SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Howard Bloom has written a guest blog at Scientific American addressing the Trump Administration's plan to return to (orbit) the Moon. That mission would use the Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule, which have cost $18 billion through 2017 but are not expected to launch astronauts into space until around 2023. Bloom instead proposes using private industry to put a base on the Moon, using technology such as SpaceX's Falcon Heavy (estimated $135 million per launch vs. $500 million for the Space Launch System) and Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable habitat modules:
[NASA's acting administrator Robert] Lightfoot's problem lies in the two pieces of NASA equipment he wants to work with: a rocket that's too expensive to fly and is years from completion—the Space Launch System; and a capsule that's far from ready to carry humans—the Orion. Neither the SLS nor the Orion are able to land on the Moon. Let me repeat that. Once these pieces of super-expensive equipment reach the moon's vicinity, they cannot land.
Who is able to land on the lunar surface? Elon Musk and Robert Bigelow. Musk's rockets—the Falcon and the soon-to-be-launched Falcon Heavy—are built to take off and land. So far their landing capabilities have been used to ease them down on earth. But the same technology, with a few tweaks, gives them the ability to land payloads on the surface of the Moon. Including humans. What's more, SpaceX's upcoming seven-passenger Dragon 2 capsule has already demonstrated its ability to gentle itself down to earth's surface. In other words, with a few modifications and equipment additions, Falcon rockets and Dragon capsules could be made Moon-ready.
[...] In 2000, Bigelow purchased a technology that Congress had ordered NASA to abandon: inflatable habitats. For the last sixteen years Bigelow and his company, Bigelow Aerospace, have been advancing inflatable habitat technology. Inflatable technology lets you squeeze a housing unit into a small package, carry it by rocket to a space destination, then blow it up like a balloon. Since the spring of 2016, Bigelow, a real estate developer and founder of the Budget Suites of America hotel chain, has had an inflatable habitat acting as a spare room at the International Space Station 220 miles above your head and mine. And Bigelow's been developing something far more ambitious—an inflatable Moon Base, that would use three of his 330-cubic-meter B330 modules. What's more, Bigelow has been developing a landing vehicle to bring his modules gently down to the Moon's surface.
[...] If NASA ditched the Space Launch System and the Orion, it would free up three billion dollars a year. That budget could speed the Moon-readiness of Bigelow's landing vehicles, not to mention SpaceX's Falcon rockets and could pay for lunar enhancements to manned Dragon 2 capsules. In fact, three billion dollars a year is far greater than what Bigelow and Musk would need. That budget would also allow NASA to bring Jeff Bezos into the race. And it would let NASA refocus its energy on earth-orbit and lunar-surface refueling stations...plus rovers, lunar construction equipment, and devices to turn lunar ice into rocket fuel, drinkable water, and breathable oxygen. Not to mention machines to turn lunar dust and rock into building materials.
An organization that Howard Bloom founded, The Space Development Steering Committee, has been short one member recently (Edgar Mitchell).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:48AM (24 children)
And, do it now!
Once again - at this point in time, a single cataclysmic event could make mankind extinct. We need to get off of this one, single rock that we live on, and populate the solar system. The more we spread out, the less likely that any single event could harm us significantly.
Think of the children, for once. Think survival of the species.
Let's get it done! The moon first, Mars next, then we'll look at the gas giant's moons.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:59AM (9 children)
Whatever happened to the asteroid miners?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:40PM (8 children)
There's not much market for the miners, until there are some bases and/or cities located somewhere up there to use the stuff they mine. The miners are still needed, but the miners aren't going to be self sufficient. Someone needs to be willing to trade food, water, entertainment, and other essentials before the miners can really get going. In my mind, it's pretty well established that mining stuff to drop down the gravity well to the mud dwellers is a waste of time. If you're going to drop stuff down the well, you might as well shape it like a spear, and wipe out all the competition, then you can rule earth. That would be a lonely job - almost as lonely as mining asteroids.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:51PM (7 children)
If you're going to drop stuff down the well, you might as well shape it like a spear, and wipe out all the competition, then you can rule earth. That would be a lonely job - almost as lonely as mining asteroids.
Not seeing how that gets you food, water, entertainment, and other essentials.
In my mind, it's pretty well established that mining stuff to drop down the gravity well to the mud dwellers is a waste of time.
Mud dwellers are the only economic game in town right now. The asteroid mining would be to displace additional mass that would otherwise have to be lifted from Earth. But if you can drop something sufficiently valuable for a sufficiently cheap price, that too would count as something that isn't a waste of time.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:16PM (3 children)
"Not seeing how that gets you food, water, entertainment, and other essentials."
When you've killed off the competition, and subdued the remaining population, you claim tribute. Water, liquour, food, women, wine, song, jewelry, whatever. No need to mine asteroids, if you can just conquer earth. Of course, when that cataclysmic event happens, then it's "Good night, mankind!'
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:59PM (2 children)
When you've killed off the competition, and subdued the remaining population, you claim tribute. Water, liquour, food, women, wine, song, jewelry, whatever. No need to mine asteroids, if you can just conquer earth. Of course, when that cataclysmic event happens, then it's "Good night, mankind!'
Ok, genius, how do you get that tribute up to your sky fortress now that you're whacked the infrastructure for moving stuff into space?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:35PM (1 child)
Transporters.
Actually, you can probably come down and enjoy a life of ease after you've subdued the population.
But, come on, man - I'm the guy pushing the idea of getting OUT THERE - the rest of this scenario is just so much bullshit. Let me out there, and I sure as hell don't want to come back. The only reason I would come back is, I can't make it. I'm not good enough, the tech isn't good enough, the support isn't good enough. Let me out there, and I'm gonna do my damnedest to make things work, so that I don't HAVE to come back.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:04PM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:25PM (2 children)
If I had rule of space, with sufficient resources to drop even one kiloton asteroid per month anywhere on Earth I wanted, I'm pretty sure I could negotiate all the luxury goods, entertainment and other things I wanted to be sent up to my crew. Just have to pass that self-sufficiency threshold so the mud dwellers don't negotiate by boycott of life-sustaining essentials in return.
In all practicality, dropping nickel-iron asteroids containing sufficient amounts of interesting other elements (tantalum, iridium, gold, etc.) on a "mining target area" somewhere in a desert would be a pretty good alternative to mining the crust for the same things.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 28 2017, @08:48PM (1 child)
Just have to pass that self-sufficiency threshold so the mud dwellers don't negotiate by boycott of life-sustaining essentials in return.
Or by sending poisoned foods. Or goods that gradually off-gas small but significant quantities of chemicals that will poison you / screw with your life support systems / corrode the seals on your airlocks. Or things that explode violently and unexpectedly. Or an enraged bobcat.
Better hope your self-sufficient fare is as good as what the mud-dwellers are serving up, because that's all you'll ever dare to eat for the rest of your life.
In all practicality, dropping nickel-iron asteroids containing sufficient amounts of interesting other elements (tantalum, iridium, gold, etc.) on a "mining target area" somewhere in a desert would be a pretty good alternative to mining the crust for the same things.
How about a shaped projectile designed to blast a deep, narrow hole into the Earth's crust, allowing miners to reach deep deposits more efficiently? If the projectile itself was also made of useful materials, then bonus.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:09PM
Shaping a projectile seems like a lot of work as compared to just applying some delta-V.
And, there's no reason to be hostile with the mud side, we're up here to help, bring you valuable rocks, deflect ones that might land somewhere unpleasant. Just like nuke missile submarine crews, though, it probably would be a good idea to treat the rock-jockey crews as well as you can, don't want any disgruntled workers with that much potential destruction at their disposal.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by davester666 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:16AM (13 children)
No, given how we currently are behaving, the sooner our infestation has been eliminated from Earth and not spread anywhere else, the better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:46AM
By all means. After you, Alphonse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:58AM (8 children)
Ah screw off. We are a virus and the number one goal of a virus is to get a new host before the old one dies. Eventually we will learn to live with our host but we need to live long enough to see the day. If you really think that way then off yourself and save x sqft of ice (recent article will give you the calculation).
Every day we are becoming more sustainable, I personally don't think we are doing enough as a whole but I try and do my part. The more of a dick you are about it the less likely others are to comply. I just had to listen to my coworkers chew some guy out while we were on a vegas business trip for not storig his plastic and glass to reycle back in Oregon. Bet he will throw more away as a fuck you to the random out of staters that yelled at him.
Baring the establishment Rs and Ds getting us into a nuclear exchange, we stand a chance at survival for ourselves and some of the organisms from this age.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:00PM (2 children)
Baring the establishment Rs and Ds getting us into a nuclear exchange
This is exactly what's going to happen. It's frankly amazing it hasn't happened already, but it'll happen before too long, especially now with Trump in charge.
Oh well, we had a pretty good run.
What we really need to do is build some monuments/archives, much like the golden record on the Voyager spacecraft but with much more data, to tell others about our extinct civilization so they can learn from our mistakes, and then send these monuments to the Moon, Mars, and some out of the solar system, in the hope that they'll eventually be discovered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:10PM
I think a Putonium layer would be a nice complement to the Iridium layer to give future species something interesting to wonder about.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday February 28 2017, @08:41PM
I think you mistake the one who is a Russian puppet and therefor unlikely to nuke Russia and the one who promised to bomb Iran and hold Russia accountable (read: ground war in Syria and Ukraine). Sorry to say but the asshole Trump was the safer choice on not having a nuclear exchange.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:13PM (4 children)
Vegas business trip >> 20 years of not recycling a single thing you buy food in.
Vegas itself is pretty obscene, resource wise, but the flights to-from, especially trans-oceanic ones, are the real resource hogs.
Somebody should do an analysis: how much money does it cost to emit a ton of CO2 via various activities, I bet jet travel is the bargain basement CO2 emission method of modern life.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:19PM (1 child)
It really is disgusting here. I was walking through the MGM and just seeing the shear amount of wasted capital. The resource drain (capital/environmental) caused by Vegas is outstanding. Just the water usage alone is a crime.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @11:24PM
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 01 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
but the flights to-from, especially trans-oceanic ones, are the real resource hogs.
Not that much. A single jet does consume a lot of fossil fuel, however if you add up how much fossil fuel it takes for each of those passengers to drive a 3-5000 pound vehicle on the road to that destination, it's much more. Modern passenger jets have very good person-mile-per-gallon numbers, much better than even hybrid cars. Granted, it'd probably be a lot better if everyone were taking a train, but compared to cars, jets are not bad, especially big jets traveling long distances. Cars are really much more wasteful in our society, because people don't fly *that* much, while they do drive a *lot*, and very rarely do they have multiple people in one car, plus they (these days) usually have much larger vehicles than they really need (big 20mpg SUVs and pickups). If you want to reduce carbon emissions, you'll do much better focusing on cars and SUVs than on jets.
In addition, because airlines are so price-sensitive these days (unlike the 60s-70s), they've done all kinds of things to improve fuel efficiency: they've added "winglets", they've moved from 4-engine planes to planes with 2 bigger engines, they've reduced their flying speeds (LA-NYC used to be significantly faster in the 70s than now), they've shrunk the seat space to pack more people in, etc. Of course, people complain about the lack of seating space a lot, but it is more fuel-efficient and also reduces ticket prices. And when you think about prices in terms of energy (how much fuel does your airline ticket cost you?), when you look at today's prices and see that you can fly rather long distances cross-country for frequently less than it'd cost you for gasoline for that same trip by car, and a good part of that ticket price is also paying for the airport, the crew and staff and baggage handlers, the plane and its maintenance, and profit, it's pretty clear that you're using much less fuel on a plane than driving your 6000-pound SUV to get there. Of course, you'd emit less CO2 if you just sat at home, but if everyone sat at home all the time, we'd have rather boring lives.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:54PM
I suppose that's akin to the argument that the Space Shuttle was the safest passenger vehicle ever created, per passenger mile traveled.
I have "gas hog" cars, they average 20mpg, I could go out, buy new ones that get 30 or even 40mpg, but since - as a family of four, we only drive about 6000 miles per year total, more efficient cars won't help our family budget, or the environment due to the cost of buying/making the new cars.
The environmental impact of the business trip to Vegas, or the vacation in Tahiti, isn't about the fuel efficiency per passenger mile, it's all about the number of people who make these cross-country and cross-ocean trips and the frequency with which they do so.
So, perhaps a SUV does pollute more per passenger mile, but how about per dollar spent?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @08:46AM
No, given how we currently are behaving, the sooner our infestation has been eliminated from Earth and not spread anywhere else, the better.
How odd. You think there is value in not being "infested". But the truth is humans are the only game in town. The rest of the Solar System will only have value because we'll eventually be there to give it value.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:49PM
I trust you are volunteering to eliminate your own personal infestation of Earth first. In fact I encourage you to get going.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:42PM
I've got to agree. Let's get together, and figure an angle to market this idea. SJW's should hop on rather quickly. Especially self-loathing heterosexual white male SJW's. The females can do the world a service by terminating themselves as well. Once they set the example, then all SJW's around the world will want to join them.
Damn, man, you come up with some good ideas!!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:52AM (2 children)
...using private industry to put a base on the Moon, using technology such as SpaceX's Falcon Heavy (estimated $135 million per launch vs. $500 million for the Space Launch System) and Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable habitat modules:
I volunteer. When should I show up in Florida for the launch?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:28AM (1 child)
Just make sure you bring your own beer.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:25PM
That's silly. Just bring some yeast, and the makings for your favorite kind of beer. Don't forget the grow lights, and the seeds for whichever grain you're going to use. Get in on the ground floor of a new market for mankind's Nectar of the Gods.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:54AM (8 children)
You are trusting something coming out of Trump's mouth? The guy says whatever is on the top of his head at any given moment. He doesn't think. He doesn't ponder. He panders.
Trump saying we're going to the moon is like Bush saying there are WMDs in Iraq.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:57AM
But Ol' George U. U. Bush did go to Iraq no? So maybe Donald will shoot himself to the moon?
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:01AM
Technically, he didn't say *we* [youtube.com] were going to the moon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:27AM (3 children)
Wow, looks at this edgelord, can't wait until his term is over huh.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:16AM (2 children)
Whoever coined the word "edgelord" needs to die in a fire, seriously.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:18AM
Wow, what an edgemaster!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @07:54PM
das edgy
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:31AM
The mission has been in planning for years. The only difference is that they intend to add a crew and reduce the duration [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:55PM
Trump saying we're going to the moon is like Bush saying there are WMDs in Iraq.
I think it's more like that time Bush said we're going to the moon.
...calling on NASA to "gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own." [nasa.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:50AM (1 child)
I, for one, welcome our Ebonics-speaking Ameri-lunar overlords.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:01AM
At least until luna rocks us into submission
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @12:03PM (12 children)
... but do they also have plans on what to actually do there, once they are there? I mean, something long term goals. Building a base is not a long term goal, it's not like... "ok, it's build, lets get back to Earth... funding has run out".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 28 2017, @12:40PM (4 children)
Mmmm... something like a gated community for within which the 0.1-percenters can give a fuck-you safely to the world below?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 28 2017, @12:53PM (2 children)
Interesting concept. When you look at completely artificial billionaire playgrounds like Dubai built out of the desert, it almost starts to sound realistic. When you consider the "ridiculously tall tower" vanity projects found in such places it makes even more sense - imagine how big a tower you could build in lunar gravity!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:09PM (1 child)
I was serious.
Some extensions:
a. a numbered-account bank out of any nation's jurisdiction
b. headquarters for major corporations
c. Steve Jobs mausoleum
Overlooking exactly what?
On the other side, a lower gravity means a lower load on the beams supporting some underground compounds - easier to isolate and make air-tight, easier to lan... err., sorry, I mean to moonscape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:29PM
>>imagine how big a tower you could build in lunar gravity!
>Overlooking exactly what?
Anybody with less money than you. That's the whole point isn't it? Buy-to-let lunar real estate could be the next big bubble!
1 - Persuade people to give you money to build apartments on the Moon. Tell them they can collect huge rents while the value of their investment rises.
2 - Use cheap, abused, expendable labourers to build the properties, which will stand mostly empty for years.
3 - Run away with all the money when the bubble pops.
Like I said before, it's just a slightly dustier Dubai.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:52PM
One can only hope they try it. If the top 0.1% of the world goes Galt's Gulch on the moon, that leaves the rest of us down here with a *lot* more resources to divvy up.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 28 2017, @12:45PM
The primary mission should be to develop, implement and test technologies designed to reduce the base's dependence on resupply from Earth. As long as at least some of the technologies are successful, the costs to maintain the base will (hopefully) decrease year on year, making it an easier sell to the bean-counters. Obviously such technologies will be extremely useful in all future space endeavours. The secondary mission should be to investigate ways of expanding / improving the base with as little Earthly resources as possible. Once the base is well established, it could even become a target for tourists (very very rich tourists) which would help mitigate the costs.
Eventually, someone will come up with funds for a Mars mission or find a big black obelisk in Tycho crater or something, in which case having a moon base established could be really handy. It would be an interesting turn of events to see a private space company like SpaceX paying NASA for services rendered (lunar ice delivered into Earth orbit, for example) for their Mars mission.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:02PM (5 children)
No, when funding runs out, the base crew is simply stuck there. Just look at what happens when the Federal government shuts down over a funding fight. Going to a Moon base as an American astronaut would be suicidal lunacy; there's simply no way you can trust the political leadership to take care of you and make sure the mission succeeds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:41PM (2 children)
Just look at what happens when the Federal government shuts down over a funding fight.
You ignore both what gets shut down and for how long. If astronauts depend on a space flight for survival, Congress will find a way to fund it just to avoid the massive political hit. And if they don't need the flight right away, Congress will eventually fund it in a few weeks.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:04PM (1 child)
If astronauts depend on a space flight for survival, Congress will find a way to fund it just to avoid the massive political hit.
Maybe in the past, but I wouldn't trust this Congress to do that. We have a Congress and Administration now that want to completely gut all Federal spending and eliminate major agencies like the EPA, while massively ramping up military and nuclear weapon spending. At the same time, they're trying to repeal both ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion so that millions of people will be without healhcare coverage.
More relevant, the last time they had a big government shutdown, people were hopping mad, but who did they blame? The Congresspeople who were obstructing because they wanted to repeal ObamaCare immediately, or the people who refused to allow that? They blamed the latter, who are now in power. These people aren't above letting some astronauts die so they can blame the other side.
I'll say it again: putting your life in the hands of the US Congress is suicidal lunacy (pun intended BTW). The only way I'd risk my life in spaceflight is if I were being backed up by some sane government. This one isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:15PM
A few astronauts here, a few 100k citizens there. Meh comes out in the wash.
What we need to focus on is PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM TERRORISTS.
Vote for me.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 01 2017, @09:37AM (1 child)
Well, just make sure that from the moment the first astronaut touches down there is at least one return vehicle on the lunar surface at any given time, fully fuelled and ready to fly, with enough seats for everybody moonside. If the politicians pull the plug, the astronauts simply fly home when it suits them. I would have thought this would be SOP anyway.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 01 2017, @03:19PM
Well yes, that would make perfect sense. It'd probably cost a lot of money though (one craft large enough to evacuate ALL the personnel at the base would probably be fairly large; we're not talking about something that holds only 3 people here like the Apollo landers), and I seriously doubt that Congress would fund it. Instead, they'd only approve a much smaller craft that can hold a few people in case of medical emergency. So the base personnel would be drawing straws to see who goes back to Earth and who starves to death on the Moon when supplies run out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:25PM (3 children)
TFA has a spectacular fail in understanding the tech (or maybe I do):
Musk's rockets—the Falcon and the soon-to-be-launched Falcon Heavy—are built to take off and land.
Umm... that's the first stage, built to land on earth to be reused, that bit that never gets near orbit let alone the moon. It also lands on a pre-prepared _flat_ landing pad, not an uneven rock-strewn lunar surface. It is also built to land in one g and one atm (lunar may be easier but may not). What is certain is that lunar landing will be very different, may therefore require new design of landing system and a whole new testing process as a result. It's like saying Virgin Galactic has moon landing capabilities because their White Knight first stage has landed successfully on earth.
I am quite sure that SpaceX and Bigelow are probably a better bet for moon and Mars landing and habitats than SLS/Orion, but trying to persuade people by massively misrepresenting their current capabilities is just dumb.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
While you're right that the SpaceX first stages are indeed designed for landing in controlled conditions here on Earth after boosting the second stage, you're completely overblowing the difficulty of landing on the Moon. Let me spell it out for you:
When have we been able to land rockets on Earth? Only very recently, in the mid 2010s, after many failed attempts.
When have we been able to land rockets on the Moon? In 1969, on our very first attempt, using computing technology that's utterly primitive compared to today's.
Clearly, landing a rocket on the Moon is child's play if we could do it with 1969 technology. Rock-strewn surfaces aren't a big problem: you just do what the Apollo missions did, and what modern helicopter pilots do, and use your eyes to look for a relatively smooth area to land in (the Apollo missions also had pre-selected general landing areas, using observational data from telescopes). In addition, you design the landing craft to have widely-spaced legs designed for landing on lunar soil; again, that's what Apollo did. From there, it's not that hard because 1) there's no atmosphere to get in the way and cause turbulence and 2) there's only 1/6g gravity so you don't need a lot of thrust to control your descent.
may therefore require new design of landing system and a whole new testing process as a result. It's like saying Virgin Galactic has moon landing capabilities because their White Knight first stage has landed successfully on earth.
This is such a bizarre thing for you to write. You're acting like we've never landed rocket-powered craft on the Moon before. We've done it many times, with a 100% success rate. It's been far more successful than many other feats in our history of spaceflight, meaning it obviously isn't that hard by comparison. If NASA could do it easily and successfully in 1969 with less computing power than a 1980s HP calculator, I fail to see how Virgin Galactic is going to have much of a problem with it now if they've managed to figure out how to land 1st-stage rockets on
Earth, something NASA has *never* managed to do.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:49PM
While you're right that the SpaceX first stages are indeed designed for landing in controlled conditions here on Earth after boosting the second stage, you're completely overblowing the difficulty of landing on the Moon.
If that is the case, then why is Howard Bloom making such a big deal of the lack of moon landing capability in SLS/Orion? Either you're right and it's easy to build it (or transfer from a first-stage earth-lander system) in which case the lack of it is no problem, or it isn't.
TFA is really saying why is NASA spending billions on Orion/SLS when it could spend less and get further with SpaceX/Bigelow/BlueOrigin etc. - but moon landing capability is completely irrelevant to that argument.
When have we been able to land rockets on Earth? Only very recently, in the mid 2010s, after many failed attempts.
How quickly we forget - Delta DCX was what 1993?, was that a failed attempt?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @07:46PM
All or Most Future SpaceX Launches Will Use Reusable Boosters [soylentnews.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Reusable_technology_development [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]