View Full Version : Going to the moon in 2024
Pretty disappointed in all the space dorks on here. Is anyone excited? Not sure which source to post. Doesn't matter, it will be all we hear about for the next week.
https://www.space.com/2024-moon-landing-achievable-nas-chief.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM
Why the hell we are wasting money and time on this again is beyond me.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2019, 21:36
I'm all for it. The Apollo era was a time of greatness and achievement of this country. Bout damn time we got back to that.
They are going to make a space station on the moon.
I've been having fun responding to dumb stuff people are saying on Twitter.
I'd rather they sent robonauts to the moon and had them build the infrastructure. That's likely the path forward for interplanetary manned missions.
ChickNorris
05-14-2019, 22:25
Robonauts!
theGinsue
05-14-2019, 23:01
Why the hell we are wasting money and time on this again is beyond me.
I'm all for it. The Apollo era was a time of greatness and achievement of this country. Bout damn time we got back to that.
Carl's response somewhat answers your question.
The technological achievements/breakthroughs achieved from the space program, and our moon landings in particular, transferred to other industries such as medical, automotive, military, computers, etc. Just being able to have a mobile phone or a home computer are due in large part to the technology developed for NASA.
It's been said that what we have lost the knowledge we used to originally make moon landings and to get ourselves back to the moon we have to re-learn what's required. In doing so, we can expect further technological leaps and bounds which we can expect to benefit other industries once again. While many may not care specifically about returning to the moon, we can all expect to benefit from what we learn through the process.
An added bonus is a result of excitement for this sort of achievement which initiates greatness from others. It gets people thinking of new and better ways to do things - even things far removed from the space industry. It can be an amazing motivational tool to spur bright minds into action.
Now, as far as establishing an outpost/space station on the moon, I don't see that happening within our life time. With the retirement of the shuttle program the only way we have of getting the required infrastructure to the moons surface is through "heavy" booster rockets which really don't carry enough cargo without having to launch hundreds or thousands of rockets. That takes lots of time and money. I just don't see it happening.
How am I supposed to become the moon's first solar salesperson then?
Why the hell we are wasting money and time on this again is beyond me.
We've fucked this planet up, if we want to survive another couple hundred years, we'll need to expand and ruin some others.
How am I supposed to become the moon's first solar salesperson then?
I sure hope your market area isn't on the dark side.
Robonauts!
http://youtu.be/IvWvQCYl_FE
Great-Kazoo
05-15-2019, 07:52
How am I supposed to become the moon's first solar salesperson then?
Perseverance and a very good sales pitch
I'd start by selling ice to eskimos. It's an already over saturated market, but you'll cut your teeth there. Plus it's easier to get home if you fail than being on the moon.
BushMasterBoy
05-15-2019, 08:39
I'd be happy if they had a high speed train from Pueblo to Colorado Springs and Denver. The drive is a bit nerve wracking.
I think we should do more deep sea exploration We know very little about our own planet.
It bugs the ever loving crap out of me when I hear the phrase "We know more about the moon than we do about our oceans." I don't understand what that means?
If we listed all the things we know about our seas, and all the things we know about the moon, I'm confident that the list of things we know about the seas would be far, far longer. Anyone help me out with that?
For one, we don't have to launch anything to the ocean floor. We just drop it. Two, there is a vast unexplored swath of the planet which might have some answers to questions or problems. Three, the potential for underwater dwelling has a lot of the same obstacles as other planets, so the ability to solve those problems "locally" before attempting elsewhere seems wise.
I don't accept the arguments of "We should do ______ instead." Why can't we do both?
Martinjmpr
05-15-2019, 09:31
I'm old enough to remember the excitement about the first Apollo missions, so I think this is a good thing. However where Apollo was a "let's do it to see if we can do it" type mission, I would hope a future mission would be more focused on what we can achieve that would benefit us in the future, too. Things like mining rare materials like Helium 3 that could potentially be used for energy production, other rare or esoteric materials that have potential to replace some of the minerals we use on earth, etc.
I don't accept the arguments of "We should do ______ instead." Why can't we do both?
*shrug*
Personally, I don't think .gov should be involved in any of it and it should be left to private industry. But if "necessary", I don't see the problem with proofing concepts locally before moving on to other avenues of approach.
I'm not saying I disagree with exploring the oceans. Not at all. Also, I should clarify, you didn't say we should do that instead. One of the responses I saw on Twitter was "What about spending all those millions of dollars on cancer research?" Why not do both? I don't get it.
I'm super excited about the proposal for a manned return to the moon, and there are arguably a lot of really good reasons for doing so ranging from doing basic science, to market development, to national defense.
If we're ever going to look at spreading beyond Earth to other places like Mars, Ceres, the belt, or Bezos' proposed O'Neill colonies, then we will absolutely need to do a lot of basic learning, and the moon is the best place for doing so and it's imperative to establish the infrastructure for doing so.
Carl's response somewhat answers your question.
The technological achievements/breakthroughs achieved from the space program, and our moon landings in particular, transferred to other industries such as medical, automotive, military, computers, etc. Just being able to have a mobile phone or a home computer are due in large part to the technology developed for NASA.
It's been said that what we have lost the knowledge we used to originally make moon landings and to get ourselves back to the moon we have to re-learn what's required. In doing so, we can expect further technological leaps and bounds which we can expect to benefit other industries once again. While many may not care specifically about returning to the moon, we can all expect to benefit from what we learn through the process.
An added bonus is a result of excitement for this sort of achievement which initiates greatness from others. It gets people thinking of new and better ways to do things - even things far removed from the space industry. It can be an amazing motivational tool to spur bright minds into action.
Now, as far as establishing an outpost/space station on the moon, I don't see that happening within our life time. With the retirement of the shuttle program the only way we have of getting the required infrastructure to the moons surface is through "heavy" booster rockets which really don't carry enough cargo without having to launch hundreds or thousands of rockets. That takes lots of time and money. I just don't see it happening.
NASA has been developing such a heavy lift vehicle for the better part of a decade. It's called the Space Launch System, and it's tremendously huge, capable of putting a lot of mass into space destined for the moon, and, being based on shuttle booster technology, also needlessly complex, horrendously expensive, and a one-time-use disposable solution.
In other words, it's a complete goddamned boondoggle, but there it is.
In the offing, however, SpaceX is currently building not one, but 3*! prototypes for testing their super-heavy Starship launch system, having just conducted the first hot-fire, tethered test of the Raptor engine on a non-orbital hopper prototype a couple of weeks ago. If things go as planned, SpaceX is going to be launching absolutely mind-boggling amounts of mass into space at Walmart-level costs.
Jeff Bezos also just recently unveiled that they've been working on a lunar lander for the last 3 years, and it's designed to mate up with their proposed heavy-lift New Glenn launch vehicle.
Suffice it to say, I think SLS is going to fly a couple of times, but for regular flights to the moon, there's no reason why Falcon Heavy can't be utilized for payloads smaller than Orion, and once Starship comes online, assuming it's a success, SLS will be shown to be nothing more than a shambling zombie.
*Including two orbital prototypes, and a non-orbital "hopper" for testing.
I think we should do more deep sea exploration We know very little about our own planet.
I agree. Most of this planet is covered by water and the depths are very difficult to explore.
Why not do both? I don't get it.
$
James Cameron already went to the bottom of the ocean.
There's nothing there, and even if there were any resources worth exploiting, I guarantee you that any development would be put to a halt on environmental conservation grounds.
$
Well of course, but there is no single issue that outweighs everything else. Cancer isn't the only thing.
So we just muck up space instead? (well, we already are with all the trash circling our planet, but I digress)
I assume you're joking, but a trillion humans operating all over the solar system wouldn't even have a noticeable impact on any sort of rational scale of measurement.
I dunno man. An insignificant number of Spaniards unintentionally wiped out huge civilizations by breathing on them. We don't know what we don't know. And presently, we know very little about human impacts on other environments having no real good data or awareness of them aside from speculation.
I find it to be a certainly risible level of hubris to think that the very species which has mucked it up (well, supposedly), through the same motivating factors as those which motivate the current drive to explore space (read: profit -- altruism in the main players is a myth), shall accomplish a different result (if the present's result is to truly be believed as anthropomorphic).
There are no natives on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system, dude.
Any reasonable expectation of having humans exist as a long-term species will absolutely require that we become multi-planetary.
Anything else is just sitting around waiting for The Great Filter.
I dunno man. An insignificant number of Spaniards unintentionally wiped out huge civilizations by breathing on them. We don't know what we don't know. And presently, we know very little about human impacts on other environments having no real good data or awareness of them aside from speculation.
I find it to be a certainly risible level of hubris to think that the very species which has mucked it up (well, supposedly), through the same motivating factors as those which motivate the current drive to explore space (read: profit -- altruism in the main players is a myth), shall accomplish a different result (if the present's result is to truly be believed as anthropomorphic).
Your desire to forge forward into the last bastion of stuff we can f' up on our own planet doesn't follow circular logic.
I've been sitting on this idea that land on the planet has value beyond the economic value of its potential resources. If tech can be developed to collect resources from sources beyond our planet, then that should be pursued. I think there have been efforts to land on comets. Targeting comets with the closest likely impact path with the Earth could be a good idea. Bringing minerals from comets on a ship seems better than receiving those same materials in the form of a meteor strike.
There are no natives on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system, dude.
Any reasonable expectation of having humans exist as a long-term species will absolutely require that we become multi-planetary.
Anything else is just sitting around waiting for The Great Filter.
We don't know what exists. The point isn't natives or not, it's that we don't know what we don't know. So to say we can't screw things up is ridiculous. We absolutely can, and we have an amazing track record of doing so as a species.
Why should humans exist as a long term species?
Your desire to forge forward into the last bastion of stuff we can f' up on our own planet doesn't follow circular logic.
I believe we should stop exploring out and start exploring in. For only then can we appreciate that which is without.
Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?
I believe we should stop exploring out and start exploring in. For only then can we appreciate that which is without.
Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?
I got one sentence into your response before I started eating mushrooms.
We don't know what exists. The point isn't natives or not, it's that we don't know what we don't know. So to say we can't screw things up is ridiculous. We absolutely can, and we have an amazing track record of doing so as a species.
Why should humans exist as a long term species?
I'm sorry, I can't wrap my head around your point of view.
All I hear is "don't get off of the bed, there might be a monster under there that'll grab you and eat you!"
I believe we should stop exploring out and start exploring in. For only then can we appreciate that which is without.
Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?
Is that more, or less interesting than watching the live stream of a rocket the height of a 30 story building get pushed into orbit by an array of engines pushing over 3 million lb/f of thrust, only to have the boosters separate and execute a perfect landing?
Aloha_Shooter
05-15-2019, 14:48
Sorry, too busy working real space issues to read articles from some pundit. Suffice it to say I've been pushing for a return to the Moon for over 35 years. We need to get Humanity outside the fragile egg basket of the Earth and the best way to do that is start with permanent presence on a celestial body that is days away instead of months. We will learn incredible amounts about medicine, recycling, energy production, materials engineering, etc. on this venture, all of which can be used Earthside and any of which will have a greater payback for society than all the Great Society and Obamascare programs put together.
Sorry, too busy working real space issues to read articles from some pundit.
Or even the first post apparently.
wctriumph
05-15-2019, 15:18
Well, it will be expensive, take longer than expected, and parts will need to be made in all 50 states to satisfy the congress. I see corruption up the butt from this because the government (congress) will be involved and everyone will want their share, be it bribes or insider trading.
But, I think we should go anyway.
Sorry, too busy working real space issues to read articles from some pundit. Suffice it to say I've been pushing for a return to the Moon for over 35 years. We need to get Humanity outside the fragile egg basket of the Earth and the best way to do that is start with permanent presence on a celestial body that is days away instead of months. We will learn incredible amounts about medicine, recycling, energy production, materials engineering, etc. on this venture, all of which can be used Earthside and any of which will have a greater payback for society than all the Great Society and Obamascare programs put together.
Agree completely. Bootstrapping functional space infrastructure, much like building air strips or the interstate highway system, is the sort of resource intensive thing that can really only be undertaken by a nation state. Once done, though, it will absolutely pave the way for all sorts of advancements in everything from manufacturing to mining to medicine.
I expect that Bezos and Musk, along with a few others know this, and they're gunning for the possiblity of becoming trillionaires.
Well of course, but there is no single issue that outweighs everything else. Cancer isn't the only thing.
-potentially not, unless you are dying of it. suffice to say, going to the moon, again, isn't making anyone's latte cheaper or easing anyone's morning commute. I get it, you want to see a rocket blast off, headed for the moon. The reality is that it costs a metric-@#$%-ton of money to go to a place that is a barren rock, with bragging rights to say "lookie here, we went, -again".
I guess I just don't understand why people offer that type of input in the first place. Pick any category you want and people can say, "that money could be spent on cancer or feeding the hungry." Of course it can, but it's already not, and the reality is that it won't be anyway. So why not do both things. Not everyone in the world can be focused on the same issues, not sure they be.
-potentially not, unless you are dying of it. suffice to say, going to the moon, again, isn't making anyone's latte cheaper or easing anyone's morning commute. I get it, you want to see a rocket blast off, headed for the moon. The reality is that it costs a metric-@#$%-ton of money to go to a place that is a barren rock, with bragging rights to say "lookie here, we went, -again".
The implications go far beyond watching a launch, even though launches are fundamentally cool.
The ultimate implication in manned space exploration is as a way to lay the fundamental groundwork to stave off the extinction of the human race.
And, ultimately, Artemis isn't (or shouldn't) be about recreating a stunt where we go and pick up a couple rocks and do a few basic experiments, but about establishing the fundamental infrastructure where long-term experiments and business concepts can be conducted that will pave the way for eventually moving on to doing manned missions and business development in other locations like Mars and Ceres. The initial concept here should be more about establishing a facility similar to McMurdo rather than just doing a flags 'n' footprints stunt. As an example, the amount of useful science that's been done on the ISS has been utterly tremendous, and that's with a facility that's rapidly aging and can only support six astronauts at any given time. A lunar facility capable of supporting two or three times that number of astronauts for a few months at a time would very, very likely pay incredible scientific dividends.
There are also national security issues as well. The Chinese have already successfully landed two lunar rovers, and are rapidly bootstrapping the technology needed to execute a manned mission, and my understanding is they're also planning on implementing a manned facility as well, most likely at the lunar south pole where ample supplies of light and water are available.
RblDiver
05-16-2019, 16:14
So, this is a video made for a video game, but even so, the sentiments inside are legit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olxI7X7eac8
"In our distant past, it was the province of governments to explore and understand space. A simple launch took resources and money beyond the capacity of even the largest companies. But then RSI introduced the Zeus, and suddenly regular people were able to explore our solar system, allowing an unprecedented amount of knowledge to be discovered. ...But once that technology was refined and opened to the public, what happened? That's right, an era of expansion that led us from [two dots] to [much larger quantity of dots]. ...Whenever innovation has put technology in the hands of the people, it has heralded sweeping discoveries, because power in the hands of many will always exceed the power of few."
So, yesterday the $1.6 Billion proposal was shot down, but today this news showed up:
https://www.space.com/nasa-private-moon-landers-funding-artemis.html
The space agency is granting a total of $45.5 million to 11 U.S. companies, including Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, to help them develop spacecraft that can get astronauts to the lunar surface. NASA aims to achieve this goal by 2024, as part of its ambitious Artemis program.
The money will be awarded via NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program. Each company must contribute at least 20% of its total project costs, agency officials said.
SideShow Bob
05-19-2019, 17:59
And to think that in the late 60’s we put men on the moon in a spacecraft that had less computing power than a digital watch has today.
Talk about big balls......
Gcompact30
05-19-2019, 20:05
If we already been, why we need to go back. Just saying.....
SideShow Bob
05-19-2019, 20:12
For a staging area for a trip to Mars.
If we already been, why we need to go back. Just saying.....
It's not a theme restaurant.
Bailey Guns
05-19-2019, 20:37
If we already been, why we need to go back. Just saying.....
That's actually been answered pretty well a couple of times in this thread.
A notional architecture of what lunar missions from now to 2024 and out to 2028 has been released.
They're planning to use a lot of Commercial Launch Vehicles.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost
Space X is now suing the US gov, apparently. Wonder if it has anything to do with this. Sorry if that's old news, I just saw a headline in my news feed today.
No, the SpaceX suit has nothing to do with this. It has something to do with a government agency contract for launch services being given to LockMart, but the news is super sparse as the information in the suit has not been released.
This architecture is notional at this point, and I see much of this as a "put up or shut up" moment for SLS.
If Starship works and the costs are what Musk claims, I expect that manned lunar exploration and exploitation of resources becomes much more likely.
Thanks for the explanation.
Even assuming that they end up having to use all of the SLS launches shown in the notional architecture, all of those other launches would probably be the sort of thing that SpaceX would pursue using Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.
The implications go far beyond watching a launch, even though launches are fundamentally cool.
The ultimate implication in manned space exploration is as a way to lay the fundamental groundwork to stave off the extinction of the human race.
And, ultimately, Artemis isn't (or shouldn't) be about recreating a stunt where we go and pick up a couple rocks and do a few basic experiments, but about establishing the fundamental infrastructure where long-term experiments and business concepts can be conducted that will pave the way for eventually moving on to doing manned missions and business development in other locations like Mars and Ceres. The initial concept here should be more about establishing a facility similar to McMurdo rather than just doing a flags 'n' footprints stunt. As an example, the amount of useful science that's been done on the ISS has been utterly tremendous, and that's with a facility that's rapidly aging and can only support six astronauts at any given time. A lunar facility capable of supporting two or three times that number of astronauts for a few months at a time would very, very likely pay incredible scientific dividends.
There are also national security issues as well. The Chinese have already successfully landed two lunar rovers, and are rapidly bootstrapping the technology needed to execute a manned mission, and my understanding is they're also planning on implementing a manned facility as well, most likely at the lunar south pole where ample supplies of light and water are available.
So, I looked it up
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth
There is not a single item on this "NASA Top 15" page that required the ISS for its "discovery."
I see the manned space program as another govt taxpayer money spigot for the wealthy companies involved.
Man will never set foot on Mars. Our govt will spend gazillions toward making it happen, but it will never happen.
The real world does not operate like Star Treck and Star Wars and whatever other Hollywood portrayal has in mind. Unless you count the "moon landing" [Coffee]
So, I looked it up
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth
There is not a single item on this "NASA Top 15" page that required the ISS for its "discovery."
Couldn't you make the same argument for every bit of technology invented during wartime?
Couldn't you make the same argument for every bit of technology invented during wartime?
1) You responded way to fast to have even looked at the link.
2) Your question is irrelevant to the current thread.
3) It often pains me to try to understand where you're coming from and what you're trying to say, but I am sometimes amused by your responses so I continue to read them. For now.
So, I looked it up
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth
There is not a single item on this "NASA Top 15" page that required the ISS for its "discovery."
I see the manned space program as another govt taxpayer money spigot for the wealthy companies involved.
Man will never set foot on Mars. Our govt will spend gazillions toward making it happen, but it will never happen.
The real world does not operate like Star Treck and Star Wars and whatever other Hollywood portrayal has in mind. Unless you count the "moon landing" [Coffee]
That's some pretty weak sauce.
Here's a link to a PDF that covers the science learned from the ISS covering 2000-2008.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029998.pdf
It's 262 pages long.
Also, here's an alphabetical list of ISS experiments as well:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html
Should make for some light reading.
I'd be curious to know what your plans would be for conducting these sorts of experiments sans ISS. What would you propose, launching a new, unmanned, purpose-built space vehicle for every single experiment?
1) You responded way to fast to have even looked at the link.
2) Your question is irrelevant to the current thread.
3) It often pains me to try to understand where you're coming from and what you're trying to say, but I am sometimes amused by your responses so I continue to read them. For now.
I've taken the time to read the link. It changes nothing about my response. My point is that anyone can say that any of those projects could have been worked on without the space station, just like all the sides in technology during wartime (both hot and cold) could have been developed during piece time. But would they have been worked on with the same intensity during peace time, probably not. It's just a weak argument to try and frame the existence of NASA as a waste because everything we learned could have been learned in other ways. Could of sure, but weren't, and ultimately we're better off for it.
People who go out of their way to not read things they don't want to hear, or don't understand are weak minded cowards. Threatening to be a coward is no threat at all. Kudos for responding as long as you have so far I guess.
I apologize for having made you feel threatened by my post.
I understand very little written or spoken French, so it usually becomes a waste of my time to try to figure it out when encountered - I move on. Not for fear of hearing or reading something I don't agree with, but attempting to converse in French is frustrating for me.
Guess that makes me a big-ole "weak minded coward" - which is a perfect example of I don't know what the hell kind of logic is happening here.
There is a growing group of people who don't like my posts that would welcome you with open arms I'm sure; but even they don't make a big deal about it. Take note and try to keep threads on topic. This one is about NASA and returning to the Moon.
There is a growing group of people who don't like my posts that would welcome you with open arms I'm sure; but even they don't make a big deal about it. Take note and try to keep threads on topic. This one is about NASA and returning to the Moon.
Oh, yes sir, certainly sir.
Again, my apologies for posting in your personal pontificating space here on the WWW.
Much the same argument for folly in wanting to colonize our moon.
https://futurism.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-humans-colonize-mars
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a great example of a smart man who became famous and his head was suddenly sucked into his own rectum as a result.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a great example of a smart man who became famous and his head was suddenly sucked into his own rectum as a result.
Happens to many people who are praised as experts on a particular topic. They start thinking that everything they say about every topic is true.
I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years? . Ever since, I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions.
? Wilbur Wright, in a speech to the Aero Club of France, 5 November 1908.
Here is an entire website of erroneous predictions: https://foresight.org/news/negativeComments.php
Much the same argument for folly in wanting to colonize our moon.
https://futurism.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-humans-colonize-mars
Neil Degrasse Tyson should stick to nitpicking movies on Twitter and let the real engineers get shit done.
Never been a fan of the man personally, but that does not mean his argument against colonizing Mars is not sound.
An interesting example of research being done on the ISS that couldn't be done on Earth, but could have some significant implications for people who need replacement organs:
https://www.wdrb.com/news/wdrb-video/southern-indiana-scientists-helping-nasa-grow-human-organs-in-outer/video_3ed1e03c-5a56-53b7-a999-a7382035e927.html
Never been a fan of the man personally, but that does not mean his argument against colonizing Mars is not sound.
His arguments are easily countered, also, Futurism is known as a clickbait site.
His reasoning is simple: Mars is entirely inhospitable to life as we know it.
Oh, I bet that's a newsflash to all of the people who've got an interest in Mars.
First of all, that means no one will want to live there. Humans generally like to live in places that aren’t quite so, well, deadly. “We’d rather stay where it is warm and comfortable,” he said.
Plenty of people go to all kinds of inhospitable places on Earth, from the Arctic circle to Mcmurdo. Many people will voluntarily endure living in awful places if it suits their interests, be they financial, scientific, or other.
This simple reasoning explains why we don’t find populated cities dotting the landscapes at Earth’s poles. Antarctica is both warmer and wetter than any place on Mars, and we don’t exactly see people lined up to live in the Arctic tundra.
There are no cities at the North Pole because it's just ice floating on water, which makes for a poor base to build permanent structures.
There are no cities at the South Pole because anything other than scientific research stations is banned by international treaty.
We won’t see cities flourishing on Mars for the same reason, Tyson says. Like the icy recesses of our own planet, Tyson says that some humans will venture to Mars for short visits, but they won’t remain for long. “Definitely, we’ll visit as a vacation spot. [But] I’m skeptical that you’ll find legions of people that will go there and want to stay,” he said.
Maybe, maybe not, but the biggest impediment to going to Mars, or The Moon isn't the inhospitable environment, but the lack of infrastructure that allows any sort of visitation at all. Being able to test his thesis becomes much easier when it costs $150/kg to lob something out of Earth's gravity well instead of $10,000/kg.
The Red Planet has a notoriously thin atmosphere and no global magnetic field. As a result, deadly cosmic rays and UV radiation shower the Martian surface, transforming the soil into a “toxic cocktail” of chemicals and causing temperatures to plunge to minus 62 degrees Celsius (minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit).
Theoretically a problem that's solvable via the construction of habitats that use the most abundant materials found on Mars to construct a habitat, namely the dirt.
To survive under these deadly conditions, humans would require “an entire infrastructure in which you live that mimics Earth,”
You don't say. Interestingly enough, there's currently an orbiting space station that has almost 20 years worth of constructing an infrastructure that mimics Earth, and in an environment more harsh than Mars or The Moon; it's called the International Space Station.
and that’s pretty much impossible to create on a global scale. Instead of setting our sights on generations of humans living on Mars, Tyson says we should hope for “just an Earth outpost” at best.
The one thing here that is actually reasonable, but only because it seems that NDT is arguing against colonizing Mars on the same level of Earth today, which is patently absurd. Even the most ardent Mars optimists don't see a Martian colony being larger than a million people within a century. I guess it's easy to be right if you bound your predictions to a ridiculous scale.
So, will anyone actually colonize Mars? Tyson isn’t optimistic. “My read of history tells me, no. Not because I don’t want it to be so. I’m just a realist about this.”
What read of history? Humans have been successfully colonizing new places since before the dawn of recorded history. This entire sentence sounds like bullshit.
To those at the helms of SpaceX, Mars One, and NASA, going to Mars probably doesn’t seem delusional. It just requires more preparation. But if colonizing Mars isn’t possible because of humans’ biology, well, maybe they will have to reassess after all.
All of the issues surrounding survival in other locations in the solar system are purely engineering problems, many of which have already been solved Earth side. The issue for getting offworld is going to be in properly architecting systems for existence off world and instantiating the systems and facilities that allow those designs to be rigorously tested and implemented under an acceptable risk profile.
Like I said, NDT should stick to tweeting about movies.
An interesting example of research being done on the ISS that couldn't be done on Earth, but could have some significant implications for people who need replacement organs:
https://www.wdrb.com/news/wdrb-video/southern-indiana-scientists-helping-nasa-grow-human-organs-in-outer/video_3ed1e03c-5a56-53b7-a999-a7382035e927.html
Yup, another Govt grant EXPERIMENT that, if all goes well, "may" be viable in a decade. Yes, it can be done on Earth.
This company, Techshot Inc., appears to exist to take taxpayer money: https://govtribe.com/vendors/techshot-inc-dot-1d0e2
Evidently you didn't watch the video. They plainly stated that the organ materials they're printing would be too fragile to generate on Earth, and the best way to do the work is in a microgravity environment.
Also, yes, Techshot is a company that does research science work in the aerospace sector, building systems that allow experiments to take place in space. As of right now, the only infrastructure that exists for doing such experiments are all controlled by government entities because the only organizations currently capable of doing significant work in space are all nation state-level actors, so yes, they contract with NASA.
It turns out that the US government sinks a lot of money into basic science research, and this arguably has helped to make the US the greatest nation on Earth.
Evidently you didn't watch the video. They plainly stated that the organ materials they're printing would be too fragile to generate on Earth, and the best way to do the work is in a microgravity environment.
Evidently I did, which is why I quoted the decade timeline.
Yes, the "material they're printing" would be too fragile. No reason they could not (and currently are) print with a material that would not collapse on Earth, or use a different method on Earth that supports the fragile structure without relying on micro-gravity.
But no, they applied and were granted a ton of cash to run their little space man experiments to help justify the ton of cash wasted on the ISS already.
His arguments are easily countered, also, Futurism is known as a clickbait site.
Oh, I bet that's a newsflash to all of the people who've got an interest in Mars.
Plenty of people go to all kinds of inhospitable places on Earth, from the Arctic circle to Mcmurdo. Many people will voluntarily endure living in awful places if it suits their interests, be they financial, scientific, or other.
There are no cities at the North Pole because it's just ice floating on water, which makes for a poor base to build permanent structures.
There are no cities at the South Pole because anything other than scientific research stations is banned by international treaty.
Maybe, maybe not, but the biggest impediment to going to Mars, or The Moon isn't the inhospitable environment, but the lack of infrastructure that allows any sort of visitation at all. Being able to test his thesis becomes much easier when it costs $150/kg to lob something out of Earth's gravity well instead of $10,000/kg.
Theoretically a problem that's solvable via the construction of habitats that use the most abundant materials found on Mars to construct a habitat, namely the dirt.
You don't say. Interestingly enough, there's currently an orbiting space station that has almost 20 years worth of constructing an infrastructure that mimics Earth, and in an environment more harsh than Mars or The Moon; it's called the International Space Station.
The one thing here that is actually reasonable, but only because it seems that NDT is arguing against colonizing Mars on the same level of Earth today, which is patently absurd. Even the most ardent Mars optimists don't see a Martian colony being larger than a million people within a century. I guess it's easy to be right if you bound your predictions to a ridiculous scale.
What read of history? Humans have been successfully colonizing new places since before the dawn of recorded history. This entire sentence sounds like bullshit.
All of the issues surrounding survival in other locations in the solar system are purely engineering problems, many of which have already been solved Earth side. The issue for getting offworld is going to be in properly architecting systems for existence off world and instantiating the systems and facilities that allow those designs to be rigorously tested and implemented under an acceptable risk profile.
Like I said, NDT should stick to tweeting about movies.
Your counter arguments speak for themselves. [ROFL2]
Evidently I did, which is why I quoted the decade timeline.
Yes, the "material they're printing" would be too fragile. No reason they could not (and currently are) print with a material that would not collapse on Earth, or use a different method on Earth that supports the fragile structure without relying on micro-gravity.
But no, they applied and were granted a ton of cash to run their little space man experiments to help justify the ton of cash wasted on the ISS already.
Yeah, there's a long timeline between basic science research and something actually getting to market. That's life.
If your plan for printing biological material planet side is such a surefire deal, I look forward to seeing the link to your whitepaper that spells out your methodologies for doing so, as well as your experimental results.
Also your business plan for getting to market in less than ten years.
Your counter arguments speak for themselves. [ROFL2]
A truly convincing and thorough rebuttal if ever I saw one.
Justin, is anyone realistically working on a space elevator that you know of?
There's some super basic research being done on space elevators, but, last time I looked, it was still mostly material studies and a couple of super small experiments.
From what I've seen there are still a number of material and architectural breakthroughs needed to make a space elevator viable, and my gut feeling is that seeing one within the next 50 years is probably overly optimistic.
I think we're going to be stuck with chemical propulsion for the foreseeable future.
That's pretty much what I'd read, but I don't keep up on this stuff. Thanks.
I wouldn't be surprised if certain people started screaming about it being "racist, homophobic, islamophobic, or some other silly shit."
Here is the video they put on Twitter that prompted this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM
That's pretty much what I'd read, but I don't keep up on this stuff. Thanks.
No problem. I like the concepts for alternative launch systems and it would be great if some became viable.
My current favorite alternative system would be the proposal to use large, hydrogen-powered cannons, but those would have certain limitations even if they were built.
I wouldn't be surprised if certain people started screaming about it being "racist, homophobic, islamophobic, or some other silly shit."
The usual coterie of SJW losers have been concern trolling the New Space industry under the guise of criticizing economic inequality for awhile now.
As always, they're just on the hunt for an easy payday.
At least the primary focus of NASA is no longer "muslim outreach".
Bailey Guns
05-21-2019, 07:38
Just an interesting little local (to me) tid bit re: this topic:
https://lcvalley.dailyfly.com/Home/ArtMID/1352/ArticleID/52938/8th-Grader-Wins-NASA-Patch-Design-Competition
At least the primary focus of NASA is no longer "muslim outreach".
The primary focus of nasa is nasa.
RblDiver
05-21-2019, 10:29
Don't want to go through something written by the pompous NDT, but based on what Justin was quoting, one of the things that stuck in my craw was the whole "No one will want to live there" quote. Apparently he never heard of Mars One. Sadly, it seems to have crumbled, but the idea was that they would send a few people on a one-way trip to Mars to begin the process of setting things up, similar to the Pilgrims of old. They had a huge interest for just a few slots. There are lots of people, myself included, who would jump at the opportunity if presented.
I pretty much wrote Mars One off as soon as I looked at who was in charge and on their BOD, and they had basically no one with aerospace experience.
That said, you're right, the response to their call for volunteers was enormous, and I expect that any attempt to open up Mars to settlement will not lack for takers.
The primary focus of nasa is nasa.
Not under Obama it wasn't.
Looks like NASA is leaning forward on this.
They've pushing for development of a lunar lander, and, frankly, Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is probably the one to watch on this:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeks-a-rapid-launch-of-a-lunar-lander/
NASA has a vehicle from Project M (formerly Project Morpheus - vehicle came out of development from Armadillo Aerospace) that was intended to land on the moon.
http://youtu.be/ftPZsKeAZTY
Armadillo did some incredible work back in the day.
Aloha_Shooter
05-29-2019, 14:35
Or even the first post apparently.
I read the post which said you were disappointed in all the space dorks here. Being a self-ascribed "space dork", I replied I'm too busy working real space issues. Not sure what your issue is, most of the nonsense that I can see after quickly skimming through all the posts form the last 2 weeks seem to come from non-space dorks. I generally find space.com is the USA Today of space news. Occasionally some articles of interest but I can usually get those in more detail through other means. The National Space Society (previously the L5 Society and National Space Institute before they merged around 1987) has said for decades that we needed to drop launch costs from $5k/lb to $500/lb or less but that would be a game changer when it happened. So far, things seem to be holding to prediction.
I read the post which said you were disappointed in all the space dorks here. Being a self-ascribed "space dork", I replied I'm too busy working real space issues. Not sure what your issue is, most of the nonsense that I can see after quickly skimming through all the posts form the last 2 weeks seem to come from non-space dorks. I generally find space.com is the USA Today of space news. Occasionally some articles of interest but I can usually get those in more detail through other means. The National Space Society (previously the L5 Society and National Space Institute before they merged around 1987) has said for decades that we needed to drop launch costs from $5k/lb to $500/lb or less but that would be a game changer when it happened. So far, things seem to be holding to prediction.
When you used the word "pundit" it made it seem like I was trying to post something political, which I wasn't. Maybe that guy is an elected official and it makes sense. I don't know. My jab at the space dorks was just that, a jab, since I was honestly surprised that no one had posted yet. I'm glad you came to the thread since you have actual info to share.
Aloha_Shooter
05-29-2019, 21:23
So here's my take on returning to the Moon. YEah, we've been there but we've examined less than 5% (and I want to say it's less than 1%) of the samples the astronauts brought back but still pulled out amazing discoveries about the origin of the Solar System and composition of the universe. We gained back over $7 in productive contributions to technology and capabilities for every $1 spent on Apollo. Like your cordless power tools? Thank Apollo. Like your Tesla or Volt or Prius? Thank the space program. Like the firefighting and life support equipment available now like heat-resistant blankets and lightweight breathing systems? Thank the space program.
All told we sent 12 men to spend less than 155 hours on the surface of the moon, about 80 total hours of EVA. Just think of what we would get in terms of technology affecting life support, remote medical care, communications, remote operations, recyclable materials, etc. from having a permanent presence on the moon. We should have had that permanent presence in the 1980s, mid 1990s at the outside. That we didn't is directly attributable to Democrat social programs and Richard Nixon. During the Reagan-Mondale election, I told my Democrat classmates that if Mondale had his way, the Challenger astronauts would still be alive because Mondale would have killed the space program before Apollo 11 ever launched in order to spend the money on useless and never-ending social programs. (I love the HBO mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon"; there's a really great scene where Mondale is about to launch his attacks o NASA at a Congressional hearing on the Apollo 1 fire and gets cut off by the committee chair who then gives Frank Borman the opportunity to offer his opinion:
https://youtu.be/J_HZr2otkg4?t=24
Why not go straight to Mars? Because it's still exploration. When (not if) something goes wrong, Mars is months away needing very special transportation equipment and special training. When something goes wrong on the Moon, it's 3.5 days away, reachable (more or less) by rockets already in Chinese and American inventory. On Apollo 11, Armstrong and Aldrin were limited to mere hours of EVA by foot. By the time of Apollo 17, we had many hours more EVA time available, a lunar rover that dramatically extended the range Cernan and Schmitt could explore, and vastly improved photographic and scientific equipment. Just think of what we could have had with 5, 10, 20 more years of missions and accompanying technology development. The pace of technology development for Apollo equalled (if not exceeded) that of any war in our history -- and the challenges of war or exploration always spur the greatest technological development.
We will continue to learn about the mission as we carry it out so let's just get to the Moon in a safe repeatable way and establish a permanent continuous mission then upgrade the equipment along the way. The space program has given us microelectronics, battery technology, remote operations, life support equipment, fire prevention equipment, etc. The Internet since the dot bomb implosion has given us ... Facebook and Twitter. (Okay, I exaggerate a little but really, our current technologies are the intellectual equivalent of Rome's bread and circuses and silicon-aided masturbation.)
The Internet since the dot bomb implosion has given us ... Facebook and Twitter. (Okay, I exaggerate a little but really, our current technologies are the intellectual equivalent of Rome's bread and circuses and silicon-aided masturbation.)
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/socialmedia_grande.jpg
https://despair.com/products/social-media
https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-contracts-to-three-companies-to-land-payloads-on-the-moon/
NASA awards contracts to three companies to land payloads on the moon
by Jeff Foust — May 31, 2019
WASHINGTON — NASA announced May 31 the award of more than $250 million in contracts to three companies to deliver NASA payloads to the lunar surface by 2021.
The agency said it awarded contracts to Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines and OrbitBeyond to carry up to 23 payloads to the moon on three commercial lunar lander missions scheduled for launch between September 2020 and July 2021. The three companies were selected for these task orders from the nine companies that received Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) awards in November 2018.
“Today, NASA becomes a customer of commercial partners who will deliver our science instruments and our lunar technology to the surface of the moon,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in a recorded statement during an agency webcast about the announcement.
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-performs-first-test-of-be-7-lunar-lander-engine/
Looks like Blue Origin has conducted a successful test firing of the engines they plan to use on their lunar lander.
Glad to see things moving forward.
WASHINGTON — Blue Origin has performed the first hotfire test of the engine it plans to use on its Blue Moon lunar lander.
Company founder Jeff Bezos tweeted June 19 that the test of the BE-7 engine took place the previous day at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The 35-second test went as expected, he said. “Data looks great and hardware is in perfect condition,” he wrote in the post, which included a video of the test.
Things are hopping (HAHAHAHA) down in Boca Chica. There's been some testing activity today on the monster (non orbital) Starship Hopper testing rocket that SpaceX has been developing.
https://youtu.be/7ZSF-8j0z50
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-performs-first-test-of-be-7-lunar-lander-engine/
Looks like Blue Origin has conducted a successful test firing of the engines they plan to use on their lunar lander.
Glad to see things moving forward.
Interesting to see a green flame from a LOX+LH2 engine. I wonder what that was about?
Was that from the engine or was that just another part of the system venting?
I assume the engine firing is the one with all of the white smoke.
The flame from the engine becomes almost invisible. The spray below the engine is water.
Someone else asked the same question over on Twitter. This was the response;
First firing vaporizes some of the copper liner. Copper causes the green flame.
But it appears this is the correct answer;
But in this case, it’s the ignition fluid, TEA-TEB
http://youtu.be/Vr9btpMZICE
India just launched a mission that will put a vehicle in orbit around the moon, and a lander/rover combination on the south polar lunar surface.
https://spacenews.com/india-launches-chandrayaan-2-lunar-orbiter-and-lander-mission/
Super exciting.
Hausj?rvi, FINLAND — India successfully launched its Chandrayaan-2 orbiter and lunar surface spacecraft Monday, a week after the first launch attempt was scrubbed due to an issue with the launch vehicle.
A GSLV Mk 3 aunch vehicle lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota off the coast of the Bay of Bengal at 5:13 a.m. Eastern, with the event webcast live by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
The mission aims to place an orbiter in a 100- by 100-kilometer lunar polar orbit and carry out a soft landing near the south pole of the moon with a lander and rover. A successful touchdown would make India the fourth country to achieve a lunar landing after the U.S., the former Soviet Union and China.
Looks like NASA is looking to throw some cash at three companies to get development of a lunar lander underway.
https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plans-for-lunar-lander-development-through-commercial-partnerships/
WASHINGTON — As NASA celebrated the 50th anniversary of the first crewed landing on the moon, the agency released new details about how it will procure landers to enable humans to return to the moon in the 2020s.
NASA released July 19 a presolicitation notice for its Human Landing System Integrated Lander effort, part of the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program. The notice included a draft version of a broad agency announcement, with NASA requesting industry comments on it by Aug. 2.
The draft solicitation offers some new details on NASA’s approach to developing landers capable of carrying humans to the surface of the moon and back, and do so in time to meet the 2024 established by the White House earlier this year and reaffirmed by Vice President Mike Pence in a July 20 speech marking the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing.
Bailey Guns
07-22-2019, 13:38
Putting a manned lunar rover on the moon is sooo 1970s...
[Coffee]
Seriously, though... Is the (fairly) recent uptick in interest by various countries in launching moon missions fueled by the same reasons we did it in the 60s and 70s?
I would say that current lunar missions are largely driven by national desires for prestige, at least primarily for the non-American nations, e.g. China, India, and Israel. The two Chinese lunar rover missions were explicitly designed as part of an overall architecture with an eye to conducting unmanned sample return missions followed by manned lunar exploration.
However, there's still plenty of science to be done on the lunar surface, not the least of which would involve prospecting for in-situ resource utilization.
Ultimately, though, I think there are additional plans above and beyond what was accomplished with Apollo, not the least of which would be to set up permanent manned facilities to conduct additional research and experimentation. Being able to conduct off-world testing on the moon is seen as a stepping stone to eventual plans for exploring Mars.
Finally, there also seem to be a number of private corporations looking to hitch rides to the moon in order to explore possible business use cases.
Richard K
07-22-2019, 15:00
I can think of a number of better ways to spend 20 billion dollars!
I can think of a number of better ways to spend 20 billion dollars!
Yeah, Walter Mondale felt the same way about Apollo.
$20B is enough to run the entire US government...for about 4 hours and 42 minutes.
Aloha_Shooter
07-22-2019, 17:00
I can think of a number of better ways to spend 20 billion dollars!
Seeing that the space program has had a better than 7:1 return ratio (i.e., every dollar spent on space science and technology, including Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, has returned at least $7), I'd like to hear your ideas if they can result in more than $140B return -- and that's not including the fact that ROI in federal revenues is necessarily a fraction of what it means for the private economy.
Going to the Moon up through Apollo 17 meant developing whole new technologies in computing, battery technology, remote operations, survival gear, fire suppression, etc. Going to the Moon permanently will require advances in remote medicine, nutrition, agriculture, survival equipment, water reuse, sensing, autonomous operations, etc. Think any of that is going to improve your standard of living or the way you do business?
Yeah, Walter Mondale felt the same way about Apollo.
Yep, he could have wasted all that money on welfare and Medicare for all -- and just increased the demand and wastage. I told Democrats in the run-up to the 1984 elections that if Mondale had his way, the Challenger astronauts would still be alive and probably the Apollo 1 astronauts as well because Mondale would have shut down the space program in order to fund more urban decay and welfare fraud. I hope Mondale is having to argue daily with Grissom, Chaffee, White, Shepard, Glenn, Onizuka, Scobee, Kennedy, etc. over the worth of the space program and that Nixon is getting blowback for having shut Apollo down just when we were getting good at it.
We should have been at this a long time ago:
https://topshelfmovies.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2001-a-space-odyssey2.jpg
Bailey Guns
07-22-2019, 17:49
Going to the Moon up through Apollo 17 meant developing whole new technologies in computing, battery technology, remote operations, survival gear, fire suppression, etc. Going to the Moon permanently will require advances in remote medicine, nutrition, agriculture, survival equipment, water reuse, sensing, autonomous operations, etc.
And Tang. I learned about Tang thanks to the space program.
ChickNorris
07-22-2019, 17:57
https://youtu.be/TWghCdIqedA
Bailey Guns
07-22-2019, 18:11
"The trips are long."
I hate long Trips without Tang.
$20B is enough to run the entire US government...for about 4 hours and 42 minutes.
They're constantly trying to improve on lowering that time.
JohnnyDrama
07-22-2019, 22:31
Seeing that the space program has had a better than 7:1 return ratio (i.e., every dollar spent on space science and technology, including Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, has returned at least $7), I'd like to hear your ideas if they can result in more than $140B return -- and that's not including the fact that ROI in federal revenues is necessarily a fraction of what it means for the private economy.
Going to the Moon up through Apollo 17 meant developing whole new technologies in computing, battery technology, remote operations, survival gear, fire suppression, etc. Going to the Moon permanently will require advances in remote medicine, nutrition, agriculture, survival equipment, water reuse, sensing, autonomous operations, etc. Think any of that is going to improve your standard of living or the way you do business?
Yep, he could have wasted all that money on welfare and Medicare for all -- and just increased the demand and wastage. I told Democrats in the run-up to the 1984 elections that if Mondale had his way, the Challenger astronauts would still be alive and probably the Apollo 1 astronauts as well because Mondale would have shut down the space program in order to fund more urban decay and welfare fraud. I hope Mondale is having to argue daily with Grissom, Chaffee, White, Shepard, Glenn, Onizuka, Scobee, Kennedy, etc. over the worth of the space program and that Nixon is getting blowback for having shut Apollo down just when we were getting good at it.
We should have been at this a long time ago:
https://topshelfmovies.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2001-a-space-odyssey2.jpg
+1
WTF happened. When I was a kid, that was a sure deal.
And Tang. I learned about Tang thanks to the space program.
What about Space Food Sticks?
https://youtu.be/KPZ8HHRR1A0
Aloha_Shooter
07-23-2019, 11:10
https://www.foxnews.com/science/chris-kraft-nasa-flight-director-dead
Losing all the people that learned how to do it so we'll have to relearn a lot the hard way. The team at SpaceX has done a lot of amazing things and reenergized interest in space development but they also seem convinced there's nothing of value to learn from the past or from graybeards. [blaster]
[Salute] This man did as much as any of the astronauts to get us there and to make the trip worthwhile.
Bailey Guns
07-23-2019, 14:00
A lot of knowledge died with that man.
https://spacenews.com/administration-policies-seek-to-promote-use-of-space-nuclear-power/
Administration policies seek to promote use of space nuclear power
by Jeff Foust — August 22, 2019
CHANTILLY, Va. — A revised policy for approving the launch of spacecraft with nuclear power systems is the latest measure intended to support greater use of nuclear power systems in orbit and beyond.
The policy, formally issued by President Trump Aug. 20 to coincide with the latest public meeting of the National Space Council, updates guidelines for how both government and commercial spacecraft carrying space nuclear systems are reviewed and approved for launch.
The policy establishes a three-tier system for reviewing payloads carrying nuclear power systems, such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) or fission reactors, based on the amount of radioactive material on board and the probability of certain radiation exposure levels in the event of an accident.
Spacecraft that fall in the first two tiers will be approved by their sponsoring agency, although in some cases with a review by a new Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board that NASA is tasked to establish within 180 days. Those in the third tier require presidential authorization, which can be done through the National Security Council for national security missions or Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for other missions.
“Our primary objective here is to ensure that rigorous and effective nuclear safety analysis and reviews are conducted prior to the launch of any space nuclear system,” said Kelvin Droegemeier, director of OSTP, during comments at the National Space Council meeting at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center here. “To that end, we must provide clear guidelines to help mission planners and launch approval authorities ensure that launch safety is maintained.”
The policy, he continued, is also intended to promote a “positive safety analysis” and “forward-looking” authorization process that can take into announce new space nuclear systems.
Droegemeier said the policy was just one step in supporting greater use of space nuclear systems. “Moving forward, we must also focus on ensuring that we sustain the skills here in America and also develop the technologies needed to provide space nuclear systems that are ready to propel as well as power future American spacecraft,” he said.
While the policy doesn’t go into technology development and related issues, it does call on the Secretary of Transportation to develop in the next year guidance for private organizations proposing to launch a vehicle with a space nuclear system. That guidance would explain the licensing and review process for such systems.
However, there’s been little commercial interest in space nuclear power, given not just the regulatory challenges but also technical and cost issues. One startup, Denver-based Atomos Space, has proposed developing nuclear-powered space tugs for in-space transportation, although the company plans to start with solar electric systems and hasn’t specified when it will attempt to fly nuclear-powered systems.
There’s also been few applications of space nuclear power systems on government missions, at least in the unclassified realm. NASA does use RTGs on some missions, but infrequently due to both the cost and limited supplies of plutonium-238, the isotope used in RTGs. The only upcoming NASA missions formally approved for development that will use RTGs are the Mars 2020 rover mission and the recently selected Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan.
That could change in the next several years. NASA has been working with the Department of Energy on a small nuclear fission reactor called Kilopower that could be used on future moon and Mars missions. Congress has also increased funding for nuclear thermal propulsion work at NASA, including a provision in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill calling for a flight demonstration of a nuclear propulsion system by 2024.
During a panel discussion at the council meeting, Rex Geveden, president and chief executive of BWX Technologies and a former NASA associate administrator, backed the development of more ambitious space nuclear power systems, citing his company’s decades of experience with nuclear power systems, including NASA-funded nuclear thermal propulsion work.
“America has the nuclear technological capabilities right now to push the boundaries of human exploration at the moon and further on to Mars,” he said. “If we to fulfill the objectives of President Trump’s first space policy directive to establish a long-term presence on the moon and send the first crewed mission to Mars, nuclear power is arguably the most important technology to enable these bold national goals.”
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine endorsed greater use of nuclear power and propulsion technologies. “That is absolutely a game-changer,” he said of nuclear thermal propulsion. “That gives us the opportunity to, really, protect life” by limiting the cosmic radiation exposure astronauts would receive on long-duration flights, like transits to and from Mars.
Geveden told Bridenstine during a brief discussion at the meeting that space nuclear power could also be used in “a variety of national security applications,” such for remote bases or for directed energy weapons.
“That directed energy weapon, could that be used, for example, to protect the Earth from an asteroid?” Bridenstine asked.
“I think you could envision that,” Geveden responded, adding that such systems could also be used to remove orbital debris.
“I think, Mr. Vice President,” Bridenstine said to Vice President Mike Pence, “there’s an amazing opportunity here that the United States of America should take advantage of.”
This is an awesome move in the right direction for developing better space travel and making human presence on other planets and the moon more easily persistent.
What's a "Gemen-ee?"
Gemini was a 2 man space capsule, came after mercury and before Apollo.
https://spacenews.com/commercial-lunar-lander-companies-update-mission-plans/
Commercial lunar lander companies update mission plans
by Jeff Foust — August 22, 2019
WASHINGTON — Days after Astrobotic announced its selection of United Launch Alliance to launch its first lunar lander, Japanese lunar lander company ispace says it is modifying its schedule for commercial lunar lander missions.
Tokyo-based ispace said Aug. 22 that it is dropping plans to do an initial orbital mission, which was to launch in 2020 as a secondary payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9. Instead, its first mission will be the Hakuto-R lander, scheduled to launch in 2021, with a second lander mission, equipped with a rover, to follow in 2023. Both lander missions will launch as Falcon 9 secondary payloads.
In a statement, ispace said that “dramatic market acceleration and increasing demand for lunar exploration around the world” led it to push ahead directly to a lander mission, noting that the earlier orbiter mission was solely intended to be a technology demonstration, with no commercial payloads.
Another factor, the company says, is its role in NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, where ispace is a subcontractor to Draper. That opportunity came after the company announced its plans for a 2020 orbiter. “To increase its competitiveness and guarantee its ability to support NASA’s needs, as well as to meet the several other market demands developing worldwide, ispace decided to shift its resources to realize a successful landing mission in 2021,” the company stated.
The moon is so hot right now.
Also, SpaceX is planning to do a 200m test flight with the Star Hopper test article down in Boca Chica, hopefully on Monday. Evidently the FAA has taken their sweet time getting the SpaceX permit applications approved.
DenverGP
08-23-2019, 09:22
What's a "Gemen-ee?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/movies/first-man-gemini-nasa.html
(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/movies/first-man-gemini-nasa.html)
In this newspaper, a seemingly authoritative 1965 article tried to resolve the “running debate” with a statement from NASA that the proper pronunciation is “‘Jiminy,’ as in ‘Jiminy Cricket.’”
Aloha_Shooter
08-23-2019, 14:22
The moon is so hot right now.
Approximately 260 F on the sunny side and -280 F on the dark side.
lol, Aloha Shooter... when the Moon wakes me up at night because it is so bright, I can now establish a temperature.
260F is pretty hot.
-280f is pretty cold.
This is due to the lack of an atmosphere?
I wouldn't want to live there.
-John
260F is pretty hot.
-280f is pretty cold.
This is due to the lack of an atmosphere?
-John
Yes. Same thing happens on roofs, 60F on the shaded side, and 120+F on the sunny side, in December. I'd say to imagine what that'd be like without an atmosphere, but we don't have to because we know the real numbers.
Yes. Same thing happens on roofs, 60F on the shaded side, and 120+F on the sunny side, in December. I'd say to imagine what that'd be like without an atmosphere, but we don't have to because we know the real numbers.
I wouldn't want to live there.
-John
It looks like the 150-200 meter test for the SpaceX Star Hopper down in Boca Chica is slated to happen today.
If you want to see a water tower fly, this is basically your opportunity. Everyday Astronaut is going to do a live stream on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fblo3vzsOo4
That feed doesn't seem to be working. Maybe they'll get it moving as they get closer.
This one is live:
http://youtu.be/g8CSgRpPT0o
Yeah, Tim's feed seems to be turned off. Good call on the alternate.
There's also a live discussion thread with update photos going on over at the NASA Spaceflight forum.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47120.1180
Do the space dorks like the Vintage Space channel? She seems to have a lot of good historical stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg
Aloha_Shooter
08-26-2019, 13:45
Why am I reminded of the old TV series, "Salvage 1"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKv26BXjGMQ
SpaceX feed is live:
http://youtu.be/Jhjyz183poo
About 2 minutes to go.
Tim's feed died at T-4:00
Countdown paused at T -2:00
Test aborted at T -0. Team is evaluating the next test opportunity.
Scrubbed. Next earliest attempt is tomorrow.
JohnnyDrama
08-26-2019, 19:59
Why am I reminded of the old TV series, "Salvage 1"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKv26BXjGMQ
The space program was far from dead, the shuttle had just launched, and everybody was excited about going to space. I thought that was a great movie and really liked that show as a kid. Especially the episode where they recover one of Doolittle's bombers. Thanks for putting that up Aloha.
Launch was scrubbed due to an inssue with the igniters on the engines.
There was word that we might see another attempt today, but not sure.
They forgot to check the fluid in the Zippo. [Coffee]
Looks like they're shooting for 4pm our time today.
Ha!
Of all of the stuff to go wrong on a rocket, igniter problems seems like something that should be pretty simple to rectify.
Aloha_Shooter
08-27-2019, 10:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veDcp3wB3JA
DenverGP
08-27-2019, 12:28
Launch was scrubbed due to an inssue with the igniters on the engines.
I can fix it... had that problem all the time with my estes rockets when I was a kid.... usually the two little alligator clips just shorted out or came off the igniter leads. Sometimes the igniter itself fell out of the rocket motor. In any case, a pretty quick fix.
https://i.imgur.com/iykngmA.jpg
ChickNorris
08-27-2019, 12:34
I can fix it... had that problem all the time with my estes rockets when I was a kid.... usually the two little alligator clips just shorted out or came off the igniter leads. Sometimes the igniter itself fell out of the rocket motor. In any case, a pretty quick fix.
https://i.imgur.com/iykngmA.jpg
They need to build better clip whips.
ChickNorris
08-27-2019, 12:38
Did you know that BATFE says it can no longer be called an "igniter" and now it is to be called a "starter"
ChickNorris
08-27-2019, 12:41
So I started this.
ChickNorris
08-27-2019, 12:42
Everyone should add a little Strontium to the mix. Isn't it pretty?
Everyday Astronaut feed is live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0MTtqzzf-U
Hop was successful and went without a hitch. Tim's feed went dark just after it landed. SpaceX feed faded to black shortly after as well.
DenverGP
08-27-2019, 16:47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYb3bfA6_sQ
Based on one of the feeds I was following, it sounds like there was a small tank at the top of the Hopper that left the vehicle upon landing. There appears to also have been a grass fire. Will be interesting to get the details.
Yep. The threads over at NASA Spaceflight have pinpointed when the COPV tank let go. You can see it go whizzing off in a couple of the videos.
Still, mission accomplished. It's amazing watching something that huge just hang in the air like that.
Ouch.
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1166475063077605377
Looks like the current mission from India is on track to put a lander on the lunar surface by the end of the week!
https://spacenews.com/india-set-for-moon-landing-attempt-after-chandrayaan-2-spacecraft-separation/
Successful separation of the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter and lander clears the way for historic landing attempt Sep. 6.
HELSINKI — India will attempt to become the fourth country to soft land on the Moon Friday after successful separation of the Chandrayaan-2 lander and orbiter early Monday.
The separation event took place at 3:45 a.m. Eastern Monday, just under a day after the Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft carried out a final orbit change to lower its orbit to a 119- by 127-kilometer lunar orbit.
“All the systems of Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter and Lander are healthy,” the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) announced in a statement released shortly after separation.
India Loses Contact With Chandrayaan-2 Moon Lander During Its Descent (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/india-loses-contact-with-chandrayaan-2-moon-lander-during-its-descent/ar-AAGUimv)
Someone forgot to do the needful.
BANGALORE, India — India’s attempt to land a robotic spacecraft near the moon’s South Pole on Saturday appeared to end in failure.
The initial parts of the descent went smoothly. But less than two miles above the surface, the trajectory diverged from the planned path. The mission control room fell silent as communications from the lander were lost. A member of the staff was seen patting the back of K. Sivan, the director of India’s space program.
He later announced that the spacecraft was operating as expected until an altitude of 2.1 kilometers, or 1.3 miles. “The data is being analyzed,” he said.
The partial failure of the Chandrayaan-2 mission — an orbiter remains in operation — would delay the country’s bid to join an elite club of nations that have landed in one piece on the moon’s surface.
If the spacecraft crashed — although a communications glitch was also possible — it occurred during a period that Dr. Sivan had called “15 minutes of terror.” A series of steps had to be completed by computers on board the spacecraft in the correct sequence, with no opportunity for do-overs.
This was the third attempted spacecraft landing on the moon this year. In January, China landed the first probe ever on the far side of the moon. The lander and accompanying rover have been operating since then.
An Israeli nonprofit sent a small robotic spacecraft named Beresheet to the moon, but its landing attempt in April went awry in a manner similar to Chandrayaan-2. The initial descent went as planned, but then communications were lost near the surface. It was later discovered that a command to shut off the engine was incorrectly sent.
Chandrayaan-2 launched in July, taking a long, fuel-efficient path to the moon. Earlier this week, the 3,200-pound lander, named Vikram after Vikram A. Sarabhai, the father of the Indian space program, separated from the orbiter and maneuvered toward the moon’s surface.
Fifteen minutes before the planned landing, the Vikram lander was traveling at more than 2,000 miles per hour at an altitude of about 20 miles. Four of its engines fired to quickly slow it down as it headed toward its landing site on a high, flat plain near the South Pole. Later in the landing process, it appeared that Vikram was descending too fast and then data from the spacecraft ended.
It's such a bummer that the Indian lander crashed. I was hoping for good things.
Interesting. There's some hope that maybe the lander actually managed to touch down on it's own and the mission can be salvaged.
https://www.space.com/india-moon-lander-crash-one-piece-chandrayaan-2-reports.html
That would be pretty cool if it turned out to be true.
Over the weekend Elon gave an update on the status of Starship (formerly the BFR.)
It's amazing how quickly SpaceX has put this program together using only about 5% of their total workforce. If he pulls this off, old space is going to look increasingly obsolete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOpMrVnjYeY
clodhopper
09-30-2019, 12:41
I chuckled heartily when I heard the news report that NASA was putting SpaceX on the spot for being over on schedule. Like NASA ever produced ANYTHING on schedule.
I think Bridenstine regrets having made that tweet yesterday.
He later shared another tweet from Eric Berger of Ars Technica:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1177711302296395776
Eric Berger
Verified account
@SciGuySpace
Follow Follow @SciGuySpace
More Eric Berger Retweeted Jim Bridenstine
I would not read this as a shot to SpaceX, but rather a reflection of Jim's desire to see all NASA contractors meet their deadlines for government contracts.
I think the press is blowing up Bridenstine's tweet in another fit of wanting to make the Trump administration look bad, and, frankly, he could have worded it it much better.
When Musk was asked about it on CNN, he had the best response:
"Are you sure he wasn't talking about SLS?"
Aloha_Shooter
10-03-2019, 13:13
I chuckled heartily when I heard the news report that NASA was putting SpaceX on the spot for being over on schedule. Like NASA ever produced ANYTHING on schedule.
Ummm ... we landed on the Moon on schedule. They sent both Voyager spacecraft out on schedule and exceeded mission parameters by orders of magnitude.
SLS and Orion are both years behind schedule, and have gone over budget multiple times.
Yes, but you asked about "ever". Question answered.
China is planning to launch a lunar sample return mission next year.
https://spacenews.com/china-targets-late-2020-for-lunar-sample-return-mission/
HELSINKI — China is aiming to launch its complex Chang’e-5 lunar sample return mission in late 2020, following launch vehicle-related delays.
The ambitious mission is now scheduled to launch atop the fifth Long March 5 heavy-lift rocket. The mission will launch from the Wenchang Satellite Launch Center situated on Hainan island.
Chang’e-5 will attempt to collect and return around two kilograms of lunar samples from a site close to Mons R?mker, a volcanic formation situated in the Oceanus Procellarum region of western edge of the near side of the moon.
Don't we already have pounds of lunar material sitting around at a storage facility that we aren't even looking at? I feel like Smarter Everyday had a video about that.
NASA won't release any of it for testing because it's too precious.
I'm looking forward to the day when one of Elon's starships brings back enough of the stuff to use it in tests that will lay the groundwork for lunar manufacturing.
Don't we already have pounds of lunar material sitting around at a storage facility that we aren't even looking at? I feel like Smarter Everyday had a video about that.
I watched the same video/s. NASA has it curated and provide samples for testing.
http://youtu.be/QxZ_iPldGtI
https://spacenews.com/nasa-adds-five-companies-to-commercial-lunar-lander-program/
WASHINGTON — NASA announced Nov. 18 that it was adding five companies to a contract to perform commercial deliveries of payloads to the surface of the moon, a group that ranges from small ventures to Blue Origin and SpaceX.
NASA said the five companies — Blue Origin, Ceres Robotics, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), SpaceX and Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems — had been selected to join the nine companies with Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts. All 14 companies are now eligible to bid on future task orders for the delivery of payloads to the lunar surface.
This “on-ramp” to CLPS was specifically designed to attract companies with the capability to carry heavier payloads to the surface of the moon. This includes NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission, a rover NASA plans to fly in 2022 to look for evidence of water ice at the south pole of the moon.
It's going to be amazing to see the SpaceX Starship offloading cargo on the lunar surface, and bringing back lunar samples measured in tons instead of kilograms.
From yesterday: Watch SpaceX's Starship rocket blow its top off in pressure test
http://youtu.be/Yjq1zXdiZH8
Yep.
All part of the development process.
They should try "D" batteries. The "C" batteries are not working.
-John
NASA spots India's swing and a miss attempt at a moon landing.
https://spacenews.com/nasa-orbiter-spots-crash-site-of-indian-lunar-lander/
WASHINGTON — NASA, with the assistance of an amateur image analyst, has identified the crash site of India’s Vikram lunar lander, the agency announced Dec. 2.
NASA released images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) showing the impact site and resulting debris field from Vikram, which attempted to make a soft landing in the south polar regions of the moon nearly three month ago as part of India’s Chandrayaan-2 mission. Contact was lost with the lander during its final phases of descent, about two kilometers above the surface.
LRO first imaged the landing site Sept. 17, but the poor lighting of the area made it difficult to identify where the spacecraft had come down. The project released the full images, allowing others to examine them.
They said the debris field was visible, but I didn't see any images close enough or detailed enough for that. The impact site was much easier to see.
I've read that the physics behind a space elevator would work, and they are just working on the materials.
Would a space chimney work? Would we care about burning toxic chemicals if they went straight through the atmosphere and dumped out into space?
I have a feeling the physics behind that idea wouldn't work, or if they did work, some dummy would leave all 65 of the safety locks open at the same time and our atmosphere would be sucked off the planet from the ground up.
The atmosphere isn't going anywhere unless the sun strips it from the planet.
Aloha_Shooter
12-04-2019, 23:33
I've read that the physics behind a space elevator would work, and they are just working on the materials.
Would a space chimney work? Would we care about burning toxic chemicals if they went straight through the atmosphere and dumped out into space?
I have a feeling the physics behind that idea wouldn't work, or if they did work, some dummy would leave all 65 of the safety locks open at the same time and our atmosphere would be sucked off the planet from the ground up.
"just" working on the materials. The space elevator concept sounds great in theory. Anchor a conveyor belt with its center of mass in geostationary orbit and then just pick stuff up and carry it into orbit. Here's the problem: The materials need to be light enough to carry into orbit affordably and durable enough to deal with wind currents, airborne and orbital debris striking it. It has to be strong enough to hold itself PLUS whatever payload you hook on at perigee against Earth's pull.
A space elevator will be great and revolutionary if they ever solve those hard-core material and engineering challenges but there's nothing "just" about it.
As far as a space chimney goes, you have the same issues of material strength and durability. Instead of trying to build the longest chimney in the world, how about just moving the manufacturing processes that result in toxic gases into an orbital facility where you can operate the machinery remotely and trap any toxic emissions in an environmental shell that traps those fumes?
"just" working on the materials. The space elevator concept sounds great in theory. Anchor a conveyor belt with its center of mass in geostationary orbit and then just pick stuff up and carry it into orbit. Here's the problem: The materials need to be light enough to carry into orbit affordably and durable enough to deal with wind currents, airborne and orbital debris striking it. It has to be strong enough to hold itself PLUS whatever payload you hook on at perigee against Earth's pull.
A space elevator will be great and revolutionary if they ever solve those hard-core material and engineering challenges but there's nothing "just" about it.
As far as a space chimney goes, you have the same issues of material strength and durability. Instead of trying to build the longest chimney in the world, how about just moving the manufacturing processes that result in toxic gases into an orbital facility where you can operate the machinery remotely and trap any toxic emissions in an environmental shell that traps those fumes?
I probably used "just" because I had read some article claiming there was some breakthrough in the race for developing a material. It was most likely one of those articles about how "this" could be the next evolution in battery technology that changes the world; or how there is a comet lurking nearby that could destroy life on the planet. Both type of articles are written multiple times a year, without ever having anything to show for it in reality.
As far as the pollutants, I was thinking more along the lines burning trash that we haven't figured out how to reuse.
The chimney idea would have to put the gases so far out into space that they wouldn't return to earth/destroy the outer atmosphere. The problem with capturing gases is their tremendous volume. Attempting to pressurize them in space to reduce the volume would be quite difficult. It might be easier/cheaper to just clean up those emissions here or find a different solution.
Not to mention that the idea of just jettisoning our trash to another place is honestly a pretty lazy approach.
GilpinGuy
12-05-2019, 01:53
It might be easier/cheaper to just clean up those emissions here or find a different solution.
Totally agree, and we've become incredibly "clean" compared to just a few decades ago, here in the US anyway - other countries seem to get a pass on this for some reason, yet we get all the blame. Notice when you're near a classic car or an old VW and you're like "Damn, that thing stinks". Imagine 50+ years ago when they were all like that.
Not to mention that the idea of just jettisoning our trash to another place is honestly a pretty lazy approach.
Lazy, maybe. But practical. Earth is like 1/1,000,000,000,000th of one grain of sand on all of the beaches of Earth combined compared to just stars in this galaxy (I may a be a weeee bit off on the ratio). We're very, very close to "nothing" in the grand scheme of things. Our trash is even closer to absolutely nothing. A trillion tons of plastic is nothingness floating through space. Throwing stuff into space is a bit different than throwing it out of your car window. But we should certainly reuse what we have here and not just jettison it. After all, eventually, we'll run out of stuff to jettison.
Another way to think about anything we send into deep space is it is "a mouse fart in the wind". Completely insignificant. Human are so prone to thinking that they influence and control everything, and it's easy to think that. On a galaxy or even solar system scale..........please......
Sure, but that's how we've felt about everything we've ever encountered that we didn't understand. We thought the big herds of buffalo were just going to keep coming, same with all the commercial fishing we're doing now.
I think that by the time we have the capability to do something like that, we'll have the capability to do other things as well and it won't ever happen.
Totally agree, and we've become incredibly "clean" compared to just a few decades ago, here in the US anyway - other countries seem to get a pass on this for some reason, yet we get all the blame. Notice when you're near a classic car or an old VW and you're like "Damn, that thing stinks". Imagine 50+ years ago when they were all like that.
I don't have to imagine that since I lived it. Was a kid in the LA area when they would have smog alerts and warn us to stay inside. To this day, my lungs hurt when I take a deep breath on a day where the air quality is poor.
I get behind some motorcycles or 'classic' cars and it's amazing how you can just smell the unburned gas coming out of the exhaust.
If you want to see what it was like, I was watching Dirty Harry again for the umpteenth time last week and you could see the exhaust fumes coming out of just about every car.
https://spacenews.com/founder-institute-space-accelerator/
Founder Institute opens space accelerator with ties to NASA Ames
SAN FRANCISCO – The Founder Institute, an accelerator with operations in 180 cities globally, is establishing a new program with ties to the NASA Ames Research Center.
The Founder Institute announced open applications Dec. 3 for the Advanced Technologies Accelerator for aerospace, space and frontier technologies firms that have not yet raised seed funding. (Frontier technologies is a broad term that encompasses artificial intelligence, drones, quantum computing and other emerging technologies.)
Through the accelerator, startup founders will be matched with mentors and advisors like Sean Casey, managing director of the Silicon Valley Space Center, Michael Sims, Ceres Robotics CEO, and Arundhati Banerjee, commercialization specialist at NASA Ames.
In addition, the Founder Institute will help entrepreneurs identify whether NASA Ames technology could further their businesses and, if so, help them license the technology.
“NASA has had a long history of finding new, innovative uses for its space and aeronautics technologies,” Kimberly Minafra, a software specialist in the NASA Ames Strategic Partnerships Office, said in a statement. “We are excited to work with Founder Institute to help connect NASA technology to start-ups that can effectively commercialize the technology for the betterment of life on Earth.”
This is not the first time the Founder Institute, based in Palo Alto, California, has opened its doors to space entrepreneurs. In 2017, it established the Star Fellow Program, which waived the usual fees for space entrepreneurs to participate in its intensive three-and-a-half-month curriculum.
I don't have to imagine that since I lived it. Was a kid in the LA area when they would have smog alerts and warn us to stay inside. To this day, my lungs hurt when I take a deep breath on a day where the air quality is poor.
I get behind some motorcycles or 'classic' cars and it's amazing how you can just smell the unburned gas coming out of the exhaust.
If you want to see what it was like, I was watching Dirty Harry again for the umpteenth time last week and you could see the exhaust fumes coming out of just about every car.
Truth. I can still remember what the exhaust smelled like from my '68 Chevelle SS396, my old Harleys, and especially my brother's '66 Sportster. And those were a LONG time ago!
When I lived in Syracuse, NY, they built a new trash transfer station in Jamesville with a huge, high-tech, state-of-the-art trash incinerator that reburned and scrubbed the smoke output. I remember it was a highly publicized big deal, and supposedly worked real good. I don't see why that wouldn't be a viable solution for a lot of places.
Speaking to the car fumes topic: I can't tell you how much different that smells/tastes to me now. This is only due to not directly driving one but still being exposed to it (albeit in a lower concentration) around me. I couldn't imagine if I lived on a magical island that had zero emissions and came back to my exact location in life after a year. I now see how desensitized we've become to it after a lifetime of exposure.
Much akin to a smoker that quits smoking and starts noticing how much better food tastes pretty early on followed by how much cigarettes smell after not being directly exposed to it later on. Even new cars that are substantially lower on the emission scale than older and out-of-tune cars still present a noxious odor to me now. I wouldn't have noticed that two years ago and ignorantly drove my "newer" cars around clowning "older" cars for the amount of emissions they produced.
The studies that have been coming out linking illness to proximity to heavy traffic is pretty alarming. Stuff like this some suspected decades ago but we're finally seeing some real data to compare. This is only going to increase as the number of EVs also increase and more studies are done. I was largely in the "don't care" camp years ago but now I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. Eventually I think we'll draw a direct line between modern illness and air pollution to where transitioning away from that will become even more urgent.
Global environmental effects of EVs aside, even if all we do is move the energy production off-gases from the tail pipe of every car in the city to some coal burning plant outside of the city I'd call that a win based off of what I experienced on such a small scale. I guess I'm dreaming of that magical island I mentioned earlier again.
https://i.imgflip.com/3iire9.jpg
Holy non sequitur Batman...
I used to smoke back in the early '90s. These days I can tell when someone is smoking in a vehicle near me on the road.
Someone post up an article about space and get this space wreck back on track!
New NASA human spaceflight leader calls SLS “mandatory” for return to the moon (https://spacenews.com/new-nasa-human-spaceflight-leader-calls-sls-mandatory-for-return-to-the-moon/)
WASHINGTON — The new head of NASA’s human spaceflight programs affirmed his support for the Space Launch System Dec. 3, saying the long-delayed heavy-lift rocket is “absolutely mandatory” for returning humans to the moon.
Speaking at a town hall meeting with agency employees at NASA Headquarters, Doug Loverro, who started work Dec. 2 as the new associate administrator for human exploration and operations, and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine pushed back against criticism that the SLS is too expensive to be sustainable for NASA compared to commercial vehicles that promise to cost far less.
That lingering criticism of the SLS was renewed after an October letter by Russell Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Vought, in that letter, sought relief from a provision in a Senate appropriations bill that directed NASA to launch Europa Clipper, a mission to study Jupiter’s large icy moon Europa, on an SLS.
“At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings,” Vought wrote.
Bridenstine, though, claimed that cost estimate was too high. “I do not agree with the $2 billion number. It is far less than that,” he said at the town hall meeting. “I would also say the number comes way down when you buy more than one or two.”
“I think at the end, we’re going to be at the $800 million to $900 million range. I don’t know, honestly,” he said, because NASA had just started negotiations with prime contractor Boeing on a long-term production contract for the SLS.
Loverro said he disagreed with the belief that SLS was competing with commercial vehicles under development, such as Blue Origin’s New Glenn and SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy. “I think there is a large ecosystem of space capabilities, and we need every capability that the nation is going to provide, whether the nation provides it through government funding, as SLS is, or through entrepreneurial and commercial funding.”
The SLS, he added, was essential to the goal of returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024, the goal established by the Trump administration eight months ago. “The fact of the matter is, the only system we have today that is designed, purpose-built, to go ahead and get men to the moon and women to the moon is the SLS,” he said. “That program is absolutely mandatory, in my view right now, to go ahead and get there.”
SLS will be one of Loverro’s top priorities as the new head of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. The vehicle’s first launch, originally scheduled for the end of 2017, is now planned for no earlier than late 2020, and widely expected to slip into 2021. The vehicle’s core stage is nearing completion at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans and will be shipped around the end of December to the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi for testing, including a full-duration static-fire test.
Loverro said at the town hall meeting he will spend the next few months reviewing the status of that program and others in his portfolio, such as the Orion crew vehicle. “I think we’ve got a good plan. I think we will find elements of the plan that have to be changed,” he said. “My job over the next three months is to examine all of those things, figure out where we are in the baseline of the program, what do we need to go ahead and modify, what do we need to change, in order to raise even more our chances of success.”
To emphasize his commitment to achieving the 2024 goal, he showed off a pin on the lapel of his suit. The pin had the number “1855” on it, the number of days until Dec. 31, 2024. “This is my ‘D-minus’ pin to the end of 2024,” he said, one that he will change each day as he counts down to that deadline.
He rejected the notion a pin like that or other efforts would create undue schedule pressure. “Some people have commented to me that this could create launch fever,” he said. “Well, if this is launch fever, I’m feeling pretty healthy right now.” The intent of the pin, he said, “is to make every day count.”
“If every individual makes something happen every day that helps us achieve our mission, this is going to be easy,” he said. “It is going to be easy to make this happen.”
Loverro, who comes to NASA after a long career in the national security space field, succeeds Bill Gerstenmaier, who was reassigned to a special advisor position in July after more than a decade in associate administrator roles involving human spaceflight. Bridenstine praised Gerstenmaier while saying Loverro brought in key skills needed for this stage of NASA’s exploration efforts.
“It was time, in my view, to find a leader that had a long history of making program run on schedule and on budget, and I think Doug is that kind of leader,” Bridenstine said.
“We are poised where we are today to succeed in what the president and the nation has asked us to do because of the work Bill did,” Loverro said, asking the town hall audience to give him a round of applause.
Ha! I saw that same article and very nearly posted it myself.
I'm convinced the Senator Shelby must have the dirt on half of congress and the high level leadership at NASA, because, frankly, SLS is a fiscal boondoggle cosplaying as a rocket.
http://youtu.be/oUvjZ9E_L_8
Space.com: Kablam! Watch NASA Crush a SLS Megarocket Fuel Tank Until It Explodes (Video) (https://www.space.com/nasa-explodes-sls-megarocket-tank-test-video.html)
If you've ever wondered what a giant rocket fuel tank looks like after exploding, a new NASA (https://www.space.com/38700-nasa-history.html) video has you covered.
In the video (https://videos.space.com/m/IGF60RoO/boom-nasa-megarockets-test-article-tank-ruptures?list=9wzCTV4g), which NASA released Monday (Dec. 9), engineers have purposefully exploded a test version of the Space Launch System (https://www.space.com/33908-space-launch-system.html) (SLS) rocket's propellant tank. In doing so, they found that the tank can handle a lot more than they expect the real version to encounter in flight.
At NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (https://www.space.com/39523-marshall-space-flight-center-test-site-for-nasa-s-rockets.html) in Huntsville, Alabama, engineers pushed the test tank full of liquid hydrogen way past its limits. The tank aced the test, withstanding more than 260% of expected flight loads for over five hours, at which point engineers spotted a buckling point, which soon burst.
"We purposely took this tank to its extreme limits and broke it because pushing systems to the point of failure gives us additional data to help us build rockets intelligently," Neil Otte, chief engineer of the SLS Stages Office at Marshall, said in a NASA statement (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-engineers-break-sls-test-tank-on-purpose-to-test-extreme-limits.html). "We will be flying the Space Launch System for decades to come, and breaking the propellant tank today will help us safely and efficiently evolve the SLS rocket as our desired missions evolve."
Whoops.
Boeing's Starliner Won't Reach Space Station, NASA Chief Says (https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-oft-fails-to-reach-correct-orbit.html)
Boeing's Starliner Won't Reach Space Station, NASA Chief Says
By Chelsea Gohd 6 hours ago
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Boeing's Starliner astronaut taxi suffered an anomaly today (Dec. 20) during its flight to the International Space Station during the Orbital Flight Test (OFT) mission.
About 90 minutes after blastoff, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said on Twitter that the capsule will not be able to reach the space station because it burned too much fuel during the anomaly.
The Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance successfully launched from Space Launch Complex 41 here at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida at 6:36 a.m. EST (1136 GMT) as planned. But, as of about an hour after launch, the mission team had announced an anomaly with the uncrewed capsule's orbit.
"Starliner in stable orbit. The burn needed for a rendezvous with the ISS did not happen. Working the issue," Bridenstine tweeted, following the announcement of the anomaly.
Starliner in stable orbit. The burn needed for a rendezvous with the ISS did not happen. Working the issue.
About 15 minutes after launch, Starliner was scheduled to complete a 40-second orbital insertion burn that would have evened out its orbit to a circle, allowing it to meet up with the space station. But this stage in the flight was off-nominal, or different from what they expected.
"We have since experienced an off-nominal insertion and the spacecraft is in a stable position," Boeing spokesperson Steve Siceloff said during a launch broadcast. "It's fully powered; mission control here in Houston is assessing all the options."
"After launching successfully at 6:36 a.m. Eastern Time Friday on the United Launch Alliance Atlas v rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, the Boeing Starliner space vehicle experienced an off-nominal insertion," Boeing spokesperson Kelly Kaplan told reporters here at the press site.
"The spacecraft is currently in safe, stable configuration," Kaplan added. "Flight controllers have completed a successful initial burn and are assessing next steps. Boeing and NASA are working together to review options for the test and mission opportunities available while the Starliner remains in orbit. A joint news conference will be held at 9 a.m. Eastern on NASA TV."
The OFT was designed as a critical milestone to test Starliner for future crewed missions. Following this procedure, Boeing plans to launch a Crewed Flight Test with three astronauts onboard Starliner.
NASA hired both Boeing and SpaceX to develop reusable vehicles capable of bringing humans safely to and from the space station. Ever since the 2011 retirement of the space shuttle, the agency has been relying on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for access to the orbiting laboratory.
Prior to today's launch, both Boeing and SpaceX were targeting crewed test flights in 2020.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information is available.
According to the Fox News, NASA states that the mission timer on the rocket used for this mission was for another mission.
https://media.tenor.com/images/842930f14e72037c2d0d223b2796d78f/tenor.gif
DenverGP
12-20-2019, 13:33
Yup, the capsule's computer clock failed to synchronize just before launch, so the capsule thought it was much further in the mission than it really was. During a period where it was out of contact with the ground (not even able to communicate thru TDRS ) and was supposed to be coasting and it's orientation didn't matter, instead the capsule was using up propellant trying to maintain a precise orientation. Once they re-established communication with the capsule, they found they no long had sufficient propellant to reach the ISS.
The capsule's initial trajectory is intentionally sub-orbital, so that if something went wrong, it would de-orbit on it's own. Initially they were unsure if they could even reach a stable orbit. After some calculations, they did an orbital maneuver to at least reach a stable orbit, with a path that will set them up for a landing at White Sands missile range.
So far, I've heard nasa and boeing both saying their next mission will still be a manned flight to ISS, despite having never proven they can dock successfully. Sounds like "go fever" to me.
And I'll be using "off-nominal" to describe anything I screw up from now on.
So far, I've heard nasa and boeing both saying their next mission will still be a manned flight to ISS, despite having never proven they can dock successfully. Sounds like "go fever" to me.
I don't know. It looks like they knew what the issue was almost immediately, and that it would have just resulted in an aborted ISS mission, and not an actual danger to crew.
Next up is SpaceX, they're doing in an-flight abort test next month, and plan to do their first crewed mission to the ISS with Dragon 2 in February.
DenverGP
12-21-2019, 00:23
I don't know. It looks like they knew what the issue was almost immediately, and that it would have just resulted in an aborted ISS mission, and not an actual danger to crew.
Right, but it seems odd to fly a manned flight on the capsule having never demonstrating successful rendezvous and docking to the ISS.
Next up is SpaceX, they're doing in an-flight abort test next month, and plan to do their first crewed mission to the ISS with Dragon 2 in February.
I thought I saw something from Nasa with Boeing's first crewed mission scheduled to occur before the first Spacex crewed mission, but I can't seem to find it now. Even if the in-flight abort test goes off well, getting the first spacex crewed mission done by Feb seems overly optimistic.
spqrzilla
12-21-2019, 00:40
because, frankly, SLS is a fiscal boondoggle cosplaying as a rocket.
I'm so stealing that.
Crew Dragon Launch Escape Demonstration
http://youtu.be/mhrkdHshb3E
DenverGP
01-19-2020, 16:17
Excellent test today for SpaceX. Another step closer to getting American astronauts back into space on a American rocket from American soil
Construction on the 2nd SpaceX prototype for the super-heavy lift StarShip is continuing.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.1680
They're talking about doing a 20km test hop in the next few weeks.
Space News has posted up an article of 20 space-related predictions for 2020:
https://spacenews.com/20-space-industry-predictions-for-2020/
20 space industry predictions for 2020
by SpaceNews Staff — February 26, 2020
This article originally appeared in the Jan. 20, 2020 issue of SpaceNews magazine. It was updated Feb. 26 to reflect OneWeb and SpaceX launches that have happened since.
In 2019, the U.S. Space Force was formally established, NASA received a 2024 deadline for returning Americans to the moon, and private companies the world over raised billions of dollars for everything from rockets to antennas. This year shows no signs of a let up in space-sector momentum. Here are 20 predictions for 2020 as seen by SpaceNews reporters and correspondents.
I bet this wasn't one of their predictions. ;-)
SpaceX Starship prototype explodes during test in Texas (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-starship-prototype-explodes-during-test-in-texas/ar-BB10BMDj)
Getting to space is hard, and SpaceX is working through some kinks early in the process of developing its next-generation Starship that it hopes will eventually take legions of humans to Mars.
Video from sources with a view of the company's Boca Chica, Texas development facility showed Starship prototype "SN1" apparently exploding during a pressure test Friday.
NASASpaceflight reports that the partial rocket failed during a cryogenic pressure test after one of its tanks filled with liquid nitrogen.
An earlier, more basic prototype dubbed "Mk1" popped its top during a pressurization test at Boca Chica last year.
This latest anomaly -- as explosions tend to be called in the space business -- appears to be doing little to set back Starship's development. Elon Musk showed off the company's stockpile of nose cones at Boca Chica last month, and prototype SN2 continued to come together on one side of the site this weekend, even as the remains of SN1 were being cleaned up nearby.
SpaceX did not immediately return a request for comment.
The company is still working toward the next test flight of Starship in the coming months, which will aim to send it to serious altitude for the first time, up to about 12.4 miles (20 km).
I bet this wasn't one of their predictions. ;-)
SpaceX Starship prototype explodes during test in Texas (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-starship-prototype-explodes-during-test-in-texas/ar-BB10BMDj)
Rapid, Unplanned Disassembly is always an option.
The video is quite dramatic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=sYeVnGL7fgw&feature=emb_title
At least mankind has learned to cryogenic pressure test with nitrogen. [Coffee]
I wonder how far away the top of the vessel launched after falling to the ground?
Aloha_Shooter
03-02-2020, 11:33
Meh, this is why you do testing on the ground. In the movie "First Man", Neil Armstrong (as portrayed by Ryan Gosling) says, "We need to fail. We need to fail down here so we don’t fail up there." I don't know that the quote is exact but I think it was typical of the attitude in Apollo. This test didn't cost any lives and I suspect (hope) SpaceX learned a lot from the failure.
SpaceX probably learned quite a bit from this failure if their past development cycles on things like Falcon 9 are any indication.
One thing that's noteworthy about Starship is that they're not only trying to just build a heavy lift vehicle, but they're trying to nail down a design for a heavy lift vehicle that can be manufactured at low cost and churned out from an assembly line.
http://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw
Have you watched the entire thing yet? I haven't taken the time myself. It's on the list though.
I'm more than halfway through, but got interrupted. They go into a lot of info. I just got past the part where they show their huge plating shop and how they anodize the aluminum parts after machining and roll shaping.
I'm more than halfway through, but got interrupted. They go into a lot of info. I just got past the part where they show their huge plating shop and how they anodize the aluminum parts after machining and roll shaping.
The friction welding portion immediately after this was incredibly interesting to me.
SpaceX is full speed ahead on SN2 for Star Ship. They're already ring-stacking.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.1760
SpaceX Starship SN4 passed it's cryogenic pressure test!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254632509863866368
Starship SN4 successfully completed it's first static fire test of the Raptor Engine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp2oaguCzN8
About a year or so ago I got to go into NASA in Houston. A friend of mine has access to just about everything there and helps train just about everybody it seems. We would walk into a room and everyone knew who he was. Impressive. Got to go into the room where they were making actual suits and such. Put on one of the example helmets and gloves. Got to walk into and around the submerged training area for the astronu... and go into the control command room, just missed a call from Trump they said. Got to get into all the stuff on the floor like shuttle and such. You could see other visitors about 40ft up on a second floor looking down at us from behind glass walls. It was all pretty interesting. At that time they said they were still using 386 CPUs because it takes so long and so much money to certify everything about a CPU and board. That shocked me. I think I heard him say they did finally upgrade.
About a year or so ago I got to go into NASA in Houston. A friend of mine has access to just about everything there and helps train just about everybody it seems. We would walk into a room and everyone knew who he was. Impressive. Got to go into the room where they were making actual suits and such. Put on one of the example helmets and gloves. Got to walk into and around the submerged training area for the astronu... and go into the control command room, just missed a call from Trump they said. Got to get into all the stuff on the floor like shuttle and such. You could see other visitors about 40ft up on a second floor looking down at us from behind glass walls. It was all pretty interesting. At that time they said they were still using 386 CPUs because it takes so long and so much money to certify everything about a CPU and board. That shocked me. I think I heard him say they did finally upgrade.
Aerospace state off the art means 10 to 20 year old tech.
Scary, now that we know that the Government is everywhere.
-John
About a year or so ago I got to go into NASA in Houston. A friend of mine has access to just about everything there and helps train just about everybody it seems. We would walk into a room and everyone knew who he was. Impressive. Got to go into the room where they were making actual suits and such. Put on one of the example helmets and gloves. Got to walk into and around the submerged training area for the astronu... and go into the control command room, just missed a call from Trump they said. Got to get into all the stuff on the floor like shuttle and such. You could see other visitors about 40ft up on a second floor looking down at us from behind glass walls. It was all pretty interesting. At that time they said they were still using 386 CPUs because it takes so long and so much money to certify everything about a CPU and board. That shocked me. I think I heard him say they did finally upgrade.
It's not just CPU architecture changes, but hardening. Electronics get exposed to some pretty crazy stuff in space.
BushMasterBoy
05-06-2020, 21:21
Space Force has a new recruiting video. An X-37B is scheduled for a liftoff 16MAY20 at Cape Canaveral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFlxmLp388
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ud7wgbBBnY
About a year or so ago I got to go into NASA in Houston. A friend of mine has access to just about everything there and helps train just about everybody it seems. We would walk into a room and everyone knew who he was. Impressive. Got to go into the room where they were making actual suits and such. Put on one of the example helmets and gloves. Got to walk into and around the submerged training area for the astronu... and go into the control command room, just missed a call from Trump they said. Got to get into all the stuff on the floor like shuttle and such. You could see other visitors about 40ft up on a second floor looking down at us from behind glass walls. It was all pretty interesting. At that time they said they were still using 386 CPUs because it takes so long and so much money to certify everything about a CPU and board. That shocked me. I think I heard him say they did finally upgrade.
Nice! I would love to get a tour like that!
A former co-worker of mine worked for NASA, specifically do some things for the ISS. She had some really cool stories.
About a year or so ago I got to go into NASA in Houston. A friend of mine has access to just about everything there and helps train just about everybody it seems. We would walk into a room and everyone knew who he was. Impressive. Got to go into the room where they were making actual suits and such. Put on one of the example helmets and gloves. Got to walk into and around the submerged training area for the astronu... and go into the control command room, just missed a call from Trump they said. Got to get into all the stuff on the floor like shuttle and such. You could see other visitors about 40ft up on a second floor looking down at us from behind glass walls. It was all pretty interesting. At that time they said they were still using 386 CPUs because it takes so long and so much money to certify everything about a CPU and board. That shocked me. I think I heard him say they did finally upgrade.
Nice! I would love to get a tour like that!
A former co-worker of mine worked for NASA, specifically do some things for the ISS. She had some really cool stories.
Starship SN4 is undergoing inspection after the successful static fire test.
Starship SN5 is almost done.
Starship SN6 has started construction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdbkHQNdtdc
BushMasterBoy
05-08-2020, 08:30
Space Force coming to Netflix...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdpYpulGCKc
Aloha_Shooter
05-09-2020, 12:01
Space Force has a new recruiting video. An X-37B is scheduled for a liftoff 16MAY20 at Cape Canaveral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFlxmLp388
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ud7wgbBBnY
Second commercial is MUCH better than the first. The first time I saw the "orbital collision" one, I just about spit out my drink laughing. I thought it was a spoof the first few viewings; when I found out it was real, I just had to ask if anyone at HQ USAF had bothered asking a space geek before shooting it. The only thing positive I can say about it is that at least some of the airmen (spacemen now?) in the clip were actual service members. Anyone I know that knows anything about conjunction assessment thought it was comical.
I know it's not the moon, but the SpaceX Starlink Satellite train is seriously cool.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-night-sky-visibility-guide.html
-John
Starship SN4 successfully had it's second static fire test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=214&v=kICMCCXAKVg&feature=emb_title
SpaceX manned flight scheduled for tomorrow.
https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-demo-2-test-flight-explained.html
DenverGP
05-26-2020, 17:11
Launch window is 5/27 2:33pm mountain time.
Currently they are saying 40% chance of no-go due to weather conditions at launch site and/or the abort sites.
Because of the orbital parameters needed to dock with ISS, the launch window is instantaneous, so if it's delayed at all, it'll be postponed to the next launch window, which is Saturday 5/30, around 1:30pm mountain time.
DenverGP
05-26-2020, 17:44
Interesting example of statistics:
Nasa has calculated the chance of loss of crew at 1 in 276... their go/no-go requirement is 1 in 270 or better. 1 in 270 doesn't sound that great to me, but equates to a 0.4% chance of crew loss, or 99.6% survival chance.
Originally the shuttle's loss of crew odds were listed at 1 in 500, but later more detailed analysis revealed the early shuttle flights had a chance of crew loss of 1 in 12. After the Challenger and Columbia accidents, increased safety provisions and testing / inspection brought it up to 1 in 90.
One big factor in the 1 in 276 number for Spacex is that the falcon 9 recently overtook the Atlas V as the most flown American rocket currently flying. So lots of data to provide confidence. And the fact that Spacex recovers the first stage means they've been able to analyze things in ways other launch systems never could. They design the rocket, and after launch are able to actually take apart rocket and figure out if everything performed as expected.
I noticed Discovery channel has a repeating program about US returning to manned space flight (NASA & SpaceX: Countdown To Launch) and they're covering the launch tomorrow beginning at 12Noon local time.
Circuits
05-27-2020, 00:37
I know where I'll be tuned in 1400 local...
Aloha_Shooter
05-27-2020, 07:15
Originally the shuttle's loss of crew odds were listed at 1 in 500, but later more detailed analysis revealed the early shuttle flights had a chance of crew loss of 1 in 12. After the Challenger and Columbia accidents, increased safety provisions and testing / inspection brought it up to 1 in 90.
Note the odds of successful launch go up considerably if they had adopted one simple rule: Don't launch in January. All three fatal accidents involving spacecraft occurred in or with launches in January: Apollo 1 on January 27, Challenger on January 28, Columbia on Feb 1 but launched January 15. Of course there are more technical reasons for all 3 disasters (the Apollo 1 fire could have occurred in July or August given the issue with the wiring) but January does seem to be a bad month for NASA and human spaceflight.
I know where I'll be tuned in 1400 local...
Same.
It looks like it's being livestreamed from a couple of places on Youtube, including the official NASA channel and I believe that Everyday Astronaut is there to cover it as well.
If this launch is successful today, it's a moment in history well worth paying attention to, and I hope everything is completely nominal.
Aloha_Shooter
05-27-2020, 11:17
It's kind of funny but the first time I saw the new "stylish" SpaceX spacesuits
81667
I was thinking of the original "Battlestar Galactica" episode "Greetings from Earth, Part 2":
81668
Note the odds of successful launch go up considerably if they had adopted one simple rule: Don't launch in January. All three fatal accidents involving spacecraft occurred in or with launches in January: Apollo 1 on January 27, Challenger on January 28, Columbia on Feb 1 but launched January 15. Of course there are more technical reasons for all 3 disasters (the Apollo 1 fire could have occurred in July or August given the issue with the wiring) but January does seem to be a bad month for NASA and human spaceflight.
With the shuttle, they shouldn't have taken the freon out of the foam formulation. The foam breaking off the external tank happened after the green push to remove the freon.
Unfortunately, they're seeing storms at the Cape right now.
Currently red for weather at the launch pad, but proceeding with loading fuel with hope that the weather clears.
Aloha_Shooter
05-27-2020, 14:35
Just another example of how uncontrollable and unpredictable factors can slam into the cold equations.
They have such great climate change models, how could they not see this coming?
/SARC
Next window is Sat.
They have such great climate change models, how could they not see this coming?
/SARC
Next window is Sat.
Hopefully they have clear skies for launches!
Whoops...
http://youtu.be/7RPyDPpmDAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMsvr55cTZ0
Will launch around 1:20PM MST - live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=BCUYG5SonCY&feature=emb_title
Scott Manley has a good analysis of the SN4 explosion.
In other news, the Dragon 2 launch that was scrubbed earlier this week is planned for launch today.
GilpinGuy
05-30-2020, 12:38
45 minutes to launch. Looks like its gonna happen.
Less than 2 minutes... [Flower]
Bailey Guns
05-30-2020, 13:27
Brings back a lot of memories of the old Apollo days.
Yep. With much better picture quality. [Coffee]
Pretty cool. I really like not having to depend on the Russians.
http://youtu.be/ww9FudKGUd8
Watching the 1st stage coming back down.
Earth is flat. ;)
Damn the cockpit controller are mainly touch screen!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.