News WSJ: Europe Ends Independent Pursuit of Manned Space Travel

[T.Neo]

Odd. You're the one that said 5% would be reasonable earlier.

Yeah, from a space enthusiast "I want my rockets" angle.

Wait, are you saying there's no engineers or mission planners involved in LEO missions to the ISS?

No, I'm saying that the decision for the current monstrosity of a launch vehicle that NASA is being forced to pursue was made by politicians, not people within the space program.

You said it has some value. Seeing as the ISS is currently going to be de-orbited 2020 by the Russians, who have the only man-rated space vehicle of any western nation, I would say currently there is little or no value being placed on human spaceflight. Even if it's not majorly hugely important (which, yes, I think it is, for the reasons listed earlier, I'm still not convinced they're wrong), if it holds any importance at all, then I'd say it's still undervalued.

What's so scary about the Russians? They have been a pretty influential part of the ISS project. They have been the major provider of crew transport and the sole provider of Earth return 'lifeboats' aboard the station.

The US has certainly had a major role as well, but really if you look at it... the major input is definitely between US and Russia.

Also, you should certainly be glad (as I am) that the ISS will be deorbited in 2020 or later- it was scheduled to be deorbited only in 2016 or thereabouts, under the Constellation program.

Considering the money spend on the ISS, I think there is a fine emphasis on human spaceflight. Maybe not being really daring, or trying new things, but it is still an emphasis.

But they've got plenty of advocates, and their current situation now is really unrelated and irrelevant to human spaceflight. You keep mentioning these issues as if somehow they devalue manned spaceflight. These issues have always been with us humans, and always will, now is as good a time as any to take those small steps out, and doing so won't hurt planet Earth, Afghanistan or Zimbabwe. No, it won't hurt them a bit, and it won't stop us from helping them at all.

Yes, it will. Not financially, that is. If emphasis on spaceflight leads to people forgetting about more pressing issues on Earth, it would be a very bad thing. Now, that hasn't happened yet (apart from maybe in the minds of some space enthusiasts), but if a major emphasis on space exploration is present, it could end up being pretty damaging.

Also: these problems will always be present with us, but today, they are particularly bad. Even if they are better than they have been in the past.

And anyways, if you're talking about other things distracting us, now is perhaps one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in the entire history of the human race. So how can you say things aren't good enough? If you use history as a precedent, then historically, things will never get any better. Now is best the time.

No, it is not. Maybe it is nice and peaceful in the developed world, but I'm not talking about the developed world. There is plenty of unrest and fighting and insurgency and long-standing conflicts in many very unfortunate places on this planet.

How can you ever define "good enough" in a case like this? Do you not aspire towards a future where people will have some trouble believing some aspects of our modern world, just as we might struggle to believe that a "third world disease" such as Cholera could be a problem in a place such as London?

You're flat-out ignoring my arguments about it causing an increase in educated individuals.

Yes, I am. Because event of an increase in educated individuals is not very helpful in the grand scheme of things.

Many other things could, and should, affect the number of highly educated people, and the demand for them.

No, not nothing, there are entire worlds out there just waiting to be explored, for the breadth of human experience to be expanded into.

Oh yes, entire worlds. Of nothing.

Entire worlds of nothing.

As interesting as I find Mars, I accept that it isn't a tiny amount as interesting as Earth (or any other similar planet) would be.

Why do you place so much emphasis on expansion? Why is this expansion so important? It almost invokes the story of Willy Wonka's three course chewing gum.

Not because it was difficult for people to live in the Sahara or Antarctica, but because it was impossible at the time. It was extremely difficult for people to live in the Americas, the vast majority of the early colonists died. At the time, it was a "deficient environment".

This borders into Human Geography: there are push factors and pull factors. For the New World, the push factors were religious persecution for the pilgrims. And the pull factors were the promises of freedom and a new world full of hope, where men were free to write their own destiny.

The reason we don't see colonies in Antarctica or the Sahara right now is because those aren't "New World"s. They're easily accessed by a single day of flying, and communications are instant. They're also politically tied to the rest of the world as well, which is perhaps the biggest distinction in-between them and the "New World".

Wrong. It is not impossible to exist in the Sahara, just as it is not impossible to live on Mars. It's just that it's not worth the effort.

When did the Libyans fly to Mars to escape Gaddafi? Where did Mandela start a Mars program to free the people from Apartheid? If your gleeful "1984" vision of the future ever comes true, people will overthrow it in due course, just as has happened throughout history. Without going to Mars.

Being easier to access doesn't hamper colonisation, it bolsters it. Politics is indeed a problem, but nobody owns Antarctica... and yet there has been no push to colonise it. Instead there has been a treaty to protect it. And while that ecological protection may be a good thing, it springs from the fact that Antarctica is actually pretty useless.

Kind of like the Outer Space Treaty banning the stationing of nuclear weapons in space. Stationing your nukes in space where they are easy to track and kill doesn't make much sense, ergo banning them did not make much of a difference to the powers involved.

Correct. A monsterous amount of money is being wasted on stupid programs in the USA, IMO. Things that the private sector could run much more efficiently, to reach a lot more people, and do a much better job... But this is just an example of how people today are not different than any other point in history. Communism and socialism are failed ideas, again and again in history it's obvious they just don't work. Yet people will still openly jump at any opportunity for "free" handouts.

They're getting bribed by their own money

Wrong. The private sector will not run things a lot more efficiently than the government, and even if they do, they will come with their own new devilish inefficiencies.

Communism may indeed be a failed idea, but Capitalism isn't that good either. You sometimes need to combine a lot of concepts together to result in a viable system. You do need a government presence of some sort or else your nation is various shades of Anarchy. And anarchy is always a very, very bad thing.

Privatisation is not always the answer. Neither is government. Neither is private contractors working for the government.

How many people die in the US each year because they can't afford healthcare?

I would just like to say that here in SA we have public healthcare, and while it is perhaps not as good as private healthcare in some respects (just because of infrastructure here in general), it allows very destitute people to have access to healthcare, that they would not otherwise have.

And yes, there are tons of problems related to the US government. NASA is affected by these problems as well.

The largest figure I've ever heard was 30%. Smallest was 18%. Seeing as historically and constitutionally the primary purpose of the federal government was to provide for defense, I'd say that's not gigantic military spending at all.

Yes, it is most certainly gigantic:

It will be very funny to see how 5% can be considered "radical", at a time when what used to be the world's leading space nation now has to go begging the Russians for a ride to what's mostly their own space station...

:facepalm:

Really, I do not care that the US is the overbearing superior power in space. I really do not. If you are ahead in development, good for you. If you want to shove everyone to the side to try and show your dominance, it is just annoying.

Also, the US has been 'begging' for rides on Soyuz from Russia for years. Soyuz has provided the major crew transport ability for the ISS. The Shuttle has always been minor in this regard.

I may be wrong, but I actually think more American astronauts have flown to the ISS aboard Soyuz than aboard the Shuttle.

Also: a lot of modules in the "US segment" were made in Italy. And a considerable amount of the station was funded internationally.

The biggest claim to fame for the US is for operating the exorbitantly expensive space truck, that lifted most of the modules.

Because visions from before the space age realized only the basics of rocketry, not the entire scope of running an actual spacecraft actually is. It's radically more expensive and complex than they realized; that's the issue.

Exactly. Yet some people don't seem to realise this issue, it seems...

What I love is that private industry has entered the scene. Beforehand there was very little or no "strong" drive to make spaceflight cheaper and more streamlined. Now, there is. SpaceX is literally blowing peoples' minds with how they do things.

SpaceX is pretty impressive, but they don't magically whisk your problems away.

I don't believe their costs yet. I will believe them if they are still in place after a few years and several launches. But even if they grow considerably, they could still beat the US competition.

Musk seems pretty confident about it though.

Dragon v.s. Orion:
1/10th the cost
Almost 2x as many people
Much less weight
Some-odd half the development time.

Ahem. While I have made a point often as to why Dragon is superior in many aspects to the pork barrel MPCV spacecraft, I'd like do point out:

1. Dragon carries almost twice as many people as the MPCV, but originally Orion was slated to carry 6 people (to the ISS and Mars spacecraft). This was before all the weight cuts and capability loss, of course. And those people are going to be pretty cramped inside Dragon. If you wanted to do a BEO mission with Dragon, it might be wise to cut the crew complement to four (like the MPCV) to allow extra space for the astronauts as well as any necessary associated hardware/consumables.

2. Dragon as it is now only needs to travel to and from the space station. This means that it does not need to carry that much propellant. Conversely, Orion has its own service module, like the Apollo spacecraft, which gives it a dV of over 1500 m/s. A service module isn't necessarily required for BEO flight, and Dragon could perform BEO flights without one, but it would need other associated hardware to perform the same job.

Dragon's capsule shape is apparently more efficient mass/volume wise than that of Orion, as it more closely approximates a sphere.

And yes, I realize private space can cut ticket price to some-odd $21-million, but it's still possible to drive it even lower with existing technology.

Not magically low. Sorry.

And sure it won't hit "airline fare" anytime soon, but new technologies can change the whole game.

No they can't. They're still bound by reality and physics.

An Orbital elevator might cost a tremendous amount, but per kg it would change all the rules.

Generally things that are absurdly silly do indeed cost a tremendous amount. :lol:

What of microwave rockets with the upper-ISP the same as NTR's?

I explained some of their problems to you. And this microwave rocket will have a very low T/W, far too low to lift off from the surface of Earth... unless you intend to destroy the vehicle by trying to power it (or use that same weapon to destroy a spacecraft owned by someone you don't like).

With the huge supporting infrastructure, I think it is actually more attractive to use an NTR, even with its political and technical issues.

What about other, unforeseen technologies?

I'd love to believe them, if you can show me the unforseen physics that they operate on.

Now, sure, maybe even then it won't be airline fare, but consider this: Every year, the price of everything goes down slightly, not because of inflation, but because of various other factors and how society works, the entire world actually gets a little bit richer. So eventually, it will hit airline fare.

No, it won't. Even if you've eventually gotten it down to magically low prices, it'll still cost much more than an airline fare.

At the end of the day, the difficulty comes down to energy. Energy will always have a cost. And it will always cost more energy to fly to space than to fly across the Atlantic.

EDIT:

There is no point in argueing this anymore. It's like argueing with a moon hoaxer, they are so set in their beliefs that they refuse to see even the most clear cut evidence.

What part of the overwhelming evidence of "spaceflight is massively expensive and relatively useless" do you not understand?

 

[Codz]

What part of the overwhelming evidence of "spaceflight is massively expensive and relatively useless" do you not understand?

Useless?! Are you kidding? Spaceflight has led to plenty of developments. If you think spaceflight is useless then you must be incredibly short sighted.

 

[Yoda]

Question:
Do you guys have actual jobs and provide some means of contribution for your governments or do you just spend all day sitting in your mom's basement behind a computer arguing mute points on forums?

My god give it a rest already; go outside and play for a while ; there's a whole world to be discovered at the top of the staircase !

 

[T.Neo]

Useless?! Are you kidding? Spaceflight has led to plenty of developments. If you think spaceflight is useless then you must be incredibly short sighted.

Yes, as spinoffs to which actual flight in space was not essential.

And please note that I said "relatively useless". Not totally useless.

Do you guys have actual jobs and provide some means of contribution for your governments or do you just spend all day sitting in your mom's basement behind a computer arguing mute points on forums?

What's a basement? :shifty:

Contribute to my government? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the people supporting the government so that the government can support the people, but one's major goal in life need not be 'contributing' to a government just for the sake of doing so.

Of course, it would help if the government contributed to anything around here. :dry:

 

[Eagle1Division]

The US has certainly had a major role as well, but really if you look at it... the major input is definitely between US and Russia.

Also, you should certainly be glad (as I am) that the ISS will be deorbited in 2020 or later- it was scheduled to be deorbited only in 2016 or thereabouts, under the Constellation program.

Considering the money spend on the ISS, I think there is a fine emphasis on human spaceflight. Maybe not being really daring, or trying new things, but it is still an emphasis.

Over it's entire lifetime, by many different contributing nations. If you did this with, say, public healthcare, and the money spent into it were easily visible as a single structure, it would totally dwarf the ISS on a scale that's almost comedic. The ISS is nothing compared to other expenditures, especially of all the contributing nations combined.

Also: these problems will always be present with us, but today, they are particularly bad. Even if they are better than they have been in the past.

If they're better than ever, then how are they particularly bad???

No, it is not. Maybe it is nice and peaceful in the developed world, but I'm not talking about the developed world. There is plenty of unrest and fighting and insurgency and long-standing conflicts in many very unfortunate places on this planet.

How can you ever define "good enough" in a case like this? Do you not aspire towards a future where people will have some trouble believing some aspects of our modern world, just as we might struggle to believe that a "third world disease" such as Cholera could be a problem in a place such as London?

Of course it's not good in the undeveloped world. If it was good, safe, and organized, it wouldn't be the undeveloped world, it would develop. But unfortunately humans are humans, and there will always be societies that aren't developed - just because we're humans. If it were possible for those societies to be developed, they would be. But in order to really develop them, you have to change their culture, get them to lay aside violence, make self-control/morality popular, get them interested in education.

I dunno... Maybe even inspire their youth with space. You keep laughing it off, but space really is inspirational. I know for sure at least 1 example of an outstanding student with honors, 4+ GPA, plans for a Ph.D, and extracirrcicular activities such as soon-to-be eagle scout, key club member, and a local smyphony. Why? It's hope for success that drives success. And how success is defined is an emotional thing. Different people will be inspired by different things, for different reasons. But space is a very big one. And when young Africans see these amazing machines, and dream of space, it will encourage them to get educated and strive for success. That education and endeavor for success will develop nations. It is the only thing that can develop any nation, and the thing that can develop developed nations even further.

Yes, I am. Because event of an increase in educated individuals is not very helpful in the grand scheme of things.

That's just wrong. That's very, very wrong. When many individuals in a nation strive to succeed, the nation starts to succeed. A nation is nothing more than the sum average of all it's people. If the people don't strive and do well, then the nation won't. It's really that simple.

Many other things could, and should, affect the number of highly educated people, and the demand for them.

Yes, but few others can you directly fund, and get so much for so little. A significant portion of the inhabitants of Earth watched Niel step on the Moon in 1969. I promise if millions, or even billions were captivated again, if even a tiny portion were inspired, then the success and wealth of the entire world would be effected decades later as they finished their education goals.

Wrong. It is not impossible to exist in the Sahara, just as it is not impossible to live on Mars. It's just that it's not worth the effort.

It was impossible at the time. That was my point.

When did the Libyans fly to Mars to escape Gaddafi? Where did Mandela start a Mars program to free the people from Apartheid? If your gleeful "1984" vision of the future ever comes true, people will overthrow it in due course, just as has happened throughout history. Without going to Mars.

Of course not. It was an undeveloped nation without a space program, and we're decades, likely a century or more away from easy space/Mars access. But how are we to ever reach that point if we don't keep making steps, however small, towards it?

Being easier to access doesn't hamper colonisation, it bolsters it. Politics is indeed a problem, but nobody owns Antarctica... and yet there has been no push to colonise it. Instead there has been a treaty to protect it. And while that ecological protection may be a good thing, it springs from the fact that Antarctica is actually pretty useless.

It means there's no reason to colonize it. The pilgrims would've never left Europe if they could be easily persecuted in the New World. But they couldn't because it was hard to reach, and, as it's name implied, a New World.

Wrong. The private sector will not run things a lot more efficiently than the government, and even if they do, they will come with their own new devilish inefficiencies.

Rediculous. NASA is one of the most efficient government systems, yet compare it to a private firm, SpaceX:

Orion:
mass: 8,913 kg (capsule mass only)
Development: $22.4 billion (as of 2005)
Per Flight: $1,000 million
Crew: 4
Time: 7 years
Status: design phase

Dragon:
mass: 4,200 kg
payload: 6,000 kg
Development: $1 billion
Per Flight: $56 million (falcon 9 launch cost)
Crew: 7
Time: 6 years
Status: Cargo variant flown successfully, crewed variant has had successful ECLSS tests.

It's a simple principle. There's no strive for efficiency in a government program, they are less efficient. You can confirm this every time you try a government program versus a private one. I don't live in SA so I can't give examples, but I know that UPS or Fed-Ex is much better than using the post office. Also, they're in business, the Post Office is in major debt. I mean, the entire nation's in debt! Every single government program tried so far is either failing or in debt, or both. If a business fails or gets into debt, another one that's succeeding takes it's place.

Yes, it is most certainly gigantic:

Give me a real source. That graph is utterly absurd. You had might as well try to convince me that Iraq doesn't use AK-47's. And the data from China's probably fudged, anyways. They're a communist dictatorship with a capitalist economy.

I don't believe their costs yet. I will believe them if they are still in place after a few years and several launches. But even if they grow considerably, they could still beat the US competition.

Musk seems pretty confident about it though.

They've already performed those costs, and they've lived up to all their other promises. It's unreasonable and overly-cynical to not believe their costs.

Ahem. While I have made a point often as to why Dragon is superior in many aspects to the pork barrel MPCV spacecraft, I'd like do point out:

Pork barrel because it's a government program...

2. Dragon as it is now only needs to travel to and from the space station. This means that it does not need to carry that much propellant. Conversely, Orion has its own service module, like the Apollo spacecraft, which gives it a dV of over 1500 m/s. A service module isn't necessarily required for BEO flight, and Dragon could perform BEO flights without one, but it would need other associated hardware to perform the same job.

I updated the earlier post with more precise information, which I also gave here. The capsule weight alone, discounting the service module, is many times heavier than dragon.

Dragon's capsule shape is apparently more efficient mass/volume wise than that of Orion, as it more closely approximates a sphere.

So?...

I explained some of their problems to you. And this microwave rocket will have a very low T/W, far too low to lift off from the surface of Earth... unless you intend to destroy the vehicle by trying to power it (or use that same weapon to destroy a spacecraft owned by someone you don't like).

With the huge supporting infrastructure, I think it is actually more attractive to use an NTR, even with its political and technical issues

Except with NTR you'll give your crew cancer, assuming they live long enough to get it...

The "microwave rocket" I'm talking about isn't a MASER sail, it's the one that uses absorbed heat from a microwave emitter to warm hydrogen, it does have significant thrust, and it gets an ISP in the range of 7,000, IIRC.

I'd love to believe them, if you can show me the unforseen physics that they operate on.

Of course I can't show you the unforeseen engineering they operate on. It's hasn't been made yet. In the same way that nobody in the public foresaw jet engines until B-17 gunners started reporting enemy aircraft with no propellers.

What you're saying is that there won't be any new technology. That is the extreme of cynicism and utterly absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to assume sooner or later new technology will change things. Always has, probably always will. Humans are smart critters, at least the engineers are, anyways.

No, it won't. Even if you've eventually gotten it down to magically low prices, it'll still cost much more than an airline fare.

At the end of the day, the difficulty comes down to energy. Energy will always have a cost. And it will always cost more energy to fly to space than to fly across the Atlantic.

Not magically low. Sorry.

No they can't. They're still bound by reality and physics.

Communism may indeed be a failed idea, but Capitalism isn't that good either. You sometimes need to combine a lot of concepts together to result in a viable system. You do need a government presence of some sort or else your nation is various shades of Anarchy. And anarchy is always a very, very bad thing.

You KNOW that's the strawman of my argument. Frankly it seems like there's not even any attempt at trying to understand what I'm saying, and all these quotes and others seem to be taking the extreme of what I'm saying and arguing against that. Of course I know it won't be easy, and nothing will be perfect, and it'll be expensive and yadda yadday. But my point is that it'll be worth it. And yes, you can even use some argument that it's justified for it's own sake, to some extent.

I want my rockets.

Trillions of dollars get spent because lots of people like to see buff guys tackle eachother and throw a piece of dead cow around.

But that's only a booster to the main argument, which is what I stated earlier, that it inspires people. Even if that didn't have any economic returns, which it greatly does, then that still would be reason enough to keep flying people into space. Timmy wants a reason to go to college and hammer his head through 4 years of textbooks and professors.

Even if this weren't true, then what about the national prestiege?

Even if those aren't true, what about all the technical jobs that are created?

Even if those weren't true, what about the benefits that exploration has had on mankind throughout history? Going off a historical basis, and the course of human history, it's well worth it. Nobody knows legislature or the major peace treaties signed in 1492, but at least here in America we know that "Columbus sailed the ocean blue"?

Even if all those aren't true, what about all the boost to economy that comes with more educated people?

Shall I keep going?

What part of the overwhelming evidence of "spaceflight is massively expensive and relatively useless" do you not understand?

Both parts. Compared to every other Federal program, in any nation you can name, space exploration gets less than 1%, about. 5% Is absurdly enormous, according to you. So how the heck is it expensive? It's peanuts.

And the relatively useless part - I've been nailing with every post.

Take a look here: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1492"]1492 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Of all the things that happened, of the hundreds of thousands of people effected by major events, which event on that page is most significant to the history of western civilization? I assure you it's not the big events that people at the time thought were significant - not the sort of things you've been saying are more important. That's not what effects the course of human civilization.

---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

Question:
Do you guys have actual jobs and provide some means of contribution for your governments or do you just spend all day sitting in your mom's basement behind a computer arguing mute points on forums?

My god give it a rest already; go outside and play for a while ; there's a whole world to be discovered at the top of the staircase !

+1
:thumbup:

I've definitely got stuff to do.

- Sorry if I don't reply much, or at all anymore, but after all that's been said by so many different people, it seems like that mind is set on cynicism.

 

[Yoda]

They just don't know how to stop...........:facepalm:...................

You know I'm a Physical Therapist by trade and you guys are in for some bad ass Carpal Tunnel if you don't give it up ! :rofl:

 

[Codz]

I'm just apalled at how someone who uses a spaceflight forum says it's "relitivley useless".

 

[T.Neo]

Over it's entire lifetime, by many different contributing nations. If you did this with, say, public healthcare, and the money spent into it were easily visible as a single structure, it would totally dwarf the ISS on a scale that's almost comedic. The ISS is nothing compared to other expenditures, especially of all the contributing nations combined.

Yes, and?

The ISS is not the glorious future of the human race. Sorry, but it just isn't. Not even if you believe in super-silly-space-colonisation.

If they're better than ever, then how are they particularly bad???

:facepalm:

If I chop off your foot, it's bad, right?

And if I chop off your entire leg, it's also bad, right?

But having your foot chopped off is better than having your entire leg chopped off, no?

Something can be better than something else and still be bad.

Of course it's not good in the undeveloped world. If it was good, safe, and organized, it wouldn't be the undeveloped world, it would develop. But unfortunately humans are humans, and there will always be societies that aren't developed - just because we're humans. If it were possible for those societies to be developed, they would be. But in order to really develop them, you have to change their culture, get them to lay aside violence, make self-control/morality popular, get them interested in education.

I dunno... Maybe even inspire their youth with space. You keep laughing it off, but space really is inspirational. I know for sure at least 1 example of an outstanding student with honors, 4+ GPA, plans for a Ph.D, and extracirrcicular activities such as soon-to-be eagle scout, key club member, and a local smyphony. Why? It's hope for success that drives success. And how success is defined is an emotional thing. Different people will be inspired by different things, for different reasons. But space is a very big one. And when young Africans see these amazing machines, and dream of space, it will encourage them to get educated and strive for success. That education and endeavor for success will develop nations. It is the only thing that can develop any nation, and the thing that can develop developed nations even further.

:facepalm:

Please try to understand why there are underdeveloped nations, and how they can develop.

You don't understand why underdeveloped nations are underdeveloped. It isn't about violence or self control. It's about a whole lot of factors. Social factors are among them, but not the primary cause.

Manned spaceflight will do nothing for Africa, just as it has done nothing for Africa. Ignoring what can and needs to be done in places like these is one thing, substituting real solutions for "spaceflight will inspire people to magically develop their country" is just sad.

That's just wrong. That's very, very wrong. When many individuals in a nation strive to succeed, the nation starts to succeed. A nation is nothing more than the sum average of all it's people. If the people don't strive and do well, then the nation won't. It's really that simple.

Er... no. Things don't automatically become better because a bunch of people went to college. There are a whole lot of factors involved, and that is sure one of them (as well as an effect of success), but it certainly isn't that simple.

Yes, but few others can you directly fund, and get so much for so little. A significant portion of the inhabitants of Earth watched Niel step on the Moon in 1969. I promise if millions, or even billions were captivated again, if even a tiny portion were inspired, then the success and wealth of the entire world would be effected decades later as they finished their education goals.

Maybe, but not nearly as much as if other outreach programs could be accomplished. Heck, availability of good education is a problem in many parts of the world! How do you think a little inspiration even matters when students learn under trees, from badly put-together curriculums, and underperforming educators?

Also: it is painful, but I would rather employ 10 million people at Starbucks, than 10 000 people at NASA.

It was impossible at the time. That was my point.

No, it was not. People who have been living in deserts for tens of thousands of years prove otherwise.

Of course not. It was an undeveloped nation without a space program, and we're decades, likely a century or more away from easy space/Mars access. But how are we to ever reach that point if we don't keep making steps, however small, towards it?

So wait, you're saying that if Libyans did have a space program, they would have all flown off to Mars and forgotten about Gaddafi?

:facepalm:

It means there's no reason to colonize it. The pilgrims would've never left Europe if they could be easily persecuted in the New World. But they couldn't because it was hard to reach, and, as it's name implied, a New World.

Hard to reach is not a good thing. It means it's hard to reach. What part of 'hard to reach' is being misunderstood in this discussion?

Or is SpaceGaddafi going to come and catch you if you don't go far away enough in space from him?

Rediculous. NASA is one of the most efficient government systems, yet compare it to a private firm, SpaceX:

Not ridiculous.

Also, the big inefficiencies at NASA stem from the contract structure with their contractors, who happen to be private firms.

SpaceX is just a private firm under another type of contract, who maybe also have a novel way of doing things.

Do you really think NASA builds SRBs, or Orion capsules, and suchlike? No, they don't. ATK builds SRBs. Lockheed is working on Orion. A lot of the reasons for criticising NASA's state, relate to its bad relationship with its contractors.

It's a simple principle. There's no strive for efficiency in a government program, they are less efficient. You can confirm this every time you try a government program versus a private one. I don't live in SA so I can't give examples, but I know that UPS or Fed-Ex is much better than using the post office. Also, they're in business, the Post Office is in major debt. I mean, the entire nation's in debt! Every single government program tried so far is either failing or in debt, or both. If a business fails or gets into debt, another one that's succeeding takes it's place.

If a country fails or gets into debt, another one is ready to take its place.

Of course there is impetus for efficiency in a government program, somewhat. But there is also an impetus to stick to the rules.

A private company can skirt the rules, if they find the oppurtunity. And that is dangerous.

Give me a real source. That graph is utterly absurd. You had might as well try to convince me that Iraq doesn't use AK-47's. And the data from China's probably fudged, anyways. They're a communist dictatorship with a capitalist economy.

Ok, if you really do not believe that the US is the world leader in military spending by a gigantic margin, please provide a source that proves otherwise. A reputable one, mind you. Not one from a person who wears a tinfoil hat and uses clothing made out of twigs to fool the dangerous conspiracy predator drones...

They've already performed those costs, and they've lived up to all their other promises. It's unreasonable and overly-cynical to not believe their costs.

I am not yet convinced. Neither are others.

SpaceX costs started out much lower. They have risen from that point in the past, nothing stopping them from rising again (potentially).

Pork barrel because it's a government program...

Wrong. COTS is also a government program. It is not pork barrel.

I updated the earlier post with more precise information, which I also gave here. The capsule weight alone, discounting the service module, is many times heavier than dragon.

Well there you go. Presumably they want to stuff everything including the kitchen sink into the thing.

Not because it is a government program... but because that is obviously where they wanted to go with their design.

So?...

So, it will account for a lighter capsule for its internal volume. Don't you think that is a better explanation than "it's a government program"?

Also, Orion has twice the pressurised volume as Dragon. Interestingly it has roughly the same habitable volume. Presumably again because they want to stuff all sorts of things into it.

Except with NTR you'll give your crew cancer, assuming they live long enough to get it...

:facepalm:

:beathead:

You use shielding! Just like on pretty much any nuclear reactor, and on a whole lot of other things too. You only need to shield in one direction (more or less), so the shield can be only a shadow shield. And you can place the propellant tanks between the engines and the crew, for added shielding.

The "microwave rocket" I'm talking about isn't a MASER sail, it's the one that uses absorbed heat from a microwave emitter to warm hydrogen, it does have significant thrust, and it gets an ISP in the range of 7,000, IIRC.

Yeah, and it sounds like a really silly idea to me. The problems of NTR sound better.

Considering that for enough thrust to lift off from Earth, especially with an ISP as high as 7000 (which is very high), you will be talking many gigawatts of power. Probably over 100 gigawatts.

Focusing all that energy on the spacecraft requires a very difficult and dangerous... weapon system.

If you mean "significant thrust" as in "quite a bit of thrust but not nearly enough to launch from Earth", you will have to use this concept in space only, where you will have to transmit microwave energy over longer distances.

Which makes your problem even worse.

Of course I can't show you the unforeseen engineering they operate on. It's hasn't been made yet. In the same way that nobody in the public foresaw jet engines until B-17 gunners started reporting enemy aircraft with no propellers.

What you're saying is that there won't be any new technology. That is the extreme of cynicism and utterly absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to assume sooner or later new technology will change things. Always has, probably always will. Humans are smart critters, at least the engineers are, anyways.

Actually yes. I am saying that at some point there won't be any new technology. Now, I'm saying that within reason, but the very real fact of the matter is, there are only a few applications that can be used really well, and engineered, using physics. This is why we have some concepts that are very successful, and some concepts which are absolute nonsense and go nowhere (like your microwave WMD rocket).

Have you considered all the things that have not changed in their basic concept since the 1940s? The rocket engine is one of those things.

The rocket engine has improved, but has not been supplanted by a magically better concept.

But my point is that it'll be worth it.

My point is that within what we know about reality, it isn't. That is no argument, that is no straw-man, that is just cold fact.

Trillions of dollars get spent because lots of people like to see buff guys tackle eachother and throw a piece of dead cow around.

Trillions? Really? Trillions?

:uhh:

But that's only a booster to the main argument, which is what I stated earlier, that it inspires people. Even if that didn't have any economic returns, which it greatly does, then that still would be reason enough to keep flying people into space. Timmy wants a reason to go to college and hammer his head through 4 years of textbooks and professors.

Really? Where are these economic returns? Are they from the pork politics that makes your space program a huge disappointment, or from the gold that you plan to mine on Mars, in the most economically unviable venture in all of human history?

Do you want to spend trillions of dollars on "inspiring" people? What is that even supposed to mean? Don't you think we should be aiming for things that are a little more tangible, real, and useful, than "inspiration"?

I've got perfect inspiration for Timmy: go to college, and hammer your head through 4 years of lectures and textbooks, so you can get some job, that can allow you to support your wife, and your kids, and your parents, some day in the future. :dry:

Even if this weren't true, then what about the national prestiege?

But I thought you were arguing that Space Gaddafi was a very bad person and should be escaped at all costs?

Also, if national prestige was a very important thing (which it is, btw), why hasn't the US colonised Mars yet? Or gone back to the Moon? Why hasn't Russia done anything of that sort?

Even if those aren't true, what about all the technical jobs that are created?

Again, I really have to bring up the painful starbucks comment...

Even if those weren't true, what about the benefits that exploration has had on mankind throughout history? Going off a historical basis, and the course of human history, it's well worth it. Nobody knows legislature or the major peace treaties signed in 1782, but at least here in America we know that "Columbus sailed the ocean blue"?

Except the whole case was entirely different, which is what I've tried to illustrate. Just because Columbus sailed on some ship, doesn't mean that 500 years down the line, space colonisation would have been any sort of good idea. It can not be equated. It is just so physically different.

Even if all those aren't true, what about all the boost to economy that comes with more educated people?

There are plenty of cheaper ways to educate people and boost the economy.

Both parts. Compared to every other Federal program, in any nation you can name, space exploration gets less than 1%, about. 5% Is absurdly enormous, according to you. So how the heck is it expensive? It's peanuts.

Peanuts compared to the useful stuff. Absurdly enormous for itself.

And the relatively useless part - I've been nailing with every post.

With the microwave WMD rocket and insistance that spaceflight, instead of fixing real problems, will help places like Africa become developed nations? :shifty:

Take a look here:
1492 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of all the things that happened, of the hundreds of thousands of people effected by major events, which event on that page is most significant to the history of western civilization? I assure you it's not the big events that people at the time thought were significant - not the sort of things you've been saying are more important. That's not what effects the course of human civilization.

I don't care about 1492 here. I care about 1969. We're not talking about the Americas. We're talking about space. They are two radically different things.

After over 40 years, and aside from maybe a little bit of national prestige to a superpower a long time ago, the fact that humans have walked on the surface of the Moon makes absolutely no difference to my life. And it makes absolutely no difference to the lives of so many other people.

I have explained why your 'colonisation of the Americas' comparison does not make sense. I have explained why the science and the physics makes it so. It is a quaint scenario for a sci-fi story, but nothing more.

The original visions of the science fiction authors and soforth have failed. And why have they failed? Because of the high costs of spaceflight, maybe. But also because there has been no motivation to do all of those science fiction things. And because of that, there has been no demand for low launch costs, or whatnot. And thus even less impetus to go to space. It is a vicious circle that starts out with the fact that space is an extremely poor environment.

People don't move towards poor environments. Especially when they are very poor environments compared to the environment that they are currently situated in.

I'm just apalled at how someone who uses a spaceflight forum says it's "relitivley useless".

Yes, I do. Why is that so odd for you? Seriously, it may be useful in some cases, for some people, but it is a pretty minor, irrelevant thing in a lot of other cases. This does not necessarily degrade its importance.

You know I'm a Physical Therapist by trade and you guys are in for some bad ass Carpal Tunnel if you don't give it up !

Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow...

 

[Tex]

I think we all got our points across. Let's all agree to disagree shall we? Hmm? Pretty please?? Here, I'll even throw a cherry on top!