SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the To-the-Moon,-Alice!-To-the-Moon! dept.
No more sending humans to an asteroid. We're going back to the Moon:
The policy calls for the NASA administrator to "lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities." The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and international efforts toward returning humans on the Moon, and will lay the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars.
"The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," said President Trump. "It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints -- we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."
The policy grew from a unanimous recommendation by the new National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, after its first meeting Oct. 5. In addition to the direction to plan for human return to the Moon, the policy also ends NASA's existing effort to send humans to an asteroid. The president revived the National Space Council in July to advise and help implement his space policy with exploration as a national priority.
President's remarks and White House release.
Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program
Also at Reuters and New Scientist.
Previously: Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
NASA Eyeing Mini Space Station in Lunar Orbit as Stepping Stone to Mars
NASA and Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on the Development of a Lunar Space Station
Bigelow and ULA to Put Inflatable Module in Orbit Around the Moon by 2022
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:38PM (4 children)
NASA's main mission isn't space exploration, it's making Muslims feel good! Trump is just so wrong about everything.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims.html [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:40PM
*facepalm*
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:03PM (2 children)
Believe me, we are working very hard on improving our relations with the Muslim world. In many ways. Through our friends in Israel, our friends in Saudi Arabia, by ending the lottery system (a Chuck Schumer beauty) and CHAIN MIGRATION, and with our military. We need our military, it's gotta be PERFECTO. So yesterday I signed what they call the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, complicated thing, it's not complicated. It's money, $700 billion, for our military.
The NDAA increases the size of the American Armed Forces for the first time in seven years, and it provides our military service members with their largest pay increase in eight years. It authorizes funding for our continued campaign to OBLITERATE ISIS. The previous administration founded ISIS, literally founded ISIS. As you know, we've won in Syria, we've won in Iraq. But they spread to other areas and we're getting them as fast as they spread.
The NDAA approves missile defense capabilities as we continue our campaign to create maximum pressure on LITTLE ROCKET MAN, on the vile dictatorship in North Korea. We're working very diligently on that -- building up forces. We'll see how it all turns out. It's a very bad situation -- a situation that should have been handled long ago by other administrations.
Believe me, we really appreciate the OVERWHELMING bipartisan support from all of our friends in Congress. And I thank my TERRIFIC warriors. Brand new, beautiful equipment is on its way -- the best you've ever had by far. We make the best in the world, and you're going to have it.
Now Congress must finish the job by eliminating the defense SEQUESTER and passing a clean appropriations bill. I think it's going to happen. At this time of grave global threats, I urge OBSTRUCTIONIST Dems in Congress to drop their shutdown threats and send clean funding and a clean funding bill to my desk that fully funds our great military. Protecting our country should always be a bipartisan issue, just like yesterday's legislation. 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
He's such an idiot-child, even when I love the policy he's putting forth it makes me cringe to listen to him speak:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/trump-instructs-nasa-return-astronauts-moon-directive-51725954?yptr=yahoo [go.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:43PM
And Pence actually led with military dominance as the first reason to do it... amazing!
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Troll) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:47PM (12 children)
Trump, a lunatic first, martial second, strives to not be a meteoric appearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:28PM (5 children)
"...organize government, private enterprise.."
So, more money for Boeing?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:32PM (3 children)
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both have private space programs.
Boeing, not so much.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:00PM
The United Launch Alliance (Boeing + Lockheed Martin) have Atlas V and Delta rockets. Some of ULA's payloads have been commercial.
Although ULA certainly are scumbags who have [soylentnews.org] shit-talked [floridatoday.com] SpaceX [soylentnews.org] frequently in recent years, they see the writing on the wall. They will be building reusable or partially-reusable [wikipedia.org] rockets if they want to remain in the industry.
What's the criteria for having a "private space program"? SpaceX have taken NASA/USG/Air Force money to develop their technology, not counting money paid for flights. The U.S. just got a much better return on their investment in SpaceX than they have with ULA. And if we kill SLS and divert more money to SpaceX, we will see real progress on Mars.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:14AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:45PM
We need to put the 'mental' back into 'governmental'.
Make Mental Grate Again
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:12PM
Well, I reckon he got scared of losing the pork barrel race in the competition with ARSE [spaceaustralia.com.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:15PM (3 children)
Humourless idiots got mod points today and desperately try to fall back into being pointless.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
Correction: Humourless idiots get mod points every day.
*BLARES DENK MEEMS* [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:43PM
It's a constant struggle, yes.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:46PM
I am not humorless!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:27AM
Good call, now that Trump likes space I don't like it either.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:07PM
Trump found a way to moon the world.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by requerdanos on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:49PM (3 children)
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
Go on, read the whole speach, you can find it online. External enemies, in war, in a space race, whatever, always serve to distract from internal trouble. It was true then, it's been true since, and it's true today, with this announcement.
Kennedy's moon speech was a carefully crafted work of propaganda - kudos to his speech writer(s?). It works on me today, half a century later, even though I *know* it is propaganda. If I ever have to give a motivational speech, I know where to steal from!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:56AM
I have, many times. I was born in 1969, too young to hear the speech, but I grew up against the backdrop of moon landings being "normal."
Same effect here. At the end, he doesn't say we are going to "achieve" the goal, or "reach" the goal; he says we're going to "win." But it still gives me goosebumps to hear it and know that the Apollo program came out of it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:29PM
s/go to the moon/build the wall/
Also, this is actually the first time we're going to the moon [space.com], right?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain_nifty on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:52PM (38 children)
If congress isn't messing with their funding by earmarking it for their constituents, we have a new executive every 4-8 years giving them new long term plans.
You can't have effective long term planning, when the plans constantly change in the relative short term.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:00PM (4 children)
The directive should call for putting a Congressman on the Moon by 2018 elections, and all Congressmen by 2020.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:38PM (2 children)
We can at least put them all out of house... Cheaper and quicker than firing them off into space. Of course we could make it suborbital, with no heat shield. Would that be too cruel [youtube.com]?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:07AM (1 child)
Really? I wouldn't be so sure, it didn't seem to work all that well so far.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:06AM
It's a collective effort, but for the individual, the choice is trivial to make. You do one thing, or the other.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:41AM
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
While that is true, the space race was initiated by a president that was only active for 2 years after the pledge. What really motivated the Space Race wasn't Congress or a consistent President. It was the fact that America as a whole was pitted against Russia/USSR as a whole during the entirety of the Space Race. The current "Space Race" is more of a private economic affair. While Mr. Musk has tons of money, he would be burning it, if there wasn't some economic factor that allowed him to do what he has done with SpaceX.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:34PM
We had a persistent, steady and formidable opponent.
Today, we've got Silicon valley startups and Kiwi-tech for competition. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Rocket Lab, but... it hardly inspires middle America to forego a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:21PM (30 children)
A lot of NASA's cheaper unmanned missions have proceeded as planned (and they were planned over many years). Even expensive boondoggles like the JWST are pretty secure in their funding. Congress does interfere a little bit, such as the mandated mission to Europa, but it's not too bad.
It's manned spaceflight that has been a mess, and not entirely because our goals are muddled and change from one Administration to another. We had the expensive Space Shuttle and then reliance on the Russians, with years of activity in LEO but not beyond. And maybe it is a good thing for us not to be locked into any particular plan. The Space Launch System is a huge money waster and its maiden flight is likely being delayed until 2020. SpaceX has accomplished a lot using a relatively small amount of funding from NASA. If Falcon Heavy is successful and partially reusable and SpaceX turns its sights towards the Interplanetary Transport System and Mars, we could reach a point where cancelling the in-progress SLS pork project and diverting funds (somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion) to SpaceX is a much smarter move. Falcon Heavy will deliver a similar though slightly smaller payload to LEO as SLS Block 1, at less than 20% of the cost.
I think we could easily see the cost of SLS flights reaching $750 million instead of $500 million, and Falcon Heavy declining to the current cost of a Falcon 9 flight due to reusable stages. In which case, SpaceX could get a Falcon Heavy payload (with the caveat of a lower mass due to reusable mode) at around 8% of the cost of an SLS flight which wastes rocket stages by design.
Will Congress kill the SLS pork rocket? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much success SpaceX and other commercial launchers have in the meantime, and how badly mismanaged the SLS becomes.
The current official plan of returning to the Moon with some sort of undefined Mars exploration in the mid-late 2030s seems like it can survive subsequent administrations. There's talk of ISS-style cooperation [scmp.com] on a lunar orbital space station [soylentnews.org]. Russia [soylentnews.org], China [soylentnews.org], ESA [soylentnews.org], and JAXA [soylentnews.org] have all expressed a lot of interest in going to the Moon (even [soylentnews.org] India/ISRO [soylentnews.org]).
It looks like we will see international cooperation on upcoming lunar exploration, partially due to the U.S. already achieving the manned landing there in 1969. And then SpaceX or another private company will make it to Mars first (SpaceX wants to send humans there in 2024, much earlier than any nation is planning to do it). That would stop the Mars race in its tracks. I think this scenario is good for the world.
The humans-visiting-an-asteroid mission concept was pretty widely criticized. It would have been interesting, but Moon-then-Mars manned exploration is probably a better idea. So that Obama-era idea has been cleared away, but both administrations wanted eventual Mars exploration and I doubt subsequent administrations will veer away from that course.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:19PM (4 children)
that's the keyword right there.
SLS will NEVER be cancelled.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:11AM (2 children)
Newer batches of Congressmen (post-2010?) have been a lot less tolerant of sacred cows and pork spending.
SLS could be cancelled. But it will require the confluence of incredible SpaceX success (let's see what happens with the Falcon Heavy maiden launch in January), Space Launch System failure (additional delays, failure on the launch pad, etc.), and public pressure to cancel SLS.
Initially, Falcon Heavy will face off against SLS. But in a nightmare scenario for SLS, launches could be postponed another whole year or two. If SpaceX were to fly the successor to Falcon Heavy around the same time as initial flights of SLS, SLS might be too small to not fail.
Currently planned:
Falcon Heavy to LEO: 63,800 kg
Falcon Heavy to GTO: 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy to Trans-Mars injection: 16,800 kg
Falcon Heavy to Trans-lunar injection: 16,000 kg
SLS Block 1 to LEO: 70,000 kg
SLS Block 1A/1B to LEO: 105,000 kg
SLS Block 1B to Trans-lunar injection: 39,200 kg
SLS Block 2 to LEO: 130,000 kg
SpaceX Big "Falcon" Rocket to LEO: 250,000 kg (expendable)
BFR to LEO: 150,000 kg (reusable)
Note that BFR is a scaled-down version of the previously planned Interplanetary Transport System. And they are hoping to fly it as soon as 2022, so pretty much concurrent to SLS flights. If the REUSABLE version of BFR offers more massive payloads than SLS Block 2 while SLS Block 1 is still being tested... that's a wrap, regardless of that sweet pork flavor.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
Ah, "Falcon" is not what I thought the F in BFR stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.
If we're fine with having One True Launch System, then going all in on the BFR is probably a good idea. But as a congressman recently said (can't remember which one), space launch systems are critical strategic resources like aircraft carriers. Whoever controls them controls the biggest source of military power and authority.
We cannot allow that power and authority to belong to private corporations whose incentive is short-term profit rather than the long-term survival and prosperity of even a small but significant segment of humanity. So while the BFR is exciting, it's also extremely dangerous for the most advanced launch system to be controlled by an unaccountable, international, for-profit corporation.
For our own sake, we need to make sure that either a) the US owns a more powerful launch system, even if it's more expensive, or b) nobody else (Russia, China, et al) can use the BFR without our approval.
One plausible scenario we want to avoid is Chinese companies being compelled to sneak Chinese military assets into space on the BFR. As a private corporation, SpaceX would not have enough red tape to detect and prevent this even if they had the inclination to. The Chinese could leapfrog our military dominance and become the new leading world superpower this way.
Of course, the reader is welcome to disagree with the premise that the US should remain the leading world superpower. But you can bet that nearly everyone in the US government agrees with it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:31PM
It's clearly a way for Daddy Musk to deflect criticism of putting profanity in the name of the rocket, by injecting some ambiguity into the initialism. This is the guy who wants to name his Tesla vehicles Models S, 3, X, Y in that order (here's someone getting triggered by it [theverge.com]). BFR might get renamed to something else closer to launch. Consider Big Falcon Rocket a way to keep the wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke alive until then.
There's really no indication that SpaceX is going to suddenly uproot and become a European or Chinese company. And in fact, it has deep roots here with various space launch facilities and ties to U.S.-based Tesla/etc.
As I said in some comment somewhere, we can support other companies like the United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab at the same time, at least by funding development of new rockets from those players if not necessarily purchasing launches. There will be bids for launches, but some more expensive launchers like ULA's will end up getting used simply for redundancy (since a SpaceX explosion would probably delay launches by a month or more).
The guy you were thinking of is Scott Pace: Trump Space Adviser: Mars "Too Ambitious" and SLS is a Strategic National Asset [soylentnews.org]
His perspective is stupid. SLS is a fucking joke. If you axed SLS [nextbigfuture.com] and gave HALF of the future allocated money to SpaceX, you are going to get a much better outcome. Especially if the first SLS flights with payloads (remember that the maiden flight has been delayed [theverge.com], likely to late 2019 or 2020, and won't have a significant payload [wikipedia.org]) are facing off against Falcon Heavy or BFR. So 2022 for Europa Clipper and a manned flight to lunar orbit, if those aren't delayed as well. As planned, BFR would be able to carry payload with more mass than any iteration of SLS... in reusable mode! Expendable mode BFR from SpaceX would have nearly double the payload to LEO as SLS Block 2.
When is SLS Block 2 planned to launch? 2029-2030. If SLS continues you will pay $4 billion a year for the program every year starting in 2019. Holy shit.
SpaceX and ULA are already set to eliminate our reliance on Russia for manned launches.
I don't agree that we need exclusivity. But if you wanted to set this up, there's a way to do it: revive Interplanetary Transport System (ITS). SpaceX downgraded from ITS to BFR this year due to economic realities. But if you want your powerful and exclusive launch system, you could give SpaceX 25-50% of the Space Launch System gravy train, and they could agree to give NASA exclusive access to ITS launches for a period of 10 or 20 years. Or give the U.S. government veto power over who gets to ride on it.
We already established that BFR will peak at around twice the payload to LEO of SLS Block 2. What about the ITS plan from 2016 [wikipedia.org]?
ITS: 300 tons to LEO in reusable mode, or 550 tons to LEO in expendable mode. Compared to 130 tons to LEO for SLS Block 2, which is always expendable. Fuck my ass.
Finally, while SpaceX can work with China [arstechnica.com], note that SpaceX is already extremely wary of China, because Musky knows that China steals secrets on reflex:
ELON MUSK: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical' [businessinsider.com] (2012)
And yet... [reddit.com]
A new SpaceX? China developing system to recover, reuse space rockets [cnbc.com]
https://cybersecurity.jobs/spacex/careers/?vs=26 [cybersecurity.jobs]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:28AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:22PM
It's primarily thanks to Congress that NASA is in such an f-d up state these days. They control the purse strings on this as with everything else in the government, and a lot of the sad state that NASA is in today is thanks to them. What they did with the JWST [scienceblogs.com] is a case in point. It became an expensive boondoggle precisely because it was underfunded:
I imagine similar things might have happened with other NASA projects. NASA's administration has also made its share of mistakes but much of the blame also falls on a miserly US Congress.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:32PM (14 children)
ISS-style cooperation excludes China [soylentnews.org], thanks to your congresskritters. Based on their mood (and interest), I can't exclude the same faith in relation with Russia - the only reason it doesn't happen immediately is because of Russians' still-needed liftoff capabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:45PM
The U.S., Russia, European Union, Japan, and Canada are the core ISS participants. Russia and Japan are likely to join the lunar space station project at this point.
Bilateral != multilateral, so it's not clear to me that China can't join in.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:43AM (10 children)
Thanks also to China's massive espionage program. Sorry, I too don't buy that China would act in good faith with a cooperative space project like the ISS.
Russia also runs a significant part of the ISS. Those sections simply can't be run without them.
I'm not feeling the good faith effort from them either, but they got in on the ISS. Or NASA for that matter due both to continual Congressional interference with their budgets and some of the peculiar ways of NASA (spare no expense on safety, for example, until the costs compromise the mission or the contracts from the desired vendor, then suddenly no corner is too shallow to cut). Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail. Maybe the ISRO.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:57AM (7 children)
Funny how the Europeans don't have these problems [wikipedia.org]. There are a number of explanations possible; among them:
- the Chinese respect the Europeans more (than US) and don't spy on them; *or*
- the Europeans really see it as a collaboration rather than a competition, therefore there's no reasons for China to spy on them because the data is freely shared anyway.
(Good faith, eh? Have you looked on your side as well?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:24AM
3. Europeans are fools. All their stuff is going to be swiped by the Chinese.
4. Europeans have less-valuable technology, perhaps because it was already swiped, and they'd like an opportunity to swipe something from the Chinese. (good luck going up against the experts)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:25AM (5 children)
Where's the evidence to support your assertion? The link didn't show anything relevant.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:37AM (4 children)
Terminology: "problems" in this specific context is meant to be understood as "the European aren't bother to sever the collaboration with the Chinese in space R&D for reasons of possible Chinese espionage".
As in: "I don't have any problems/issues with Chinese espionage, I simply don't care whether they do it or not, not enough to drop the collaboration with them the way US Congress did".
I hope my comment becomes clearer now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:02AM (3 children)
We'll see if that worked for them or was a stupid idea.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:31AM (2 children)
In your view, what's the worst that can happen?
The Chinese getting the technology and start producing it at lower prices? Cool, better prices for Europeans, less problems with 'Where'd we place the industry in countries with high population density?', a good foundation to discover so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:33AM
(shitty virtual keyboard) the message should have continued with 'to discover something else'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:08PM
Yes, and the ESA gets to pay for the R&D.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:03PM (1 child)
Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail.
They should just put JAXA in charge of everything, and other nations only need to contribute money and do work only as directed by JAXA. Just look at the trains in Japan for proof. Everything they do there works almost perfectly, so that when a train leaves 20 seconds early, they apologize profusely [bbc.com]. Only in a fantasy would you see that kind of attention to detail on an American subway system or Amtrak.
The American train and subways systems are proof that things run by the American government are doomed to failure when things must be done exactly right, as in space travel (don't forget all the bridges that are falling down). And over in Europe, the fact that they can barely keep their union together shows that they can't really be trusted with anything important either. Russia's space program is looking like it's failing these days too, probably as a result of their massive economic problems (it doesn't help that most Russian men are alcoholics), and China can't even figure out how to have escalators which don't grind people up [cnn.com].
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:01PM
I think they should put ISRO in charge of everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Orbiter_Mission [wikipedia.org]
Better track record to Mars than Russia! And cheap!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:08AM (1 child)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:16AM
Thanks. Sorry for the typo, was posting while traveling (by train, in case anyone is curious)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)
If Falcon Heavy can be successfully landed and re-used, then why couldn't SLS be modified to do the same?
If NASA bought that technology from SpaceX, (its not all that secret, and there is more than one such solution in existence), it might be worth the money, and save the design. Its too expensive to fly it as is.
The whole idea that the final package has to go up on one rocket is just too much 1969 thinking. We built the ISS precisely to gain the experience so as to not need to do "one-rocket-missions" any more. There's no reason people should step foot on the moon without a ready and waiting habitat and return vehicle sitting there waiting for them.
FIFY
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:13AM
NASA should just buy launches from SpaceX, and maybe support ULA, Blue Origin, etc. to prevent a complete monopoly or stagnation (along with supporting smaller launchers like Rocket Lab, which could be launching tomorrow [spaceflightnow.com]).
ULA's upcoming Vulcan [wikipedia.org] design is only intended to be partially reusable. Clearly, just knowing that reusability is an achievable goal is not enough for fully reusable rockets to be designed.
Space Launch System is manufactured by Boeing/United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Are they the ones that would have to license SpaceX's technology? Will SpaceX sell their secrets to entrenched military industrial complex companies that have opposed [politico.com] and shit [soylentnews.org] talked [floridatoday.com] them [soylentnews.org] every step of the way?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:20AM (1 child)
The problem is reusability only makes sense if you're launching in volume. For the Space Shuttle, that threshold was about 40 launches per year. I think SpaceX expects it to kick in at a somewhat lower launch rate, but still probably higher than today's 18+ launches this year. SLS is planned to launch every one to two years. It's not in the league where it is viable as an expendable vehicle, much less cover the additional overhead of reusability.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:11PM
I'm a little conflicted about this:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/11/30/0442222 [soylentnews.org]
https://archive.fo/vh0Bb [archive.fo]
But it doesn't seem to me that SpaceX has to reuse anywhere near 16-20 rockets to see a cost benefit:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=18744&page=1&cid=486870#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Are the discounts coming because it is experimental and risky for the customer? Or because SpaceX is ready to offer a better value? Either way, it seems like insurance companies are bullish [seattletimes.com] on the reusable rocket concept after seeing so many successfully landed boosters and a handful of commercially reused boosters.
We could get a better indication of how well reusability is working for SpaceX after they fulfill their goal of reusing a booster within 24 hours (or let's say a week since launches are often delayed by days), and when SpaceX publishes permanently lower prices here [spacex.com] (perhaps indicating that you get a lower price only if you fly using reusable mode).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)
Reusability isn't something that can easily be worked in to a design after-the-fact. It's something that really needs to be planned from the start. If they're going to make the SLS reusable, they need to effectively start over (which, granted, would let them fix a lot of the stupid design choices they've made, but since those were more pork-driven than engineering-driven anyway it probably wouldn't help).
I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:06PM
I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.
I thought they did reuse the solid fuel rockets (SRBs) on the Space Shuttle, and that was decades ago. The SRBs would separate when they ran out of fuel, then deploy parachutes so they could be recovered.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:56PM
The second rule of Government Spending. Why recycle a used item when you can sell them a new one for five times as much?
The first rule of Government Spending was cited in the movie Contact.
It's like the opposite of the rules of acquisition?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:40AM (1 child)
It is NEVER a good idea to push more money where no additional money is useful. Money is not time (except on a small subset of well-defined endeavors) , and I don't care that you've been told differently. There is equivalent of Amdahl's Law in research activities and it is also one of the causes for diminishing returns. If some research effort cannot be parallelized further, additional funding will get wasted or even hamper the progress by incurring new unnecessary problems. If state at any time happens to have a toxic amount of money surplus, it should just lower its debt thus preventing it from doing damage.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:41PM
I didn't pull the $10 billion number out of thin air:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16384096/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-mars-rocket-development-business-demand [theverge.com]
BFR is a scaled down version of the previous Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) plan. If NASA wanted ITS instead of BFR, we could come up with a different, presumably larger, number for that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:24PM (7 children)
The one thing we really ought to get is a lunar sample that isn't contaminated by air. All the sample return containers for Apollo leaked.
We can do this with a robot. Probably the way to deal with air is to weld the container's lid shut.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:40PM (3 children)
Or we could do the analysis on-site. Curiosity and the upcoming Mars 2020 [wikipedia.org] rover can do that, although the Mars 2020 mission involves a possible sample return to Earth.
Or do the analysis on-site with fleshbag astronauts. Beyond the orbital lunar space station plans, Japan [soylentnews.org] and Russia [soylentnews.org] seem interested in putting boots on the ground sometime in the 2030s. I don't know if there are any plans to ferry astronauts between the surface and lunar orbit.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:39PM (2 children)
R U sure bodybag astronauts aren't a better deal?
I hear Moon is deficient in carbon and nitrogen, this one thinks sending the US Congress and government there is a net plus all around.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
You don't want to send this guy [wikipedia.org] into space.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:20AM
Nope, you don't. He'll just puke again, and again...
from wiki
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:21AM
The didn't all leak, in fact its not clear that all of them have been opened. There are still small cylindrical sample return flasks that were still unopened as of 2010 [usra.edu].
Most of the exposed samples were exposed on earth, when a glove box leaked, but by that time the samples had already been bagged.
This MIGHT have mattered had some form of life had been found. But that wasn't the case, and there's no indication the leaking ALSRC affected the sample in any meaningful way, and certainly this alone would not justify building a lab on the moon or trying to do analyses in lunar atmosphere. The density of the atmosphere at the moon's surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits.
If we intend to visit there, in person or via any type of probe, robot, or vehicle, there's no point in trying real hard to return totally un contaminated samples. We are going to contaminate an entire solar system body with our tools anyway.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:36AM (1 child)
How do you weld the container's lid shut without oxygen?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:15AM
Vacuum welding? [wikipedia.org] There's a lot of vacuum :)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:31PM (8 children)
I seem to remember a similar proclamation from W... if Trump is lucky enough to stay out of a major military conflict, this might just get enough traction to launch a few guys.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:42PM
And then what? Collect some rocks. Take a photo of Earth. Hang out for a couple days. Maybe lose a couple astronauts on re-entry.
-1 would not do again
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:18AM (1 child)
Does nuclear war with NK count as a major military conflict?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:12PM
That would count, but I personally rate the saber rattling on both sides as unconvincing - unnerving, immature, and extremely worrying, but ultimately unconvincing that either would really follow through.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:58PM (4 children)
Trump is a guy that can be Tweet baited into a major military conflict.
To the surprise of his staff who won't find out about it until it is BREAKING NEWS !!!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:15PM (3 children)
I think you need to define major. I doubt he has the power and political support to do much more than send a few SEAL teams, or a couple of drone strikes per day... basically business as usual. If he tried to reinstate the draft and launch a ground assault on Kabul... that might not actually happen.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:13PM (2 children)
I would define major as:
* some action Trump could take
* without his daycare minders noticing
* that would start a conflict
* which escalates into a major conflict
* requiring major commitments of resources from the US and possibly other allies
and if he's as 'clever' as I think . . .
* escalates into a nuclear conflict
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)
I have some amount of faith in his babysitters, a lot of them are the same crew that has been in place through Obama, Bush, and even before.
Not saying he can't completely piss off the world with a tweet, or send a SEAL team or two on missions that are a very bad idea before he gets stopped, just that even the DPRK has babysitters who make sure their fearless leader's rhetoric doesn't translate into a "very bad thing" for themselves and their children.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:36PM
I truly hope that is the case.
I never would have thought it. The fact I have to hope for babysitters to do their jobs in preventing childish tantrums is not something I expected to ever see the United States devolve into.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:51PM (10 children)
Asteroid mining, out. Conversion of Moon to a Death Star, begin. Now if only Trump only wanted some fricking sharks . . .
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:08PM (7 children)
The commercial asteroid mining ventures like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries have little or no interest in sending humans to asteroids. In the near-term they want to send asteroid-prospecting satellites into orbit around Earth or asteroids. In the long-term they want to send spacecraft and robots to redirect and mine asteroids. Water found in asteroids could be used to refuel manned or unmanned spacecraft. I'm not sure what they will do with the metals. Would a human visit to an asteroid really have supported these goals?
NASA's return to the Moon will likely involve a lot of cooperation with other nations:
Russia and US will cooperate to build moon's first space station [theguardian.com]
Japan moves ahead with plans to join U.S.-led project to build space station orbiting moon [japantimes.co.jp]
So rather than a Death Star... an International Space Station in lunar orbit.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:26AM (6 children)
Water is not a fuel.
Metals can not be economically landed, and would have to be used in space very near to where they were found. There is no amount of voodoo economic theory were this makes sense.
And please don't mention gravity wells, they don't change the economics one iota.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:42AM
http://theconversation.com/making-space-rocket-fuel-from-water-could-drive-a-power-revolution-on-earth-65854 [theconversation.com]
It can be used to make a propellant. Which is still necessary so long as EmDrive is not real.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:55AM
For now, you are right. For a nearish future, I wouldn't be so sure.
Depends on your available energy. If you have enough of it, you can actually use water for, e.g., ionic rockets - you'll lose the dissociation energy for water about 900kJ/mol (only about half of it if you deal with a partial H/OH dissociation), but if you want (better said, "are able") to space-thug an ice asteroid, this will be a negligible to the amount necessary to modify its orbit. But at least you'll not scramble for special fuel.
If you are capable to fuse hydrogen (even when explosively, like nuclear pulse propulsion [wikipedia.org]), then water does become fuel.
On the other side, devastatingly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:05AM (3 children)
Of course it is - you just have to add energy to convert it into a more useful form, just like you do on Earth. Hydrogen and oxygen gas for example. Or hydrogen peroxide if you're feeling especially adventurous. Either way will burn beautifully and send your rockets wherever you want them. And either way you avoid shipping lots and lots of mass up from Earth for the explicit purpose of throwing it away. All you need is a refinery and a power source and you can make your fuel in space from local materials.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:55AM (2 children)
I know, but you should stop thinking like an Earthling landlubber. You don't need to spend energy to dissociate H2O just so that you could combine H2 and O2 again in a chemical reactor with a nozzle on one side. To much loss, both in separation and during recombination!
In vacuum and small gradient gravity field, most efficient use of the energy you collect would be spending it on direct acceleration of matter using electromagnetic force.
It makes sense to do H2+O2 rocketry down here where water is really abundant and generally not toxic to biosphere (I know, I know, the dreaded di-hydrogen-monoxide ...), but up there, really no.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:40PM
Depends on your specific goals - lots of maneuvers benefit from high thrust. Also, we don't currently have any reliable, field-tested ion drives suitable for moving large masses, though a few show promise in the lab. We also have some significant challenges in terms of developing a high-density power supply to drive them, not to mention a way to radiate the copious amounts of waste heat. I've heard counter-claims that the VASIMIR "39 days to Mars" claim would require a space-based nuclear reactor with an energy-to-mass ratio 100x higher than anything we've produced so far. Maybe we can pull that off, but I'm betting it takes at least a few more decades.
Plus, in the mid-term as we're expanding into space, ion drives are extremely intricate, expensive pieces of equipment. Whereas chemical rockets can be as simple as a fuel tank and a nozzle - much easier to actually manufacture in space.
I'll grant you that it's far from the most elegant or efficient solution, but it gets the job done quickly, simply, and cheaply. And fast, easy solutions will be make establishing a serious presence in space far more doable.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM
You don't need to spend energy to dissociate H2O just so that you could combine H2 and O2 again in a chemical reactor with a nozzle on one side. To much loss, both in separation and during recombination!
Losses aren't important in space: you have limitless solar energy up there, at least anywhere near Earth orbit (not so much in the outer system). You just have to collect it, which can take a little time, but water can make a good energy-dense energy storage form this way, by converting it to H2 and O2 over time with a power station.
most efficient use of the energy you collect would be spending it on direct acceleration of matter using electromagnetic force.
Ok, and where are you going to get something that can create that much electric power? There's plenty of sunlight, sure, but collecting that much (to get enough power for what you want to do) will require an enormous PV array, which really isn't feasible. That's why the idea is to use water: have a somewhat-enormous PV array in a fixed point near where you're mining H2O, and use that to slowly electrolyze the water to fuel, which you can then load onto small spacecraft so they can do whatever it is you want done with them, like transporting valuable metals around.
Maybe before long, it'll make more sense to just use those enormous PV arrays to store electricity in batteries and power the spacecraft with ion engines, but we're not there yet. We have working H2/O2 rocket engines; we don't have ion engines capable of powering significant-sized spacecraft.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:20PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:16AM
No. If we really need helium-3 it's cheaper to make it on Earth.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:58PM (10 children)
Sorry, I'm thinking of the Eastern Bloc.
Will the Great Profit Musk make it to the Moon before Fake President Pull-My-Finger of the People's Democratic Republic of America?
And why isn't that nice Mr Putin n the race?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:13PM (9 children)
Looks like there isn't much of a race:
Russia and US will cooperate to build moon's first space station [theguardian.com]
Japan moves ahead with plans to join U.S.-led project to build space station orbiting moon [japantimes.co.jp]
Now there are also plans for manned landings or surface bases, but any competition on the Moon looks pretty friendly to me.
The Musky is more interested in Mars, but he will obviously offer lunar services since that is what the U.S. government will apparently be paying for in the 2020s:
Elon Musk teases pictures of a SpaceX Moon base and Martian city [theverge.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:23AM (8 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:51AM (6 children)
That's an exaggeration.
Mars-Bound Astronauts Face Chronic Dementia Risk From Cosmic Ray Exposure [soylentnews.org]
Mars-bound astronauts face chronic dementia risk from galactic cosmic ray exposure [uci.edu]
Rodents (with less brain volume and skull thickness than humans) were bombarded with ionized particles. Mars-bound spacecraft will have shielding, more will be added if necessary, and the group that did the study is working on a solution for the "problem" they found:
We're not even talking about colonization yet. The SpaceX planned 2024 Mars landing would not result in a permanent colony. NASA's current (murky) plans call for a Martian orbiting space station in the 2030s, not a permanent ground colony.
Sure, a shorter flight to Mars is better. The technology is in development:
VASIMR Plasma Rocket to be Tested at 100 kW for 100 Continuous Hours [soylentnews.org]
Will Mini Fusion Rockets Provide Spaceflight's Next Big Leap? [archive.is]
NASA's Kilopower Project Testing a Nuclear Stirling Engine [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:00PM (5 children)
Mars and beyond will require us to do away with our bodies and reconstitute them on arrival.
What is it to be human will change. Must change. Our bodies are to fragile.
It isn’t just space and the journey. It is the planet too.
Reducing us to mind stored in a new body would allow all the expensive shielding to be reduced to protecting individual boxes that house our minds.
Robotic bodies (of various shapes and therefore uses) will get us through space. We can more easily space walk this way. Fix things outside the ship. Though I believe a ship which is biomechanical will be needed as it can self repair. Whether this is a nano hull or one we create with bacteria that survive in space I don’t know.
We will need psychological training to deal with our new selves but I think what we are is what we think we are. So very possible to overcome these sense of self issues.
Once we find a planet we can adjust our robotic bodies to the exploration of the planet. Gravity issues mostly. Hop to the surface. Test it. What lives there. Are there humanoids? Could we use their bodies to place our minds in or do we need to build our new bodies? More muscles? Less? Lungs able to breathe what? Skin able to resist what? What is the radiation level our new sun shines upon our new home?
We never have needed our bodies. And space travel needs them far less.
Also ask Mr Hawking if he will donate his mind. Course AI is already negating our limited intellect.
Soon we could be the Egyptian Gods populating new worlds.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:37PM (2 children)
Again, a complete exaggeration. You can go to Mars and come back, and you will have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer. Maybe a +5% chance. You might have a slightly higher chance of getting dementia years later. These could be fixed by nanobots and regenerative medicine, the same kinds of technologies desired for anti-aging on Earth. There will be no need for mind uploading or a new genetically engineered body for Earth-Mars travel. If you're worried about radiation and charged particles, just build a super-heavy launcher like Interplanetary Transport System that can move more mass to Mars, and then increase the mass of your shielding. Don't forget to pack your shit into the walls for additional shielding. All much cheaper and more straightforward than mind uploading and/or new bodies. Once you get to Mars, humans can live in underground or well-built aboveground structures that were prepared in advance by robots.
Your biomechanical Zerg/Wraith ships might be what are required for interstellar travel where a particle hitting a ship moving at 0.1c can be very destructive. But not needed for solar system exploration, even to as far out as the hypothetical Planet Nine distance.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
No bodies. Simplicity is most important. It isn’t just protecting them. It is keeping them alive. Dealing with waste or food etc.
Sure to mars it might be of no consequence but interstellar space travel is hard.
Just look at how hard it is to keep the ISS up and working and stocked for just two decades.
No bodies. They aren’t needed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:59PM
For interstellar, sure, we can talk mind uploading. It will take a long time to come up with any good method of getting civilization to another star, long enough to work out the details of mind uploading and optional reconstitution in new bodies at the destination. Unless warp drives are realized first and physicists are not optimistic.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:42PM
We will need psychological training to deal with our new selves but I think what we are is what we think we are. So very possible to overcome these sense of self issues.
This reminds me of the Max Headroom episode where old people have their consciousnesses uploaded into a computer.
"It's wonderful, isn't it?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:43PM
Mars and beyond will require us to do away with our bodies and reconstitute them on arrival.
What is it to be human will change. Must change. Our bodies are to fragile.
Looking around at my fellow Americans, most of them really could use new bodies. Heck, most of them could stand to lose half their body weight in their existing bodies.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:21AM
So, difficult, but possible? [wikipedia.org]