• passinglurker

    Brace yourselves folks as soon as this drops its gonna be nothing but spacex omg talk for a week followed by “are they over extending themselves again? they need to focus on commercial crew” talk for another 2 weeks after.

  • Vladislaw

    I wonder if this is about going head to head with Bezo for cis-lunar space development?

  • Follow the money!

  • roflplatypus

    I know what I’m doing with my Friday night ! 😀

  • Paul_Scutts

    Deep Throttle. 🙂

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Well from Doug at least. By the way, those laser focused and experienced chaps at Boeing just rolled to 2019. SLS rolling to the right like like bananas. SpaceX almost certain to be late at being first for human RTF.

  • passinglurker

    Lets not forget china is also rolling right on lunar sample return and the new modular space station literally everyone is doing it.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Yes but not everyone burns 20 billion dollars while doing it.

  • Douglas Messier

    So basically what the GAO predicted four months ago has actually happened, huh?

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/17/gao-boeing-spacex-face-potential-delays-commercial-crew/

    We’ll see if SpaceX’s schedule holds. Hopefully they’ve worked out the issues with ECLSS they were having earlier this year. We’ll see.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    It’s not official until the schedule moves from provider. We read the article.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    I just fixed the vent fan over the toilet, it will be alright.

  • Douglas Messier

    And…?

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    And now Boeing is talking about 2019 so I brought it up. Read your piece back in May even the bit later when you poked Elon for reaction.

  • Douglas Messier

    Sure. Why not?

  • Douglas Messier

    I mention ECLSS and not a word in response. Not even a blip. Just ignored it. Interesting.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    No reason, not. If I understand correctly

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    I responded, see the quip about the vent fan over my toilet? True story.

  • Douglas Messier

    Much more interested in seeing whether this plan addresses the flaws in his last one. Musk has fallen into the same trap everyone else has. Von Braun, Zubrin. They think if they come up with just the right mission architecture then govts will embrace it and the public will fall into line and off we go to Mars.

    That’s not really the problem. He hasn’t presented any compelling reasons to colonize Mars. It’s the big flaw in the plan that Musk fanboys can’t acknowledge.

    But if you want to ignore that, change the subject, and make this about me, then good for you.

  • Terry Stetler
  • ThomasLMatula

    Exactly, and the real problem is there are no compelling reasons. Folks just want to go to Mars because its there, but unwilling to admit it they come up with these weak justifications.

  • passinglurker

    Heh it’s nothing against you just what I expect the general tone of the news across the net to be for the next few weeks.

    As for musk I don’t expect a compelling reason to colonize mars from him so second best result is a system that can pay for its own dreams instead of trying to drum up dreamers to pay for it.

    Way I see it that could go two ways either he tries to break into nasa’s deep space exploration budget and hijack sls’s missions like he crowbar’d his way into military space, or he risks pushing launch costs down further and hopefully future markets like Leo constellations and commercial space stations come roaring up to meet him to compensate.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    I guess preservation of the species is not that compelling…

  • ThomasLMatula

    Schedules always slip unless a firm and realistic date is set, adequate resources are provided and there are consequences for not meeting it.

    Yes, its “new” technology, but only new in the sense SpaceX hasn’t built a HSF capsule before, but HSF capsules have been around since the 1960’s. So its not a radically new technology like a reusable rocket booster.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    It’s not a “trap” if you know it’s there. As Musk said in last year’s talk, the chances of success are very low. But then he’s going to try like hell to get it done anyway. Musk was under no illusion that it was likely Congress and NASA were going to drop SLS and fund a Mars program (Whatever he presented) although he was lobbying for it. What was presented was a target scale to get to a per passenger cost target. Simple as that.

    Zurbrin’s argument is very clear, exploration is the reason in itself. If people don’t think that is good enough, screw them.

  • ThomasLMatula

    Your response is the classic example of “the answer is Mars, now what is the question?” Instead if that is your goal you should look at the options for preserving the species and then rank them in effectiveness.

    And if you did that you would probably find Mars is not a viable solution because of the possible problems of mammals reproducing in low gravity. If humans are not able to reproduce then you are not preserving the species.

    So if the preservation of humans is the goal of spaceflight than Mars only comes in a distant fourth, well behind Mobile Space Habitats, Immobile Space Habitats and Venus, all of which are far better at enabling continued human reproduction and hardening against possible threats that would cause humans to go extinct.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    It’s not the answer it’s an answer. Your response is loaded with if’s and conjecture. I also don’t see anyone else stepping up with alternatives worth a squirt.

  • ThomasLMatula

    Maybe because its not seen as a major problem by most folks. Also, the argument is actually a liability in gaining support for spaceflight.

    https://www.inquisitr.com/4319567/elon-musk-mars-colonization-plans-are-they-an-unethical-pipe-dream-reserved-for-the-rich/

    Elon Musk Mars Colonization Plans: Are they an Unethical Pipe Dream Reserved for the Future Rich

    June 24, 2017
    Lorenzo Tanos

  • windbourne

    Why do you say that?
    It is one thing to be concerned about their launch production since that makes them profits and gives them the ability to do R&D. As it is, having 1 failed launch, and 1 blown up sat, has cost them highly. They have lost potential customer launches.

    BUT, CCXDev is coming along fine as long as they do not have anymore slippage. 1 thing that I have noticed is that they are making announcements ONCE they have done their testings, such as with their crew suit. I suspect that they are quite close to their announced schedule, or at least hope so.

    Now, if they announce slippages like Boeing, well, then you might get ppl gripping about their R&D.

  • windbourne

    Who said that mammals are not able to reproduce on 1/3 G?
    In fact, I would think that it is much better than being high on venus (with a similar Gs), along with mobile or immobil space habitats. In each of those cases, you will get a great deal more radiation than you would being underground on Mars, and the 1/3G is more than enough to help the sperm run the Fallopian tube. In fact, Sperm actually has to FIGHT the Gs, as it tracks a chem trail as opposed to anything to do with Gs.

  • windbourne

    actually, the oceans would not be bad, but, it would be just as expensive, if not more so.

  • windbourne

    What compelling reason did we have to go to the moon in 69?
    Really, none. Other than man’s need to expand and learn.
    And a race with USSR.

  • windbourne

    why will SX be later than what they are currently scheduled for?
    Right now, it seems like they are on schedule. No?

  • Douglas Messier

    Preserving humanity is the entire point of life. Of all the ways to achieve our continued existence, a colony on Mars is probably not the best method to achieve it.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Depends on the threat. In any case commoditizing large scale lift to be capable of settling Mars provides a bunch of tools either way.

  • ThomasLMatula

    First, it is sad no research has been done in low G environments. It’s something we could have learned decades ago with a base on the Moon.

    But successful reproduction is far more than fertilization, it’s being able to carry the fetus to term, the fetus developing properly, being able to stand the stress of birth and then the young developing properly into adults. Proper development of muscles are critical in each step and we know muscles develop in response to stress. The harder that muscles have to work the better they develop. It may be entirely possible for the first generation from Earth to successfully give birth, but then the second generation women would have muscles, including the heart, that never developed properly and so are too weak to stand the stress of carrying a fetus to term or giving birth.

    Also radiation is a function of shielding. You are able to put as much shielding on a habitat as needed to protect the inhabitants. Two to three meters of regolith will work well. In terms of Venus, it’s atmosphere provides pretty good shielding.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Let me lay something heavy on you: Please are really bad at judging low probability high downside events. They are also bad a planning for inter-generational problems. Having the tools down the road to react largely falls on on people today working toward intermediate steps. We must be better at long term ELCSS and propulsive landing now. Who knows if this will ever happen, in the meantime we should be working on steps toward that goal rather than looking at NASA just as a jobs program.

    So get the sand out of your swim trucks and stop whining.

  • ThomasLMatula

    We went to the Moon because Lyndon Johnson didn’t want the Russians to claim it and sold the idea to President Kennedy who needed a way to show the world the U.S. was better than Russian. The rest was just rhetoric to provide more rational justifications.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    So basically we should just pack up human space flight, is your argument?

  • ThomasLMatula

    Yes, folks are very bad at judging low probably-high consequence events, which is why there is an entire field of study known as risk communication focused on it.

    But the research needed is not so much in terms of building rockets as building long term self-sufficient habitats. That is really the key technology needed for Mars, space habitats, Venus and yes for Earth to reduce the risk of human extinction.

    You could lift all the mass you want to Mars, but until the technology to be self-sufficient is developed an extinction event on Earth will kill off the Martians when their supply chain is cut-off. By the same token that level of self-sufficient habitat technology will ensure survival of humanity even if a dinosaur level impact event struck the Earth.

  • ThomasLMatula

    No, we need to move beyond the old worn out science exploration arguments and focus on economic expansion arguments. NASA needs to return to its NACA roots to do the basic research needed to create national economic advantage in developing space resources.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Only in Space Policy is developing resources and settlement are framed in zero sum way. Stupid.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Need to start somewhere, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Your argument is we don’t have everything so we should do nothing. Which is stupid.

    “And I would not waste time going to NASA for such research”

    Great then why are you commenting on a space forum? If you aren’t interested in it, why waste your time?

  • windbourne

    what issues is SX having with ECLSS?
    I know they decided to build their own, but still, I would think that this would be relatively easy to solve. No?

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    May stay on track or slip. Either way they are late vs original plans. But that really doesn’t matter if your competitor is later.

  • Douglas Messier

    No.

  • Douglas Messier

    Ha. Vent fan. Funny. ECLSS. Not funny. Not going so well. News at 11.

  • ThomasLMatula

    Sorry, but I don’t see NASA as the one and only way to space as you do. There are other agencies of government that have the ability to contribute as well. Part of the stagnation we have in space is because so many space advocates see NASA as being the one and only way to space.

    If your goal is to domesticate Russian Dandelions for space settlements you would be wasting your time paying aerospace engineers to do it, you need to fund agricultural engineers. The same is true for all the other crops you need, along with the necessary insect species. And you will find the experienced agriculture engineers at the Department of Agriculture and in University Departments of Agriculture.

  • ThomasLMatula

    No, only in space policy is science seen as being the driving motive instead of merely a tool for more important motives like economics and competitive advantage.

    Science as the justification for space is why space policy is seen as a zero sum game. It is also why it has been so ineffective and drifting for the last 40 years.

    Imagine how undeveloped the American West would be if the only reason the government sent expeditions to the West was science, or had seen science as the motive for exploring the West?

  • Vladislaw

    So once you realize there are sand traps on the golf course they cease being sand traps because you know they are there? Something about that logic is not clicking …

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    See 2.

    trap1
    trap/
    noun
    noun: trap; plural noun: traps
    1.
    a
    device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals, typically by
    allowing entry but not exit or by catching hold of a part of the body.
    a
    curve in the waste pipe from a bathtub, sink, or toilet that is always
    full of liquid and prevents gases from coming up the pipe into the
    building.
    a container or device used to collect a specified thing.”one fuel filter and water trap are sufficient on the fuel system”
    a bunker or other hollow on a golf course.
    the compartment from which a greyhound is released at the start of a race.
    2.
    a situation in which people lie in wait to make a surprise attack.