what kind of space mission would cause the same buzz as apollo?

[Fungus]

I can't really think of a reason why corporations would go there. On the other hand, people are talking about mining in space already so maybe some rich people are willing to try and invest in that.

If the moon turns out to have a lot ov He3 then corporations might be falling over themselves to get there.

(I wonder if that Chinese probe is sneakily testing for He3)

[james_s]

There has got to be a cheaper way of getting He3 than going to the moon. Even if there was an infinite supply of it there, is there a market for hundreds of billions of dollars of the stuff?

[raptor1956]

Should the moon have a government? should it be run by the UN?

If it was a bigger colony with permanent residents then it should probably be run by the people living there, Luna could be a member of the UN though.

Antarctica offers an example...


Brian

[raptor1956]

If SpaceX gets to complete the design and testing of what was once known as the BFR and they have paying customers for large payloads to space its quite likely the USA will be back to the Moon within 15 years and possibly half that time.  China appears interested in turning some of the money the west has given them into technical dominance and they appear to be aiming for a Chinese Astronaut to visit the Moon within about a decade -- we'll see how that pans out.  But, if China does push towards that goal it will almost certainly light another space race that the USA will not be able to avoid -- even if it wanted to.  Russia is out of the question economically, I would think, and only the USA and China have the resources to do it alone.  The EU might get together to join the fray or they might as a union or individually team up with the USA.

Getting to Mars with people is going to take a while even if Elon Musk thinks otherwise.  The first step will be to go back to the Moon as a means of testing the things needed for Mars.  Among the things needed on Mars is a shelter from the nasties the Sun spits out and I think that will require some form or structure sent from Earth and placed inside an existing hole in the ground -- I can't see sending an excavator to Mars to dig such a hole and I think you're going to need meters of soil capped with a water tank (hydrogen).  All of that means sending rockets to Mars with lots of equipment and supplies before we send any people there.

It may be the case that a lessor structure will be sufficient for all but the worst space weather and the under ground structure might only be needed occasionally and for perhaps a few days at a time.  If that's the case the situation maybe more doable within 30 years but the challenges are daunting. 

So, putting aside the question of Mars for the moment I think the Moon will be revisited and within 15 years -- and possibly by more than one team.  If a more sustained effort is made, and that is by no means a certainty, then over the succeeding decade the additional tools and techniques needed for Mars can be tested.  Assuming the effort continues beyond that then maybe a decade more could see the first real effort to put people on Mars begin.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.


Brian

[Fungus]

I hope the Chinese start sending stuff/people to the moon on a regular basis, it might make the USA get off it's collective butt. Bonus points for putting it on the "dark" side where people can't see it.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.

So... less than the pointless F35 program.

[rdl]

I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park.

No, it's the other way around. The hard part is getting into orbit. Take a look at the Saturn V, the first two stages and part of the third were needed to reach Earth orbit. Only the small skinny part at the top was needed for the rest of the trip. As the famous quote goes, as far as delta V, or energy required is concerned:

“Once you get to earth orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.”

     — Robert A. Heinlein

[Electro Detective]

Stay here and enjoy the last few pre-Zombie Apocalypse years we have left,
why stuff around trying to get people to Ayers Rock in space, when it's cheaper to visit the one in Australia,
easier on the fuel tank and no breathing apparatus necessary. 

Besides, in case people missed the office memos, there's no money in it for the corpoRATS, it's a no go dead zone up there, 
no gold, diamonds, oil, coal, copper, uramium, or unobtanium,
just acres and acres of stale crusty dried fetta cheese, kazillions of years past its 'use by...' date 
otherwise the Bulgarians and Greeks would have been on to it centuries ago 

Why blow good investment money building oversized fire crackers and promoting the hype to pull in the little people's interest ?


OTOH if you staged a world cup sporting event, like say a golf game etc that should work


Or better still a reality show, Mars Survivor

LOL, I reckon some serious drama will go down,

unplanned... 


"Houston, we have a problem,
the oxygen supplies are snafu,
the TV crew have dumped their gear, taken the ship during siesta time,
and done a runner...
Hello...Please Respond.."    

[Echo88]

Nazis on the moon, Terrorists on the moon or Chinese on the moon. Either way, this would get the USA of its butt and into space.
Because they could convince the public that the moon-people had weapons of mass destruction or the chinese dont want to share the moon-ressources and this demands a god damn trade-war/permanent moon-base with a wall.

And my friend Vacuo is also here, as expected, since hes made of the same material as Max Plancks teacher and less like Chuck Yeager or Peter Freuchen. Im deeply sorry about your scifi-PTSD.

[james_s]

No, it's the other way around. The hard part is getting into orbit. Take a look at the Saturn V, the first two stages and part of the third were needed to reach Earth orbit. Only the small skinny part at the top was needed for the rest of the trip. As the famous quote goes, as far as delta V, or energy required is concerned:

There's more to it than that. You have to lift anything you need for the rest of the trip into earth orbit as well, and if you want to land on the moon and then lift off from there to return, you have to carry all that fuel and equipment as well so the effect is amplified. The Saturn V was enormous because it had to get an enormous mass of stuff into space, if you just want to get to orbit that can be done by far smaller less complicated rockets, far less time and simpler logistics than going all the way to the moon. The mission becomes hugely more complicated with so many things that can go wrong. Even just getting into orbit will never be affordable for the vast majority of people, due to the energy and equipment required it will remain a novelty for the super rich. They will probably get the cost down a bit more, increasing the number of people doing it recreationally which reduces the exclusivity and pretty soon the novelty will wear off.

[coppercone2]

I hope the Chinese start sending stuff/people to the moon on a regular basis, it might make the USA get off it's collective butt. Bonus points for putting it on the "dark" side where people can't see it.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.

So... less than the pointless F35 program.

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

[T3sl4co1l]

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

Sounds great, when can you fly it?

Tim

[sainbablo]

.."although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon".

Have you taken into consideration the unpredictable side effects of nearly zero gravitational forces may have on that
physiological activity?  Cheers

[coppercone2]

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

Sounds great, when can you fly it?

Tim

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

and it does seem to work well

[Fungus]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

[rstofer]

I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park. We send a small number of guys there a handful of times at absolutely immense expense, there are not enough people who are wealthy enough to pay for a ride there to make it a viable business. There are "only" some 2200 billionaires in the world, and of those only a portion are wealthy enough to conceivably pay for a moon ride, and of that pool how many are going to be interested in it? I just don't see it happening without some kind of major unforeseen breakthrough.

I see SpaceX as that breakthrough.  Now that there is a profit motive there needs to be profit.  Costs can't stay the same, there are no customers to create that profit.  So, costs have to decline.  No big deal, just turn some engineers lose on the problem.

[rstofer]

.."although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon".

Have you taken into consideration the unpredictable side effects of nearly zero gravitational forces may have on that
physiological activity?  Cheers

Bondage will become mainstream!

[rstofer]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

It's all just evolution - improving the breed.  Drones will control the sky, robots will handle the ground warfare.  People won't need to be involved.  We'll just move the borders after one side declares victory.

A long time ago I got a bit of advice from an industry VP:  "Don't bet against technology!"  We've come a long way in the last hundred years, imagine what the next 100 years can create.  Now go out and do it!

[Marco]

It's always been my opinion that the F-35 is a project to drain resources from their "allies" and mislead their opponents to slow down supersonic/hypersonic drone development for everyone but themselves. They can more easily afford to waste billions on that boondoggle than competitors, or maybe I'm overestimating US military intelligence.

Politically it would be impossible for my country to spend money to develop drone technology which could replace the F-35 on nearly every mission profile ... they invested huge political capital into the F-35, they wouldn't dare. That thing has to fly for decades, come hell or high water.

PS. jamming tight beam communication isn't very easy, especially if it's coming from a satellite. The receiving antenna has very high gain and it's not pointed at your jammer.

[cdev]

The price in terms of energy needed to send a person and supplies - or any N kilograms of mass payload to the Moon and presumably also bring that person back to Earth is "astronomical" and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

No matter what propulsion technology we use to do it.

This is why a space elevator is so appealing if some way can be thought of to make it a reality, the cost suddenly becomes affordable.

Until then the cost of the energy needed alone is so high - barring the invention of some radical new means of propulsion space travel will likely remain out of almost everybody's price range.

Also, pollution.. CO2, etc.

[Fungus]

This is why a space elevator is so appealing if some way can be thought of to make it a reality, the cost suddenly becomes affordable.

Of course it's appealing, but... the laws of physics are against it. It's not just finding a material that can hold up its own weight, how would you install it. You can't start at the ground and work upwards and you can't start in space and work downwards.

(maybe they can start from the top of a really tall mountain)

A rail gun in a really deep shaft might be a better idea for launching heavy stuff. With a rail gun a rocket could be moving at several times the speed of sound before it even needs to fire its engine. It's like taking away a whole booster stage from a conventional rocket.

[coppercone2]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

so what, they managed to dodge 100 missiles and blow a bunch of stuff up. that sounds like a excellent result. with all that crap gone they can fly cessna and throw rocks at the enemy while the f35 are being welded.

i wanna see where these invulnerable drone armies are. i have yet to see one. pretty soon means they will start developing them in 50 years and have something kinda usable in 100. and you basically need the f35 type communications system to control the drone army and have it work as a flying router that wont get shot down immediately. No one is going to cut it because its proven that it does a good job (miracle that something at all works in these type of situations).

The fact that it is proven to work is extremely important. The MIC is full of slick salesmen saying they have the next no cost golden budget solution for the last 200 years.

[rstofer]

Whenever you see Joint as part of a project descriptor, you can bet it's going to fail.  The F111 was also a joint services program and it's not highly regarded.

The F35 is the Joint Strike Fighter and only the latest proof that the Air Force and Navy can not share an airframe.  The requirements are simply too different.

In the case of the F35, they hide the difference with model designators A, B and C. The A model is for conventional runway takeoff and landing, the B model for vertical takeoff and landing and the C model is for Carrier takeoff and landing.  These are radically different airframes.

Oddly, the Air Force doesn't see the need for a tailhook and folding wings.  The Navy seems to think these things are important and the difference is significant in terms of structure.  Somehow the Navy got talked out of a rear seat.

https://www.f35.com/about/variants/f35c

The only thing these variants have in common is an overall shape.

[coppercone2]

how is the f111 bad? what else would have been able to be used in the same way as the F111? You can argue the strategy it was developed around was bad but it managed to destroy iraq and also scare the soviets with nuclear weapons. who says there is another solution that would do both things? that plane is extremely scary.

what are you gonna do fly a bunch of f15's into the middle of russia with bombs? is that even a credible threat?

[Marco]

i wanna see where these invulnerable drone armies are.

The point of drones is that they can do things cheaper, not that they can do more. The US has more money than everyone else, so the more money they can get their competitors to spend on the most expensive way of doing things the better.

[coppercone2]

manned aviation has proven to work for like 6 major conflicts. right now you have peace through a proven solution. are you really gonna push some kind of SIRI to defend NATO?

the military is paranoid, battlestar galactica is right up their ally. no one would even buy that shit.

seriously read a textbook about military aircraft development, even a basic encyclopedia with a good fifty pages about each aircraft. you will see how resistant the military is to new things, they could have shaved tons off those aircraft by fitting new systems. it is NOT a conspiracy. They are like your friends grandma that says you will get eye cancer if you sit less then 30 feet from a flat screen TV. It's like switching your cats food.

no one wants to pay for it, no one really knows how it really works and no one wants to fuck with it at all. Someone posted a picture of priests blessing missiles in some thread here. And they still break bottles on ships.

It would only take like one politician that saw half of stephan kings 'maximum overdrive' the night before some kind of vote to scuttle 50 billion dollars in development money.