let me put it another way: Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) will write into the 2020 appropriations bill that the only launcher of the Orion capsule is the SLS, and by law, Astronauts must take Orion to reach the moon, and that will be the end of the discussion.

Congress doesn't care what Presidents and their staff want anymore. I've been preaching that gospel for some time now. Maybe folks will start listening. This is not the 2000s. Presdential Budget Requests are less relevant than ever.

[Ubermensch]

You just said we wouldn't need an ecosystem and now you're saying we can just build them? How is that attainable without a sun? Why would you even want to do that?

I said we wouldn't need Earth's ecosystem, we'd just build one for ourselves that can sustain us and only us, ignoring the other species on our planet. I wouldn't know how it'd be attainable without a sun but we'd need to find a way to conceal ourselves from other civilizations since it's my belief that the Dark Forest theory is true. Every civilization is a predator, creeping through the darkness, hiding and waiting for any foolish civilization to expose themselves so they can snuff them out to preserve themselves. Simply because nobody has any way of communicating or knowing the intentions of other civilizations, you bear an enormous risk that could mean an ally or total extinction of your entire species.

[Triceron]

Why would you want to conceal sunlight? That's ridiculous. You would literally destroy all life on Earth and any attempts at spreading life on other planets within our system.

Having any sensible discussion about constructing a Dyson sphere that wraps around the sun and its effects on Earth's ecosystem is more-than-pointless, considering we don't know the state of civilization that far into the future.

For all we know, the Earth may be devoid of its resources by the time a Dyson Sphere could even be completed. There's no 'right' assumption about Earth in relation to Dyson spheres. Destroying life on earth is no less ridiculous than the idea that a Dyson Sphere would be constructed at all.

[Ubermensch]

Having any sensible discussion about constructing a Dyson sphere that wraps around the sun and its effects on Earth's ecosystem is more-than-pointless, considering we don't know the state of civilization that far into the future.

For all we know, the Earth may be devoid of its resources by the time a Dyson Sphere could even be completed. There's no 'right' assumption about Earth in relation to Dyson spheres. Destroying life on earth is no less ridiculous than the idea that a Dyson Sphere would be constructed at all.

Yes, that's my point as well. We're going to be very different in terms of technological capabilities that far in the future, he seems to be assuming that we're still going to have the same level of tech as today but just with Nuclear Fusion.

[Skroe]

That's fine, you can blame it on human nature or whatever, I don't care. I still consider it progress made by all of us as a species and I eagerly await the day we decide to work together so we can leave behind this tribalistic nonsense and start making some real progress.

I do not care about your human nature because I know that one day, we'll figure out a way to deal with it or a way around it and we'll start working together. It's a matter of patience for me. So again, I do not care, please don't make me say it again, I am begging you here.

Your minimizing about what you wrong describe as "tribalism" is dangerous and historically ignorant.

The two leading Space countries in the world in 2019 are the United States and China. As we go forward into the 21st century you will see the United States and China be the two leaders at most everything.

The United States wants to rule the world, but it doesn't put it quite like that. It espouses the spread of Western-centric liberal democracy and free market capitalism. Human rights and human liberty as we know it are inextricably linked to these concepts. And yes, Democratic socialism and all that is well within that sphere.

China wants to rule the world, but it doesn't put it quite like that. It is building a model of authoritarian state-driven capitalism, leverage advanced technology to monitor large populations threat on the power of the chinese commust party. The goal oc China is to reorient the international order into one chiefly benefiting it (a kind of modern mercantalism) and stamp out the competition that threatens its legitimacy, naemly the very liberal democracy the United States advances.

There is no middle ground between these two. In China's world, the human rights we enjoy don't exist. in America's world, the way China rules itself, much less others, is illegitimate and itself a massive human rights violation.

So how shall man live? You want to talk about Species. Let's do that. The human race, the only known intelligent life in the universe... what is the "right" answer for us to live as a species? Is is the Chinese model, where we obey the State that tells us what is right and what is wrong? Is it the Western model, that has pioneered the spread of human liberity, self determination and human rights? Here's the fundmental problem with your angle to this: if we put aside our "tribalism" as you put it, and lets say split the difference, we are either cosigning ourselves to be less free by accepting the legitimacy of China's authoritarian alternative, or if we just let each party mind their own plot, we're cosigning one sixth the human race to live under authoritarianism just so some other fraction of it can live under liberal democracy.

You ascribe it as tribalism. It's actually a question of cosmic importance: what rights and freedoms are the only confirmed intelligent life in the universes entitled to? Now tell me building a base on Mars and planting some flags in common humanity is more important than answering that great question.

- - - Updated - - -

I said we wouldn't need Earth's ecosystem, we'd just build one for ourselves that can sustain us and only us, ignoring the other species on our planet. I wouldn't know how it'd be attainable without a sun but we'd need to find a way to conceal ourselves from other civilizations since it's my belief that the Dark Forest theory is true. Every civilization is a predator, creeping through the darkness, hiding and waiting for any foolish civilization to expose themselves so they can snuff them out to preserve themselves. Simply because nobody has any way of communicating or knowing the intentions of other civilizations, you bear an enormous risk that could mean an ally or total extinction of your entire species.

"Dark Forest" isn't a theory. Its' unscientific nonsense. It's fairy tale level of rationality.

We've taken pictures in orbit around Neptune exactly once ever and are closer by many centuries to covered wagons and bludgeoning each other with axes, than we are traveling to other star systems. To draw any kind of conclusions about the wider lifeform-topography of the galaxy when we lack the technology to so much as detect chlorophyll on extrasolar planets, is hysterically premature.

Let's worry about detecting some blue-green algae before we start speculating on if Interstellar Space is swarming with Borg and we're just not worth assimilating yet

- - - Updated - - -

Having any sensible discussion about constructing a Dyson sphere that wraps around the sun and its effects on Earth's ecosystem is more-than-pointless, considering we don't know the state of civilization that far into the future.

For all we know, the Earth may be devoid of its resources by the time a Dyson Sphere could even be completed. There's no 'right' assumption about Earth in relation to Dyson spheres. Destroying life on earth is no less ridiculous than the idea that a Dyson Sphere would be constructed at all.

I want to start a Youtube Channel:

"Dyson spheres and more bad science / engineering".

[Unholyground]

I am glad he got it finished and working, he can now easily get those satellites into orbit and give us world wide coverage for internet and cell which we need.

[Techno-Druid]

I said we wouldn't need Earth's ecosystem, we'd just build one for ourselves that can sustain us and only us, ignoring the other species on our planet.

Why would we do that and what's the reasoning behind it?

I wouldn't know how it'd be attainable without a sun but we'd need to find a way to conceal ourselves from other civilizations since it's my belief that the Dark Forest theory is true.

Assuming we encounter a civilization that could reach us before we could reach them, it's likely that they will be so technologically advanced to us that we be insignificant to them, unless they take some sort of enjoyment with messing with lesser civilizations.

There's certainly no practical reason for it. A civilization advanced enough to reach us would likely be at a post-scarcity level of development and any resources Earth or the surrounding terrestrial bodies have can be found in greater abundance elsewhere.

It would be like us, in the 21st century, trying to exterminate the Sentinelese or even something like the squirrel that roams around in your garden.

Every civilization is a predator, creeping through the darkness, hiding and waiting for any foolish civilization to expose themselves so they can snuff them out to preserve themselves. Simply because nobody has any way of communicating or knowing the intentions of other civilizations, you bear an enormous risk that could mean an ally or total extinction of your entire species.

There's no biological rule that sapience = predator. Elephants are not predators, neither are grey parrots or most corvids (crows and ravens). Most primates are not predatory either.

For all we know, predatory species could be an exception, or they could be the rule. They may not even follow our ecological rules. The concept of consuming any other organism may be as alien to them as helium blatters or prehensile tongues would be to us.

[Voidwielder]

(1) The SLS as a Cargo vehicle always made more sense than the SLS as a crewed space vehicle.

Err, did you miss the "use two rocket launches and dock in LEO" thing Brindestine said? That is how the mission would be done.

[Ubermensch]

Your minimizing about what you wrong describe as "tribalism" is dangerous and historically ignorant.

The two leading Space countries in the world in 2019 are the United States and China. As we go forward into the 21st century you will see the United States and China be the two leaders at most everything.

The United States wants to rule the world, but it doesn't put it quite like that. It espouses the spread of Western-centric liberal democracy and free market capitalism. Human rights and human liberty as we know it are inextricably linked to these concepts. And yes, Democratic socialism and all that is well within that sphere.

China wants to rule the world, but it doesn't put it quite like that. It is building a model of authoritarian state-driven capitalism, leverage advanced technology to monitor large populations threat on the power of the chinese commust party. The goal oc China is to reorient the international order into one chiefly benefiting it (a kind of modern mercantalism) and stamp out the competition that threatens its legitimacy, naemly the very liberal democracy the United States advances.

There is no middle ground between these two. In China's world, the human rights we enjoy don't exist. in America's world, the way China rules itself, much less others, is illegitimate and itself a massive human rights violation.

So how shall man live? You want to talk about Species. Let's do that. The human race, the only known intelligent life in the universe... what is the "right" answer for us to live as a species? Is is the Chinese model, where we obey the State that tells us what is right and what is wrong? Is it the Western model, that has pioneered the spread of human liberity, self determination and human rights? Here's the fundmental problem with your angle to this: if we put aside our "tribalism" as you put it, and lets say split the difference, we are either cosigning ourselves to be less free by accepting the legitimacy of China's authoritarian alternative, or if we just let each party mind their own plot, we're cosigning one sixth the human race to live under authoritarianism just so some other fraction of it can live under liberal democracy.

You ascribe it as tribalism. It's actually a question of cosmic importance: what rights and freedoms are the only confirmed intelligent life in the universes entitled to? Now tell me building a base on Mars and planting some flags in common humanity is more important than answering that great question.

You've made me say it again: I don't care. Figure it out, all of you, stop being so petty and just figure it out. Everybody is fighting and squabbling over land, it's pathetic. You have the guns, you have the power so either lead our species or kill us off, but do something. I don't care about your little tribalistic battles with one another, it's all going to end someday when we realize that it was all pointless.

You seem to be trying very hard to pull me into a dumb political fight that I don't care about. I don't care about China, I don't care about America, I don't care about any of your countries, nations, cultures or whatever you all value so much about. I care about one thing, the species, which is still in its infancy and that's okay, but don't try to drag me into this us vs them shit-flinging competition.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would we do that and what's the reasoning behind it?

Because if we keep relying on Earth's ecosystem, we're going to be easy to destroy as a species. An advanced civilization doesn't keep all its eggs in one basket.

Assuming we encounter a civilization that could reach us before we could reach them, it's likely that they will be so technologically advanced to us that we be insignificant to them, unless they take some sort of enjoyment with messing with lesser civilizations.

There's certainly no practical reason for it. A civilization advanced enough to reach us would likely be at a post-scarcity level of development and any resources Earth or the surrounding terrestrial bodies have can be found in greater abundance elsewhere.

It would be like us, in the 21st century, trying to exterminate the Sentinelese or even something like the squirrel that roams around in your garden.

Imagine knowing that leaving the Sentinelese to their devices results in them becoming a great, unstoppable threat 300 years later. Do you just leave them to their devices or do you deal with the threat when you still can. All they'd need to do is redirect an asteroid in our direction and we're finished.

There's no biological rule that sapience = predator. Elephants are not predators, neither are grey parrots or most corvids (crows and ravens). Most primates are not predatory either.

For all we know, predatory species could be an exception, or they could be the rule. They may not even follow our ecological rules. The concept of consuming any other organism may be as alien to them as helium blatters or prehensile tongues would be to us.

It's not about evolution or nature, it's about the fact that nobody knows the intention of the other. So what we have here is a potential to be utterly destroyed if we guess wrong, better to destroy them before they even have a chance to destroy us.