Total Members Voted: 96
NASA manages a continuously crewed space station in low earth orbit. Beyond that I know of no other connection between NASA and space "settlement". Settlement (colonizing) of Mars (or building a transportation system to Mars for settlers) is Elon Musk's goal.
Quote from: veblen on 09/12/2014 04:00 pmNASA manages a continuously crewed space station in low earth orbit. Beyond that I know of no other connection between NASA and space "settlement". Settlement (colonizing) of Mars (or building a transportation system to Mars for settlers) is Elon Musk's goal.2 presidential speeches, a national commission, and a public law suggests that settlement is in fact part of the goal. But YMMV
2 presidential speeches, a national commission, and a public law suggests that settlement is in fact part of the goal. But YMMV
"Settlement" as in "Colonization" is so far in the realm of science-fiction that it has absolutely no bearing on today's reality. It is not happening in the foreseeable future, and I doubt that Orion will still be flying when it does. Space is not the American Wild West, so any culture-centric analogies based on 19th Century history do not apply.
I don't mean to nitpick semantics, but your definition of "space settlement" is important to determining Orion's impact.1- "Settlement" as in "Colonization" - in the words of Nibb. No impact as colonization, or permanent habitation, won't occur within the Asteroid Belt and probably not in my lifetime.2- Settlement as in a temporarily manned or rotated staffing surface structure; Orion is imperative as a means to transit from Earth to Lunar or Mars Orbit. No offering or proposal from Russia, Boeing, China or SpaceX can complete this task. If we are to establish Lunar or Martian outposts/stations of scientific discovery and development, Orion is our one and only ride. No Orion, no future beyond LEO.3- Settlement as in a temporarily manned or rotated staffing in LEO, as in the ISS which is technically a "settlement in space"; Orion isn't really needed, nor is any LV development of the last half-century. Soyuz is as good as Dragon, so no need for Orion.
{snip}After the edit - I do find it interesting that far more people have weighed in on Orion and space settlement, vs ISS and space settlement or space settlement as a goal in general. {snip}
I define settlement is at least 10,000 people permanently off planet. I'd prefer that to be 2 million, though
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 09/21/2014 02:23 am{snip}After the edit - I do find it interesting that far more people have weighed in on Orion and space settlement, vs ISS and space settlement or space settlement as a goal in general. {snip}For a launch vehicle the size of the SLS a space craft the size of the Orion III would be appropriate. Say 60 passengers.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/21/2014 07:43 amQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 09/21/2014 02:23 am{snip}After the edit - I do find it interesting that far more people have weighed in on Orion and space settlement, vs ISS and space settlement or space settlement as a goal in general. {snip}For a launch vehicle the size of the SLS a space craft the size of the Orion III would be appropriate. Say 60 passengers.Yeah, but until someone figures out a way of building a nuclear powerplant that can survive deorbiting and an uncontrolled impact on Earth from orbital velocities without rupturing its' ultra light weight containment vessel, that also allows it to flash over super hot steam from regular water sufficent to launch this craft into a Middle High orbit, (part way between LEO and GEO) I'm thinking it's pretty much a pipe dream.
Once again, the choices are invalid. The answer is either zero or negative. And Lar, Nibb IS correct. Regardless of Musk's billions, colonization is centuries into the future. He may well leave a flag or footprints in his lifetime, but colonization is a fantasy and a waste of money until technology is far more advanced than it is today. Starting all thes polls is silly.
Quote from: TomH on 09/23/2014 04:20 pmOnce again, the choices are invalid. The answer is either zero or negative. And Lar, Nibb IS correct. Regardless of Musk's billions, colonization is centuries into the future. He may well leave a flag or footprints in his lifetime, but colonization is a fantasy and a waste of money until technology is far more advanced than it is today. Starting all thes polls is silly.With your attitude, it will always be a "waste of money" until technology is more advanced. Technology can always be better.I'm glad you weren't involved in the decision making when a moon landing was set as a goal within a decade.
With your attitude, it will always be a "waste of money" until technology is more advanced. Technology can always be better.I'm glad you weren't involved in the decision making when a moon landing was set as a goal within a decade.
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 04:24 pmWith your attitude, it will always be a "waste of money" until technology is more advanced. Technology can always be better.I'm glad you weren't involved in the decision making when a moon landing was set as a goal within a decade.And you don't know me at all. I was an absolute fanatic about the Apollo program; I still am. I laid awake in my sleeping bag along the shoulder of the highway all night on July 15, 1969, staring at that Saturn V bathed in floodlights, waiting to see the greatest milestone in history occur before my eyes. I am extremely enthusiastic about reaching Mars and hope to see it in my lifetime. Nevertheless, there is reality. Reaching Mars and performing experiments and reconisance is multiple orders of magnitude of difficulty below starting and sustaining a colony. Anyone who believes we will see a Mars colony (that survives) in our lifetime, or even within several lifetimes, does not understand the complexity of biological ecosystems. One of my several degrees is in biology, and my coursework included ecology. You cannot transplant a single species to another planet with a hostile environment and have it simply survive. The Earth is an entire biospohere and its complexity is beyond the ability of most to comprehend. It is not a matter of me having an attitude. It is a matter of naïveté on the part of those who are believers, but do not understand the biology, biochemistry, and technolological hurdles involved.My desire to see humans on Mars is radically passionate. Nevertheless, I am smart enough and have enough related knowledge to know without any doubt that no colony can survive on Mars until our technology is far far more advanced than it is now or will be in the near future. All this hype about colonies is misguided.
Quote from: TomH on 09/23/2014 10:42 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2014 04:24 pmWith your attitude, it will always be a "waste of money" until technology is more advanced. Technology can always be better.I'm glad you weren't involved in the decision making when a moon landing was set as a goal within a decade.And you don't know me at all. I was an absolute fanatic about the Apollo program; I still am. I laid awake in my sleeping bag along the shoulder of the highway all night on July 15, 1969, staring at that Saturn V bathed in floodlights, waiting to see the greatest milestone in history occur before my eyes. I am extremely enthusiastic about reaching Mars and hope to see it in my lifetime. Nevertheless, there is reality. Reaching Mars and performing experiments and reconisance is multiple orders of magnitude of difficulty below starting and sustaining a colony. Anyone who believes we will see a Mars colony (that survives) in our lifetime, or even within several lifetimes, does not understand the complexity of biological ecosystems. One of my several degrees is in biology, and my coursework included ecology. You cannot transplant a single species to another planet with a hostile environment and have it simply survive. The Earth is an entire biospohere and its complexity is beyond the ability of most to comprehend. It is not a matter of me having an attitude. It is a matter of naïveté on the part of those who are believers, but do not understand the biology, biochemistry, and technolological hurdles involved.My desire to see humans on Mars is radically passionate. Nevertheless, I am smart enough and have enough related knowledge to know without any doubt that no colony can survive on Mars until our technology is far far more advanced than it is now or will be in the near future. All this hype about colonies is misguided.You missed my point completely. Let me rephrase it for you: We did not have the technology to go to the Moon when Kennedy made his announcement. Not even close.Now you say we need technology that is "far far more advanced" to make it to Mars and survive. Yes.But like Apollo, if we as a country (or a rich person) decides to go to Mars, we will learn new things. Develop new technologies. I have no doubt that such a thing could be done in 20-30 years if we (or a well funded corporation) put our minds to it.Do you see the Apollo analogy now? With your current attitude you WOULD have argued that a Moon mission should be postponed until we had "far far more advanced" technology.
A self sustaining colony that provides its own resources, takes care of all its own medical needs, and survives in situ on its own indefinitely is far more difficult than you realize.
Well, Musk and TomH are in disagreement. Musk has said living on Mars is rather easy and getting there is the hard part. Basically, Musk's approach was a pump. The pump will compress the martian atmosphere and plants will generate O2 and food. Obviously, you will probably need a few other chemicals like fertilizer and water. Anyways, any landing on Mars would likely be for long stays and so the difference between a "settlement" and multiple crew rotations over a decade may be a distinction without a difference. ISRU could be as a simple as taking a martian rock and chiseling out chess pieces rather than buying it on Amazon and having it shipped there.
Orion: " However all it can do is dock and orbit...not much else."There are several comments similar to this and I find the lack of knowledge, of some, to be simply unbelievable !!The problem is reentry !!!!!! Whether it is 17,500, 25,000 or 35,000 MPH.That is the whole ballgame !!! You need to understand that.{snip}
Most seem to think Orion isn't much. Well, not only is it far beyond any power point spacecraft that I have seen, it is actually close to a test flight into space.