[Pretorian]

Seeing man sets foot on Mars would be a truly epic experience for me and I hope it happens.

Why? What a Man can do that robot can't? Why spend tens of billions of dollars just to keep a puddle of biomass alive? Why spend additional tens of billions of dollars so they can "come back home "?

[AgentR11]

If they aren't going to stay, then just send robots.
Sheesh.
How many robots can you put on the surface of mars for that kind of money. A BUNCH.

[sicophiliac]

Why would I like to see man set foot on Mars? Quite honestly the mere coolness factor of it would be near the top of the list, but it goes beyond that. I think with all the negative news going on, all the pessimistic views about our future it'd be nice to have at least one sign that the human race is making technological progress, it'd at least give me a bit of hope that something better awaiting mankind's future. Also I think it could inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers to step up and innovate and maybe keep our country from reverting back to the dark ages if you will.

Also the lack of progress in manned space flight is pretty pitiful considering we went to the moon back at a time when cars still had carburetors, and the internet or cellphones were figments of somebodies imagination. Is it so unreasonable to ask that some 50 years after we put man on the moon with the massive Saturn V that we can come up with something marginally better and more powerful than we had back then?

I am all for use of robotic probes but I think Mars is one of the few places in the solar system where humans might have a future. That being said it makes sense to send them there now and test our technology and our skills at surviving long periods of time off of the earth.

[evilgenius]

Mars is cool and all, but the asteroids are where the easy resources are. A rocket like this would go a long way toward getting to them in a manner in which we, or robots, could haul stuff back.

Also, I think it was Stephen Hawking who said if we are to survive as a species we have to find a way to get on and off of this planet. Once we colonize space in a real way we essentially guarantee our survival as a species. Just think of those people on that first Mars colony clamoring for independence!

[prajeshbhat]

Also, I think it was Stephen Hawking who said if we are to survive as a species we have to find a way to get on and off of this planet. Once we colonize space in a real way we essentially guarantee our survival as a species.

One's got to question the intellect of geniuses like Stephen Hawkins when they make ridiculous statements like this. We cannot live peacefully on a planet that gave us absolutely everything. How long do you think we will get along on a planet where we cannot even breathe.
We were created by earth, not the other way round. We will never leave earth. This is Home.

[Sys1]

I don't think we'll have the time to conquer space before the collapse. We are better at destroying our planet and spoiling our ressources than getting in space. Anyway, Mars is not a viable planet, a lot of ressources -coming from Earth- would be needed in order to assure survival of several folks on the red planet. In case a colony could developp, it would not change much what's going on on our planet or on Mars. Distances are so big that we could not expect any commercial use for Mars ressources.

Without a brand new technology regarding space travel, we can't put hopes on a so low probability bet. Of course, if Dr Rossi discovers the antigravity engine just after receiving is coming Nobel prize for its cold fusion black box, I will reconsider my judgement.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We can learn a tremendous amount about the universe around us for a VERY small price per person per year, simply with the coming plans for space telescopes. We can collect all kinds of data, and look and see if there even IS something worth physically visiting, should the funding and resources exist to do it.

But no, we are cutting funding for such telescopes. http://dvice.com/archives/2011/09/james-webb-spac.php

Meanwhile, we keep this macho image of propelling human meat hither and yon at incredible expense, danger, and resource usage -- to what, look "cool"?

Let's get out of debt, build a credible, durable infrastructure, get people well educated, get people good healthcare universally, and figure out how to do so without destroying the planet. THEN, if we have the means and inclination to "look cool", let's take a look at that.

[Cog]

We can learn a tremendous amount about the universe around us for a VERY small price per person per year, simply with the coming plans for space telescopes. We can collect all kinds of data, and look and see if there even IS something worth physically visiting, should the funding and resources exist to do it.

But no, we are cutting funding for such telescopes. http://dvice.com/archives/2011/09/james-webb-spac.php

Meanwhile, we keep this macho image of propelling human meat hither and yon at incredible expense, danger, and resource usage -- to what, look "cool"?

Let's get out of debt, build a credible, durable infrastructure, get people well educated, get people good healthcare universally, and figure out how to do so without destroying the planet. THEN, if we have the means and inclination to "look cool", let's take a look at that.

Exactly +1000

I will add something of my thinking. I agree with others that robotic probes of various complexity can provide us a great deal of information about areas of interest on Mars. But the organic computer residing in the brain of a trained geologist or paleontologist would be necessary at some point to answer the big questions about past life on Mars(if that ever happened).

I really see no real reason to visit there unless its to answer that question.

[babystrangeloop]

You never discussed the best part:

it will have the horsepower of 208,000 Corvette engines.

not only 20% more power -- 85% more sex appeal!

[Subjectivist]

NASA announces two contracts for putting astronauts in space on American rockets.
http://www.universetoday.com/114612/wat ... e-station/

[Tanada]

CNN is reporting it as well.

Boeing and SpaceX have been awarded contracts to become NASA's space taxis, shuttling astronauts to and from the International Space Station, the agency announced Tuesday.

NASA ended its Space Shuttle program in 2011 after a review and amid a shift in priorities to exploring deep space, including sending humans to Mars.

Since the shuttle program was retired, NASA crewmembers have been hitching rides on Russian Soyuz spacecraft, at a cost of $70 million per seat, according to a NASA spokeswoman. The agency typically purchases six seats per year.

The contracts are worth a total of $6.8 billion. Boeing's share is $4.2 billion and SpaceX will receive $2.6 billion.

Both companies' crafts must undergo safety testing before manned flights take place. Once certified for flight, each company will launch between two and six missions, NASA said.

[Sixstrings]

NASA contracts came out for the crew caspules / launch vehicles to get to the ISS. They chose Boeing and SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada lost out:

NASA will partner with Boeing and SpaceX to build commercially owned and operated "space taxis" to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, ending U.S. dependence on Russia for rides, officials said on Tuesday.

...

Boeing was awarded $4.2 billion to SpaceX's $2.6 billion. SpaceX is run by technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, also the chief executive officer of electric car manufacturer Tesla Motors.

"SpaceX is deeply honored by the trust NASA has placed in us," said Musk, a South Africa-born, Canadian American billionaire. "It is a vital step in a journey that will ultimately take us to the stars and make humanity a multi-planet species."

The awards position Boeing and SpaceX to be ready for commercial flight services in 2017, said Kathy Leuders, manager for NASA's Commercial Crew program. She said both contracts have the same requirements.

"The companies proposed the value within which they were able to do the work and the government accepted that," Leuders told reporters in a conference call.

The contract has taken on new urgency given rising tensions between the United States and Russia over its annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine and support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/usa-boeing-spacetaxi-idINL1N0RH28F20140916

Notice how Boeing costs the taxpayer more money. DOUBLE. $4.2 billion compared to SpaceX's $2.6 billion.

But, it is wise to not rely on just one and have two suppliers. Boeing's just old school and not the future, is all. SpaceX's cheaper and better model is the way to go, and really, federal gov should throw them some extra cash just because.

If they can get that reusable rocket done, then that's revolutionary. To be fair to NASA, they have helped SpaceX out a lot all along the way. With advice and support.

So anyhow, the Dragon will be taking American astronauts to the Space Station:



Now there's still that little issue of how to get some rocket engines for the US Air Force. That'll be another contract, Boeing-Lockheed will get that one. Not sure what the US will do in the four year gap after the stockpile of Russian engines run out, while Boeing's making a new one. SpaceX already makes those Merlin engines. Why not give them the money, see if production can be ramped up and final kinks worked out -- vs. sticking to the good ole boy same old same old and it'll be 6 years or more to get done.

How many rocket engines have already been designed and built, now they've got to do it again from scratch, same darn contractor.

Whole thing was stupid -- relying on Russia for engines. RD-180 is a great engine, Russian stuff is older tech but darn good, but none of that matters if Russia's dictator has started a cold war and won't sell them to us anymore.

It's not just NASA it's all the Air Force stuff and our ability to launch spy satellites, etc., and we can't do that right now without the Russian engines.

[Synapsid]

six,

The Delta IV Heavy is what the Air Force uses for the military and secret stuff, isn't it? It uses US engines. The US is OK for satellites of all types, is my guess; it's getting a crew up that we lack the ability to do at the moment. Falcon 9 crewed configuration should take care of that but it's a few years away.

Ariane 5E, the European heavy-launch vehicle, might(?) have the launch power but there's no crew module designed for it that I know of. Ariane 6 is still under development, last I looked. The big Chinese Long March can do it I guess, but the US isn't likely to go that route.

[Tanada]

One of the companies not selected by NASA to provide crew launch services is protesting to the Government accountability office. More at link below the quote. Personally I doubt this will go anywhere, but with government you never know.

After being left out of NASA contracts to carry astronauts to the International Space Station, Sierra Nevada Corp. said Friday it has filed a protest asking the U.S. Government Accountability Office to review the space agency's $6.8 billion award to Boeing and SpaceX.

The company cited "serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process" as the reason for filing the legal challenge to the GAO, which must decide on the protest by Jan. 5, 2015.

"SNC's filing seeks a further detailed review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and capabilities," the company said in a statement Friday. "SNC takes the nation's human spaceflight capability and taxpayer's money very seriously. SNC believes the result of further evaluation of the proposals submitted will be that America ends up with a more capable vehicle, at a much lower cost, with a robust and sustainable future."

Sierra Nevada is developing the Dream Chaser spacecraft, a lifting body designed to launch on a rocket and land on a runway, to carry astronauts and supplies to low Earth orbit.

NASA announced Sept. 16 it awarded Boeing and SpaceX contracts to finish development of their crew-capable space capsules to begin flying NASA astronauts to the space station by the end of 2017.

Boeing's deal, worth up to $4.2 billion, pays for finishing the design of the aerospace contractor's CST-100 spacecraft, plus unmanned and piloted test flights to low Earth orbit.

SpaceX's $2.6 billion contract covers the same work to develop and certify its Dragon V2 space capsule for crewed flights, according to NASA.

Sierra Nevada said Friday its bid was $900 million less than Boeing's proposal -- making it the second-lowest bid -- despite "near equivalent" scoring on technical and past performance merits in NASA's source selection process.

"The company believes that, in this time of critical budget limits, it is more important than ever to deliver the best value to the American public," Sierra Nevada said in a statement. "With the current awards, the U.S. government would spend up to $900 million more at the publicly announced contracted level for a space program equivalent to the program that SNC proposed. Given those facts, we believe that a thorough review must be conducted of the award decision."

In its request for bids for the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability, or CCtCap, contracts, NASA said price was the primary evaluation criteria for its decision. Two other factors, mission suitability and past performance, were to be combined to receive equal consideration by NASA when it decided which companies would win awards.

"SNC's Dream Chaser proposal was the second lowest priced proposal in the CCtCap competition," the company said in a statement. "SNC's proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals."

According to the Sierra Nevada press release, all three providers complied with NASA requirements and were eligible to receive awards under the CCtCap program, which follows three rounds of funding awarded by NASA since 2010.

NASA has not released details on the rationale for its awards to Boeing and SpaceX. Information on contract decisions are often included in source selection statements, which are usually released in the weeks after public announcements of contract awards.

Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight at NASA Headquarters, said Sept. 17 that the agency plans to release the CCtCap source selection statement.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n140 ... Ca2pFc8O1c

[Sixstrings]

And Dissident -- I will point out to you that these two failures are private company failures, one using the sketchy Soviet engines and the other company was founded by a rather eccentric British fellow that may have been more sizzle than steak.

I'll point out to you the US space program is not a failure,

And that spacex is a wild success.

Facts about SpaceX:

* They beat the entire planet on satellite launch cost. SpaceX has forced Russia to lower its prices going forward, to compete, but Russia will still be charging more. SpaceX has launch clients from all over the world -- Argentina, Bulgaria, Thailand. Al that holds them back from total world market domination is it will take time to ramp up to meet demand.

* They make good engines. 100 made so far, and 80 have successfully launched.

* No failures so far. That grashopper doesn't count, that's a new system in development.

* Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in the world, more powerful than anything Russia has. It will be able to launch anything anyone wants to pay to send up. Geo orbits too. Mars or moon stuff too.

This isn't American space program failure, it's success:



Also --

All of NASA's probe successes, and JPL. The Mars rovers. More to come. And next year, the American New Horizons probe arrives at Pluto.

Look at all that NASA has done, the Hubble telescope alone was extraordinary.

And the USAF has that space shuttle drone, that was a success.

[Sixstrings]

In the news, ULA's Orion capsule is all done. It'll launch Dec. 4 on a Delta IV rocket in an unmanned test. It'll then orbit out to farthest any crew vehicle has gone in 40 years.

I like the Dragon better but okay, Boeing-Lockheed's product is done and hopefully it works anyhow:

NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Complete
https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/10/30/nasas-orion-spacecraft-complete/

So, there will be two crew vehicles the Orion and then Sapcex's dragon both shuttling to the ISS.

This Orion is the same one that was first built for the Constellation Mars mission that Obama canceled.

Current plans are to use it to land American astronauts on an asteroid and also deploy asteroid redirection gear, if successful it will be the first time in history humanity will have a way to save itself from catastrophic meteor impact. Thanks to the USA. And y'all are welcome, not that anyone would thank us, or maybe the anti-America peanut gallery in the world will muster up a "thanks" if we ever do actually have to save the planet from an asteroid.

They plan to perhaps snag the asteroid and bring it closer to earth (be careful! not too close! lmao)

Orion is a deep space vehicle, and would be used for the Mars mission in 2030 and could be used for moon missions as well.

[Sixstrings]

Is there a THE space thread, or a THE us space program thread?

I'll stick this here, but anyhow I was reading and I didn't know this but the upcoming Spacex test launch is actually a full orbit then deorbit and then land test.

Or maybe it goes suborbital, I don't even know, but the point is this is a bigger test than they've done thus far on the reusable rocket idea.

They'll land it on a barge in the ocean, for safety.

I THINK this launch is this month, November, but the below article doesn't say. If anyone knows go ahead and chime in. I know for sure that Boeing-Lockheed has their deep space vehicle test launch on Dec 4.

SpaceX to land its next Falcon 9 rocket on a huge ocean platform

SpaceX certainly doesn’t rest on its laurels. It’s got corporate contracts ongoing, government contracts in the works, new technologies in the pipe, and big press conferences in the distance — and still it’s moving forward. Having just broken ground on a new Texas spaceport last month, the company just announced another upcoming milestone: as part of its ongoing quest to create reusable orbital rockets that can land back on their own launch pads, Space X will land its next incoming Falcon 9 rocket on a platform roughly the size of a football field, floating in the Atlantic Ocean.

...

At that point, the main hurdle will be convincing government authorities that the tests have been definitive enough to warrant the next phase of tests on dry land. Once those have become routine, then the company can realize the true potential of reusable rockets, and clean up as a result.

The main advantage of reusable rockets, leaving aside the basic perversity of destroying so much advanced equipment, is cost. Launch to orbit costs a lot of money per kilogram right now, and much of that comes from the incredible number of parts that have to be replaced with every launch.
http://www.geek.com/science/spacex-to-land-its-next-falcon-9-rocket-on-a-huge-ocean-platform-1608051/

What's interesting is that spacx is ALREADY the cheapest in the world for satellite launches. They don't even need reusable rockets, they could just ramp up what they already do and dominate the market.

Resusable rockets will dramatically lower those costs, further. If they actually accomplish this, and this is years out still, but if they get this done -- and then Musk actually lowers prices even more to a fraction of already being the cheapest in the world -- then that's pretty amazing. That's vision, and a dreamer. That puts space into the reach of more private groups, it will be so cheap, even private Mars missions.

Or, we will see, maybe SpaceX will go the sensible business route and just make sure they are the lowest in cost. And then that means double profits for them; all they really have to be is the cheapest, after all, they needn't compete with themselves.

The latter would make more sense for them as a company. They need to grow and build up cash reserves.

Maybe if they don't lower prices across the board they could give the cool independent bids a discount and charge governments more. OTOH Musk wants to be "the walmart of space" and right now he charges everyone the same regardless of who they are, and it's lower cost than the Russians or anyone.

That's going to be an interesting dilemma, they have a right to start profiting if they come up with a revolutionary cost-cutting idea, OTOH Musk's vision is right too that you want prices even lower to GROW the market. Would he keep that one price for all policy, and slash prices, and charge NASA and the air force and the nations of the world mere peanuts to launch their stuff? How could the Russians or Chinese or anyone ever compete? They'd need their own reusable systems, too.

China will just steal his tech with espionage.

[Surf]

I didn't know this but the upcoming SpaceX test launch is actually a full orbit then deorbit and then land test.

Or maybe it goes suborbital, I don't even know, but the point is this is a bigger test than they've done thus far on the reusable rocket idea.

They are only going to try and recover the first stage of the rocket. Space X has not yet developed the capability of landing the second stage which is a more difficult problem. The first stage never goes into orbit it is only suborbital and as a result doesn't need a heat shield. It only needs enough fuel to to slow it down for a soft landing. To land the second stage SpaceX will need to add a heat shield.

[Sixstrings]

They are only going to try and recover the first stage of the rocket. Space X has not yet developed the capability of landing the second stage which is a more difficult problem. The first stage never goes into orbit it is only suborbital and as a result doesn't need a heat shield. It only needs enough fuel to to slow it down for a soft landing. To land the second stage SpaceX will need to add a heat shield.

Thanks for the info. Well, that's a big test anyway so far the tests I've seen on youtube were low altitude.

I just wonder why nobody had ever thought of this before? Of all the huge massive gov budget spaceplane ideas and all that crap, why did nobody do this before, just put a darn heatshield on a booster ya know?

This won't be impossible. To put a heatshield on a booster.

Caspule type heatshields are easy, it was that ceramic tile space shuttle heat shield that was so difficult. Even VG had a heat shield developed. A heat shield for a booster should be easy, that's like 1960s stuff pretty straight forward.