/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3462758

This isn't true. NASA has a new heavy lift rocket on the way and plans to put humans on an asteroid and then Mars. Pic related, "space launch system". It's still funded.

We can't extrapolate doom and gloom based on momentary setbacks. People in the 1970s thought we'd be living in a post apocalyptic dystopia by now, killing each other over food and potable water. People don't just sit around with their thumbs up their asses as society goes to shit, they work to reverse the trend, winning and losing periodically.

Obama cancelled Constellation, but we're still doing nearly everything it entailed under a different name. We're still building the same rocket, but just the heavy lifter and not the light crew lifter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

And instead of going to the moon and mars, we're going to an asteroid and Mars. So basically it's Constellation with one less rocket and one of the two destinations changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

We've still got new heavy lifter rockets coming whose funding remains uncut.

>>3298980

>>What America will use for space travel is currently undecided, Obama doesn't really care for space.

Both are false. A successor has been chosen and it is, more or less, the alternative to Constellation that NASA engineers themselves cooked up behind Mike Griffin's back when he ignored their concerns about the Ares's pogoing issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

And as has been pointed out, Obama's plan is basically Mars Direct plus an asteroid mission, and he's actually backed it with the funding necessary to make it happen.

For some reason people who just hate Obama for being Obama can't bring themselves to accept the reality of this.

>>3272234

Actually NASA's "space launch system" is shuttle derived and has an even greater lifting capacity. The cargo is just housed separately from the crew vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

...And what can be done with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
Between 75 and145 tonnes into LEO, no figures given for geostationary transfer orbit but clearly greater capacity than the Falcon Heavy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Falcon_Heavy
53 tonnes to LEO, 19.5 tonnes to geostationary transfer orbit. $1,792 per kilogram into LEO, $6,000 per kilogram into geostationary transfer orbit.

For reference, Mars Direct requires a little over 47 tonnes to LEO capability. Mars semi-direct and Mars for Less require even less capacity.

It's excellent news that we will soon have not one but two heavy lift rockets available that are capable of establishing permanent settlements on the Moon and/or Mars. But what else can we do with them? I'd like to hear detailed proposals for missions to other objects in the solar system using either of these vehicles, with mission details and projected cost.