/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6939035]

>2015 Budget Bill to increase NASA funding

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/1210-congress-comes-through-for-planetary-science-and-nasa.html

SLS and Orion to get a nearly 20% increase in funding.

Anti-SLS/Orion fags BLOWN THE FUCK OUT.

[Anonymous No.6939048]

Some info on what the SLS will allow us to do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdqhGhfX62Y

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

[Anonymous No.6939057]

>>6939035
Good news... and for once Congress isn't being a bunch of stupid twats and making NASA take the funding from their other programs.

[Anonymous No.6939063]

WE MARS SOON

[Anonymous No.6939071]

Orion From the Recovery Ship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoItSvCBN0U

[Anonymous No.6939074]

Orion Splashdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdmZAvwznOU

[Anonymous No.6939079]

Liftoff of Orion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hn8qnsucwo

[Anonymous No.6939085]

Orion, Delta IV Heavy Liftoff-Up Close

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDYK_qW6qHE

[Anonymous No.6939282]

I hope Bigelow succeeds. Their tech could dramatically open up the potential for many many missions.

[Anonymous No.6939305]

WE FUNDING NOW BOYS

[Anonymous No.6939312]

>>6939063
It's actually sad and disappointing how long this took already, not to mention it isn't a real technological challenge, it's a budget thing.

[Anonymous No.6939321]

>>6939312

It's a huge technological challenge..

[Anonymous No.6939370]

>>6939312
Set back by budget.

[Anonymous No.6939501]

>>6939282
They're still planning to pop on the big inflatable trashbag module next year, right?

[Anonymous No.6939896]

>>6939048
I really dont want to piss on your fireworks.
Read the brochures CAREFULLY apart from the marketing blurb 'powering the usa to mars' etc Nowhere does it say what those rockets are designed to achieve.

The 130t configuration does state 'into orbit'.

You need to consider that for a HEO (rendezvous /construction of staging station?) The as yet unbudgeted 155t will actually carry maybe 70t with a maximum 4 launces a year.

Still good news tho.

[Anonymous No.6939964]

>>6939312
Money stops many things from getting done. Obviously no one is going to work for free in this world. Everyone has mouths to feed, even their own, and that comes at a cost.

But damn, imagine if we could all work towards a common goal and not worry about money all the time. Wishful thinking that will never come to fruition, I know. That is, until we're on Mars. What would a person living on Mars need money for?

[Anonymous No.6939969]

>>6939964
>That is, until we're on Mars. What would a person living on Mars need money for?
Those injections don't come cheap. Last I checked they were made on Earth and those guys want money in exchange.

[Anonymous No.6940062]

>>6939035
So does this do anything to fix the SLS's flight rate?

[Anonymous No.6940115]

>>6939964
What you speak of is called libertarian socialism / communism. Which is, contrary to what most 'murricans believe, a pretty interesting economic system that really needs to be considered. Thanks to our capitalist overlords, though, that probably won't happen any time soon.

[Anonymous No.6940139]

>>6939035

[Anonymous No.6940142]

>>6939964
>But damn, imagine if we could all work towards a common goal and not worry about money all the time. Wishful thinking that will never come to fruition, I know. That is, until we're on Mars. What would a person living on Mars need money for?

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, and what it is for.

A person on Mars would need money as a representation of the value of labor done by other colonists. If you need a shoe, and the cobbler on mars needs half an hour to make you a pair, you might in return promise to spend half an hour of YOUR specialized knowledge working for him, as, say, a chef.

Or you could just give him a $0.50, where the $-sign represents an hour of work. Then he could buy half an hour of work from you, or from somebody else, with other skills he requires more than a chef.

[Anonymous No.6940149]

>>6939964
>What would a person living on Mars need >money for?
Food, water & technology.
Even if Mars astronauts could somehow establish a closed biosphere, something that has never been done here on Earth, they would still need all their technology from us. Solar panels, computers, communication etc.

[Anonymous No.6940152]

>>6940115
You're oversimplifying quite a bit. Libertarian socialism involves quite a bit more that just the abolishment of currency, which is itself a theme in quite a few distinct social philosophies. And no, it should not be seriously considered, at the moment at least.

[Anonymous No.6940166]

>>6940152
>You're oversimplifying quite a bit.
True. I didn't feel like writing an essay.
>Libertarian socialism involves quite a bit more that just the abolishment of currency
I'm aware.
>And no, it should not be seriously considered, at the moment at least.
Care to explain why? I think the abolishment of currency should be a gradual process; so a libertarian communism shouldn't be considered right off the bat; it should be something to work towards. A libertarian socialism, (not to be confused with an authoritarian state-controlled economy) where the workers (everyday people) control the means of production (capital), is completely relevant to today. Evidence being the massive social and economic inequality throughout the world.

[Anonymous No.6940167]

wouldn't you need almost the same size rocket to launch something from mars?

[Anonymous No.6940172]

>>6940166
In some sectors, it would make sense for a greater proportion of workers to control the means of production. But certainly not all sectors.

And I think that socialism's effects on inequality are greatly exaggerated. Reparations to historically mistreated groups, progressive taxation, and heavy investment in child care, especially for poor families, could do a far better job at addressing inequality than socialism ever would.

And then the abolishment of currency thing is really just stupid. See this post:
>>6940142

[Anonymous No.6940173]

>>6940166
>Care to explain why?

See:

>>6940142

[Anonymous No.6940184]

>>6940167
Delta-v from Earth surface to Mars surface, using aerobraking = 13.8 km/s
From Mars surface to Earth surface = 6.4 km/s

The rocket that can do all that in one, would be much bigger than has ever been done before.

[Anonymous No.6940189]

>>6939035
>BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
this is your science budget the government is throwing in the trash

you are also being blown the fuck out, yet you do not realize it

[Anonymous No.6940199]

>>6940172
The currency "thing" isn't just "stupid." When we enter a post-scarcity society, material goods don't need to be traded for currency. It's completely redundant and pointless. If someone needs food, they get food. If someone needs a shoe they get a shoe. Why? because there's plenty of material goods to go around. Instead of fixating our lives and society on such petty concerns, we will be able to focus on scientific advancement. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

[Anonymous No.6940201]

>>6940199
same system that exists in star trek

[Anonymous No.6940204]

>Anti-SLS/Orion fags BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

NASA budget = Hollywood stunt, nothing actually done

Where is the money for Mars?

[Anonymous No.6940205]

>>6940199
You don't understand the definition of scarcity. Go back to econ 101 or read Mankiw's favorite textbook.

[Anonymous No.6940207]

>>6940142
Yeah, i'm sure a mars colony would let people go homeless, starve, or "shoeless." Capitalism won't last long there. Odds are, it will function like a commune.

[Anonymous No.6940215]

>>6940199
I'm all for providing a basic minimum bundle of goods, containing food, shelter, electricity, etc. I'm sort of a Rawlsian in that sense.

But there will always be scarcity for non-essential goods.

[Anonymous No.6940227]

>>6940205
What did I say to make you think I don't understand scarcity?
scarcity: the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage.
>Go back to econ 101 or read Mankiw's favorite textbook
If you want to bring this conversation into the realm of ad hominem, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.6940229]

>>6940184
And how would you land such a thing?

[Anonymous No.6940234]

>SLS and Orion to get a nearly 20% increase in funding.

Fine, but what about private companies like SpaceX and Bigelow?

[Anonymous No.6940235]

>>6940234

They are privately owned companies.

[Anonymous No.6940238]

>>6940235
#REKT

[Anonymous No.6940239]

>>6940229
Leave a return-stage 'mothership' on Mars orbit, again requiring extra fuel compared to direct interplanetary descent, then return from Mars & dock with the mothership.

[Anonymous No.6940246]

>>6940227
>post-scarcity

[Anonymous No.6940257]

>>6940235

no shit sherlock, but they get contracts from NASA

Anyway:

>Commercial Crew: $805 million, a decrease of $43 million, or 5%

There is the answer.

[Anonymous No.6940272]

>>6940257
http://www.space.com/20897-nasa-russia-astronaut-launches-2017.html

NASA pays $70M per seat on Soyuz

[Anonymous No.6940309]

Are the astronauts coming back?

[Anonymous No.6940313]

>>6940309
Yes, that is included in the price: One capsule goes up, One capsule comes down.

[Anonymous No.6940338]

>>6940313
how long is the journey to mars?

i always dreamed of being the first man to set foot on mars. oh well. i had a quote picked out and everything.

[Anonymous No.6940349]

>>6940338
Currently, 18 months there, another 18 months back. Maybe allow you to stay there 0-3 months. Very much depending on what rockets we are allowed to use.

[Anonymous No.6940354]

theoretically we could do it today. this is my biggest problem. if you really wanted a human standing on Mars, we could have already done it!

[Anonymous No.6940367]

>>6940338

me too, my quote would be "le cookies are ready", or "tfwnogf!".

[Anonymous No.6940424]

>>6939896

The total payload numbers keep changing because they are actually improving the design as they go along.

The Block I for example is already revised up fairly significantly. It will be able to put 30+mt into TLI because of the advanced exploration upper stage. That is pretty impressive.

[Anonymous No.6940447]

>>6940338
>i always dreamed of being the first man to set foot on mars
Imagine your place in history... Christopher Columbus, Neil Armstrong, You...

[Anonymous No.6940470]

>>6940424
>TLI

Sorry, not Trans-Lunar Injection.

I meant Trans-Mars Injection.

If we are ever going to get serious about Mars we need to be able to deliver 30, 40 or even 50 metric tons to Mars in a single launch. It's the most economic and fastest way there.

Launching 100 Falcon 9's and using gravity assists to get a few tons to Mars is not going to work no matter how many times spacex fags say it can.

[Anonymous No.6940485]

It's so sad. Compared to 2014, 460 millions would go to SLS and Orion and the budget only increased by 360 millions.

100 millions lost for nothing. It's sad.

[Anonymous No.6940488]

>>6940470
Who is the dumbass who said falcon 9 ? The heavy version is about as capable as the actual SLS by the way

[Anonymous No.6940500]

>>6940204
>Where is the money for Mars?

How do you plan on getting to mars without a rocket?

[Anonymous No.6940512]

>>6940488

Mars One people have suggested the Falcon 9 and Dragon V1s.

Also, the Falcon Heavy can only deliver half the payload to Mars that the SLS Block I can.

The BFR is the only rocket that can match the SLS, but it is doubtful that it will ever be built.

[Anonymous No.6940529]

>NASA
>space

[Anonymous No.6940737]

>>6940062
no, just keeps the pork barrels full

[Anonymous No.6940744]

>>6940272
btw, that is up 100% from before the Shuttle retired. Monopolies are fun!

[Anonymous No.6940972]

>>6940512

You can use bunches of Falcon Heavies for exploration. Falcon Heavy will outlaunch SLS: there are already 5 launches slated before SLS flies its first.

You can later commission a Heavy Lift vehicle if you so desire without carrying the burden of SLS across decades of ill use.

2010s: no Mars landing
2020s: no Mars landing
2030s: no Mars landing
2040s: keep dreaming about that carrot on the end of the stick

[Anonymous No.6941001]

>>6940972
The only reason it's been like that is because every new president we get, keeps destroying NASA's program budget. It isn't NASA being sucky, it's politics being sucky.

[Anonymous No.6941009]

>>6940529
>NASA
>higher than the height you could reach by being sent flying by an exploding rocket

[Anonymous No.6941014]

>>6941001

Nope, that's the future with zero changes in direction.

Switching tracks can be the right thing to do. Continuing Ares 1 and forcing all future plans to use it just so that "presidents shouldn't cancel anything" would have been bogus policy, and it's mainly an argument canard put forward by partisans of things who they don't want to be cancelled, no matter how bad they are.

[Anonymous No.6941196]

>>6940972
>Falcon Heavy will outlaunch SLS:

Of course it would.

Falcon Heavy would also out launch the shuttle, and the Saturn V.

What is your point?

[Anonymous No.6941426]

>>6941009
That wasn't even NASA

[Anonymous No.6941493]

>>6941196

>Launching 100 Falcon 9's and using gravity assists to get a few tons to Mars...
>Falcon Heavy can only deliver half the payload to Mars that the SLS Block I can
>The BFR is the only rocket that can match the SLS, but it is doubtful that it will ever be built

-We have more SLS launch alternatives to consider than just Falcon 9, although that may be useful too. I don't think the gravity assist talk is relevant in this context.

-Falcon Heavy can deliver larger payloads to Mars than just its single launch throw weight through approaches that harness multiple launches.

-If we needed BFR we could commission it directly at a later point in time or even now rather than insist on SpaceX first creating it entirely on their own dime.

-Falcon Heavy has positive qualities versus SLS that are exploitative for exploration missions: low cost highly frequent launch of significant mass and the prospect of reusability for even lower costs.

A FH based exploration architecture can exceed a SLS based one even with the vehicle disparity because of flight rate disparity.

-We're not actually going to Mars anytime soon. Near term stuff in the next two decades is lower scope. Even if you find FH based Mars missions distasteful or inferior in your not infallible opinion and make a big exaggerated fuss about it that doesn't let SLS off the hook for a comparison to Falcon Heavy for the realistic lesser objectives to accomplish. Switching may actually speed up later greater objectives.

[Anonymous No.6941606]

>>6941493
Earth Orbit Rendezvous

[Anonymous No.6941615]

>>6941426
>antares
>not nasa
what am I missing here

[Anonymous No.6941650]

>>6941426
It's a commercial rocket operated by NASA..

[Anonymous No.6941760]

>>6939321
we've been able to do it since skylab days

[Anonymous No.6941772]

>>6941760
So was the moon, but once we had the incentive, we got there in just over a decade.. We could have been on Mars 30 years ago if we really wanted to..

[Anonymous No.6941779]

>>6941772
That was meant for>>6939321

[Anonymous No.6941784]

>>6939035
Rockets are primitive, expensive, and prone to failure.
What we need to do is fund construction of a space elevator.
Think about it; we have the technology it's just a matter of investing the resources in constructing one. Once we do though, we're going to enter an entirely new age of exploration.
It's going to change everything.

[Anonymous No.6941792]

>>6941784
Do you have any idea how dangerous they would be though? You have insane torsion forces acting on them, plus weather. Even if you made them out of steel, titanium and carbon/fibre reinforced unobtanium, if it broke, that's a several hundred km long wire falling to earth and supersonic speeds. Imagine the kind of damage that would do.

[Anonymous No.6941795]

>>6941792
Depends on where it breaks actually.

If its near the base then it isn't as much an issue. The segment would curl up into a weird orbit.

If it's near the tether, then you're looking at that cable basically crushing everything along the equator.

[Anonymous No.6941803]

>>6941795
It would stand to reason that it is most likely to break in the middle, so that's minimum 50km..The most sensible failsafe would be to line the tether with explosives, then if it does break, just blow the fucker into tiny pieces that would disintegrate during re-entry.

[Anonymous No.6941811]

>>6941784
>we have the technology

No we don't.

[Anonymous No.6941812]

>>6941001
noooooope, russia and india and china are aiming for space, and USA -HATES- losing dick-measuring contests.

The race to mars is real.

[Anonymous No.6941820]

>>6941795
It doesn't have to stay anchored though. It could just either dangle while the 'penthouse' station stays in geosynchronous orbit, or be lowered for use. Also it doesn't really have to be that long, just enough to get into space.
>>6941792
It's no more dangerous than using giant tanks of volatile fuels to blast your way through escape velocity. The 'car' of the elevator might not have to be physically connected to the cable either. If you could just run a charge through it and have it move up sort of like a maglev train.

[Anonymous No.6941824]

>>6941811
All you need is basically a long ass cable with a platform on rollers to move up and down.

[Anonymous No.6941825]

>>6941820
If a rocket blows up, it causes a few million in damage to the launch pad. If a space tether snaps, it's gonna cause many kms of damage..

[Anonymous No.6941828]

>>6941824
No material has that kind of tensile strength

[Anonymous No.6941830]

>>6941792
Pretty much not dangerous at all in relative terms to the cost of the actual line itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_safety#In_the_event_of_failure

Only real concern would be that the main station deorbits and if it's big enough then it might cause large damage but a system that releases the station from both cables leaving it to orbit could easily fix that.

[Anonymous No.6941834]

>>6941824
>>6941828
Think with magnets.

[Anonymous No.6941835]

>>6941824

>>6941828
This

And also, let's talk about how we obtain a counter-weight. The (currently) best plan uses a captured asteroid as the counter-weight. We've only just managed to land on an asteroid using a probe, let alone capture one.

[Anonymous No.6941839]

>>6941825
It would coil. The coriolis effect would probably have it move a couple km away from it's ground point, but it would probably be just the same amount of damage as a failed launch.

[Anonymous No.6941844]

>>6941828
Do you understand how space tethers work? Part of it is in orbit. Centrifugal force negates the compressive force of the tower's weight. Ignoring weather etc, there are very few forces acting on the tether.

>>6941834
Hundred of km of magnet's that is.. You say goodbye to Earth's neodymium..Not to mention the economy.

[Anonymous No.6941858]

>>6941835
There is a proposal bring a small (7m) asteroid in Lunar orbit using a net made some sort of really tough material.
The counter weight would have to weigh more than the cable which is tricky, but we could probably construct something massive enough using multiple launches.

[Anonymous No.6941871]

>>6941844
Electromagnets can be turned on and off brah.

[Anonymous No.6941906]

>>6941871
I know that. My point is they're expensive to make, and expensive to get into orbit.

[Anonymous No.6941950]

>>6940447
Do you think Armstrong will be remembered after we land on Mars?

[Anonymous No.6942031]

>>6941950
>first human being on a planetary body not the earth

Yeah, I think he'll be alright. In some ways it's a bigger accomplishment--I mean they landed that bitch by hand, without the processing power of a TI-83.

As for all the elevator dreamers... let's build a functional space infrastructure first--we need somewhere worth going before we build a superhighway to it
>assuming an elevator isn't utterly impractical.

Much more efficient to bootstrap a supply chain in situ with robots, and just use rockets from earth to ferry the few human beans you need up there.

[Anonymous No.6942179]

Budget just passed the House I think.

[Nuka-Cola: Gamma Grape No.6942193]

so sls will be in development hell and cost 20% more? that's nice

i'm all for orion but sls just doesnt seem to be going anywhere tbh

[Anonymous No.6942195]

>>6939964
you're thinking of a post scarcity society

[Anonymous No.6942392]

>>6942193
It doesn't seem to be going anywhere because your ignorant bias doesn't let you see the progress the program is making. Perhaps if you substitute "Ares V" for "Space Launch System" you might be able to see things better. SLS is progressing with much less drama than its predecessor. Testing of its parts are in the very advanced stage, design is complete for the 70 ton version and nearly done for the heavier models, and production has already started on rocket parts. The only program holding things up is Orion, but odds are SLS/Orion will launch in early 2018. It has the funding, and Nasa has the experience and willpower to make manned deep space exploration a reality within 7 years.

[Anonymous No.6942467]

>>6942392
meanwhile, spacex does it in 5

[Anonymous No.6942483]

>>6942467
The BFR isn't anywhere near reaching production, and fills a different role than the SLS/Orion will. Also Musk specifically stated that his Jumbo Rocket is not designed to compete with the SLS.

[Anonymous No.6942488]

>>6939035

>20% more than next to nothing

What a victory!

[Anonymous No.6942499]

>>6942488
15 billion fully funds the flagship programs you idiot.

[Anonymous No.6942546]

>>6942392

>to make manned deep space exploration a reality within 7 years.

Having 4 astronauts float around in a capsule in empty space isn't that big of a deal nor worth the means with which it is being done. The trumped up importance masks a boondoggle.

[Anonymous No.6942564]

>>6942546
You're a fucking idiot, how the fuck can you marginalize the accomplishment of sending humans on year long voyages into deep space? Think that money would be better spent feeding Shaniqua and her 6 fatherless brats? Spaceflight benefits science and technology here on Earth too, you know.

[Anonymous No.6942588]

>>6939035
>Anti-SLS/Orion fags BLOWN THE FUCK OUT.
Uh... I don't know of a lot of anti-SLS/Orion people who were saying that Congress wouldn't fund it.

Rather, the general criticism of SLS/Orion is that it's a shit system that costs too much and doesn't do enough.

Orion's heavier than the Apollo capsule. SLS is less powerful than Saturn V. Therefore, Orion on SLS goes nowhere interesting.

When Constellation was downgraded to SLS, the reason to continue development was lost. Ares V was going to be substantially more powerful than Saturn V, and a manned BEO mission was going to use at least one each of Ares I and Ares V (launching the crew capsule separately from the Earth Departure Stage and other equipment such as a lunar lander), making the total capacity nearly double that of Saturn V.

Orion, a heavy four-man craft compared to Apollo's light 3-man capsule, is still sized for Constellation with its two-Saturn-Vs capacity, not for SLS with its 60%-of-a-Saturn-V capacity. Even to do moon landings, if it was riding on SLS, it needed to be downsized to a thin-safety-margin 2-man capsule, and that didn't happen.

SLS/Orion is not a Mars rocket, or even a moon rocket. It's a puttering-around-in-Earth-orbit rocket.

The shuttle was an embarassing follow-up to Saturn V. SLS/Orion is going to make the shuttle look practical, ambitious, and economical, by comparison.

[Anonymous No.6942603]

>>6942564
>how the fuck can you marginalize the accomplishment of sending humans on year long voyages into deep space?
Uh... That's not what SLS/Orion is going to do, and I'm not sure you're familiar with NASA's current definition of "deep space", which is "anything above low-Earth orbit".

Orion can sit in space for up to six months, if it's externally supported by, for instance, being docked at the ISS. On its own, it can't keep passengers alive for much longer than a week.

The bottom line is, Orion's not leaving Earth orbit. It might go to L2 or to a high lunar orbit, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.6942606]

>>6942564

Where was it proposed to divert NASA funding into welfare? It wasn't. You cling to your naive defensiveness that attacking bad spaceflight is attacking the concept of spaceflight itself, and that all things must be supported in lockstep against a boogeyman enemy. And despite your racism, having the state support struggling families and ensure a proper upbringing for the state's citizens into adulthood is worth doing on its own right. That you care for cold hardware more than warm humans showcases your departure from humanity.

SLS/Orion aren't conducting year long deep space missions in seven years. The concept of deep space as a destination has been exaggerated in importance to hype the limited extent of what is being done with SLS/Orion. Spinoffs are overpresumed and will occur as a product of the other methods of embarking on space travel.

[Anonymous No.6942607]

>>6942564
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6942630]

>>6942483
>The BFR isn't anywhere near reaching production
Neither is SLS. The 2017 launch will be a one-off unmanned test flight of a partial vehicle with a borrowed upper stage, not a production flight. The real first flight is expected no sooner than 2021.

>and fills a different role than the SLS/Orion will.
Yes. The role of SLS/Orion is to line the pockets of politically-connected contractors while doing a few pointless demo flights, while the role of the BFR is to colonize Mars.

The BFR will be able to throw more mass on any trajectory, at a far higher launch rate, at a cost that's lower by orders of magnitude.

>Also Musk specifically stated that his Jumbo Rocket is not designed to compete with the SLS.
Ever try and guess what he meant by that?

On the one hand, Musk doesn't want to offend interests in the US government by stating that he's working on something to compete with their pet project.

On the other hand, he doesn't see SLS as something worth competing with.

[Anonymous No.6943184]

>>6940349
It's 8.5ish months for a hohmann transfer to mars and it would be another 8.5 months for a hohmann back.

Where do you get 18 months from?

[Anonymous No.6943266]

>>6942546
>Having 4 astronauts float around in a capsule in empty space isn't that big of a deal

No one else has been able to do it since the apollo days. And they have tried.

[Anonymous No.6943287]

>>6942630
>The real first flight is expected no sooner than 2021.

The dates I have seen Elon suggest for the full construction of the BFR are in the mid 2025s.

>The role of SLS/Orion is to line the pockets of politically-connected contractors while doing a few pointless demo flights, while the role of the BFR is to colonize Mars.
>The BFR will be able to throw more mass on any trajectory, at a far higher launch rate, at a cost that's lower by orders of magnitude.

You seem to think that there won't be any money for the SLS to send people to Mars, but are implying that there is all the chance that that SpaceX will have the money instead.

Where is the money for this "mars colonization" by SpaceX coming from?

The cheapest estimates to get a few people on Mars for a few years in $9 billion. That's almost twice what SpaceX is worth right now.

Elon himself has said that deep space missions are almost entirely in the realm of national governments, and a mission to Mars no matter who does it will require investment by the US, at least on this side of the world.

And why would the US invest in the BFR mission if it already has the SLS which is a comparable rocket?

>>Also Musk specifically stated that his Jumbo Rocket is not designed to compete with the SLS.
>Ever try and guess what he meant by that?


It means exactly what it says. The BFR will come in handy for delivering huge payloads to LEO which there will probably be a market for, especially after the SLS is decommissioned.

But it cannot compete with the SLS for deep exploration missions because the government has its own tool for doing so.

[Anonymous No.6943375]

This SLS and its puny payload is a joke.

Why don't we just recreate the Saturn V?

Oh right, it was a hoax and we've never been able to recreate that rocket or any of the magic space technology they used.

[Anonymous No.6943452]

>>6943287
>You seem to think that there won't be any money for the SLS to send people to Mars, but are implying that there is all the chance that that SpaceX will have the money instead.
It's not the same amount, or even a remotely comparable amount of money.

The BFR is intended to be a fully-reusable, methane-fuelled launch system, and it's being developed by SpaceX, who even NASA says can design rockets for one tenth the cost of projects developed in the usual NASA way (cost-plus contracts with the usual contractors). It's going to cost next to nothing to fly.

OP's story here is that SLS is getting $1.7 billion for one year's budget, at least two years before it flies at all, probably at least seven years before it it flies a non-test flight, and this is only a 20% increase over the previous year. This is for a rocket with no new engines, based on a rearrangement of space shuttle parts. That one year of budget is probably more than SpaceX will spend in total developing the BFR, including the new Raptor engine and some test flights.

The BFR doesn't compete with the SLS, it doesn't have to. The Falcon Heavy can compete with (and utterly crush) the SLS. The BFR will be in a whole other class, like nothing the world has ever seen.

Putting the BFR next to the SLS is like putting a Boeing 747-8 next to the Spruce Goose. They might be about the same size and shape, but one is so obviously more capable and practical than the other that the comparison can only provoke laughter.

>why would the US invest in the BFR mission if it already has the SLS which is a comparable rocket?
SLS is not comparable, in capabilities or cost-effectiveness. The MCT system, using the BFR launch vehicle, would put more mass on the Mars surface per Earth departure than the SLS can put in LEO.

[Anonymous No.6943458]

>>6943266

Those "tries" were proposals for wider exploration programs, not simply to put capsule men in farther empty space for the supposed greatness and majesty of that objective.

That they fizzled has to do with the fact that America is the only one fronting serious cash for manned space and they have only recently redirected their spigot from the space shuttle program. With cash you can buy feats. The relative importance of this feat is questionable.

[Anonymous No.6943470]

>>6943458
>the supposed greatness and majesty of that objective.
outside of the apollo missions, we've never sent humans past low earth orbit, so yes that objective is very difficult for us

>America is the only one fronting serious cash
NASA's lifetime budget is around $850billion, less than a trillion. less than a trillion over it's entire lifetime, 6 decades.

compare that with our yearly GDP, our national debt, the interest on our national debt, how much money the Fed gave to the banks in 2008, etc

a trillion is nothing, it's certainly not shekels that are keeping us from recreating the miracles of the 1960s

[Anonymous No.6943487]

>>6943470

Not difficult. Simply not important for that level of spending, and while NASA was doing other things with its money.

You're veering off into distracted by shiny foil thinking tangents. America still spends a greater proportion of cash on manned space compared to other nations but that amount is capped and until 4 years ago it was spent on the space shuttle. With that money redirected allows it to be spent on other things. The things is: SLS and Orion are a big waste of it while the modest outcome of that comparative spending, a few astronauts in a capsule farther away, is overblown in importance to validate the waste.

[Anonymous No.6943498]

>>6943487

>Simply not important for that level of spending

*as determined by pols who aren't going out of their way on new space quest adventures

[Anonymous No.6943577]

>>6943487
>shiny foil thinking tangents
NASA started the whole idea that all you need is tinfoil and duct tape to make it to the moon

[Anonymous No.6943594]

People are comparing SLS to SpaceX's BFR, when it should be compared to Falcon Heavy, which is due to launch next year and be routinely launching, possibly with reusably flyback boosters, by the time SLS makes its first test flight (as a one-shot incomplete test article, using scavenged SSMEs and an upper stage borrowed from Delta IV).

The first thing to note about the Falcon Heavy is that its boosters and central core are better than the boosters and central core of the SLS. The lower performance numbers are strictly due to the wimpy, small, low-Isp upper stage. If they put a better upper stage on it, it would outperform the SLS to every destination. SpaceX offered to develop this upper stage for a firm fixed price of about $1 billion, years ago.

So this option has been there for the US government, to spend less than one year's SLS funding and get a better vehicle than the SLS. It would still be a better option to cancel SLS, just forget all of the work done on it, and pay SpaceX to put a better upper stage on Falcon Heavy. That's how bad SLS is.

However, even without doing that, you can still do more and bigger missions on Falcon Heavy. How can that be, if one Falcon Heavy launch can throw less than half as much as the SLS to a Mars injection? Well, SLS is going to be able to launch less than once per year. Falcon Heavy is going to be able to launch at least a half-dozen times per year. By assembling a mission at a lagrange point or in LEO, three Falcon Heavy launches (two of which are storable-propellant propulsive units) will be ample to provide the maximum payload of an SLS launch.

So by 2017, when SLS is doing a test flight, still years from doing any real work, Falcon Heavy will be fully ready to perform all of the missions of the mature SLS, with no prior government investment, at a fraction of the marginal cost per mission, with greater flexibility to provide smaller or larger missions, and able to support at least twice as many missions.

[Anonymous No.6943629]

>>6943594
SLS is literally a propaganda machine, a giant "merica fuck yeah" flying penis to slap in Russia and China's face.

[Anonymous No.6943634]

>>6943629
no, this is a giant flying penis to slap in everyone's face

the SLS is a shiny distraction so you only think about hopeful and noble thoughts

[Anonymous No.6943658]

>>6941950

For a while. In the long term (~500 years from now), if Mars and other planets/moons have been colonized and significant portions of the human population live somewhere other than earth, Armstrong will be more of a footnote. He'll be remembered as a guy who was technically the first, but he'll be way overshadowed by people with a more direct connection to the reality of the 2500s.

[Anonymous No.6943671]

>>6942546

In addition to the fact that that actually is a gigantic accomplishment and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, smaller scale stuff like this has to happen before any sort of serious colonization can begin. Good luck convincing congress and the public to fund a proper colonization effort if you can't even say you've sent a 4 man expedition there. And good luck making that colonization effort actually be successful without data gathered from smaller missions before it.

[Anonymous No.6943711]

>>6942031
>As for all the elevator dreamers... let's build a functional space infrastructure first--we need somewhere worth going before we build a superhighway to it
Space elevator plans generally take just one big rocket launch, or just a few, to put up a single very thin ribbon. Then you use a tiny climber to put more and more ribbons up, until you've installed a thick cable that can carry a significant load. Then you send up solar collectors and microwave or laser transmitters so your climber can be powered by sunlight. After that, it's basically free.

Getting to orbit efficiently IS the "functional space infrastructure" you need first. You can't build somewhere worth going with something like the SLS. You need a way to send thousands of tons up every year.

I'm not a space elevator fan, myself. Reusable rockets will be much easier to develop and actually more energy-efficient. I'm not sure elevators will ever actually work. However, if the technical challenges, particularly with production of the cable, can be overcome, it is a reasonable option.

[Anonymous No.6943718]

>>6943671
SLS can't send a 4-man expedition to anywhere you'd want to colonize. It can't put men on Mars, it can't put men on the moon. It's less powerful than Saturn V, and the Orion capsule is more massive than the Apollo capsule, hence they can go less places.

Apollo might have been a necessary tech demonstration. SLS is only a demonstration of ineptitude and wastefulness.

[Anonymous No.6943775]

>>6943718
Orion plus he ESA SM is significantly less massive than The Apollo lunar CM and SM.
You're also considering only the first version of SLS in a single launch scenario.

[Anonymous No.6943819]

>>6943634
predator is a war machine, it used is to make war
SLS is a giant rocket-dick to flaunt American superiority in the international community, just like Saturn 5 did

[Anonymous No.6943859]

>>6942588
>>6942603
Those sound like serious criticisms. Proof?

[Anonymous No.6943872]

>>6943775
>Orion plus he ESA SM is significantly less massive than The Apollo lunar CM and SM.
I think you mean "slightly less massive", and that's a totally misleading comparison because the Apollo CSM lunar configuration was about two thirds propellant by mass, where only about one third of the mass of Orion with SM is propellant.

Orion/SM mass: 58,500 lb (21,000 lb propellant)
Apollo CSM (lunar): 63,500 lb (37,500 lb propellant)
Apollo CSM (LEO): 32,500 lb (8,500 lb propellant)

Comparing Orion to Apollo, the capsule has more mass and the service module provides far less impulse. This makes it a far less capable vehicle, unless your primary concern is taking one extra astronaut rather than sending astronauts to an interesting destination.

In terms of delta-V (orbital maneuvering capability), the Orion/SM is much closer to the LEO configuration of the Apollo CSM than the lunar configuration. The Apollo CSM was able to do things like take the lunar lander to low-lunar orbit, rendezvous with the lunar ascent module, and still have enough oomph left over to return to Earth.

I'm not sure Orion can even get to low-lunar orbit and back. The rocket equation is exponential, not linear. The Apollo CSM had about triple the delta-V, which is about nine times the change of orbital potential energy.

With nearly double the dry mass, the Orion/SM needs nearly double the propellant load to have the same maneuver capabilities as the Apollo CSM, instead it has about half. The dry mass would go up with the propellant capacity.

Orion was designed for Constellation. It was going to be sent up on Ares I, and rendezvous in LEO with an Earth departure stage separately sent up by Ares V. Together, these rockets would have been nearly twice as powerful as Saturn V, and three times as powerful as SLS.

Constellation got downgraded to SLS, but Orion stayed fat. The resulting system is useless and ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6943901]

>>6943859
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_Program

This stuff isn't controversial. The only manned "exploration" mission planned for SLS/Orion is to have an encounter with a tiny asteroid captured by a robotic mission into a loose orbit around the moon.

Q: Is there a plan to capture an asteroid and return it to lunar orbit?
A: No. There's no plan to achieve the only manned exploration mission planned for SLS/Orion. The technology doesn't exist and there's no funding to develop it, let alone to actually perform the mission.

Q: If they do robotically capture an asteroid and return it to lunar orbit, why not return it all the way to low Earth orbit, perhaps using a robotic space tug with mass-efficient ion thrusters, so it can be visited by cheap commercial crew vehicles, or even attached to the ISS?
A: Because then there would be no mission for SLS or Orion.

Q: Surely there's a plan to do other things with Orion after demonstrating it.
A: Nope. There are no specific plans or realistic suggestions. It's an overweight vehicle with very limited capabilities. Without external support, it can't keep passengers alive for more than three weeks. Even with external support, its design life is too short at six months for a mission to Mars and back, and its only contribution to that mission would be the atmospheric entry at Earth. It's only designed to go as far as lunar orbit.

[Anonymous No.6943904]

>>6943872
>I'm not sure Orion can even get to low-lunar orbit and back. The rocket equation is exponential, not linear.
It is logarithmic in mass ratios which is what we are discussing.

I thinks our comparison is misleading. Orion was built for the LM to make the burn to lunar orbit. Given the massive hulk that Altair was a lighter lander could fit on SLS and make the burn for Orion. This is a better setup as you loose the tanks earlier.

[Anonymous No.6943912]

>>6943901
Yeah, after reading
>>6943872
I found most of that info myself.
That's really depressing.

Why is congress such a bunch of asshats?

[Anonymous No.6943921]

>>6940529
fuck you. im gonna be shitting myself through the entire JWST launch in 2018

[Anonymous No.6943922]

>>6943901
>The technology doesn't exist
Which technology?

>If they do robotically capture an asteroid and return it to lunar orbit, why not return it all the way to low Earth orbit
DeltaV? Mend of mission?

>There are no specific plans or realistic suggestions.
That's just nonsense. The NEO mission has had serious study. No one has claimed Orion will fly to Mars and back unsupported.

[Anonymous No.6943924]

>>6943921
Well it's a good thing Airanespace is doing the heavy lifting there.

[Anonymous No.6943929]

>>6943924
>yfw it still goes down

[Anonymous No.6943944]

>>6943775
>You're also considering only the first version of SLS in a single launch scenario.
SLS will never be used for a multiple-launch mission because of Falcon Heavy. As soon as you're willing to accept orbital rendezvous, the lower cost and higher availability of Falcon Heavy will always be more attractive than the SLS. There is no case for multiple-SLS missions.

>>6943922
>>The technology doesn't exist
>Which technology?
To capture asteroids and move them to other orbits. That shit's not trivial. There hasn't been a fully successful asteroid sample return mission yet, which is something that would be much easier.

You have to pick an asteroid that won't fall apart when you push it, then you have to land on it, and maintain contact and directional control while pushing it, you have to take all of the necessary propellant out there, etc.

The asteroid capture mission would be much more ambitious and impressive than sending some jokers up to plant a tiny flag on the tiny asteroid after it has already been captured.

[Anonymous No.6943959]

>>6943944
>SLS will never be used for a multiple-launch mission because of Falcon Heavy. As soon as you're willing to accept orbital rendezvous, the lower cost and higher availability of Falcon Heavy will always be more attractive than the SLS. There is no case for multiple-SLS missions.
What about flight rate? In the end it will be about 3 falcon heavies to an SLS due to increased mass from breaking up a payload and adding docking. Then there are large payloads, falcon heavy has a tiny fairing. We have no idea what the cost will be. In the shuttle program the cost of adding a single flight to the manifest towards then end was under 400 million.

>To capture asteroids and move them to other orbits.
That's not a technology, that's the mission. What specific technology to do that doesn't exist?

>There hasn't been a fully successful asteroid sample return mission yet
How many attempts have there been? One and it was mostly successful despite being a low cost mission.

>You have to pick an asteroid that won't fall apart when you push it
SEP is very low trust.

>then you have to land on it
Been done, several times.

>maintain contact and directional control while pushing it
Hence the giant jiffy bag idea. Among others.

>The asteroid capture mission would be much more ambitious and impressive than sending some jokers up to plant a tiny flag on the tiny asteroid after it has already been captured.
Yes but you get reliable and specific sample return on the budget of Human Spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.6943962]

>>6943912
>Dollar to my electors or I am against Nasa.

Power to people always end up the same way

[Anonymous No.6943973]

>>6943959
Not the guy's you were responding to but :
1) Number taken out of your arse mean nothing + muh, reusability.
2) Every bit of it. ion propulsion outside earth orbit, never done. Heavy ions ? never tested in space, Production of energy ? No one know how.
3) that don't change anything, gravity still would be nowhere near enough keep it in place.
4) I don't recall any manned mission to an asteroid
5) ooooh yeah, that idea. What make u sure of a) the asteroid won't have a strange placed com, b) that it won't apply force weirdly c) that it will stay in a single piece
6) it would be easier to bring back the asteroid to earth

[Anonymous No.6944003]

>>6943973
>reusability.
let's wait until that actually works. Numbers are not made up.

> ion propulsion outside earth orbit, never done.
What is Deep Space 1? What is SMART-1? What is Dawn? What is Hayabusa?
>Heavy ions ? never tested in space
Xenon is used in just about every application.
>Production of energy ? No one know how.
What does the "S" stand for?

>that don't change anything, gravity still would be nowhere near enough keep it in place.
Gravity doesn't hold objects that size together at all.

>I don't recall any manned mission to an asteroid
The rendezvous isn't manned.

>What make u sure of a) the asteroid won't have a strange placed com, b) that it won't apply force weirdly c) that it will stay in a single piece
I have no idea what you're even trying to say.

>it would be easier to bring back the asteroid to earth
It would but it would also destroy it in reentry and be no better than meteors. That's why we're talking about LEO which takes more delta V and you need to get rid of it afterwards where as on the moon it can be left to decay.

[Anonymous No.6944011]

>>6943959
>What about flight rate? In the end it will be about 3 falcon heavies to an SLS due to increased mass from breaking up a payload and adding docking. Then there are large payloads, falcon heavy has a tiny fairing. We have no idea what the cost will be. In the shuttle program the cost of adding a single flight to the manifest towards then end was under 400 million.
A 5 meter fairing is not "tiny", and it's not the only fairing that the Falcon Heavy could be used with. It's just what they went with as their standard, since it was big enough for pretty much every satellite. Dragon launches without a payload fairing. There isn't some aerodynamic reason that every Falcon 9 or Heavy launch must have the same fairing.

It might take 3 Falcon Heavies to replace a single-launch SLS-mission, but in a multiple-SLS mission, you're already paying for breaking things up and docking. 2 Falcon Heavies will replace an SLS.

And nobody seriously thinks that the SLS will have a marginal cost under a billion dollars per launch.

The shuttle program is a special case where it's very difficult to talk meaningfully about things like marginal cost. As a reusable vehicle and a hangar queen, it had a very limited launch rate flexibility, and most of the costs were fixed whether it flew or not. Rather than saying "the cost of adding a single flight to the manifest", you should say, "the amount saved by omitting a single flight from the manifest", because there are only a limited number of flights that can be omitted, not an unlimited number which can be added. Having that be a low number is not a positive thing, in the context of a ruinously expensive program of limited capability.

(continued)

[Anonymous No.6944016]

continued from >>6944011
Since the SLS is an ELV, it should be cheaper to not use it. It's still going to be insanely expensive just to keep the program going (like this year, $1.7 billion for 0 flights)

As for flight rate, SLS isn't capable of a high one, while Falcon Heavy is. SLS is highly unlikely to even fly once per year on average, but Falcon Heavy is likely to be able to fly more than once per month, especially if the booster reuse plan works.

A three-SLS mission is going to take up at least three years of SLS launch capability, and cost at least $3 billion (for launch alone). A six-Falcon-heavy mission is going to take up maybe six months of Falcon Heavy launch capability, and cost under $1 billion, very possibly under $500 million, with booster reuse.

[Anonymous No.6944024]

>>6944011
>A 5 meter fairing is not "tiny"
It is for ~50 tonnes.

>ou're already paying for breaking things up and docking.
You need more if it the more pieces you have.

>2 Falcon Heavies will replace an SLS.
Depends on block and how efficiently you can break it up.

>And nobody seriously thinks that the SLS will have a marginal cost under a billion dollars per launch.
Depends on flight rate which is the point. We also don't know how much a falcon heavy flight will be sol to NASA for.

[Anonymous No.6944035]

>>6944016
>Since the SLS is an ELV, it should be cheaper to not use it.
No. The shuttle was a hanger queen but the cost was the standing army, that will still be there. Being and ELV doesn't change the marginal cost situation dramatically.

>Falcon Heavy is likely to be able to fly more than once per month
Given SpaceX's current lack of a decent flight rate I think that's speculation. It will have a higher flight rate than SLS but we don't know how high it will be.

>A three-SLS mission is going to take up at least three years of SLS launch capability
That's totally flase. SLS's flight rate will be limited by missions long before capability. One a year does not mean that is the maximum capability. There's no reason to believe rates of the late shuttle program aren't achievable albeit at cost.

Again we have no idea what the marginal cost will be nor what NASA will get a falcon heavy for.

[Anonymous No.6944063]

>>6944003
>Numbers are not made up.
You will need a source, tho.
>What is Deep Space 1? What is SMART-1?
Hayabusa thruster failed FYI, and SMART-1 orbited the moon wich, to the extend of my knowledge happend to orbit earth.
Both deep space 1 and dawn were succesfull, thought, so I was wrong.
>Xenon is used in just about every application.
Heavy power ion drives.
>What does the "S" stand for?
You will need some big ass solar panel, so. 1000 tonshttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/756122main_Asteroid%20Redirect%20Mission%20Reference%20Concept%20Description.pdf
500 times as big as the biggest ion spacecraft, at least. we are talking in kilometer of solar panel, here.
>Gravity doesn't hold objects that size together at all.
How the fuck they formed, so ?
>I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
Sorry, I thougth you had basic mechanic knowledge, I won't do it again. the asteroid might not be linear in his mass distribution, it won't hook on the bag and I won't make the insult to explain the last.
>It would but it would also destroy it in reentry and be no better than meteors. That's why we're talking about LEO which takes more delta V and you need to get rid of it afterwards where as on the moon it can be left to decay.
Take some heatshield spray and redirige it on the earth from it's solar orbit. way less power needed. Way more science!

[Anonymous No.6944077]

>>6944024
>>And nobody seriously thinks that the SLS will have a marginal cost under a billion dollars per launch.
>Depends on flight rate which is the point.
What do you think "marginal cost" means? SLS isn't an economical design for mass production. Marginal cost isn't going to come down significantly with increased flight rate.

There's development cost, which have to be paid before you can use the system, so by the time you've flown your first real mission, it's too late to save yourself from spending any of this. There's ongoing program costs, which have to be paid unless you cancel the program (these are why Saturn V was cancelled). Then there's marginal cost, which you only have to pay when you fly a rocket.

If SLS was cancelled now, the savings in development costs alone would be enough to buy all of the launches necessary to do what SLS was supposed to be for. The money that would have been spent on program and marginal costs would be pure savings.

If SLS was cancelled after its development was complete, the program costs alone would be enough to buy all of the launches necessary to do what SLS was supposed to be for. The money that would have been spent on marginal costs would be pure savings.

If SLS was developed and maintained, but no missions were ever flown with it, the marginal costs alone would be enough to buy all of the launches to do what SLS was supposed to be for. Even the marginal cost, the cost of using this system which is so expensive to develop and so expensive to maintain, is higher than simply buying launches.

It's not necessary to argue that the marginal cost of an SLS launch is lower than the cost of doing the same missions by buying Falcon Heavy launches, to show that the SLS is a bad, wasteful idea. It's perfectly reasonable to factor in the development and program costs. That fact that this isn't necessary shows that the SLS isn't just a bad idea, but an entirely insane one.

[Anonymous No.6944084]

>>6944035
85 millions according to wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.6944099]

>>6944063
>You will need a source, tho.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o57669862_pt1.pdf

>Heavy power ion drives.
Have been tested to death. They aren't fundamentally different.

>500 times as big as the biggest ion spacecraft, at least. we are talking in kilometer of solar panel, here.
Don't post a source and then ignore it. 40 kW electric propulsion is sufficient. One of the ISS solar arrays does 32 kW. Not a km.

>How the fuck they formed
Electrostatics and collisions with larger bodies most likely.

>Sorry, I thougth you had basic mechanic knowledge, I won't do it again. the asteroid might not be linear in his mass distribution, it won't hook on the bag and I won't make the insult to explain the last.
Sorry I thought you spoke English. Shape can be nailed down with preliminary observations. Mass distribution isn't a big problem, ion engines can be throttled. Again the bag prevents break up.

>Take some heatshield spray and redirige it on the earth from it's solar orbit.
Why don't we just get superman to do it? This doesn't exist. You will loose the volatiles by taking it into the atmosphere and the heat will destroy some geology. There is no way to land 1000 tons.

[Anonymous No.6944125]

>>6944077
>If SLS was cancelled now, the savings in development costs alone would be enough to buy all of the launches necessary to do what SLS was supposed to be for.
Or it might be taken away from NASA altogether after a second major failure of policy. Or it might go into the next government designed turd. SLS has the wonderful feature that if it exists the government will want to use it. I don't think same cannot be said for commercial launch and propellent depots.

>It's not necessary to argue that the marginal cost of an SLS launch is lower than the cost of doing the same missions by buying Falcon Heavy launches...
We were discussing replacing an SLS launch with FH. Your SLS hate has driven you so completely off topic.

[Anonymous No.6944129]

>>6944084
They won't sell it to the government for that much.

[Anonymous No.6944132]

>>6944099
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o57669862_pt1.pdf
Space shuttle ?!
>Have been tested to death. They aren't fundamentally different.
The same way a tourism plane is a A380 ?
>Mass distribution isn't a big problem, ion engines can be throttled
Nope, we can't, not when we have limited time range.
>Why don't we just get superman to do it? This doesn't exist. You will loose the volatiles by taking it into the atmosphere and the heat will destroy some geology. There is no way to land 1000 tons.
Volatile have been studied by precedent missions and so does the ions or bags for the other missions. AIM for water after having shed velocity by aerocapture. (You might not even need the heatshield)

[Anonymous No.6944137]

>>6944129
Twice the price still make it way cheaper than SLS, wich is the point.

[Anonymous No.6944139]

>>6944035
>There's no reason to believe rates of the late shuttle program aren't achievable
Uh... The shuttle program did not involve the manufacture of new engines for each flight, and the RS-25 was not designed to be efficiently manufacturable, but only to be reusable.

The SLS that's supposed to fly in 2017 is actually limited to a total of two flights. After that, it'll have to be a new model, because they're using up 4 SSMEs per launch, and they only have 9 working SSMEs, taken from the three shuttles that survived to be decomissioned.

There's no SSME store, or SSME production line. The SSMEs were built like prototypes, all by slow, exacting, inefficient, highly-skilled hand labor, because there was never an intention to use them on expendables. They're struggling to redesign the SSMEs to be cheaper and faster to produce, without losing both reliability and performance, and it looks pretty hopeless.

When people say that nothing was saved by making the shuttle reusable, they mean by designing it to be reusable. A hell of a lot was saved by reusing the stupidly expensive shuttles after they were built, rather than building a new one for every launch.

The SLS is a completely insane concept: put expensive reusable parts on an expendable launch vehicle. Very, very bad idea, with endless problems. It will never be a good ELV.

[Anonymous No.6944164]

>>6943819
the entire space race was about who could create ICBMs with the longest range and highest payload

the Saturn V was the culmination of that, an american boast, a fake, a hoax, a fraud

compare it to any rocket today to see that we can't even come close to matching the claims of the Saturn V

time to grow up and face the facts, it's almost 2015

[Anonymous No.6944185]

>>6944132
>Space shuttle ?!
>In the shuttle program the cost of adding a single flight to the manifest towards then end was under 400 million.

>The same way a tourism plane is a A380 ?
Was an A380 tested in a wind tunnel for years? No.

>Nope, we can't, not when we have limited time range.
Complete bollocks. You have a lopsided mass you can throttle up and down on different sides to compensate.

>Volatile have been studied by precedent missions
What missions?

>so does the ions or bags for the other missions
No. Another unjustified statement.

>AIM for water
Destroy it completely. Without a heat shield you would be just as well looking for meteorites in Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.6944188]

>>6944137
But you need more than one. Secondly twice is a guess.

[Anonymous No.6944196]

>>6944125
>SLS has the wonderful feature that if it exists the government will want to use it.
Why? I've just gone through all the reasons that not using SLS will always be a better option than using SLS, no matter how far along the program gets.

SLS is like if the US Postal Service commissioned a special airliner just for mail, only to carry a hundred tons of mail at a time between New York and LA during the Christmas season, and because it's a government project instead of a product of the free market, it cost $20 billion to develop and every year it costs $2 billion and half the time it doesn't work. As soon as someone stands up and says on the news, "Why aren't they just using 747s?" everyone involved looks like a complete idiot, and more than a little corrupt. It's poison for any political career to support the Santa Letter System. So it gets cancelled, but not before the waste drives up the postage by 10 cents.

>>It's not necessary to argue that the marginal cost of an SLS launch is lower than the cost of doing the same missions by buying Falcon Heavy launches...
>We were discussing replacing an SLS launch with FH. Your SLS hate has driven you so completely off topic.
Actually we were discussing replacing multiple-SLS-launch missions with FH.

There are going to be very few SLS launches, so once you start replacing a multiple-SLS-launch mission, you're a very short step from cancelling the SLS program entirely, in which case you go from saving billions of dollars to saving tens of billions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.6944198]

>>6944139
>RS-25 was not designed to be efficiently manufacturable, but only to be reusable.
The expendable version will be.

>they only have 9 working SSMEs, taken from the three shuttles that survived to be decommissioned.
There are 15
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/ssme-family-sls-core-stage-role-shuttle-success/

[Anonymous No.6944202]

>>6944164
Fuck off. The space Shuttle on orbit plus payload was more than the SV could launch.

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6944209]

>>6944202
>The space Shuttle on orbit plus payload was more than the SV could launch.
false, see >>6943375

>>>/ignorant/

[Anonymous No.6944211]

>>6944196
> I've just gone through all the reasons that not using SLS will always be a better option than using SLS
No. You waved your hands and declared it wasn't worth arguing about marginal cost. No numbers no substance.

My point was about politics. The fact SLS is government mandated is proof enough that things aren't as simple as you'd like to pretend.

[Anonymous No.6944216]

>>6944209
>The space Shuttle on orbit PLUS payload
>Infographic of just payload

>>>/retarded/

[Anonymous No.6944219]

>>6943872
>rendezvous in LEO with an Earth departure stage separately sent up
it is still the play, only the launch vehicles have changed

[Anonymous No.6944222]

>>6944219
That's unclear. The graphic you have there is constellation where that was true. SLS lunar missions could fly that way, or lunar rendezvous or single launch which is the most likely.

Lunar landings aren't really on the table so the discussion is moot.

[Anonymous No.6944249]

>>6944222
SLS/Orion have no confirmed missions as of yet. This is not Apollo/Saturn 5 we are not trying to design a vehicle to reach a specific destination. SLS is the US government demonstrating to the international community (mostly Russia) that we can still build big fucking rockets. All the proposed Constellation missions could be handled by SLS launches.

[Anonymous No.6944261]

>>6944216
please then, calculate what the shuttle "on orbit PLUS payload" means

SLS has a much smaller payload than Saturn V, it's not taking anyone anywhere

[Anonymous No.6944296]

>>6944185
In the shuttle program the cost of adding a single flight to the manifest towards then end was under 400 million.

So, if you pump thousand of billions into something at the end it is barely competive ? Awesome. Let's go that way.

>Was an A380 tested in a wind tunnel for years? No.

It has.

>Complete bollocks. You have a lopsided mass you can throttle up and down on different sides to compensate.

And loose power. so make the burn longer when the asteroid is only there for days, month at best. So, you need to build even more powerfull ion drives.

>What missions?
Hyabusa for exemple.

>No. Another unjustified statement.

Aye, I juste reminded that there is spac bag for to catch your own asteroid lying in every corner. Same goes for ions drive.

>Destroy it completely. Without a heat shield you would be just as well looking for meteorites in Antarctica.

100 m/s is a probable bet (terminal velocity for human being 70 m/s), any rocks can survive to that.

[Anonymous No.6944303]

>>6944188
With the actual price of sls (1 billion year until 2017 launch) u would need at least 35 time the price of the FH, for it to be less cost efficient. so even at 10 time the price, using 3 flight (wich is properly bullshit), it's still cheaper.

[Anonymous No.6944311]

>>6944211
of course it is. That's because it give job to shuttle builder, so senators can be reelected. That's everything it is good for.

[Anonymous No.6944313]

>>6944261
>>6944164
You're both wrong. The Shuttle on orbit was 109 tonnes max which was much heaver than skylab but not as much as the theoretical max SV payload. To say it doesn't come close however is fucking stupid.

SLS which will fly on actual missions is only fractionally smaller than SV.

[Anonymous No.6944320]

>>6944313
>To say it doesn't come close however is fucking stupid.
please then, for the class, go find out what the payload for the Saturn V was, and what the payload for the SLS is, and post them back here so we can all decide on whether or not we agree with your opinion

[Anonymous No.6944328]

>>6944198
>>RS-25 was not designed to be efficiently manufacturable, but only to be reusable.
>The expendable version will be.
Where does this faith come from, that you can take a 40-year-old no-expense-spared reusable engine design, and make it into a much cheaper expendable one, without losing reliability? Oh, and by the way, it has to work in harsher conditions, working with the heat and vibrations from three other SSMEs rather than two others, and more powerful solid boosters.

This isn't how you design a rocket. If you want it to work well and be affordable, you start from an engine that you can produce, and you build around that engine, you don't build a vehicle for an engine you know you can't use and then try to make a cheap version of that engine. That kind of shit doesn't work.

>>6944211
>You waved your hands and declared it wasn't worth arguing about marginal cost. No numbers no substance.
Oh fuck you.

I've been posting fucking numbers and substance all through this thread. Everything else I've said doesn't disappear with each new post.

And I didn't "declare it wasn't worth arguing about marginal cost", I made the point that even if you delude yourself that the marginal cost of an SLS launch could ever be better than buying Falcon Heavy launches, it's still a clear loser when you consider the cost of the program.

>My point was about politics. The fact SLS is government mandated is proof enough that things aren't as simple as you'd like to pretend.
I've never said anything to imply that the situation is so politically simple that the SLS isn't being funded, you complete fucking idiot. I mean, seriously, what has to be wrong with your brain that you'd say this?

You think you're being clever by implying that I wasn't aware that, despite being horrible shit, SLS is still being pushed by bought congressmen to fucking funnel money into the pockets of the people bribing them?

[Anonymous No.6944332]

>>6944296
>It has.
For years at a time at full scale? No. NEXT has.

>And loose power.
No, you throttle up on one side. Ion engines are designed with big throttling ranges as seen by Hyabusa which dealt with failed engines. They are limited by available power more than rating.

>Hyabusa for exemple.
Collected grains of material not gases or ices. There is no mission which has studied it in the detail possible with a manned mission.

>Aye, I juste reminded that there is spac bag for to catch your own asteroid lying in every corner. Same goes for ions drive.
Still haven't justified your claim that a bag or ion engines would destroy volatiles.

>100 m/s is a probable bet (terminal velocity for human being 70 m/s), any rocks can survive to that.
If you slow it down to that degree you use far more delta V than you would taking it to the moon rendering this point completely moot.

[Anonymous No.6944333]

>>6944320
Not the guy but here you go
http://www.walthelm.net/inverted-aerobraking/SaturnV.htm

129 tons

[Anonymous No.6944335]

>>6944303
That's not the actual price. The price the government would pay is the marginal cost which was what the whole discussion was about.

[Anonymous No.6944338]

>>6944333
120,000 kg for the Saturn V

despite being almost the same size, the SLS gets at most 70,000 kg

for me, almost half is quite a bit less, a huge step backward, this launch system isn't good for anything

[Anonymous No.6944345]

>>6944320
Ah so you make these claims when you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Classic moon hoaxer.
SV was 118, SLS block 1a is 105-110. Block 2 is 130-135.

[Anonymous No.6944347]

>>6944338
That's block 1, the configuration of SLS which will only fly until an appropriate upper stage can be made.

[Anonymous No.6944349]

>>6944332
>For years at a time at full scale? No. NEXT has.

Depend on what you consider as full scale, but yes.

>No, you throttle up on one side. Ion engines are designed with big throttling ranges as seen by Hyabusa which dealt with failed engines. They are limited by available power more than rating.

U dense, dense retard. do you even have basic mechanic knowledge ????? the power will still be used at full with less efficienty, that's it. (try doing pump at 20° and at 80°, u will see)

>Still haven't justified your claim that a bag or ion engines would destroy volatiles.

I never said that. I juste said that heatshield spray is as existent as the ion or bag.

>If you slow it down to that degree you use far more delta V than you would taking it to the moon rendering this point completely moot.

AEROBRAKE. AEROCAPTURE. Those shit exist and have been done.

[Anonymous No.6944353]

>>6944345
>block II
>>6944347
>which will only fly until an appropriate upper stage can be made.
so you agree the upper stage is non-existent? then it's hypothetical payload doesn't matter

keep your dick in your pants until they test something

[Anonymous No.6944355]

>>6944335
Wut ? Were the fuck the money goes, so ? The marginal cost could be the most important thing IF there was thousand of SLS launch. Wich is not possible.
So back at my numbers wich is what the governement pay for.

[Anonymous No.6944375]

>>6944349
>Depend on what you consider as full scale, but yes.
Show me.

>try doing pump at 20° and at 80°
No. The the throttling ensures the spacecraft doesn't turn. There are no angles like that. The ion engines are all pointing in the same direction, there are no cosine losses.

>I never said that.
>so does the ions or bags for the other missions

The ion thrusters exist. The bag is trivial.

>AEROBRAKE. AEROCAPTURE. Those shit exist and have been done.
Only get you as far as low earth orbit which is still 9km/s. How do you go from that to 100m/s?

[Anonymous No.6944380]

>>6944353
>so you agree the upper stage is non-existent?
SLS is non-existant. You're argument is illogical.

[Anonymous No.6944386]

>>6944355
>Were the fuck the money goes, so ?
Development and upkeep money is already spent. Marginal cost is the cost of choosing to use it.

>The marginal cost could be the most important thing IF there was thousand of SLS launch.
You don't understand marginal cost. SLS exists, we are paying for it. The question was do we use it.

[Anonymous No.6944402]

>>6944335
>That's not the actual price. The price the government would pay is the marginal cost which was what the whole discussion was about.
What new idiocy is this? Do you think someone else is paying the program costs, taking a huge loss, and donating launches to the government at the marginal cost?

Comparing marginal cost to commercial price can make sense in some cases, but only in the context of a program which will definitely be continued.

If you're arguing that the SLS should be cancelled, and not that something else should be used for a particular mission, then marginal cost is not the relevant figure at all. Total cost per flight is what matters.

On a big project, there's no such thing as a fixed marginal cost. You have a minimum cost for the program, and a minimum number of flights. The marginal cost below this minimum number of flights is essentially either zero or the whole program cost: you have to test the system now and then to know that it actually works, and if you're not doing that, the program is not being maintained. Then there's a maximum number of flights without expanding staff and facilities.

You can't talk about marginal cost as a fixed figure. The marginal cost of the first flight per four years might be regarded as either $0 or $20 billion, the second: $5 billion (new facilities needed, some contractors replaced with permanent staff), the third and fourth: $2 billion each (new people are not needed, volume orders can be placed with contractors), the fifth: $10 billion (new people and facilities needed), the sixth: $15 billion (additional people with the highly specialized skills and experience needed can't be had for love or money, new technology to increase production must be developed), etc. It can be all over the damn place.

[Anonymous No.6944424]

>>6944375
>Show me.
Show me yours. They have wind tunnel and it was there bigger project for 5 years around 2000, I can bet it spend tons of hours in it.

>No. The the throttling ensures the spacecraft doesn't turn. There are no angles like that. The ion engines are all pointing in the same direction, there are no cosine losses.

if the mass isn't equally repartited wich is the point, you loose power. That's so fucking basic dude...

>The ion thrusters exist. The bag is trivial.
No, ion thrusters for a thousand tons asteroid don't exists, yet. And a bag that can survive to psace end being easily deployed after year in it is not "trivial".

>Only get you as far as low earth orbit which is still 9km/s. How do you go from that to 100m/s?

The same way capsule does. by aerobraking.

[Anonymous No.6944431]

>>6944386
>Development and upkeep money is already spent.

Nasa budget say otherwise.

>Marginal cost is the cost of choosing to use it.

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

You don't understand marginal cost. SLS exists, we are paying for it.

IT DON'T EXIST. Otherwise, why didn't we used it ?

I understand marginal cost, you just don't get the principe of paying for something.

[Anonymous No.6944434]

>>6944386
>SLS exists, we are paying for it. The question was do we use it.
It doesn't exist yet, and we're only definitely paying for another year of its development. It'll have to survive two more budgets and the scrutiny of another presidential administration before it's even possible that we'll see a test flight. To actually reach manned flight it will have to survive through several budgets and a couple of major elections.

If SpaceX has a good year with its flyback boosters, Falcon Heavy, Dragon V2, and demonstrating progress on Raptor, and the press plays it a certain way, SLS can lose its political support. Bribery only bends reality so far.

[Anonymous No.6944437]

>>6944402
>only in the context of a program which will definitely be continued.
We were discussing a flight so yes.

I agree cancelling it would be cheaper but that's a different discussion. I have made my opinions on the matter clear.

>The marginal cost below this minimum number of flights is essentially either zero or the whole program cost
You don't seem to know what marginal cost is. Marginal cost is the cost of adding one flight to the manifest. It is not development cost or the cost of maintaining the system for the year simply by definition.

You can argue that the flight cost includes these numbers but marginal cost is a specific definition.

We're into semantics now. I won't debate this any longer.

[Anonymous No.6944465]

>>6944437
>We were discussing a flight so yes.

1 flight

4 years at 1 billion each.

My sides.

[Anonymous No.6944469]

>>6944424
>I can bet it spend tons of hours in it.
So it didn't spend years in it as I asked. Ion engines are tested continuously for there years.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/jun/HQ_13-193_Ion_Thruster_Record.html#.VIuQmzGsWSo

NEXT was tested for 5.5 years continuously.

>if the mass isn't equally repartited wich is the point, you loose power.
No. Draw a free body diagram. Prove it. All the mass is being accelerated in the same direction, there are no cosine losses.

> ion thrusters for a thousand tons asteroid don't exists
The very document you provided calls for 10 kW. NEXT is 7 KW so could easily fill the role with more units.

>And a bag that can survive to psace end being easily deployed after year
JWST's Kapton sunshield will last for a decade at least.

>The same way capsule does.
You can't aerobreak below orbital velocity or you fall into the earth's atmosphere and have to shed all that velocity at once. Reentry. So you're back to magic heatshield and destroying the volatiles. You can't decelerate to 100m/s as you wrongly claimed.

[Anonymous No.6944471]

>>6944469
>for there expected lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.6944493]

>>6944437
>We were discussing a flight
Uh... no. Various people have been discussing different things. This did not start out being about "a flight", but it was first about how a single-launch SLS/Orion mission can never go anywhere interesting, and therefore SLS/Orion is shit, which turned into a discussion of multiple-SLS-launch missions, and how they would never make sense with Falcon Heavy on the market, and therefore SLS/Orion is shit. When you lost that argument, you started insisting that it had always only been about replacing one single-launch SLS mission with multiple Falcon Heavy launches.

>We're into semantics now. I won't debate this any longer.
Of course not. You lost the argument and tried to make it about semantics. If you think too much harder about that, you'll have to feel bad, and maybe be less of an asshole in the future. We can't have that, can we?

>>The marginal cost below this minimum number of flights is essentially either zero or the whole program cost
>You don't seem to know what marginal cost is. Marginal cost is the cost of adding one flight to the manifest.
So what's the marginal cost of adding one flight to an empty manifest? What if you need a test flight to keep the system validated? The concept is ill-defined in such cases. You can't meaningfully distinguish marginal from fixed cost, when a system has a minimum capacity and is operating too near it.

[Anonymous No.6944505]

>>6940139
I hope they scrap the American flag

[Anonymous No.6944518]

>>6944380
you're right, this is all just bullshit and these kids are eating it up

anything to avoid paying attention to the senate intelligence committee torture report, to the militarized police in their streets and the spy drones flying overhead

[Anonymous No.6944521]

>>6944518
>Lose argument about moon hoax bullshit.
>Move on to police state.

Piss off.

[Anonymous No.6944529]

>>6944469
>So it didn't spend years in it as I asked.

Airbus people are the secretive type, so there is no information, that's different.
If you goes that way, since, airbus had flied countless hours, it has been more tested than ions.

>No. Draw a free body diagram. Prove it. All the mass is being accelerated in the same direction, there are no cosine losses.

Dafuq dude ??? Do you even try ???

the center of mass is where is applied the forces (since the object is in space) if the center of mass isn't aligned with you thrust, you will loose power in rotating, that's obvious...

>JWST's Kapton sunshield will last for a decade at least.

having forces applied to it ? deployed year after it goes in space ? and way bigger, of course ?

> You can't aerobreak below orbital velocity or you fall into the earth's atmosphere and have to shed all that velocity at once. Reentry. So you're back to magic heatshield and destroying the volatiles. You can't decelerate to 100m/s as you wrongly claimed.

Of course, you make a reentry, there is no fucking other way to come down the asteroid. Magical spray heatshield is not really hard, X15 had it. And the terminal velocity after reentry would be about 100 m/s so any body of water is good.

[Anonymous No.6944541]

>>6944529
Not much point in bringing a whole asteroid down to Earth's surface. We get plenty of meteorites already. To have any further scientific value, you'd want to bring down samples in absolute pristine condition.

The point of learning to bring asteroids to Earth orbit is so we'd have some materials to work with in orbit, without having to bring them up from the surface.

[Anonymous No.6944542]

>>6944521
please explain what argument i lost

[Anonymous No.6944543]

>>6944529
>Airbus people are the secretive type, so there is no information
So you were talking out your ass. I didn't ask about flights, we were talking testing.

>if the center of mass isn't aligned with you thrust
Which is the reason for throttling on one side. So the thrust vector points though the centrer of mass. Are you that retarded?

>having forces applied to it ? deployed year after it goes in space ? and way bigger, of course ?
Does that change the physics? No. JWST's shield deployment would be much more complex.

>Of course, you make a reentry, there is no fucking other way to come down the asteroid.
You previously claimed you would take it to 100 m/s. A rock like that would not survive reentry as shown by countless impacts.

>Magical spray heatshield is not really hard, X15
[citation needed]

X-15 was a fraction the velocity and sprayed on to a metallic surface rather than a rubble pile which cannot support it's weight under earths gravity.

[Anonymous No.6944544]

>>6944542
>compare it to any rocket today to see that we can't even come close to matching the claims of the Saturn V

[Anonymous No.6944557]

>>6944541
>implying there is to study it using hooman.

[Anonymous No.6944566]

>>6944557
You can collect samples which haven't been contaminated or suffered reentry. This is why Hyabusa is a thing and OSIRIS REX.

[Anonymous No.6944573]

>>6944543
>So you were talking out your ass. I didn't ask about flights, we were talking testing.

Prove me that there wasn't many hours. Oh, u can't because there is nothing publied by airbus, too bad.

Which is the reason for throttling on one side. So the thrust vector points though the centrer of mass. Are you that retarded?

If u throttle one side, you aren't using your ion drive to it's max efficienty, because the other side is throttled down, so you loose power.

Does that change the physics? No. JWST's shield deployment would be much more complex.

No microasteroid to tear it apart change something, and no asteroid to contain also change everything + the size.

>You previously claimed you would take it to 100 m/s

Terminal velocity, dense, dense motherfucker.

>A rock like that would not survive reentry as shown by countless impacts.

You are going to need source and a dinosaur on this one.

[citation needed]

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/03/stuff_eng_x15.htm

>X-15 was a fraction the velocity and sprayed on to a metallic surface rather than a rubble pile which cannot support it's weight under earths gravity.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6944575]

>>6944566
Yeah, but the point was using sls for it.

[Anonymous No.6944591]

>>6944575
Hyabusa represents the difficulty of obtaining a sample. Even OSIRIS REX will only take a small amount. A manned mission could take a variety of samples including inner material which could contain ices.

[Anonymous No.6944606]

>>6944573
>Prove me that there wasn't many hours.
You made the claim so you back it up. You can't so you were talking shit.

>If u throttle one side, you aren't using your ion drive to it's max efficienty, because the other side is throttled down, so you loose power.
So you throttle up on the other side as I said 10 posts ago. You are a fucking goldfish and you have no understanding of physics or english.

I am having to repeat myself 10 times before you understand. I am wasting my time no longer.

[Anonymous No.6944658]

>>6944328
>I've never said anything to imply that the situation is so politically simple that the SLS isn't being funded, you complete fucking idiot. I mean, seriously, what has to be wrong with your brain that you'd say this?
>You think you're being clever by implying that I wasn't aware that, despite being horrible shit, SLS is still being pushed by bought congressmen to fucking funnel money into the pockets of the people bribing them?


You have been spouting shit throughout this whole thread about how the SLS is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity and how it is going to be cancelled.

That is why he is pointing out the politics.

Politicians have chosen the SLS for deep space missions. That's a fucking fact, and outside of the US government who is going to put down the huge amount of money for those projects ?

SpaceX this, SpaceX that.

SpaceX is great, but it is not going to conduct any serious deep space missions without the money.

You are calling people here deluded but at the same time seem to be writing as some kind of undeniable fact that the Falcon Heavy is going to be the rocket in charge of sending Americans to Mars. Which is complete horse shit.

I have this feeling that Elon Musk himself showed up at your house, slapped you in the face and told you that the Falcon Heavy WILL NEVER be used for Deep Space, you would still not believe him.

SpaceX fans are reaching Mars One levels of delusion.

As a company they have achieved great things but you people are elevating to such unrealistic levels that it's getting beyond fucking obnoxious.

Literally every SpaceX thread anywhere(outside of the NasaSpaceFlight forums) is full of faggots who think SpaceX is going to colonize the solar system with Falcon Heavys despite any actual facts.

[Anonymous No.6944673]

>>6944431
>>You don't understand marginal cost. SLS exists, we are paying for it.
>IT DON'T EXIST. Otherwise, why didn't we used it ?

Are you even serious?

[Anonymous No.6944677]

>>6944505

I like the flag there. It's how you can tell it's American.

[Anonymous No.6944774]

>>6944658
>You are calling people here deluded but at the same time seem to be writing as some kind of undeniable fact that the Falcon Heavy is going to be the rocket in charge of sending Americans to Mars.
Holy shit, are you fucking illiterate? Is this some kind of schizophrenia? I never said anything like that.

But SLS/Orion is sure as fuck not sending any Americans to Mars. It can barely go to lunar orbit. It's pure fucking pork. It exists only -- ONLY! -- to put money in the pockets of politically-favored contractors.

>I have this feeling that Elon Musk himself showed up at your house, slapped you in the face and told you that the Falcon Heavy WILL NEVER be used for Deep Space, you would still not believe him.
Well gee, considering that SpaceX is advertising on its website that Falcon Heavy is suitable for deep space missions and advertising payload capacity to Mars, that scenario seems pretty disconnected from reality.

I don't know where this meme came from that SLS can go to "deep space" and Falcon Heavy and its Raptor-powered successor can only go to LEO, but it's a really fucking stupid one. The BFR is particularly intended for Mars colonization.

>Politicians have chosen the SLS for deep space missions. That's a fucking fact
No, politicians have chosen the SLS for a money-funnel to their allies. They don't give a shit about deep space missions.

And politicians aren't forever. When Obama came in, he killed Constellation and the moon base, in favor of SLS and the asteroid landing. Even before SLS gets its test flight, there will be a new president who will want to put his own stamp on the space program. Before SLS/Orion gets its first manned flight, there may be another new president, maybe two more.

[Anonymous No.6944905]

Daily reminder we've pretty much done everything that's realistically doable with chemical rockets and nothing will happen until we finally get over our irrational fear of nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.6944996]

>>6939035
NASA plan
>use a gigantic rocket 6 times just to test it
>cant be re-used
>launch it a couple more times just to get everything into LEO
>waste a bunch of money on slow-ass solar-electric propulsion
>take everything over IN ONE TRIP
>land
>wait 18 months
>come back
>throw the whole fucking thing into the atmosphere/ocean

any sensible person's plan:
>use smaller, reusable rockets
>send equipment not needed for human transport straight to mars over the few years of preparation
>build habitat/engine modules on ISS
>detach from ISS & fly to mars when time is right
>land at the site of the already built settlement
>has a lander too to get back to orbit
>return ship is in orbit too
>lol or just stay there. and keep sending "cheap" supplies from earth.

[Anonymous No.6945020]

>>6944996
nasa really needs to contract space'x automatic stage recovery system when it's operational
it'd save them SHITLOADS of cash

[Anonymous No.6945041]

>>6944774
You insane fuck, you make ridiculous claims while providing no fucking evidence of your own. The fact that SLS is widely supported by both parties completely negates your claim that the next Republican president will cancel the program because fuck obama. The Exploration Missions might change, but SLS is getting built. The 70 ton version is fully funded anyway you inbred cunt, and the more advanced versions will probably have funding secured in next year's spending plan. You're a goddamn moron, the SLS is designed to take astronauts to Mars while the Falcon Heavy is designed to cheaply raise satellites to GTO. I really don't know how you managed to confuse those two mission profiles. But of course, you're a 16 year old know it all with a grade A hardon for Elon Musk, so facts don't matter to you. The MCT is decades away from flying, Musk has the will and will probably have the money but he's not going to Mars anytime soon. The SLS has already entered production for its major parts, so please get your head out of your ass and stop pretending you have anything close to an idea of what the fuck you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6945046]

>>6944996
SLS is pretty cheap for its size, NASA tried to go small and reusable with the Shuttle and look how well that turned out.

[Anonymous No.6945054]

So when will we send a proper probe to Titan, actually launch James Webb, etc.?

[e^(i*pi)=-1 No.6945058]

>>6945046
fair enough, but still. the shuttle wasn't really that reusable anyway, and it was overcomplicated.

the F9R is much simpler than the shuttle. all that really needs to be developed is a more efficient engine (SCC/aerospike or something) and a more streamlined refueling/ launching regimen.

[Anonymous No.6945140]

look people just need to stop fetishizing safety and efficacy and just try some shit already. nobody wants to do a mars trip until we're 100% sure we do it and can get everybody back alive. that adds so much cost and complexity. just get some motherfuckers in a tin can and get the fuck over to mars. maybe they can survive long enough for us to get some more technology to go and get them. I'd sign up for that shit in a heartbeat. you think I want to live for 60 more years on this fucking rock? fuck that noise grandpa. give me 3 years of space travel and a shower of high-energy particles. once i get microwaved like a bad burrito they can cut me open and study the damage to figure out how future generations of spacegoers can avoid being fried. I'm being serious here, if you run a shoestring space startup and are looking for an unbalanced individual to pilot your mars mission, get at me. lets party.

every stage of human exploration was accompanied by large amounts of death. it was helpful and and productive and good. like 20% of Magellan's crew survived the whole trip, and most of those guys spent 4 days fucking diseased whores in Lisbon and then joined up with another expedition. and guess what, we got good at overseas navigation and we built trade networks and we prospered. if they had had our level of neurosis about dying away from home, we'd be sitting here in 2014 like "I hope congress funds research for a malaria vaccine so we can finally explore south of the 25th parallel."

fucking pansyasses.

[Anonymous No.6945333]

>>6944774
>No, politicians have chosen the SLS for a money-funnel to their allies. They don't give a shit about deep space missions.
>And politicians aren't forever. When Obama came in, he killed Constellation and the moon base, in favor of SLS and the asteroid landing. Even before SLS gets its test flight, there will be a new president who will want to put his own stamp on the space program. Before SLS/Orion gets its first manned flight, there may be another new president, maybe two more.


How old are you?

If you have been around for a while you would know that some of the signs that we have seen in regards to the SLS/Orion project make it very clear that the thing will not be cancelled any time soon. The infrastructure they are building for it is massive. Unlike anything that happened for CxP.

SLS is here to stay for at least the next 15 years.

[Anonymous No.6945343]

>>6945041
>the SLS is designed to take astronauts to Mars
No, it isn't. It's a drastic downgrade of a rocket designed to take astronauts to the moon. It's not designed for any particular mission.

>the Falcon Heavy is designed to cheaply raise satellites to GTO
Falcon Heavy is grossly oversized for that, with over triple the capacity to GTO needed to satisfy the commercial market. They just built the biggest rocket they could out of Falcon 9 parts. And it's a man-rated rocket, just like Falcon 9 and SLS.

Read this shit:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
"Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."
"Payload to Mars: 13,200 kg 29,101 lb"
"Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, at one-third the cost."

None of this makes sense if they were designing just for launching satellites.

>I really don't know how you managed to confuse those two mission profiles
Rockets accelerate mass. That's it. You don't need a special rocket to go to Mars. India sent a Mars probe using a rocket designed for putting small satellites into polar LEO. SLS is plainly and grossly inadequate for any single-launch manned mission to Mars, and just plain inferior in cost and availability to Falcon Heavy for multiple-launch missions.

Besides, Dragon V2 is the only manned vehicle under development that can land on Mars, and Falcon Heavy can throw it there.

[Anonymous No.6945344]

>>6944996

You are making all sorts of assumptions and stating some falsehoods.

We don't fully have all the details of NASAs actual manned Mars mission. It's going to happen after 2030.

[Anonymous No.6945347]

>>6945343
>Dragon V2 is the only manned vehicle under development that can land on Mars, and Falcon Heavy can throw it there.

Jesus fuck, just stop with your delusions.

SpaceX has NO plans to send Dragon capsules to Mars on Falcon Heavys.

And if SpaceX has no plans for that the US Government sure as fuck doesn't either.

[Anonymous No.6945392]

>>6945347
>SpaceX has NO plans to send Dragon capsules to Mars on Falcon Heavys.
NASA has no plans to send anything to Mars on SLS at all. See how this works?

The difference is that Falcon Heavy / Dragon V2 is CAPABLE of landing a man on Mars, if such a mission is ordered, while SLS/Orion is INCAPABLE.

>>6945333
>some of the signs that we have seen in regards to the SLS/Orion project make it very clear that the thing will not be cancelled any time soon. The infrastructure they are building for it is massive.
It's necessary to build big infrastructure to launch a big rocket. None of that is going to stop it being cancelled, when it becomes too obvious that it's all ridiculous waste.

The Saturn V infrastructure wasn't small either, but from the first test flight of the Saturn V to its final flight was only a span of six years. The similarly massive Soviet N1 was cancelled within three years of its first flight.

Those big infrastructures have expensive upkeep. Every year they're expensive. Every year is an opportunity to save a lot of money by cancelling the program.

Over the next six years, the public is going to watch over $10 billion of public money pour into SLS with only one unmanned test flight. Meanwhile, SpaceX is going to be showing us the first private manned orbital flight, capsules and rockets that land like something out of Buck Rogers to be used again, American rockets dominating the commercial launch market, a rocket capable of flying every month that can put up a new ISS in two launches, and a new engine for a rocket that will make SLS look puny, designed for the job of building a city on Mars.

SLS is going to be a bigger and bigger embarassment. It's going to get cancelled.