Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/15/2019 10:07 pmBut there is zero evidence that we are at that point, or even close to that point. And the U.S. Government wanting to land at least one woman government employee at the South Pole of our Moon is not evidence that the U.S. Government has figured out how to create a profitable space-based economy. In fact it shows the complete opposite, that companies have to be paid to do things in space with humans.It will require it be bootstrapped to happen, and that will take a lot of money.
But there is zero evidence that we are at that point, or even close to that point. And the U.S. Government wanting to land at least one woman government employee at the South Pole of our Moon is not evidence that the U.S. Government has figured out how to create a profitable space-based economy. In fact it shows the complete opposite, that companies have to be paid to do things in space with humans.
Long term it will play out and pay out, but if we wait for future fur trappers or someone to go out and strike a motherlode on an asteroid, it won't happen.
I fell for the libertarian dream of space colonization along with a lot of other people. I was wrong. But an O'Neill style incremental colonization plan CAN work, and it requires getting mining and manufacturing on the moon first. This could be the jump-start.
I fully support the President's challenge to return to the Moon to stay.
Great! I don't.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/15/2019 12:49 pmI fully support the President's challenge to return to the Moon to stay.^ New path moving forward.
QuoteGreat! I don't.^ Same old, same old path of the past.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2019 11:47 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 04/15/2019 12:49 pmI fully support the President's challenge to return to the Moon to stay.^ New path moving forward.How is it a "New path" when we're repeating the glory of the 60's?Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/15/2019 10:07 pmQuoteGreat! I don't.^ Same old, same old path of the past.For decades NASA had been on a path to go to Mars - someplace new, and more exciting. So if anything this Trump Directive is a lowering of our sights as a nation, not a raising.
How is it a "New path" when we're repeating the glory of the 60's?
For decades NASA had been on a path to go to Mars - someplace new, and more exciting. So if anything this Trump Directive is a lowering of our sights as a nation, not a raising.
Trying to go to Mars when we still don't have the ability to do long-term occupation of the Moon -something much simpler- seems like running before you walk. I suppose it's not impossible to "skip" the step, but it's a lot more radical of a leap, and therefore would be much more difficult.
... If the alternative to a moon mission is the status quo at NASA, why would [one] prefer the status quo? ...
And your logic's confusing me. It feels to me like you're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.
If the alternative to a moon mission is the status quo at NASA, why would you prefer the status quo? You've made your displeasure about it very well-known, after all.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/17/2019 02:51 pmHow is it a "New path" when we're repeating the glory of the 60's?Because we lost that capability and haven't had the will and therefore ability to do it again until now?
If we can do for Moon exploration what ISS has done for LEO, that'd be a major step-up in human spaceflight.
We didn't lose anything. You must think that just because we don't have a Saturn V that we can't get back to our Moon, but that is not true. We could have built more Saturn V, or built some other replacement. We have the technology.
We have never lacked the ability to go back. The U.S. Government, specifically Congress, has not seen a justification for going back that equals the tremendous cost.
NASA is not working on lowering the cost to access space, which means NASA is not helping to solve the main problem to HSF. And Congress is fine with that for now, because the SLS is not really for space exploration, it's a jobs program. If it was needed for space exploration Congress would have authorized missions and payloads for the SLS when they told NASA to build it, but so far there is little for the SLS to do.
QuoteIf we can do for Moon exploration what ISS has done for LEO, that'd be a major step-up in human spaceflight.No doubt. But so what? Again, we never lost the ability to send government employees to the Moon, we have always lacked big enough reasons that matched the cost of doing so.You see the theme here? The President and Congress control what NASA does, and neither of them are concerned about the cost of human exploration. If it cost $1,000 to send someone to our Moon the place would be crowded, right? But instead it costs closer to $10B.What Trump is proposing is not focused on reducing the cost to get to our Moon, and that means the U.S. Taxpayer is overpaying for this effort. THAT is my bottom line for why I don't support this.
At this very moment, can we send humans to the moon? No. We do not currently have the capability. It is something we lost, and are rebuilding.
[People are] ... willfully misinterpreting my statements. I never said we could never go back. The technology has been there since the Apollo days. I said we didn't have the will to go back, and because of this, we lost the capability to do so.
Bridenstine and the current administration have decided that going to the moon is the thing for the SLS to do. [People] object to that plan, and then say that the SLS doesn't have anything to do.
The last time the US taxpayer was pitched a system to reduce cost to access to space, we ended up with the Shuttle program.
Now I have no issue with companies like SpaceX pursuing such a strategy ... [but] without access to SpaceX's financials, it remains to be seen what financial benefit Falcon re-usability has or hasn't provided in regards to their launch costs, and at what launch cadence the "tipping point" for re-usability exists.
Even with a ridiculously optimistically low launch cost, I highly doubt the demand necessary for such a rocket to fly profitably at lunar scales exists today.
Quote from: jadebenn on 04/18/2019 06:46 am Now I have no issue with companies like SpaceX pursuing such a strategy ... [but] without access to SpaceX's financials, it remains to be seen what financial benefit Falcon re-usability has or hasn't provided in regards to their launch costs, and at what launch cadence the "tipping point" for re-usability exists.Yeah, and we all wouldn't mind seeing Trump's tax returns either. What matters most is what they're doing, not how much profit they may or may not be making.Quote from: jadebennEven with a ridiculously optimistically low launch cost, I highly doubt the demand necessary for such a rocket to fly profitably at lunar scales exists today.This is a weak leg to be standing on. SpaceX is increasing their launch cadence and them thar other companies are no slackers. Plus, those Israeli kids just about pulled off a lunar landing on their own nickel. Who knows how many kids in garages are working on their own lunar landers? I think things are looking up. [To coin a phrase.]
You're either greatly misunderstanding me or willfully misinterpreting my statements. I never said we could never go back. The technology has been there since the Apollo days. I said we didn't have the will to go back, and because of this, we lost the capability to do so.
You're using circular logic here. Bridenstine and the current administration have decided that going to the moon is the thing for the SLS to do. You object to that plan, and then say that the SLS doesn't have anything to do.
The last time the US taxpayer was pitched a system to reduce cost to access to space, we ended up with the Shuttle program. The performance of such never reached the idealistic projections, and we probably would've been batter sticking with the Saturn family in the long-run.
Now I have no issue with companies like SpaceX pursuing such a strategy under the assumption that they can "do it right," but I remain skeptical that there's actually much of a cost-advantage in doing so. Without access to SpaceX's financials, it remains to be seen what financial benefit Falcon re-usability has or hasn't provided in regards to their launch costs, and at what launch cadence the "tipping point" for re-usability exists.
I'd rather not predicate the whole manned spaceflight program on the "re-usability" holy grail again. Not until there's conclusive proof that such an approach is superior. If SpaceX builds their BFR and shows that? More power to the; let's toss the SLS. But that hasn't happened yet.
pomo thought is a common strategy underpinning the seemingly continual inability of NASA to perform per its charter
Quotepomo thought is a common strategy underpinning the seemingly continual inability of NASA to perform per its charterI've seen a lot of things blamed for NASA's post-Apollo troubles, but this is the first time that I've seen Foucault accused of playing a part!
... maybe you wanted the party thread?
Going to disagree in the strongest possible terms that ISS is a "jobs program".
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/19/2019 02:32 amGoing to disagree in the strongest possible terms that ISS is a "jobs program".I PagedUp a few pages, and didn't find this assertion. It is certain, however, that the folks on ISS have "jobs", and they wake up every morning and go to work and they also get paychecks. [...]
[... ]While it is disappointing that the US did not immediately replace the shuttle in the days after the 1986 accident, when the entire country would have funded an improved replacement, at least the shuttle did finish building the ISS. And what of it? They go to work every morning, and then relax and watch football games between Rice and Texas in the evening. Like their counterparts on Earth. ISS is a jobs program.[...]