Jeff Kluger has an interview with the Science Adviser. This is obviously not true:
There are certain fundamentals that everyone who looks at the challenges of space exploration [recognizes]: a heavy lift rocket is one of them, a crew capsule is another.
Not everyone. And even if we saw that as fundamental, it doesn’t mean they should be developed, owned and operated by NASA.
Just another over credentialed policy wonk that “knows” everything because … “everyone knows”.
That’s BS. Elon just landed a first stage. If you can fly these over and over, then that’s way, way cheaper than any heavy lift.
That’s a hard argument to sell when Elon himself disagrees. If you want to prove your point, you have to do it with numbers (which isn’t all that hard to do), not just shouting the holy name of Elon.
Unfortunately, politicians as a group are not well-versed in numbers. That’s one reason why they go into politics instead of business, science, or engineering.
But that only matters as long as we insist on leaving such matters in the hands of politicians. An old piece of advice says, “Put not your faith in princes.”
On the other hand, Musk wants to *colonise* Mars, which may in fact require an HLV. You don’t need an HLV if “all” you want to do is to build a Mars base.
You can’t colonize Mars without gas station in space.
At minimum a depot at LEO and at Mars orbit, for example.
And as obviously one needs rocket fuel available on Earth surface and Mars surface.
With depots in Space one could colonize Mars with the Falcon-9 or one does not need the Falcon Heavy or other larger rockets.
Though it could make more economic sense to use larger rockets.
Or Mars colonization could result in the development of something like the Sea Dragon: “able to carry a payload of up to 550 metric tons into low Earth orbit. “:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29
The major factor of a large rocket is it has the possibility of lowering launch costs, but only has this possibility if there is enough demand of rocket payloads.
With Saturn V and Apollo program the advantage was more related to infrastructural costs rather total tonnage needed to be shipped to the Moon.
Of course colonization of Mars would require infrastructure- a lot of it. Basically colonization of Mars is all about infrastructure.
One might argue that Mars exploration does not require a lot of infrastructure. It’s a bad argument for a lot of reasons, but it’s an argument which vaguely possible. But colonization assume infrastructure- colonization is infrastructure.
One more aspect about gas stations in orbit. I think important aspect related to mars exploration [and colonization] is getting
to Mars quickly.
And I think have a depot in Earth high orbit and in Mars high orbit, would allow fast travel time between Earth and Mars [and Mars to Earth].
Or a goal related to Mars exploration should be to get crew from Earth to Mars in 3 months or less. This allows crew to arrive on Mars in good enough shape, to allow them to explore Mars.
> Though it could make more economic sense to use larger rockets.
That’s what I meant. I’m not disputing you also need depots. But if you are going to launch hundreds of people a day, then you will need an HLV. That HLV is going to have to be reusable though.
But if we can’t have that, I’d much rather have a smaller RLV than an expendable HLV, which isn’t terribly useful. Fortunately, it’s looking as if we’ll have both!
But if you are going to launch hundreds of people a day
Have you seen any discussion of the maximum number of people that could be launched via existing vehicles? I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone has proposed building something to maximize the number of people in a single launch.
Even if that max turned out to be a handful more people, that is a big difference.
if you are going to launch hundreds of people a day, then you will need an HLV
As if “hundreds” of people were a large number…
If everyone had that attitude in the 1920’s, aviation never would have gotten off the ground. Progress would have come to a halt as Boeing and Douglas struggled to build 500-passenger airliners because, obviously, no one could possibly launch more than one airplane a day!
During World War II, the US Army launched 13,000 paratroopers in one day — without a heavy-lift vehicle.
> That’s a hard argument to sell when Elon himself disagrees. If you want to prove your point, you have to do it with numbers (which isn’t all that hard to do), not just shouting the holy name of Elon.
I presume that you mean that Elon is building a Falcon Heavy. Point granted.
As for the arguing the point with numbers, you (and I) have been around here long enough to see that hashed out with many, many different assumptions on flight rate, capital costs and operational costs. YMMV. The argument is most convincing coming from those closer to the inside of this particular business case.
Like this:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/12/what-if-we-used.html
No idea why you think Keith Cowing is “closer to the inside of the business case.”
Elon is not only building Falcon Heavy, he thinks Congress should Congress should fund both SLS and the Big Falcon Rocket.
If you want Congress to cancel SLS to fund SpaceX, you’re in the embarrassing position of arguing against the company you want to fund.
Additionally, you overlook a key fact. Congress isn’t actually interested in sending humans to Mars. It’s interested in sending money to government contractors in specific Congressional district, using humans to Mars as a justification.
Agreed. Tonight the world changed, forever…
If Elon wants people to notice, he’ll have to launch a Kardashian.
I don’t know what it’s going take to kill the Apollo Cargo Cult or Apollo to Mars, but a first stage sitting intact on a landing has to be at least one nail in its coffin.
Also, a space SJW didn’t like the USA chant during the SpaceX webcast. “No. No chanting USA. Sigh. Sigh. Turning off now. Space is for everyone.”
Nope, it doesn’t belong to everyone. Tonight it belongs to SpaceX engineers and technicians and they’re allowed to celebrate anyway the law permits.
I think your cargo cult metaphor matches all too well. NASA, in its role as the new guinea tribesmen will chant about heavy lift. They will continue to design, build and test bespoke heavy boosters with no purpose, no true spacecraft, and no discernible rational mission. Just like it learned to do last century in 1969. The are fighting a cold war that ended 25 years ago.
The USA is in desperate need of a mechanism to automatically sunset federal programs.
“Also, a space SJW didn’t like the USA chant during the SpaceX webcast. “No. No chanting USA. Sigh. Sigh. Turning off now. Space is for everyone.” ”
Ironically, Musk doing it rather than a gigantic government agency is precisely what made the USA great (Wright Brothers, Edison etc), and can still make it great if Washington can be stuffed back into their cage.
The people who view government as deity should be happy that the efforts of companies like SpaceX allow the government to do more by freeing up funds through cost savings and providing new capabilities. But these are often the same people who don’t understand that the ability of the government to fund social welfare programs comes from the strength of the private economy and constantly seek to eat the golden geese.
–Pug Sanchez
December 21, 2015 at 8:21 PM
I don’t know what it’s going take to kill the Apollo Cargo Cult or Apollo to Mars, but a first stage sitting intact on a landing has to be at least one nail in its coffin. —
Made me look.
“Cargo cults in Melanesia are focused on obtaining cargo (material wealth) from the Western World through magic and religious rituals and practices. Cargo cult followers believe that cargo, which their ancestors intended for them, was unfairly taken by crafty Westerners.
In the first part of 20 century many Melanesian cargo cults were building, big wooden aircraft, landing strips and bamboo control towers, duplicating white men’s rituals in the hope they would attract real airplanes with cargo to the island. This tradition no longer exists, but some elderly cult followers remember imitating American soldiers they had observed during World War 2.”
http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/cargo-cults-of-melanesia/#1
But also:
“Cargo cults are dying out very rapidly and today it’s not possible to find people worshiping wooden aircrafts. However, some PNG tribes continue to build wooden airplanes, helicopters and cars and use them during elections or special events when the local politician visits. People believe that if they put a rich, powerful man in a wooden vehicle or a plane and carry him around, his all power and wealth will remain in the village and with its people. During such events, some of the tribes use military costumes and march with wooden gun”
So it’s still going on. One say as community they aren’t building the airplanes and runways, but ideology still lives on. And I will note that in Paris climate conference, it also appears to live on.
I think SLS will end once, SLS is launched.
SLS will be the wooden airplane and runway which stops being a major communal activity, but many people will continue the nonsense after SLS becomes a lawn ornament. .
I wanted to comment but didn’t want to get blocked. Lefties are pretty quick to block rather than listen to different viewpoints, even when not presented with offense intended or in manner.
People should be proud of their country and its accomplishments, even if a business does something. There is nothing wrong with a little pride. Having positive views of your own country doesn’t mean you look down on or hate other countries.
Yuri Gagarin is a national hero for Russia, and he should be, but that doesn’t mean that Americans don’t recognize and celebrate his achievement. I bet the author of that tweet wouldn’t have any problems with Russia celebrating Yuri’s Day or Japanese people cheering the success of one of their planetary science missions and that her disdain is saved specifically for Americans.
She probably never played sports or she would have learned that competition is good and that you can be happy for the accomplishments of others rather than resentful. Its called sportsmanship. We should be happy when our friends achieve things and they should be happy when we achieve things. Its called friendship.
Sportsmanship and friendship show respect for other people while she seems to think the exact opposite. Also, much could be said about her follow up tweet about how space is for everyone but that is mostly a debate about capitalism and free enquiry over socialism and controlled thought.
Ha, I see we follow the same planetary scientist. Though she would be appalled at your use of sportsmanship and insist on something gender neutral and inclusive like sportspersonship. 🙂
Isn’t Holdren the guy who was urging the US government to secretly sterilize everybody in America to protect the environment?