Space Travel & Exploration

[Osmeric]

What?

NASA's in-house rockets will always be expensive and overbudget. They aren't even trying to be commercially viable. That's just the nature of pioneering endeavors. The plan is and always been for SLS missions to law the foundation for returning people to the Moon. SLS establishing the foundation then more commercial entities like SpaceX take over.

SLS is viable as long as it can safely transport an expedition to the Moon.

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.

[Vegas82]

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.

By you logic all space flight is too expensive. Not buying it. Deep space exploration doesn’t come cheap unless you don’t care about safety.

[cubby]

SLS is the giant Moon rocket. The LEO project is Starliner, which went up about a month back. It was successful and might take people up to LEO by the end of year


More news:

Also SpaceX recently got the approval it needs to go forward with an orbital test of Starship.

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.

SLS establishing the foundation then more commercial entities like SpaceX take over.

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

SLS is viable as long as it can safely transport an expedition to the Moon.

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?

[Osmeric]

By you logic all space flight is too expensive. Not buying it. Deep space exploration doesn’t come cheap unless you don’t care about safety.

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".

[cubby]

Well this is an embarrassing post. The SLS isn’t about LEO, it’s for deep space exploration. Its first manned mission is scheduled to be to the moon. And it isn’t built by Musk. Soooo, no, he’s not solely responsible for pushing space flight forward.

Awwwww, look at you trying so hard, copying what other people said, and not addressing any of your bigger problems.

See the news about how racist Tesla is? It’s so bad they force arbitration due to the numerous issues.

You're just so desperate for this to be about something other than the thread topic, aren't you.

[Unholyground]

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.

[Vegas82]

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".

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.

[cubby]

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".

Also, unless the thing that you do is "go into space". We're no where near the point, even with SpaceX being wildly successful in every single area, where space flight is becoming "economical". All we're doing now is making is less "totally fucking expensive".

Although, SpaceX has made the cost of going into space an order of magnitude less expensive. So it's getting better.

[Vegas82]

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.

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

[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.

[Vegas82]

Also, unless the thing that you do is "go into space". We're no where near the point, even with SpaceX being wildly successful in every single area, where space flight is becoming "economical". All we're doing now is making is less "totally fucking expensive".

Although, SpaceX has made the cost of going into space an order of magnitude less expensive. So it's getting better.

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

[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.

[Vegas82]

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

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.

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -



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.

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 also may have misread your quote when you said no where near that point. We are near the point of sls sending people into space. Which dude was saying is too expensive.

[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.

[Vegas82]

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 - - -



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.

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.

[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.

[Vegas82]

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?




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.

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