Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
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.
Launch around 06:40UTC...

A3331/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZSHA/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3720N12343E011
A) ZSHA B) 2212090625 C) 2212090738


A3332/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZSHA/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3635N12330E017
A) ZSHA B) 2212090630 C) 2212090740
N3622E12317-N3650E12323-N3647E12344-N3619E12338 BACK TO START.

The launch time might be 06:50 UTC.
Historical Spaceflight / Re: The 50th Anniversary of Apollo 17
« Last post by Rondaz on Today at 01:06 am »
Happy launchiversary #Apollo17 Learn more about the crew, the mission and see more pics..
Not at all.  Everything above (and the $500K-to-Mars as a benchmark was not introduced into the topic by me) ALSO pertains to populating a space habitat.....except that all the issues are cranked up by the fact that you are importing (after processing, either "offshore" or in-habitat) 100% of your consumables and your finished goods/habitats/etc....and (one would assume) an even larger active maintenance cost (in both $ and man/hours).

So, whatever it costs to keep a person on Mars per diem is going to be.....expect the figure for a space habitat to be larger.

I look at it this way. Colonizing Mars will be funded like a humanitarian mission, with individuals, entities, and governments contributing to the cost of making humanity multi-planetary. Some of that cost will hopefully start to be offset by capitalistic enterprises, but certainly at the beginning it will be a gravity hole we throw money into and don't expect goods or services in return. Which is why Elon Musk is figuring that would-be colonists should pay their own way there, likely as a way to filter out those that are not really committed to Mars colonization.

Rotating space stations will be places of work, which means they need a business model in order to be built. One of the stations I'm working on provides Mars-level gravity and is meant to support mining in the asteroid belt. In which case the cook who gets a contract to work on the rotating space station doesn't have to pay their way there, the employer does.

Which feeds back into the assumption that, while small(ish) but substantial orbital (either LEO, Lunar Orbit, or Lagrange) platforms might be a thing in the next decade or so....large space habitats (from the likes of the farcical "Gateway Foundation/Spaceport" to a Kalpana) are going to be substantially farther out in the timeline.

Which feeds back into what we can expect in the way of spin gravity needs/capabilities in the near future (and I agree that the next gen of space platforms....and any long-endurance space vehicles....should have spin gravity).

Yeah, we've had some debates about what "near-term" means. To me it means that if someone gave me a check today, that I could have the station operational within 10 years. It might not be able to be built that far away from Earth yet, but the design would be capable of being built and made operational within 10 years. But that is for a Mars-gravity station, and for an Earth-gravity station maybe the timeline would be more like 20 years. YMMV. And I'm not beholden to any number, just as long as it seems "near-term".  ;)
Moved from the "rump promises to 'plant the American flag on Mars' & build defense shield" thread, since it was OT to that topic, and related to Artemis:

And if the effort to go to Mars ends up being as badly managed as the effort to return to the Moon has been, then NASA will NEVER be funded enough money to get humans to surface of Mars.

Pretty much nothing NASA is building for Artemis, for the Moon, will be able to be used as-is on a Mars mission. Which means that NASA is more than a decade away from going to Mars AFTER such an effort is funded. And Congress is barely funding the Artemis program enough to reach the Moon, so thinking Congress will bump up NASA's budget by $10B per year or more for a concurrent Mars mission - well, let's just say that is not something a rational person would assume today...  ;)
In any event, I disagree that Artemis has been mismanaged. The problem with SLS and Orion is that they are governmental programs, not that they are mismanaged.

Wow, you are saying that government programs can never be mismanaged?

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, when he was Senator Nelson and one of the creators of the SLS, stated in 2011:
“If we can’t do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop”

Here we are more than $20B into the SLS program, and apparently then Senator Nelson would have had to concede that the government had mismanaged the SLS program.

And for Artemis as a whole, you would say that only the contractors could be criticized for mismanagement, and not the U.S. Government (i.e. NASA)?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing but the problem isn't the management itself, it's the fact that it is a government program that isn't fixed price and under which NASA has too much oversight, etc. That's the real issue. If you replace SLS and Orion with other government programs, you will get the same results. If you were to replace SLS and Orion with a public-private partnership, you will get better results. I don't think that it will happen any time soon but it would improve things in terms of costs.
The problem with a Rodwell is that on Mars it requires internal pressure to keep the "pool" liquid.

No, any base site has sufficient pressure; Rodwell proposals are common.  E.g., the Colorado School of Mines' "Resource Assessment of Phlegra Montes, Mars", noted previously.

Peak pressure on Mars is 1.16 kPa, so the liquid phase of water has either a non-existent or a very narrow liquid temperature range. Salinity will have some benefit, but at low pressures you're still greatly narrowing the stable operating regime of a Rodwell where it resists operational "collapse" (already a non-trivial concern, even on Earth).
On Nov. 25, the ICON mission team lost contact with the spacecraft. The team has verified that the spacecraft is intact, but they cannot communicate with it. The team is working to re-establish communication:
Whatever this launch is, the launch has apparently moved up by 2 days to TODAY, December 8 ~18:45 UTC.

A3327/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3317N10951E013
A) ZLHW B) 2212081822 C) 2212081905
N3304E10955-N3307E10941-N3329E10947-N3326E11001 BACK TO START.

A3328/22 NOTAMN
Q) ZPKM/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3038N10906E022
A) ZPKM B) 2212081822 C) 2212081911
N3017E10912-N3021E10850-N3059E10900-N3055E10923 BACK TO START.
We're not talking about reentry with capsules.  We're talking about escape with capsules, which hardly ever get deployed. 

That's my fundamental disagreement with an encapsulated abort capsule.   hardly every deployed means the PRA is full of WAGs not data.

Abort systems have been tested a small number of times and then successfully deployed. Two were used successfully recently, one of which saved the lives of the crew.

The idea is that they are relatively simple systems and so a small amount of testing goes a long way.  Further, even if they are only 90% successful, that still multiplies your probability of survival by a factor of ten, say from 99 out of 100 to 999 out of 1000.

A mechanism sitting on the top of its normally used staging system is reasonably simple (plus or minus hypergolic explosions).   They still fail.  And they fail when not needed as well as when needed.  The former increases probability of LOC.

One that has to eject out of a Starship, not so simple
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography