Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Any thoughts on the current claim that the next Orion won't be ready as planned for any launch in 2024?
...

When the Orion is ready for its next flight is not related to the SLS, and how the Orion schedule affects the next Artemis launch is Artemis related, not SLS.

Hmmm, exactly what other missions will the SLS be accomplishing within the next five years, then? Yes, the specific discussion of launch dates is more relevant to Artemis project, but the only payload for SLS in near term is Orion. I suggest that for a launch service with a single purpose at this time and for the near future, the availability of your payload is relevant to the discussion.
As a specific example, Falcon Heavy was ready to launch, but the payloads kept slipping, so it did not launch for three years starting in 2019. At least with FH, The launch crews still had work to do launching F9. If the same happens to SLS, the hard-won lessons learned from the Artemis 1 launch campaign will begin to fade, people will change jobs or retire, etc.

Thus, the details of a slip are not relevant to this thread, but the effects of a slip are relevant.

Artemis II isn't scheduled to launch until 2024 but the CS-2 will begin assembly at KSC Spring of next year.  While yes the launch cadence is measured in year(s) the activity surrounding those launches are not.

2
We make Earth arbitrarily expensive with zoning laws and other such regulations. It's not legal to build duplexes in most places in my city, for instance. This is in spite of the fact that we ought to basically have eliminated all poverty by now, given mechanized food production, industrial everything, etc. We just make regulations to put legal housing out of reach of those who are poor, sort of half-compensating by providing assistance with suffocating red tape.

Living in space will be harder. Will have to sleep in a little bunk like a submarine (this is against zoning regulations on Earth, but obviously we won't have the luxury of those kind of zoning regulations in space) and eat Soylent or whatever. But it's not impossible to do this.
3
and in fact the supposition for this thread is that humanity will eventually do that.
No it isn't.

You can't just relabel your wish a "supposition" and get-out-of-rationality-free.  ::)

If you don't think there could ever be a "realistic" near-term, rotating space station, then why do you post here? Be better.TM

Quote
Which is why the rotating space station I'm designing is assumed to be used for workers that are far from Earth, but need a place with artificial gravity to recuperate from the zero-G work they are doing.
Nothing in that scenario explains why your "company" is choosing a costly design (torus) over a cheaper design (barbell).

I wasn't answering that question, hence why you didn't see me answer that question...  ;)

But since you asked, I'm not choosing either.  :D
4
You can scoff at exponential growth all you like, the Sun still puts out 3.8 x 10e26 W and we only use the smallest of the tiniest of the most millimetric fraction of that.

Linear thinking. 3% annual compound growth will take care of that real quick! A few centuries at most. Space is not a viable way to "escape." We must still tame the Exponential Growth Monster.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

This is a separate problem from the "it's extremely expensive to live in space" problem.
5
The fantasy of the Endless Exponentialists is that we will inevitably expand into space. This will (we are told) square our economy's desire for infinite growth with our ecosystem's very-much-finite limits.

I don't know who is telling you this, whether it is an expert of space policy, or a kid you ran into at the local 7-11.  ;)

That kid? Jeff Bezos!

However the history of the human race has been to expand into new territories as quickly as it can, and while space is a challenging region to push into, it is possible that humanity will eventually figure out how to live off of Earth.

We already "figured it out." It's just hilariously uneconomical compared to Easy Street Earth.

This is sort of like an agar culture thinking "the history of the bacterial colony has been to expand into new agar as quickly as it can, so inevitably we are destined to fill up the entire bio lab." :-\

I'd certainly like to see that

Me too.

and in fact the supposition for this thread is that humanity will eventually do that.

No it isn't.

You can't just relabel your wish a "supposition" and get-out-of-rationality-free.  ::)


So if you don't believe in that possible future, this is not the thread to be on...

...and then gatekeep the thread on that basis.

The cold hard reality is that living in space is fantastically expensive and uneconomical compared to living on Earth. If people want to live permanently in space, the colony would need Elysium-like levels of wealth.

Again, let's look at the history of humanity. It wasn't rich people that pushed out into the new frontiers, but people looking for new opportunities and were willing to take risks. Rich people are not into taking personal risks to as great a degree, and they do enjoy being able to leverage their wealth to provide comfort in their lives.

So based on that, the first people to start living in space will likely be doing that because they work in space too, and living in space makes sense so they can be close to their work. Plenty of historical analogies, including company towns.

Living in space seems to be fundamentally more costly than living on Earth.

I don't see any conceivable way to "fix" that, even with technology bootstrapping by rich tourists. When you can't leach off the biosphere for free, everything gets a lot more costly (this is also true for closed habitats here on Earth).

(The predictable come-back is "well everyone in space will just automatically be fantastically wealthy because of <insert profitable space activity here>," but so far that activity remains elusive)

Again, not sure if this is the kid at the 7-11 imagining this

Don't be petty and dismissive. Be better.TM


I've seen this exact argument before, yes.-

Which is why the rotating space station I'm designing is assumed to be used for workers that are far from Earth, but need a place with artificial gravity to recuperate from the zero-G work they are doing.

Nothing in that scenario explains why your "company" is choosing a costly design (torus) over a cheaper design (barbell).
6
How much is that doggy in the window?

Don't worry! Snoopy is safely secured inside @NASA_Orion. But we just thought it'd be fun to imagine seeing him from the solar array wing camera.

Learn more about Snoopy's ride to deep space:

https://twitter.com/LMSpace/status/1600606127284056064
7
I think the Rodwell approach is overrated on Mars because often the ice will be mixed with regolith, so itíll fill up with debris.
8
habitats that someone is going to live their life on

Well, are we staying on the home planet, or are we expanding or presence in hte solar system?

Right now, and going forward, we will need interplanetary transport and orbital platforms...

When we get around to permanent residential space habitats, where people might expect to spend years or decades (or centuries), and thus would benefit from near-1G spin gravity, we can worry about it.

Well, I've been  suggesting that we "get around to permanent residential space habitats" first, in order to figure out, and demonstrate, the various techniques needed to live on other planets.

"We need to live in space so we can demonstrate how to live in space [but also standing on a planet].

Anyone else find this "justification" a bit philosophically feeble?


One gee, zero radiation, and EML-1 because the new environment will be new enough, so no need to change gravity too;

... no need except cost. You seem to act like it's no object, but reality disagrees.

zero radiation since we can survive with no radiation

We can survive in Ramsar, Iran too.

"Zero radiation" isn't on anyone's list. We don't even have "zero radiation" here on Earth! To achieve it in space would require not just immense and uneconomical shielding, but also isotopically separatig and purifying all incoming materials from natural radioactive isotopes (potassium-40, carbon-13, etc).

Zero radiation is both infeasible and unnecessary.

and EML-1 because it's just a few days away.

 ??? ??? ??? So?

LEO is even closer, if travel time is your metric. It also has lower radiation, delta-v cost, and space debris generation potential.

Getting  a lotta pushback on three seemingly self-evident reasons.

None of this is "self-evident." Rather, it's obvious that you chose favorites first and invented justifications later.
9
Launch around 06:40UTC...

https://twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1600573391081070592

A3331/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZSHA/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3720N12343E011
A) ZSHA B) 2212090625 C) 2212090738
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED CENTERED AT N3720E12343
WITH RADIUS OF 20KM. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL.

F) SFC G) UNL

A3332/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZSHA/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3635N12330E017
A) ZSHA B) 2212090630 C) 2212090740
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY:
N3622E12317-N3650E12323-N3647E12344-N3619E12338 BACK TO START.
VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL.
F) SFC G) UNL

The launch time might be 06:50 UTC.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1