Poll

How much impact does SLS have for enabling or allowing human space settlement?

We are far too early on the path, so any money spent on HSF enables space settlement
16 (18%)
SLS will have a substantial impact for enabling human space settlement
6 (6.7%)
SLS will have a moderate impact for enabling human space settlement
8 (9%)
SLS will have a minimal impact for enabling human space settlement
52 (58.4%)
We shouldn't be engaging in space settlement - HSF is for some other purpose
7 (7.9%)

Total Members Voted: 89


Author Topic: SLS and Space Settlement  (Read 14495 times)

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
SLS and Space Settlement
« on: 09/22/2014 06:44 pm »
Hey everyone -

So, as I was looking at one of the other polls, I had the thought that if our purpose for HSF was space settlement, it might be worth while to actually look at the various NASA programs, and see if they are actually enabling or allowing space settlement.  As promised this is the 4th poll, focused on SLS.  Here are the other polls
Poll #1 - ISS and Space Settlement
Poll #2 - Orion and Space Settlement
Poll #3 - Discussions of Human Space settlement

For purposes of this poll, I am defining space settlement as having somewhere between 10,000 and 2 million people permanently living in space (at least).  I know some people would like to consider whether the impact from programs is negative.  For now, I am not including a negative option, since I didn't include it in the first few polls. 

I am considering doing one for ARM, or the Space Shuttle, or Apollo, but am not sure about those.  BTW, if you have another suggestion for other NASA programs, I would love to hear it.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #1 on: 09/22/2014 06:58 pm »
Voted for the last option, I don't think space settlement should be any country's primary spaceflight focus.

But if I'm making predictions I don't think SLS will have any significant effect on getting any colony anywhere. Even if it is successful and gets a crew to Mars, it's designed to have a lifespan of 20 years, maybe it will be stretched out for a little longer, but do we really expect any settlement with more than a handful of people to be assembled in that timeframe? I for one don't see that happening.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #2 on: 09/22/2014 07:16 pm »
Voted for the last option, I don't think space settlement should be any country's primary spaceflight focus.

But if I'm making predictions I don't think SLS will have any significant effect on getting any colony anywhere. Even if it is successful and gets a crew to Mars, it's designed to have a lifespan of 20 years, maybe it will be stretched out for a little longer, but do we really expect any settlement with more than a handful of people to be assembled in that timeframe? I for one don't see that happening.

I am curious as to why you say that it shouldn't be a primary focus.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #3 on: 09/22/2014 07:25 pm »
I believe settlement should be a long term goal, but not one NASA or any government agency should focus on, simply because it's expensive without any direct benefit. Until spaceflight is cheap and common enough to make it affordable it doesn't seem like a useful investment over investments to maximise scientific, technological and economic returns of spaceflight, manned and unmanned.

But this is probably a better thing to discuss in another thread.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #4 on: 09/22/2014 07:43 pm »
I voted SLS will have minimal impact on space settlement because SpaceX is likely to do that instead.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #5 on: 09/22/2014 07:51 pm »
We can barely support a measly 400-ton science station in LEO that is understaffed and underutilized. Any serious space colonization effort will make the current space infrastructure look positively puny.

When we start having space liners that can schlepp people around in the multiple tens to hundreds, then we can start talking about colonization. Right now, we're barely at the Kon-Tiki stage of exploration, and definitely not even at the level of the early Viking colonization efforts in Greenland and North America. SO asking whether SLS, or Orion, or anything else currently available, will have an impact on colonization, is extremely premature.

Not that I have anything against looking ahead to such a future. But first, we have to get to the point of tens or hundreds of people working and making a living in space, before we can start talking about permanent colonization.

I think a better question would be, will <space item X> enhance or obstruct the ability of our civilization to expand its sphere of day-to-day activity into space?

Cheers!
Mark S.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #6 on: 09/22/2014 07:57 pm »
I'll put it as simple as possible.

The SLS, as a complete system, throws away about 75% of the actual system, whil only recovering the SRBs and space capsule.  This results in millions of dollars, litereally thrown into the sea, with no chance to recoop that investment.

SpaceX is trying to develope a system that CURRENTLY has the potentile of recovering about 80% of the total launch Vehicle.  If all goes as planned, in the not too distant future, this may be able to be increased to 95% of the total space laund system, with the last 5% being a low mass disposible rig designed to be disposed of anyway, thus made as inexpensively as possilbe, while still fufilling its' purpose to provide solar power, heat rejection and a vacume cargo stowage area.

Economical feasibility for any colony is perhaps one of the most basic points.  The ability to establish a colony for between tens of millions and Hundreds of millions of dollars versus tens of billions to Hunmdreds of billions of dollars, will be what makes or breaks the establishment of such a colony.  As much as possible will have to be built there via local materials as possible, preferably in advance of the colonists arriving so as to minimize crowding and maximize both air and food production.  I figure 2/3rds to the work day would be dedicated to both colony maintenance and expansion, while 1/3rd of the work day would go to Science and training of new colonists. 

But I digress.  The SLS is not an economically viable long term launch platform.  Should SpaceX succeed in their pursuit of near full reusability, that would be a viable long term launch system.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #7 on: 09/22/2014 08:01 pm »
I wanted to address a point, that I see people pointing to. 

I am not asking only if SLS allows us to settle space (because I suspect I can guess the answer to that).  I am also asking if it enables settlement.  That can mean other people choosing to settle space.  It can also mean that it puts us on a path to settle space one day.  (arguably something like Vostok 1 will enable us to settle space one day, if you will)

Anyway, just wanted to make that point.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline bob the martian

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #8 on: 09/22/2014 08:05 pm »
I voted "minimal impact", just because I don't expect to see SLS fly more than a couple of times. 

The only real justification for HSF is colonization, but colonization has historically been about getting rich by extracting resources or extending political influence into new territory.  It's not yet clear to me how one gets rich by putting permanent settlements on the Moon or Mars, given the up-front costs of doing so. 

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #9 on: 09/22/2014 08:20 pm »
I doubt anyone will be surprised by my comments here. I see SLS as a distraction that if anything slows progress towards space settlement (at least assuming that if SLS weren't being done at least some tiny fraction of its budget could be spent on more settlement-oriented technology). You're not going to colonize anywhere with the Apollo redux paradigm that SLS is built on. It's too expensive, flies way too infrequently, etc.

As much as I wish Greason's comment was true, that Settlement is our national space policy, I don't see any evidence that Congress for one believes or supports that in any coherent way. If they did, and if they cared about it more than parochial interests, they'd be trying to develop systems that scaled well, that were affordable, and that would enable continual lowering of the costs of BEO transportation (think depots, RLVs, ISRU, lower-cost in-space assembly, etc, etc.)

~Jon

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #10 on: 09/22/2014 08:32 pm »
I don't see how this is really any different than your Orion and Space Settlement poll.  What's more, since Apollo and the Shuttle are dead as dodo's, there is no point in engagement in retrospective analysis.

While I could see colonization as a government/commercial venture in the far future (not in the 21st century), I don't see it happening in the 21st century.  I have made some spectacularly wrong shorter terms about predictions, but I won't let that stop me.

I see research stations at best in the next 100 years.  Maybe not even that.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #11 on: 09/22/2014 08:40 pm »
No options for zero effect...or like negative effect?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #12 on: 09/22/2014 09:58 pm »
I don't see how this is really any different than your Orion and Space Settlement poll.  What's more, since Apollo and the Shuttle are dead as dodo's, there is no point in engagement in retrospective analysis.

While I could see colonization as a government/commercial venture in the far future (not in the 21st century), I don't see it happening in the 21st century.  I have made some spectacularly wrong shorter terms about predictions, but I won't let that stop me.

I see research stations at best in the next 100 years.  Maybe not even that.

Mike - let me offer a few personal comments, that hopefully won't skew the poll too much. 

I start from the assumption that the fundamental goal of why we put humans in space is/should be/has to be space settlement.  I will grant there are substantial challenges to overcome.  But my supposition is this - if the goal is settlement, then presumably there are steps that we can take now that will further our chances of settlement later.  It might be much later, or quickly.  But presumably, there are actions we can take that moves us closer to, or further away from settlement (for example, we could decided to outlaw spending money on human spaceflight). 

Now, the question is, where on the curve are we?  Are we so close to the beginning that it doesn't really matter, and any changes are just noise?  Or are we further along that consideration of settlement should factor much more into a program?  Again, none of this assumes that settlement will happen in something like the next 20 years - it just asks the question of are we out of the noise range yet?

As for why ask about Shuttle or Apollo - again, the same assumptions are in play.  The point is - if we are close enough that changes in policy will have a substantial impact, then maybe we can learn from the past where the mistakes are.  I'll grant that this could all be just navel gazing, but Chris' description of the forums do apply. 


No options for zero effect...or like negative effect?

As I said in the original post, I didn't include them in the other threads, and so I intend to be consistant.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #13 on: 09/22/2014 11:04 pm »
Couldn't vote as poll does not include this viable choice:

It depends upon the success or non-success of the SpaceX Raptor BFR and MCT.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #14 on: 09/22/2014 11:42 pm »
There will be other vehicles after SpaceX, even if it fails.  The long view, you know...

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #15 on: 09/23/2014 07:51 am »
I start from the assumption that the fundamental goal of why we put humans in space is/should be/has to be space settlement.

I think this assumption is where the problem lies with your polls.

Humans have only be put in space by government agencies and none of these governments has ever done it with the goal of colonizing space. They do it for science (barely), for prestige (mostly), and to subsidize a strategic national industry. Colonization is not part of NASA's charter, or in the mission statement of any other national space program, even as a long term goal.

Besides, if you look at history, most colonization efforts backfired so badly that I can hardly imagine that a government would be stupid enough to pursue it again.

As for private corporations, they can sell the Star Trek dream as much as they want, they still need a business plan to accomplish anything, and there is no viable business plan to send thousands or millions of people on a one-way trip to a space colony.

Humanity is a nomadic species. We are hunter-gatherers. We follow the bison. We perpetually seek to improve our safety and/or our comfort. Those are our two fundamental motivations. Humans only migrate when it offers a chance of a better life for them or their children. But space offers neither safety, nor comfort, and it will probably never will, because space is more hostile than the most hostile environments on Earth. We haven't colonized the Sahara desert, Antarctica, or the oceanic seabeds, yet they are far easier places to reach than Mars or the Moon. The reason is that if there is no better life there, there will be no migration and no colonization.

Space colonies belong in the realms of Heinlein or Roddenberry. They are nothing more than an culturo-centric science fiction fantasy, often based on a romanticized version of the Wild West. They make a great setting for captivating stories, but it is very unlikely that we will see massive off-world migration in the next century or even the ones after that.

So your assumption is wrong. Since SLS, Orion, Shuttle, or any other contemporary spacecraft belong in the real world their impact on an imaginary goal are meaningless.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2014 02:19 pm by Nibb31 »

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #16 on: 09/23/2014 01:27 pm »
Moderators, I will grant this is somewhat off-topic, but I would ask that you leave this up, as its relevent to the discussion.

Nibb31 - I would disagree, and there is data to support the idea that settlement is part of the goal, at least within the US.  We've had 2 presidents cite settlement in speeches, we've have a law on the books that state that space settlement (see public law 100-685, section 217 a).  It has been cited in multipile national reports (most recently the Augustine report, although the NRC report also did touch on it as well). 

In short, we are at least saying its part of the goal (now, one can debate whether our actions are in line with our goals, hence my poll).  At a minimum, I'd argue that space settlement is an emergent goal within our space policy.

However, that actually isn't the main point.  The main point is this - most people in the space business, and in particular the human spaceflight business, are in it because they want to go, and not just on a small scale.  They want to be the settlers (I'll grant I have no data to support this directly, but I don't believe its an unreasonable assumption, and would want to see data before I dismiss it).  Therefore, if that is generally our goal, as a community, then that goal should be reflected in our national policies (since we live in a democratic republic). 

And again - as I said in my previous post - I make no claim that we have to be settling space now, just that we may be able to influence future space settlement by our choice of actions now. 

(BTW, regarding private corps - again, they don't have to be doing it now, but many of the NewSpace corporations are trying to figure out how to create a business case for space settlement - again, it probably won't happen this year or next, but my above point remains true).

Hence, my poll.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #17 on: 09/23/2014 02:14 pm »
I voted for the "little to no effect" because I do not think SLS will be around long enough to make a difference one way or the other.  Except that it is wasting a lot of money.

But your last option has nothing to do with SLS.  It reads "We shouldn't be engaging in space settlement - HSF is for some other purpose".  I am not sure who "We" is in this context.  If you mean "humanity" then yes, 'we' should be looking at such things, and Human Space Flight is part of that,

But if you mean 'We' is 'NASA', and 'HSF' means "things run out of the HSF part of NASA", then no, they should not be involved in space settlement.  Development of technologies that can help get there yes (too bad they are not doing more of this).  Actually deploying those technologies for that purpose, no.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #18 on: 09/23/2014 02:23 pm »
Too expensive, too low a rate rate and no mandate for the US gov. at present...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SLS and Space Settlement
« Reply #19 on: 09/23/2014 02:38 pm »
Moderators, I will grant this is somewhat off-topic, but I would ask that you leave this up, as its relevent to the discussion.

Nibb31 - I would disagree, and there is data to support the idea that settlement is part of the goal, at least within the US.  We've had 2 presidents cite settlement in speeches, we've have a law on the books that state that space settlement (see public law 100-685, section 217 a).  It has been cited in multipile national reports (most recently the Augustine report, although the NRC report also did touch on it as well).

American politicians will use those words because they appeal to their audience. The "Frontier" is one of America's founding myths that is used to stir up an emotional response. However, as a universal goal, it's pretty meaningless beyond American borders and there really isn't much substance behind those political statements.

Science and exploration benefits notwithstanding, the goal of NASA's HSF is to maintain national prestige and to subsidize the industry. Those are the reasons why Congress gives money to NASA. If you see anything beyond that, then you are naive.

Quote
However, that actually isn't the main point.  The main point is this - most people in the space business, and in particular the human spaceflight business, are in it because they want to go, and not just on a small scale. They want to be the settlers (I'll grant I have no data to support this directly, but I don't believe its an unreasonable assumption, and would want to see data before I dismiss it).

I think that most people who are familiar with the industry have no illusions about their own chances of going to space one day. Just like any industry, most people work there to feed their families. Yes, working for a space contractor is more inspiring than flipping burgers, and many space workers are passionate about their job, but I don't realistically think that their general motivation is to emigrate to Mars one day.

Quote
Therefore, if that is generally our goal, as a community, then that goal should be reflected in our national policies (since we live in a democratic republic).

Unfortunately, national policies in a democratic republic are decided by the majority, and judging by the platforms of most politicians, I don't think that space settlement is high on the list of national goals.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2014 02:39 pm by Nibb31 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0