What is the obsession going to the moon or mars?

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, I don't agree with this; this reverts back to this "inevitable that problems will be solved with time" assertion of BeeCee and others, as if technological advancement is a natural law. It's not.

 No physical theory is certain also, as we all know, but some are damn well near certain.....and by the same token to suggest that in time technological advancement is not inevitable, is rather naive to say the least.

21 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The potential to drop the price of space travel (and space mining and space refining and space manufacturing and space agriculture...) by a significant amount -  I'd think a lot more than 1% in the near term -

Irrespective of costs and whether they drop or not [which again in time they will] robotic space exploration and manned exploration will continue, and will continue to go further and undertake more complicated procedures.

24 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

BTW, I suspect that a space society/economy would be more fragile and more at risk of extinction than human life on Earth. More likely that Earth will be the long term lifeboat for space civilisations than the other way.

Probably now and in the near future yes, but again irrespective, it will take place and gradually improve along with available technological advancements.

[Moontanman]

22 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Moontanman - it doesn't matter that military budgets far exceed NASA's; you haven't provided an argument that will divert the funding from the one to the other. Lifeboat scenarios won't do it - and will continually lose out against deep bunker options in military thinking. They are already in place and work for all but the most extreme disaster possibilities.

No matter that quantifying the value of military expenditures is impossible or that it includes a vast amount of waste, the financing of a big space push is going to be a separate matter, that will have to be on it's own merits.

I am not pushing the idea of a lifeboat, that is in fact just one of the benefits. Space ie the small objects in our inner solar system, contain fabulous riches and possibilities. If all the hardware had to be lifted from the Earth I would be agreeing with you, but the idea is to use the resources already in space. Beside a treasure trove of precious metals, one medium sized iron/nickel body would contain many times the platinum and gold currently held on earth and open these substances up for industrial use. All the materials needed to construct bases, habitats, and ships exist in huge quantities in space,  Just waiting to be exploited. Carbon, water, ammonia, sulfur, to just name a few. Metals such as iron, nickel, titanium, aluminum, and any others we need are abundant. We are rapidly approaching the era of Von Newman type machines which could pave the way for us cheaply. To make money, money has to be spent, risks must be taken, if this was just about colonization then antarctica would be a better move... 

Quote

BTW, I suspect that a space society/economy would be more fragile and more at risk of extinction than human life on Earth. More likely that Earth will be the long term lifeboat for space civilisations than the other way.

Can you show evidence this would be true? If rotating colonies were spread all over the solar system what calamity could cause them to return to earth for protection? 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Moontanman

[Ken Fabian]

49 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I am not pushing the idea of a lifeboat, that is in fact just one of the benefits.

As a primary motivation it doesn't work. That it is a benefit deriving from space development for other reasons is what I've said all along.

50 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Space ie the small objects in our inner solar system, contain fabulous riches and possibilities.

The priority needs to be to demonstrate this to be true, not producing "inspirational" government sponsored reality TV programming ie Manned mission to Mars.

53 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If all the hardware had to be lifted from the Earth I would be agreeing with you, but the idea is to use the resources already in space.

It's the lifting of all the hardware from Earth needed to make effective use of those resources that is the issue I keep coming back to. Until it's in place and proven everything does have to be lifted from Earth. How big the pre-investment must be in order to achieve effective use of those resources has not been addressed.

58 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If rotating colonies were spread all over the solar system what calamity could cause them to return to earth for protection? 

It's the achieving of sufficiently sized and robust space economy that can survive on it's own that concerns me. Those abundant rotating colonies won't just appear there without compelling economic reasons. Space activities that are outposts - and dependent on a healthy Earth economy - are more likely than true self sufficiency. That is a whole other level of size and complexity.

Things that could go wrong? Solar flares and cosmic radiation bursts taking out all the communications and transport. A cloud of interstellar debris that no-one noticed coming at high velocity. Essential equipment breaking down and lacking the deep expertise - no matter that you have all the manuals - to repair or replace it.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

It's the lifting of all the hardware from Earth needed to make effective use of those resources that is the issue I keep coming back to. Until it's in place and proven everything does have to be lifted from Earth. How big the pre-investment must be in order to achieve effective use of those resources has not been addressed.? 

 And when do you believe that will be achieved? 100 years, 500 years? 1000 years? or do you believe such technology, know how, advance knowledge will never be reached or obtained?

14 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Things that could go wrong? Solar flares and cosmic radiation bursts taking out all the communications and transport. A cloud of interstellar debris that no-one noticed coming at high velocity. Essential equipment breaking down and lacking the deep expertise - no matter that you have all the manuals - to repair or replace it.

Plenty of things including what you mention can go wrong....Plenty of things can go wrong with your car travelling down the highway too: But we'll send probes and robots first, we'll research the problems, we'll implement safety protocol and procedures, before any manned effort...the same as we did in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs culminating in putting men on the Moon. It's called progress, and even allowing for hiatus periods due to economic and political circumstance, will always move forward, as long as time allows.

 

[beecee]

Let's forget for the moment the many reasons why we will go to Mars and beyond....Let's instead look at the reasons why we must go to Mars and beyond.                                               Obviously first and foremost the Earth does have a "use by date" 

Secondly what is the greatest question that we as a species would dearly love to know for certain? Are we alone...is there life elsewhere? ...is there intelligent life elsewhere? How did life actually start? Did life in this solar system originate on Earth?...Or was a form of Panspermia the reason? Finding actual evidence for Abiogenesis...Did Abiogenesis happen more then once in different regions of the universe?

These are and will be extraordinary moments for humanity to remember..Just as when Neil uttered those immortal words..."One small step for man: One giant leap for Mankind"

Curiosity and the realization of a long sort after dream are the reasons our venture to Mars and beyond will continue and should continue.

[Moontanman]

20 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

As a primary motivation it doesn't work. That it is a benefit deriving from space development for other reasons is what I've said all along.

The priority needs to be to demonstrate this to be true, not producing "inspirational" government sponsored reality TV programming ie Manned mission to Mars.

Private industry is putting a huge amount of money into space exploration already. 

Quote

It's the lifting of all the hardware from Earth needed to make effective use of those resources that is the issue I keep coming back to. Until it's in place and proven everything does have to be lifted from Earth. How big the pre-investment must be in order to achieve effective use of those resources has not been addressed.

There is indeed a point before which space travel is very expensive but there is also a point where it becomes very profitable and cheap. Elon Musk sees the benefits and doing something about it.

Quote

It's the achieving of sufficiently sized and robust space economy that can survive on it's own that concerns me. Those abundant rotating colonies won't just appear there without compelling economic reasons. Space activities that are outposts - and dependent on a healthy Earth economy - are more likely than true self sufficiency. That is a whole other level of size and complexity.

No, space colony would by definition have to be self sufficient, A base or outpost would not.

Quote

Things that could go wrong? Solar flares and cosmic radiation bursts taking out all the communications and transport. A cloud of interstellar debris that no-one noticed coming at high velocity. Essential equipment breaking down and lacking the deep expertise - no matter that you have all the manuals - to repair or replace it.

  Radiation is easily shielded against by the outer skin being used as water tanks, relatively thin tanks of water protect us from radiation and have to double capacity of storing fuel.   Objects big enough to be dangerous can be vaporised by lasers before the hit, the colony can move out of the way of really large objects. All essential equipment would be built on site or by nearby colonies specializing in such things. 

 

A torus colony 100 miles in it's major diameter and 20 miles in it's minor diameter, build like a continuous suspension bridge, lighted on the inside, of by fusion if we manage to develop controlled fusion, could house thousands of people and grow their own food. I see colonies specializing in food stuffs or mechanical parts, or even water extraction. 

If we manage to control fusion the entire galaxy is our oyster, deep gravity wells of stars and planets will be useless and ignored. 

 

Other than fusion we already have the technology to do this, the trojan asteroids of Jupiter seem like the best, easily exploited place to find those resources. 

 

BYW we know the composition of asteroids. colonies would not be required to be self sufficient. Volatiles, if need be, could be obtained by simply visiting a small ice body. New colonies could be made by visiting kuiper belt objects or oort cloud objects. In fact if the population got too large stopping at a small ice body to build a new colony might be a social event participated in by everyone.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Moontanman

[Prometheus]

Instead of waiting until something is economically viable before making an attempt we could make the attempt and in so doing make it economically viable. Isn't that what happened with all major engineering projects such as the vast railway projects and aviation? It took investment before it became viable, not the other way around.

And even if it's a vanity project - so what? The Great Pyramids, the Terracotta Army, the Colossus and many more were all uneconomical vanity projects but are still regarded as among the greatest feats of man. At least with this vanity project far more of mankind is involved - such is the magnitude of the task it couldn't be otherwise.

[at0mic]

51 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Instead of waiting until something is economically viable before making an attempt we could make the attempt and in so doing make it economically viable.

Yes that's exactly what we need to do. It's years and years of attempts, failed missions, successful missions, research, practice that will get us there. It will never be economically viable if we just wait.

For example, if it takes 6 months to learn to ride a bike, you don't wait 6 months and then ride it. You actually have to practice for the whole 6 months.

nec209 and Ken Fabian seem to think we just have to wait a few hundred years and then the knowledge and expertise for economically viable space colonization will just appear. We actually need to continue what we're doing at the moment and eventually we'll get there. What's the problem with that?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Private industry is putting a huge amount of money into space exploration already. 

There is indeed a point before which space travel is very expensive but there is also a point where it becomes very profitable and cheap. Elon Musk sees the benefits and doing something about it.

No, space colony would by definition have to be self sufficient, A base or outpost would not. 

 

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Instead of waiting until something is economically viable before making an attempt we could make the attempt and in so doing make it economically viable. Isn't that what happened with all major engineering projects such as the vast railway projects and aviation? It took investment before it became viable, not the other way around.

And even if it's a vanity project - so what? The Great Pyramids, the Terracotta Army, the Colossus and many more were all uneconomical vanity projects but are still regarded as among the greatest feats of man. At least with this vanity project far more of mankind is involved - such is the magnitude of the task it couldn't be otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, at0mic said:

Yes that's exactly what we need to do. It's years and years of attempts, failed missions, successful missions, research, practice that will get us there. It will never be economically viable if we just wait.

For example, if it takes 6 months to learn to ride a bike, you don't wait 6 months and then ride it. You actually have to practice for the whole 6 months.

nec209 and Ken Fabian seem to think we just have to wait a few hundred years and then the knowledge and expertise for economically viable space colonization will just appear. We actually need to continue what we're doing at the moment and eventually we'll get there. What's the problem with that?

All valid and good points made. With the last point made by at0mic, re the "opponents" "saying we should just wait until the knowledge and expertise is available for economically viable space colonisation and exploration", if that's all they were saying, it certainly would not have invoked such incredulity from me at least. I have continually made the point that such inevitable progress would happen "in time" and even with such a broad open ended logical claim, neither has favourably acknowledged it and in the main it has been ignored. It seems to me the opponents seem to have some inbuilt opposition to the inevitability of space exploration and the knowledge we would gain and  questions that could possibly be answered from such ventures. 

[Ken Fabian]

5 hours ago, at0mic said:

nec209 and Ken Fabian seem to think we just have to wait a few hundred years and then the knowledge and expertise for economically viable space colonization will just appear. We actually need to continue what we're doing at the moment and eventually we'll get there. What's the problem with that?

No, I never said waiting a few hundred years is a valid approach - I don't think ongoing technological progress delivering the means to make it easy is an inevitability. Nor is continuing what we are doing adequate to the task; I think only a huge investment at a scale far greater than anything to date has any real prospects - greater or equal to a manned Mars mission but with the practical goal of demonstrating the true feasibility of mining, processing and using space resources.

I think doing what we are doing now will not get us there.

 

7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Private industry is putting a huge amount of money into space exploration already. 

Commercial mining enterprises would not be a legitimate goal of NASA or other government sponsored space agency but proving the viability of it might be. Space activities that do pay their own way - satellites for Earth based uses - can be successfully serviced by private industry; contracts to service the needs of those space agencies for exploration are government sponsored activities - taxpayer money is being put into private industry rather than private industry putting money into space exploration.

No-one is stopping commercial ventures based around space resources - they continue to not make economic sense.

 

6 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Instead of waiting until something is economically viable before making an attempt we could make the attempt and in so doing make it economically viable. Isn't that what happened with all major engineering projects such as the vast railway projects and aviation? It took investment before it became viable, not the other way around.

The scale of what's needed before it becomes economically viable exceeds any prior examples - none of which truly parallel what Big Space faces. Previous examples were of commercially proven technology being used at greater scale, within a world far more abundant in readily usable and saleable resources than space is; the space resources are there but they are not readily usable.

Big historic railway projects got up after they had the technology well worked out and it was proven to be very successful and profitable at smaller scale - proven before the big investment took place. We've had 70 years of opportunity to prove exploiting space resources is viable and failed to do so. The massive push that is needed to establish sufficient infrastructure isn't going to happen until clear demonstration that exploitation of those vast resources is feasible and have real commercial prospects.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Ken Fabian

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, I never said waiting a few hundred years is a valid approach - I don't think ongoing technological progress delivering the means to make it easy is an inevitability. Nor is continuing what we are doing adequate to the task; I think only a huge investment at a scale far greater than anything to date has any real prospects - greater or equal to a manned Mars mission but with the practical goal of demonstrating the true feasibility of mining, processing and using space resources.

I think doing what we are doing now will not get us there.

 

Commercial mining enterprises would not be a legitimate goal of NASA or other government sponsored space agency but proving the viability of it might be. Space activities that do pay their own way - satellites for Earth based uses - can be successfully serviced by private industry; contracts to service the needs of those space agencies for exploration are government sponsored activities - taxpayer money is being put into private industry rather than private industry putting money into space exploration.

No-one is stopping commercial ventures based around space resources - they continue to not make economic sense.

 

The scale of what's needed before it becomes economically viable exceeds any prior examples - none of which truly parallel what Big Space faces. Previous examples were of commercially proven technology being used at greater scale, within a world far more abundant in readily usable and saleable resources than space is; the space resources are there but they are not readily usable.

Big historic railway projects got up after they had the technology well worked out and it was proven to be very successful and profitable at smaller scale - proven before the big investment took place. We've had 70 years of opportunity to prove exploiting space resources is viable and failed to do so. The massive push that is needed to establish sufficient infrastructure isn't going to happen until clear demonstration that exploitation of those vast resources is feasible and have real commercial prospects.

All I see are "what ifs," excuses and flawed opinions as to why continued progress, inevitable advancement, more knowledge, insatiable curiosity, and continued evolution of mankind is and always will be inevitable....................given the time of course. 

[Ken Fabian]

What I see is unwillingness to acknowledge the size of the gap between what is technically and economically feasible and what is actually needed to kick start colonisation of space - or the gap between what's sufficient for colonies to pay their way as part of the Earth based economy and sufficient for enduring survival entirely cut off from it. Assertions of inevitability just don't cut it. Historical examples all look to bear only superficial and misleading resemblance to the problems and their solutions. Realistic suggestions for how the gap can be closed have not been forthcoming and a reversion to arguing that other motivations will be sufficient in the absence of economic viability seems to just confirm that it remains a long way out of reach. On the one hand people are saying have all the technologies we need, on the other that we don't but will inevitably achieve them. I don't think either has been demonstrated.

Whilst Osiris-REX for example, is a reasonable early attempt to sample and return asteroid material that can prove it is possible there is no way that $1billion for 2kg is suggestive of real economic prospects for the utilisation of space resources. Even I would say that it is inevitable it can be done cheaper, but I suggest a minimum billion scale improvement is needed and that is not inevitable.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

What I see is unwillingness to acknowledge the size of the gap between what is technically and economically feasible and what is actually needed to kick start colonisation of space - or the gap between what's sufficient for colonies to pay their way as part of the Earth based economy and sufficient for enduring survival entirely cut off from it. Assertions of inevitability just don't cut it. Historical examples all look to bear only superficial and misleading resemblance to the problems and their solutions. Realistic suggestions for how the gap can be closed have not been forthcoming and a reversion to arguing that other motivations will be sufficient in the absence of economic viability seems to just confirm that it remains a long way out of reach. On the one hand people are saying have all the technologies we need, on the other that we don't but will inevitably achieve them. I don't think either has been demonstrated.

Whilst Osiris-REX for example, is a reasonable early attempt to sample and return asteroid material that can prove it is possible there is no way that $1billion for 2kg is suggestive of real economic prospects for the utilisation of space resources. Even I would say that it is inevitable it can be done cheaper, but I suggest a minimum billion scale improvement is needed and that is not inevitable.

The only unwillingness I see is a refusal to admit that in any extended time frame at least, further space exploration is certainly inevitable and  essential and possible in line with inevitable technological advances, and [wait for it!!.] irrespective of any profitability or otherwise...it's who we are and it's the knowledge and questions we need answering, along with the obvious, inevitable benefits to human kind in general. Stagnation is not  an alternative.

No, I don't know how the gap can be closed at this time, but then again, I'm not privy to all the research that is being done, all the experiments that are being carried out, and all the advances that are being made, and neither are you...Lord Kelvin only 10 years before the first heavier than air flight, also did not know how the gap/s could be closed or eliminated to achieve flight. Such pessimism thankfully was not taken too  seriously. 

Whether I'm just being an optimist or realist is the question. What I do know is that any optimistic outlook is essential to human evolutionary development, and has been essential for yonks. We need to be optimistic to survive...sometimes we need to take risks...it is part and parcel of who we are and again is essential for continued development: With those risks of course, comes the knowledge that we also must take all necessary precautions to prevent  accidents etc, but even then, as humans, failure sometimes happens, and we learn from those failures. Pessimism is not an alternative.

The denying of the inevitability of continued space exploration, without any fixed time frame, is contradictory to what we know, what is observed today, and the efforts world wide.

My only suggestion is that it should be an International effort and all stops pulled out to achieve the goals we envisage as soon as is practically and safely possible.

NASA: ESA:  Roscosmos:  Space program of the People's Republic of China: Planetary Resources: Space X:Tau Zero: 1OO Year Star Ship Co:Japanese Rocket Society:Virgin Galactic: Sierra Nevada Corp:Mars One:

Edited July 31, 2017 by beecee

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

 Realistic suggestions for how the gap can be closed have not been forthcoming and a reversion to arguing that other motivations will be sufficient in the absence of economic viability seems to just confirm that it remains a long way out of reach. On the one hand people are saying have all the technologies we need, on the other that we don't but will inevitably achieve them. I don't think either has been demonstrated.

There are many motivations to further space exploration and they have not yet realistically been invalidated or realistically countered. Not the least of those were mentioned in the following post......

On 7/29/2017 at 0:33 PM, beecee said:

Let's forget for the moment the many reasons why we will go to Mars and beyond....Let's instead look at the reasons why we must go to Mars and beyond.                                               Obviously first and foremost the Earth does have a "use by date" 

Secondly what is the greatest question that we as a species would dearly love to know for certain? Are we alone...is there life elsewhere? ...is there intelligent life elsewhere? How did life actually start? Did life in this solar system originate on Earth?...Or was a form of Panspermia the reason? Finding actual evidence for Abiogenesis...Did Abiogenesis happen more then once in different regions of the universe?

These are and will be extraordinary moments for humanity to remember..Just as when Neil uttered those immortal words..."One small step for man: One giant leap for Mankind"

Curiosity and the realization of a long sort after dream are the reasons our venture to Mars and beyond will continue and should continue.

These reasons alone are why space exploration is inevitable, irrespective of variable political and economic circumstances.

Edited July 31, 2017 by beecee

[EdEarl]

Economics is being changed by automation and robotics, which will I believe take jobs and corporations will fail. Autopilots will take jobs away from drivers. Amazon Go, retail automation, will take jobs from people who work as shop keepers and tellers. Watson is being trained for many things, including medical diagnostics, so doctors jobs will be taken. And, the list of obsolete jobs will grow and grow over the next few decades.

So, advanced AI and robotics will make economic concerns irrelevant when robots make and repair robots and everything else. The Earth has resources and space has resources. Robots can work in either environment equally well. Thus, making space habitats, space vehicles, a moon base or city on mars becomes a job for robots and economics is not an issue.

Recovery in U.S. Is Lifting Profits, but Not Adding Jobs - NY Times 2013
Will Automation Take All our Jobs - TED Talk


 

Edited July 31, 2017 by EdEarl
add references

[EdEarl]

Economics is being changed by automation and robotics, which will I believe take jobs and corporations will fail. Autopilots will take jobs away from drivers. Amazon Go, retail automation, will take jobs from people who work as shop keepers and tellers. Watson is being trained for many things, including medical diagnostics, so doctors jobs will be taken. And, the list of obsolete jobs will grow and grow over the next few decades.

So, advanced AI and robotics will make economic concerns irrelevant when robots make and repair robots and everything else. The Earth has resources and space has resources. Robots can work in either environment equally well. Thus, making space habitats, space vehicles, a moon base or city on mars becomes a job for robots and economics is not an issue.

Recovery in U.S. Is Lifting Profits, but Not Adding Jobs - NY Times 2013
Will Automation Take Away all our Jobs - TED Talk
 

Edited July 31, 2017 by EdEarl
add references

[Area54]

@Ken Fabian. When I read your reservations about economic feasability, it is almost as if you don't understand compound interest.

[beecee]

10 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Economics is being changed by automation and robotics, which will I believe take jobs and corporations will fail. Autopilots will take jobs away from drivers. Amazon Go, retail automation, will take jobs from people who work as shop keepers and tellers. Watson is being trained for many things, including medical diagnostics, so doctors jobs will be taken. And, the list of obsolete jobs will grow and grow over the next few decades.

So, advanced AI and robotics will make economic concerns irrelevant when robots make and repair robots and everything else. The Earth has resources and space has resources. Robots can work in either environment equally well. Thus, making space habitats, space vehicles, a moon base or city on mars becomes a job for robots and economics is not an issue.

Recovery in U.S. Is Lifting Profits, but Not Adding Jobs - NY Times 2013
Will Automation Take Away all our Jobs - TED Talk
 

Robotics will certainly lead the way for manned space exploration. Two other sciences I see as being rather helpful in man's inevitable push beyond  Earth's environment is Nanotechnology and 3D Printing.

[Ken Fabian]

Area54 - perhaps as compound interest applies to the sunk costs invested without financial returns? Or maybe you can elaborate on how doing things that cost more than they earn can be paid for by compound interest. Or what happens to compound interest when the capital gets written down or written off due to economic disruptions? But I suspect the point you are trying to make is like others here, that technological advancement is somehow equivalent to compound interest; but just as the ability of an investment to get interest is dependent on the actual details and conditions, tech development depends on real physics and engineering; rocket tech running at 80% efficient can't be magicked to 180% efficient by compound interest. Getting the last 20% of real potential is likely to be a case of diminishing returns - and when the returns cost too much the project gets abandoned, no matter we might wish otherwise. Whole new technologies have their own development costs - and extreme performance tends to be tech that is harder to make and to make reliable or low maintenance or low cost.

Tech development itself has strong dependence on economics, on the willingness of governments to fund the stuff that has no clear economic goal or on financiers to fund the stuff that has a reasonable prospect of making good financial returns; one can follow the other but a strong prospect of good financial returns is still essential for space enterprises to flourish.

I think it's pointless to argue the far future or it's inevitability when the gap remains so large; actual ways to close that gap would be welcome in this discussion. Or even compelling arguments that the gap is, or can be made, much smaller. I'm not seeing them.

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think it's pointless to argue the far future or it's inevitability when the gap remains so large; actual ways to close that gap would be welcome in this discussion. Or even compelling arguments that the gap is, or can be made, much smaller. I'm not seeing them.

Lord Kelvin only 10 years before the first heavier than air flight, also did not know how the gap/s could be closed or eliminated to achieve flight. Such pessimism thankfully was not taken too  seriously. 

In the mean time, irrespective of personal opinions the inevitable progress, efforts, advancements,  and improvements continues.

Here's one example ... 

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-space-systemthe-powerful-rocket-built.html

extracts:

"Since the cancellation of the shuttle, NASA's workforce of engineers and rocket scientists has been developing the next heavy lift vehicle in NASA's line up: the Space Launch System.

The very first configuration of the SLS, known as the Block 1, should have the ability to put about 70 metric tonnes into Low Earth Orbit. And that's just the beginning, and it's just an estimate. Over time, NASA will increase its capabilities and launch power to match more and more ambitious missions and destinations. With more launches, they'll get a better sense of what this thing is capable of.

Finally, there's the Block 2, with an even larger launch fairing, and more powerful upper stage. It should blast 143 tonnes into low Earth orbit. Probably. NASA is developing this version as a 130 tonne-class rocket.

The main goal for SLS is to send humans out, beyond low Earth orbit. Ideally to Mars in the 2030s, but it could also go to asteroids, the moon, whatever you like. And as you'll read later on in this article, it could send some amazing scientific missions out there too.

The very first flight for SLS, called Exploration Mission 1, will be to put the new Orion crew module into a trajectory that takes it around the moon. In a very similar flight to Apollo 8. But there won't be any humans, just the unmanned Orion module and a bunch of cubesats coming along for the ride. Orion will spend about 3 weeks in space, including about 6 days in a retrograde orbit around the moon.

If all goes well, the first use of the SLS with the Orion crew module will happen some time in 2019. But also, don't be surprised if it gets pushed back, that's the name of the game.

After Exploration Mission 1, there's be EM-2, which should happen a few years after that. This'll be the first time humans get into an Orion crew module and take a flight to space. They'll spend 21 days in a lunar orbit, and deliver the first component of the future Deep Space Gateway, which will be the subject of a future article.

From there, the future is unclear, but SLS will provide the capability to put various habitats and space stations into cislunar space, opening up the future of human space exploration of the Solar System."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-space-systemthe-powerful-rocket-built.html#jCp
 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by beecee

[beecee]

What needs to be remembered here is that it seems that some see optimism as some sort of magical ingredient. That is just plainly wrong. As I previously said,  is that any optimistic outlook is essential to human evolutionary development, and has been essential for yonks. We need to be optimistic to survive...sometimes we need to take risks...it is part and parcel of who we are and again is essential for continued development: With those risks of course, comes the knowledge that we also must take all necessary precautions to prevent  accidents etc, but even then, as humans, failure sometimes happens, and we learn from those failures. Without optimism and progress, we stagnate. I see the fact everyday, not the least in the orginizations like NASA and some of the others which I previously mentioned, that most thinking people would see  the  cycle of negativity that others show for whatever reason or agenda, as demoralizing at best, and stagnation at worst.  We all want change, we all need change!...for the better... in our schools, communities, nations and world, and the way that can best be achieved is in further and continued space exploration.                                     

There are solutions to the many problems facing us here on Earth, and as has happened in the past, space exploration   will solve many of them.                                                                 While obviously space exploration and a viable space industry is not a panacea for all our problems, it is a principle part of our nature to continue what we started in the late fifties and honour those original pioneers both living and dead for their efforts and bravery.                        Any other alternative, talk or unsupported claims re politics, economics, and our Earthly problems to discontinue  or reign in space exploration, is imo grossly in error and will never succeed.

Given the time, we are going to go to Mars and further afield...given the time, we will solve and find the solutions to the many vexing problems confronting space exploration and also the problems here on Earth...                                                                                                              But we certainly wont by suggesting that optimism is some sort of magical ingredient and inferring that the money be redirected directly to our problems on Earth, while at the same time ignoring the  trillions of dollars spent on military endeavours and such.

The answers to our many questions are out there...the solutions to our problems are out there, as long as GR and the laws of physics are not contravened...Stagnation is not an alternative: Neither is pessimism. 

 

[Moontanman]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:58 PM, Ken Fabian said:

As a primary motivation it doesn't work. That it is a benefit deriving from space development for other reasons is what I've said all along.

As a primary motivation? What was the primary motivation for Columbus to sail to China? He failed and still succeeded. Serendipity is often a good thing, what we don't know can and often leads to technology we didn't even imagine.  

On 7/28/2017 at 9:58 PM, Ken Fabian said:

The priority needs to be to demonstrate this to be true, not producing "inspirational" government sponsored reality TV programming ie Manned mission to Mars.

Mars as I have said is not inhabitable Antarctica is far more easily colonised.  We already know asteroids contain huge amounts of useful elements in far greater concentration than the Earth's crust..  

On 7/28/2017 at 9:58 PM, Ken Fabian said:

It's the lifting of all the hardware from Earth needed to make effective use of those resources that is the issue I keep coming back to. Until it's in place and proven everything does have to be lifted from Earth. How big the pre-investment must be in order to achieve effective use of those resources has not been addressed.

And again I say that the amount spent a year on ways to wipe out our population equals the amount spent in the last 50 years on space exploration. 

On 7/28/2017 at 9:58 PM, Ken Fabian said:

It's the achieving of sufficiently sized and robust space economy that can survive on it's own that concerns me. Those abundant rotating colonies won't just appear there without compelling economic reasons. Space activities that are outposts - and dependent on a healthy Earth economy - are more likely than true self sufficiency. That is a whole other level of size and complexity.

Economy has little to do with it, very little hardware must be lifted from Earth. All businesses must spend money to make money, manufacturing plants don't just jump out of the ground.  

On 7/28/2017 at 9:58 PM, Ken Fabian said:

Things that could go wrong? Solar flares and cosmic radiation bursts taking out all the communications and transport. A cloud of interstellar debris that no-one noticed coming at high velocity. Essential equipment breaking down and lacking the deep expertise - no matter that you have all the manuals - to repair or replace it.

All those things can be dealt with, in fact the very nature of rotating colonies requires those things be dealt with. Water storage tanks protect from radiation, debris can either be dealt with by lasers or the colony can be moved just enough to avoid impact. Essential equipment would either be built on site, what would be so complex that spare parts couldn't be made via 3D printing or simply carried along. Essential parts that couldn't be made on site would be carried by any intelligent colonists..  

[Area54]

6 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Area54 - perhaps as compound interest applies to the sunk costs invested without financial returns? Or maybe you can elaborate on how doing things that cost more than they earn can be paid for by compound interest. Or what happens to compound interest when the capital gets written down or written off due to economic disruptions? But I suspect the point you are trying to make is like others here, that technological advancement is somehow equivalent to compound interest; but just as the ability of an investment to get interest is dependent on the actual details and conditions, tech development depends on real physics and engineering; rocket tech running at 80% efficient can't be magicked to 180% efficient by compound interest. Getting the last 20% of real potential is likely to be a case of diminishing returns - and when the returns cost too much the project gets abandoned, no matter we might wish otherwise. Whole new technologies have their own development costs - and extreme performance tends to be tech that is harder to make and to make reliable or low maintenance or low cost.

Tech development itself has strong dependence on economics, on the willingness of governments to fund the stuff that has no clear economic goal or on financiers to fund the stuff that has a reasonable prospect of making good financial returns; one can follow the other but a strong prospect of good financial returns is still essential for space enterprises to flourish.

I think it's pointless to argue the far future or it's inevitability when the gap remains so large; actual ways to close that gap would be welcome in this discussion. Or even compelling arguments that the gap is, or can be made, much smaller. I'm not seeing them.

It seems that you probably do understand compound interest. However, you do not understand economics. No shame there. That applies to 90% of economists.

As an economy grows, the cost of most items or services come down in real terms. This is partly due to improved technology and partly to increased efficiency of operation and partly to factors of scale. (It's cheaper per item to make 10,000 items than 10). The cost of sailing to the Americas, per person, in the Mayflower was roughly the same in real terms as what it will cost to "sail" to Mars in 2050. Defer that for two hundred years to cover the paucity of resources on Mars compared with Virginia and the problem is solved.

[Prometheus]

On 7/30/2017 at 0:23 AM, Ken Fabian said:

The scale of what's needed before it becomes economically viable exceeds any prior examples - none of which truly parallel what Big Space faces. Previous examples were of commercially proven technology being used at greater scale, within a world far more abundant in readily usable and saleable resources than space is; the space resources are there but they are not readily usable.

Big historic railway projects got up after they had the technology well worked out and it was proven to be very successful and profitable at smaller scale - proven before the big investment took place. We've had 70 years of opportunity to prove exploiting space resources is viable and failed to do so. The massive push that is needed to establish sufficient infrastructure isn't going to happen until clear demonstration that exploitation of those vast resources is feasible and have real commercial prospects.

What is the scale of what is needed to become economically viable? Have you, or anyone, done a thorough study into this you could link to? Have you taken into account the numerous corollary technologies that result from space exploration and their contribution to the economy? I certainly haven't, but if billionaires are investing into it i suspect there is at least some feasibility. 

The first steam engine 1698, the American transcontinental railway was built 1863 - over 165 years later. Yet you think 70 years is enough time to say space technology has failed to overcome it's hurdles so let's give up?

Each person gets to decide what risk is acceptable for themselves - i would rather take the risk of losing big than live dour life of penny pinching. But as a species we have to collectively decide, regardless of our own risk behaviour. I would suggest that man is a risk taking species - we explore the next hill, we dive under water, we fly above the clouds, we climb the highest mountain we can find. Going to Mars would in keeping with our nature.

I fear if such an attitude as yours were prevalent in early humans we would still be living in caves. Not to say we don't need people like you with feet firmly on the ground, ensuring the dreamers live within their means. There is a middle ground, and i think we already occupy it - google tells me the proportional wealth spent on the largest space organisation, NASA, is only 0.5% of the US budget; $18.4 billion. We spend $88 billion on hair products alone as a species. I think we can afford to continue to invest in this. And as for private industries - they can do what they want can't they? Business is always a risk and if business women think the risk is worth it, more power to them: beats just buying another diamond encrusted yacht. 

 

[Ken Fabian]

 Again, I am not opposed. But a realistic assessment of what is required must replace hype. I don't have to accept, let alone support overhyped expectations, nor should large expenditures of taxpayer money be undertaken on the basis of popular support built upon such hype.  And it is 2017, where we have a far greater understanding of what is possible and what is required - and expect to make investments on sound and detailed business plans.

12 hours ago, Prometheus said:

The first steam engine 1698, the American transcontinental railway was built 1863 - over 165 years later. Yet you think 70 years is enough time to say space technology has failed to overcome it's hurdles so let's give up?

Another misleading historical comparison - those railways made money from the very first sections completed and further construction was financed with near certainty of financial returns on each further section. Utilising space resources appears to require a whole system be built before anything except "corollary" benefits can be realised; those are inadequate by themselves. I think a greater level of real confidence that the result will be economically viable cannot be an afterthought.

The other and perhaps more appropriate lesson from history is that speculative ventures like new world colonies that couldn't pay their own way within the existing greater economy ultimately failed.

 

12 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Have you taken into account the numerous corollary technologies that result from space exploration and their contribution to the economy?

A whole lot of taxpayer funded R&D contributed economically - I see no reason to believe space exploration delivers more and better outcomes dollar for dollar than other major investments in R&D - sure the US space program was exceptional in scale and reach but from the start it was built on the popularity of exaggerated expectations as well as being an expression of national pride in the face of geopolitical implications of near space as a military objective. A lot of those advances could have been delivered by the parallel and overlapping military aerospace R&D programs where the same problems were begging solutions.

I am a strong supporter of R&D for many worthwhile goals - and I am not trying to exclude space goals - but extremely large financial commitments to specific sectors and goals should be based on realistic assessments, not hype.