Space Travel & Exploration

[cubby]

Someone needs to turn a mountain into a gigantic coil gun and launch ships into space that way. They will be much closer to space and it would probably cost a lot less fuel.

I read a fictional story about launching a large craft from Earth into "above LEO" using small nuclear detonations. It was based on a theoretical idea, though. I like your rail/coil gun better though.

[PACOX]

No, it's not viable, since any program based on such an expensive rocket is necessarily a dead end. It would be better for the country to have no human space program than to have one based on SLS.

Youre telling me that you don't know much about the the objectives of the rocket or the Artemis program.

Your definition of 'viability' makes no sense in regards to the rocket or the program.

Again the purpose of the the rocket is to reestablish our presence on the Moon and then commercial companies will follow. Your definition only applies if it's the only part of the program or some long term solutions. SLS is everything but those things. It's not intended to be flown but a handful of times, afters you'll see vehicles like Starship take over.

[cubby]

You think it takes fewer resources to power those kinds of electromagnets in sequence than what we’re already doing?

How much power would it take to power those electromagnets in sequence to lift, say, a Falcon Heavy into space? I'm seriously curious.

- - - Updated - - -

2023 for the first manned flight so long as the unmanned launch this year is successful. They will orbit the moon on that mission.

I don't understand what you were responding to - your answer doesn't match up with the quote. Was this SLS crewed flight in 2023? Apologies ahead of time if I missed or misunderstood something.

[cubby]

Shooting a basic projectile, not a spacecraft with humans that would require some weird calibration so you don’t liquify them, takes 25 megajoules per second. That’s for a hunk of metal to pew pew at shit with no acceleration limit.

Yes, let's not liquify the passengers. That would be, I think NASA calls it, "bad". Where are you getting these numbers from? Again, just to be clear, seriously curious. And IIRC from all my social science courses, magnetic acceleration just GOES. It doesn't start slow and then speed up, or, if it does, "slow" is still liquifyingly fast, right?

The SLS has a planned crew flight in 2023 that will orbit the moon. It’s currently 2022… I’m not from the future.

I was just trying to understand your response here, no worries. Given the SLS launch history, and more accurately, their panache for delays, I would be that 2023 will involve zero crewed launches from the SLS.

[Osmeric]

The sls will deliver humans to the surfaces of both the moon and Mars for habitation… soooo, yeah. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

SLS will not deliver humans to Mars, it's simply too expensive. It might provide another flags-and-footprints Moon program, but as Apollo showed that's not sustainable either.

- - - Updated - - -

Youre telling me that you don't know much about the the objectives of the rocket or the Artemis program.

Your definition of 'viability' makes no sense in regards to the rocket or the program.

Again the purpose of the the rocket is to reestablish our presence on the Moon and then commercial companies will follow. Your definition only applies if it's the only part of the program or some long term solutions. SLS is everything but those things. It's not intended to be flown but a handful of times, afters you'll see vehicles like Starship take over.

You tell me you are clueless about the economics of government space programs, and are naive to actually believe glowing promises that aren't based on anything real.

SLS isn't a step to any real useful goal. It's a money bonfire, nothing else.

[cubby]

SLS will not deliver humans to Mars, it's simply too expensive. It might provide another flags-and-footprints Moon program, but as Apollo showed that's not sustainable either.

But SLS isn't trying to provide "another" flags-and-footprints Moon program. The SLS is working with other agencies, including SpaceX, to deliver humans to the Moon, along with an orbital station and then a base on the moon.

[PACOX]

Nonsense. A space program based on much more economical launchers could support activities in space that actually pay their way. Growing those activities and delivering value to society is sustainable, just like terrestrial research and industry are sustainable.

SLS is so hideously expensive that nothing that one can do with it delivers value that justifies the expense of having done it. Unless the thing that one does is "deliver pork to particular kickback providing constituents".

Its okay, NASA is way ahead of your concerns. Like I don't even know what to say at this point after repeating the fact that SLS is only the first to go in and the more commercial agencies follow. Research and development 101. SLS literally needs the commercial agencies to land on the Moon as a commitment to hand off the process.

You can't streamline a process before you've know where the kinks are...makes no logical sense.


Unless you argument is we shouldn't be going back to the Moon at all...whole different discussion.

[cubby]

Its okay, NASA is way ahead of your concerns. Like I don't even know what to say at this point after repeating the fact that SLS is only the first to go in and the more commercial agencies follow. Research and development 101. SLS literally needs the commercial agencies to land on the Moon as a commitment to hand off the process.

You can't streamline a process before you've know where the kinks are...makes no logical sense.


Unless you argument is we shouldn't be going back to the Moon at all...whole different discussion.

So at some point doesn't Starliner take over the SLS, in lift capacity? Or is there more to the calculus in getting to the moon than straight life capacity?

- - - Updated - - -

Once it passes the basic tests to launch you get 1 uncrewed launch, usually only delayed by weather at that point, and then a crewed launch. They tend to work out the bugs before they end up killing people or destroying billions in equipment.

But those "bugs" are usually what delay the flights, or cancel them altogether. And keep in mind that SLS capsule (I'm forgetting the name) had a flaw so deep that they literally couldn't fix it, and just left the design, with the flaw, for launch. You're making it sound like the crewed launch is almost a foregone conclusion rather than an entirely new set of tests and qualifications. Obviously there would be some overlap, a LOT in fact, but still a great deal to do. And the SLS still hasn't even launched yet.

Don't get me wrong, after we lost the Russians for getting our peeps up into and then farther into space, I'm glad for anyone to come along and lift some stuff up. But the SLS has only had one failing after another. Assuming they won't have more is pretty optimistic.

Unless you’re Musk and happy to just waste the money like we did in the early days before people died in accidents.

You need to go find another venue for this emotional need to shit all over SpaceX vis a vis Musk. You're dipping into the unhealthy obsession pool by now. Hell, even I agree Musk is a personal shithole, but SpaceX is an unbridled, and unmatched success, by every and any objective standard.

[Osmeric]

But SLS isn't trying to provide "another" flags-and-footprints Moon program. The SLS is working with other agencies, including SpaceX, to deliver humans to the Moon, along with an orbital station and then a base on the moon.

SLS's primary mission is to consume federal funds. Any real moon program using SpaceX + SLS will optimize to 100% SpaceX, 0% SLS. It's an expensive white elephant that we neither need nor have any use for.

- - - Updated - - -

People have said this exact shit about NASA since it was created. They have been consistently wrong since it was created. Good luck with that.

Actually, the critics have been right. Apollo was a monstrous dead end. The space shuttle was a total failure at the thing (reducing cost to orbit) that was its justification. The space station has been almost completely useless.

SLS continues the NASA manned spaceflight tradition of providing bullshit for the gullible.

[PACOX]

I do keep getting those switched around in my mind. Thanks for the clarification. I am glad that we'll have more soon-to-be-crew capable launch platforms available.

The news about Starship is exciting.




How does SLS being success establish the foundation, when SpaceX already did it? I'm not quite following your thinking here. Help me out.




Will be amazing if we can ever get back there. IIRC, one of the bigger "sub" issues is getting better suits, and that ship is still at the dock, right?

SLS's goal is to get people on the Moon. We haven't done that in decades and even when we did it was in a very rough touch and go fashion. We're almost doing from scratch. Because of that there's a lot of risks involved, processes to iron out. SLS assumes the risk of being the first in using old proven methods while testing new ones. It will be the sole rocket taking astronauts to Moon for 3 or 4, gathering important data that will be used for following missions.

SpaceX's Starship is already expected to replace SLS assuming Starship meets all of its requirements. But only after NASA has established a set of rules/safe practices, etc through SLS Moon landings. SLS will also deploy infrastructure to support later missions. No one (unless you're a bureaucrat getting kickbacks) wants to use SLS longer than needed, but a vehicle like SLS is needed to establish that first step.

Its like saying "why build a concept car when the commercial vehicles will be better". You need a proof of concept first.


The spacesuit problem might have been solved. NASA dumped whoever the old agency one and brought on two new ones. At the very least there is now some redundancy and not a single point of failure. Actually everything related to getting back to the Moon accelerated first rolled out for tests.

[Osmeric]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

- - - Updated - - -
@cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.

The spinoff argument is also bullshit. The few actual spinoffs are thin on the ground and don't come close to justifying a manned space program. Most of the supposed spinoffs are just the space program claiming for itself a technology that was being developed anyway (integrated circuits are an example of this).

[PACOX]

SLS's primary mission is to consume federal funds. Any real moon program using SpaceX + SLS will optimize to 100% SpaceX, 0% SLS. It's an expensive white elephant that we neither need nor have any use for.

Starship is no where near being independent. It doesn't even have a cabin for astronauts to survive the journey to the Moon. SpaceX is not sure how it will solve its fueling problem since it can't launch with enough fuel to reach a lunar orbit.

Actually, the critics have been right. Apollo was a monstrous dead end. The space shuttle was a total failure at the thing (reducing cost to orbit) that was its justification. The space station has been almost completely useless.

Ah so you just want to hate on NASA, got it.

[Osmeric]

Starship is no where near being independent. It doesn't even have a cabin for astronauts to survive the journey to the Moon. SpaceX is not sure how it will solve its fueling problem since it can't launch with enough fuel to reach a lunar orbit.

A moon program based on Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy would be much cheaper than one based on SLS. Starship would make the discrepancy even more ludicrous, granted.

Ah so you just want to hate on NASA, got it.

And you just want to be a delusional NASA fan, got it. I forgive you though, since the culture has been steeped in a pro-NASA spirit that requires a certain level of intellectual courage to question.

[PACOX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

- - - Updated - - -
@cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.

I'll add to your point. SpaceX has experienced a whole hosts of setbacks with getting their next Starship test off the ground. SpaceX doesn't have to hold public press conferences answering and addressing every problem they run into.

[cubby]

SLS's goal is to get people on the Moon. We haven't done that in decades and even when we did it was in a very rough touch and go fashion. We're almost doing from scratch. Because of that there's a lot of risks involved, processes to iron out. SLS assumes the risk of being the first in using old proven methods while testing new ones. It will be the sole rocket taking astronauts to Moon for 3 or 4, gathering important data that will be used for following missions.

SpaceX's Starship is already expected to replace SLS assuming Starship meets all of its requirements. But only after NASA has established a set of rules/safe practices, etc through SLS Moon landings. SLS will also deploy infrastructure to support later missions. No one (unless you're a bureaucrat getting kickbacks) wants to use SLS longer than needed, but a vehicle like SLS is needed to establish that first step.

Its like saying "why build a concept car when the commercial vehicles will be better". You need a proof of concept first.


The spacesuit problem might have been solved. NASA dumped whoever the old agency one and brought on two new ones. At the very least there is now some redundancy and not a single point of failure. Actually everything related to getting back to the Moon accelerated first rolled out for tests.

The last chart I saw that outlined the Moon program was using both SLS and Starliner to get there - not SLS first, and then Starliner. But I'm the first to admit I could have bad info and/or misunderstood the good info I had.

What you're saying above, about using the SLS to do it all first (again, lol - kidding, nice subpoint about how the first time we got there was really just a singular purpose mission, rather than the roots to expand - most people don't know that about the Apollo program), makes sense and the proof of concept analogy works there, too.

I thought NASA dumped them awhile back, and they are still looking for vendors, which means a real working take-it-to-the-moon suit is still years away.

[PACOX]

A moon program based on Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy would be much cheaper than one based on SLS. Starship would make the discrepancy even more ludicrous, granted.



And you just want to be a delusional NASA fan, got it. I forgive you though, since the culture has been steeped in a pro-NASA spirit that requires a certain level of intellectual courage to question.

You cracked the code!.
You should call up Musk. Tell him SpaceX could have been using Falcon Heavy to get to the Moon this entire time.

[cubby]

@cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.

SpaceX doesn't detect and address problems? Wow - no wonder they haven't been able to launch anything, ever. Oh, wait....

If only reality didn't get in the way of your emotional based problems with SpaceX. But it's adorable to read. Keep at it, we're all enjoying it.

- - - Updated - - -

Sls is the rockets, starliner is the capsule. Both made by boeing.

Embarrassingly, I continue to incorrectly interchange starliner and starship.

[Osmeric]

You cracked the code!.
You should call up Musk. Tell him SpaceX could have been using Falcon Heavy to get to the Moon this entire time.

Musk has a goal that requires even cheaper launch. I don't know if that goal is achievable, but getting to the moon just on F9/FH is apparently not enough for him. This in no way saves SLS, which is even more expensive than that.

People at NASA were calling for a moon return using large numbers of smallish launch vehicles, but congress kill all work on the necessary technology (in-space propellant transfer), since they knew it threatened the shuttle-derived launch vehicle gravy train. The goal of the legislators was never to get to the moon, it was to preserve the flow of $$$ to their preferred contractors. In this they were helped by useful idiots who defend this depravity.

[cubby]

People at NASA were calling for a moon return using large numbers of smallish launch vehicles, but congress kill all work on the necessary technology (in-space propellant transfer), since they knew it threatened the shuttle-derived launch vehicle gravy train. The goal of the legislators was never to get to the moon, it was to preserve the flow of $$$ to their preferred contractors. In this they were helped by useful idiots who defend this depravity.

Which, while correct, has nothing to do with this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

They detect problems, push through, and then address them after a disaster. Or they have in the past. See the numerous failed attempts in the dev process. They’ve started to pull back on just letting shit destroy itself because it gets a ton of clicks.

Literally nothing you've said in the above is correct. But hey, at least it's fun to read.

[cubby]

You didn’t see their multiple failed attempts at landing equipment? Want some links?

Sorry bud, I'll pass. Your unbalanced emotional hatred for Musk unfortunately clouds your otherwise relatively sound opinion re space exploration. It's a shame, but I'm not going to dive into your little rabbit hole with you.

SpaceX is an unqualified success, in every measure. To say otherwise is to ignore facts and reality. You could even argue they galvanized the space program entirely.