When will we Start sending probes barring life to other worlds?

[Magnetar_Byte]

I understand that we need to wait for our scientists around the world to come to a conclusion but that's my issue. I don’t believe that will ever happen at some point we will have searched so many stars that it will take centuries to go to more and find out if it has life. So at what point do we just give up and say well we searched within a radius of 1 million miles, 1 light year, 100 light years, a million, or maybe a trillion light years wide.

At what point do we say enough is enough we need to start seeding life. When we are about to go extinct would that be the right time? Then you might ask are we in a stable rational mindset at that point. Won’t we be clouded by the fact we are going extinct for the last time on this world, who knows? 

 

Perhaps we’ll send out seed probes when someone on the planet can do so. Once we become a space faring species whats stopping some moron, terrorist, bad guy, or what have you to say fuck you i’m gonna do it anyway. With a billion humans that's VERY LIKELY with well over 10-12 billion at this time I’m guaranteeing it’ll happen. What then how do we stop that do we limit space access for those on the surface and those in space? Do only scientists and VETTED personal get the chance to send stuff up. If so how do we police that? To many questions to go on about but you get my point.

[Worstcaster]

If it isn't human, do we care if life is seeded on other worlds.  There isn't much sense in launching some of our hardier microbes to distant worlds.  If the planet supports life, any species we send (including humans) would be invasive.  We don't have the technology to successfully send more complex life that far and reasonably expect it to survive.  Larger species would require a significant number to be moved to avoid genetic damage from incest when they get there.

[Letgomyleghoe]

22 minutes ago, comander said:

1. we probably already have. I doubt that the stuff we've sent up is sterile. 
2. 1Million miles is very small in astrological terms. 

No but anything on the external side of crafts (like in rovers or satellites) will die in vacuum, except for tardigrades.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

No but anything on the external side of crafts (like in rovers or satellites) will die in vacuum, except for tardigrades.

And they do it anyway pretty quick.  Absolute total sterility turns out to be fantastically hard.  NASA found a few rogue bacteria in what they thought was a sterile vacuum chamber a couple years ago.  Preventing life from living in an area where life can survive is hard.  Keeping life alive in an area hostile to it is even harder though.

[Letgomyleghoe]

4 minutes ago, comander said:

bacteria can last a while. 

Yeah, not in vacuum though

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

Yeah, not in vacuum though

Depends.  Extremophile bacteria can last in places humans can’t.  They have a limit though.  Space is pretty horrifying.  Even the nice friendly inside the solar system stuff.  Farther away it’s even worse.  The sun is a continuous ongoing nuclear explosion for one thing.  And it actually protects us with its magnetosphere from even worse stuff.

[Letgomyleghoe]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Depends.  Extremophile bacteria can last in places humans can’t.  They have a limit though.  Space is pretty horrifying.  Even the nice friendly inside the solar system stuff.  Farther away it’s even worse.  The sun is a continuous ongoing nuclear explosion for one thing.  And it actually protects us with its magnetosphere from even worse stuff.

Vacuum is one thing, add in temperatures and it’s worse.

[harryk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection

 

Sterilization of spacecraft and protections of other planets and space objects are governed under the Outer Space Treaty. Every space faring nation has signed on to the treaty. Given the extreme cost and difficulty in sending a spacecraft to another planet I don't expect any rogue parties will be flaunting the treaty any time soon.

 

Destinations of exploration and space travel are classified with different protection levels depending on the value for research and the potential for harboring life. Some locations like the Sun or the Moon have almost zero protections, while spacecraft going to high priority places like Mars or Europa must follow strict decontamination protocol.

 

Within the confines of the treaty, some experiments have sent stuff to the Moon.

 

China sent a the Chang'e 4 lander to the Moon with small capsule with several plants and fruit fly eggs. The heater failed and it froze in the lunar night.

 

Israel sent the Beresheet lander to the Moon with a time capsule disc embedded in which are dehydrated tardigrades. Beresheet crashed into the lunar surface but its likely the disc survived the impact (in one or more pieces) and the tardigrades could possibly be rehydrated and thus revived in the future.

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, comander said:

No air to conduct heat. 

 

Just imagine the bacteria turning into a capsule and going dormant. 

And then simultaneously freezing instantly and being cooked.  Also there’s the ionizing radiation.  Space is not kind to DNA.

[Letgomyleghoe]

1 hour ago, comander said:

No air to conduct heat. 

 

Just imagine the bacteria turning into a capsule and going dormant. 

Yup, but space is 2.7 degrees kelvin, near absolute 0 and in sun it’s around 288 kelvin (240 f) it’s not actually 240f but the sun in your body will keep your skin temp at 240f and burn you to death from radiation.

 

and if the space craft is spinning from shade to sun then it will most likely kill any bacteria from the quick heat differences.

[straight_stewie]

14 hours ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

1 million miles, 1 light year

Well, we're already this far.

 

14 hours ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

At what point do we say enough is enough we need to start seeding life. When we are about to go extinct would that be the right time? Then you might ask are we in a stable rational mindset at that point. Won’t we be clouded by the fact we are going extinct for the last time on this world, who knows? 

The first FTL flight in the Star Trek universe occurred in 2063. At our current rate of development, we will not make this deadline. This is important, because FTL flight is required to establish stable dependent colonies on any bodies besides our moon. We likely won't walk on an another planetary body again, including our moon, until we move past combustion engines for spaceflight. (Yes, I'm saying Trumps promise of the moon by 2024 is complete and utter bullshit. For more reasons than just this too.)

 

Beyond this, Earth is the only naturally habitable planet in our solar system. There is one other planet within habitable distance of our sun, Venus, but it is no where near habitable. The least of Venus' habitability issues is no water.

So, in order to inhabitant any other planets within our solar system with a large enough population to prevent species dependence on a single planet, we will need effective, positive, and planet scale environmental control systems. These are also a requirement for continued habitation on Earth. Currently, the only remotely pressing natural mass extinction issue is climate change, so if we develop planet scale environmental control systems, we will not be at risk of extinction within many millions of years.

Of course, all of that is meaningless anyway. If we are only inhabiting planets in our solar system, and we have effective planet scale environmental control systems, humans are not at risk of naturally caused mass extinction on Earth until our Suns death, which will, of course, lead to an end of life everywhere in our solar system. Therefore, we don't just need FTL flight to make the plan worthwhile, we need the ability to establish stable dependent colonies in other solar systems.

 

Oh, and to beat all of that, as long as humans are at risk of nuclear mass extinction events, the whole practice is meaningless because they will be at risk of that everywhere. So in order to make any of it meaningful, we also have to convince all people currently in existence, and all people in future existence, to give up nuclear weapons at least until we encounter other, hostile, intelligent life. Good luck with that.

 

15 hours ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

Once we become a space faring species whats stopping some moron, terrorist, bad guy, or what have you to say fuck you i’m gonna do it anyway. With a billion humans that's VERY LIKELY with well over 10-12 billion at this time I’m guaranteeing it’ll happen. What then how do we stop that do we limit space access for those on the surface and those in space? Do only scientists and VETTED personal get the chance to send stuff up. If so how do we police that? To many questions to go on about but you get my point.

Right now, the issue is money and focus. Those with enough money are not focused enough to get there. Musk could maybe get there, but he's been having some serious personal issues lately that are gravely affecting the functioning of his businesses. Bezos claims to be trying to get orbital ferry flights, but he lacks enough focus to get there as well. There is a third company, Space Adventures, which claims to be offering orbital spacewalk flights, ISS visits, and circumlunar flights. Their current plans are based on corrupt Russian government contacts, and to date, they have sold three seats, but failed to make a single flight. They are quoting $150,000,000 USD for a circumlunar flight, but this is no where near enough money to actually get a human to lunar orbit. During the Apollo age, it's estimated that lunar excursions cost over a million dollars a minute, and that was in 1970's money. At our current state, non state actors conducting space flights with the possibility for any ill effects other than more orbital garbage is a non-issue.

 

 

 

The final point is that, for the reasons I've listed above, none of that is currently a meaningful issue. Besides that, when it becomes a meaningful issue, we will need to solve it lazily. Meaning, there are too many things that we do not know to develop some sort of master plan about how to spread human life through the universe. We are simply not advanced enough to even reason about these issues in meaningful ways yet.

[Magnetar_Byte]

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Well, we're already this far.

 

The first FTL flight in the Star Trek universe occurred in 2063. At our current rate of development, we will not make this deadline. This is important, because FTL flight is required to establish stable dependent colonies on any bodies besides our moon. We likely won't walk on an another planetary body again, including our moon, until we move past combustion engines for spaceflight. (Yes, I'm saying Trumps promise of the moon by 2024 is complete and utter bullshit. For more reasons than just this too.)

I agree but Fusion engines and Anti matter ones all use the same principle make thing happen then shove that thing out the back for thrust. I think what u meant is that chemical based propulsion is archaic and won't get us far. If thats the case then YES TO A POINT, right now because the popularity of refueling rockets has become popular we could see little advancement in other propulsions and more in chemical. Which i don't mind because were closer to that then the others, plus we can refuel in orbit and at the moon once we have a colony and refueling station set up there. 

 

Your not wrong tho we do need something else if we wanna do any real exploring u know like outside our safe little bubble Solar System. 

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Beyond this, Earth is the only naturally habitable planet in our solar system. There is one other planet within habitable distance of our sun, Venus, but it is no where near habitable. The least of Venus' habitability issues is no water.

Actually Venus is the best candidate for a colony outside of earth.
Reason being:

- it has a atmosphere thats very thick which will protect quite well

- it allows for a PERFECT 1g gravity at a certain height above the ground. Meaning YES NO bone or muscle loss

- Air is VERY light so we can have floating venician cities ALL OVER THE PLANET. 

- At the height we are talking its Perfect for us. 

 

#VenusisBetterSosuckitMars

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

So, in order to inhabitant any other planets within our solar system with a large enough population to prevent species dependence on a single planet, we will need effective, positive, and planet scale environmental control systems. These are also a requirement for continued habitation on Earth. Currently, the only remotely pressing natural mass extinction issue is climate change, so if we develop planet scale environmental control systems, we will not be at risk of extinction within many millions of years.

Of course, all of that is meaningless anyway. If we are only inhabiting planets in our solar system, and we have effective planet scale environmental control systems, humans are not at risk of naturally caused mass extinction on Earth until our Suns death, which will, of course, lead to an end of life everywhere in our solar system. Therefore, we don't just need FTL flight to make the plan worthwhile, we need the ability to establish stable dependent colonies in other solar systems.

I guess a the best way to say this is I think your all overthinking it. All we would have to do is create a small capsule with harden life support systems for microbes. Since its that small its much easier PLUS the life support we need is NEXT TO NOTHING compared to a humans life support system. My point is we could find a microbe that isn't a extremophile but one that would be the most optimal Bacterium with regards to Repro rate, Life support needs, and food. Once we balance those we can have a perfect system where we then send Billions of these microbes via Light sails to other star Systems by the millions and hope they land on other worlds. 

 

Thats my idea anyways. We don't need to be sending dogs or anything a simple capsule the size of a Peanut butter Jif Jar would be max size, and the smallest would be for extremophile capsules the size of small vitamin supplement bottles.

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Oh, and to beat all of that, as long as humans are at risk of nuclear mass extinction events, the whole practice is meaningless because they will be at risk of that everywhere. So in order to make any of it meaningful, we also have to convince all people currently in existence, and all people in future existence, to give up nuclear weapons at least until we encounter other, hostile, intelligent life. Good luck with that.

We wouldn't bomb the planets that we sent life to I mean if we did it wouldn't really matter cause a single nuke wouldn't do it for that planet let alone for the 100s of thousands we'd send them to. 

 

Thats y we need to do this its a backup of what the Earth managed to do. DNA was very hard to get to happen naturally it seems, why risk it all going to shit with humans. Hence we need backups of out planet via Bacterium on other worlds. Which Im worried when we need it to happen most there will be no funds or shits to give when we are about to nuke ourselves into the earth. 

 

But who knows maybe we will figure it out.

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Right now, the issue is money and focus. Those with enough money are not focused enough to get there. Musk could maybe get there, but he's been having some serious personal issues lately that are gravely affecting the functioning of his businesses. Bezos claims to be trying to get orbital ferry flights, but he lacks enough focus to get there as well. There is a third company, Space Adventures, which claims to be offering orbital spacewalk flights, ISS visits, and circumlunar flights. Their current plans are based on corrupt Russian government contacts, and to date, they have sold three seats, but failed to make a single flight. They are quoting $150,000,000 USD for a circumlunar flight, but this is no where near enough money to actually get a human to lunar orbit. During the Apollo age, it's estimated that lunar excursions cost over a million dollars a minute, and that was in 1970's money. At our current state, non state actors conducting space flights with the possibility for any ill effects other than more orbital garbage is a non-issue.

The interest is there it will take time for the space corps to get going of course. But the interest and money in space right now is the most its been since literally ever. We've never had a space race of sorts like this, apollo didn't count that was a measuring contest between the US and the USSR. This one is based on who can make the most money which as u KNOW is quite a safe bet to make compared to anything that has Payed for by the government slapped on it.

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

The final point is that, for the reasons I've listed above, none of that is currently a meaningful issue. Besides that, when it becomes a meaningful issue, we will need to solve it lazily. Meaning, there are too many things that we do not know to develop some sort of master plan about how to spread human life through the universe. We are simply not advanced enough to even reason about these issues in meaningful ways yet.

I guess that was my point with this all the fact we can miniaturize life support systems and that we have access to light sail tech. Means we have everything we need relatively speaking of course. By that I mean we understand what the MINIMAL life support is for MANY bacterium, so all we gotta do is customize the capsul to do those bare minimums wish power wise is VERY easy to do. Once done u strap it to a light sail or a Photon engine followed by a computer system hardened for Radiation with adequate protection against the outside that will do some basic maneuvers aka when it launches and when its half way there so that it then starts to slow down. 

 

I'm glossing over a lot as I'm not an active scientist, but the point is these things aren't science fiction we have the tech now. Which is pretty cool to see. 

 

[Bombastinator]

I have a nasty feeling extra terrestrial colonies will flat out never be possible.  Just a feeling though.  No one seems to know for sure.   Global warming was 90% certain back in the 1970s though.  There was a 10% chance of global cooling instead and the media jumped on that one instead.

[Magnetar_Byte]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

I have a nasty feeling extra terrestrial colonies will flat out never be possible.  Just a feeling though.  No one seems to know for sure.   Global warming was 90% certain back in the 1970s though.  There was a 10% chance of global cooling instead and the media jumped on that one instead.

I'm speaking about bacteria, archai, Prokaryotic Life forms we'd be sending. Those would then evolve over millions of years to regular multi celled life forms hopefully. 
And with the advancements we've made in life support systems its not to hard to think that creating a smaller version with less strict standards and in mass isn't INCREDIBLY hard. 

 

Once done bam we got little balls of life ready to be thrown to other systems Via, Photonic engines, or Light sails. 

[zassou]

when?

 

when a new blight that kills almost all crops, feed on nitrogen and we have nothing left but okra and corn. the world economy collapses, militaries disband, everyone from teacher to politician becomes farmers. we alter our history books to lie to ourselves that moon landing was an elaborate hoax to bankrupt the soviet union, and that we should focus on producing more crop to sustain our ever declining population, instead of burning cash to build some stupid moon rockets.

 

do not go gentle into that good night,

old age should burn and rave at close of day;

rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[akio123008]

Here's a different question; who cares? Why would you want to preserve earthly life in any form when everyone is dead anyway?

 

Shooting microbes (or even humans) into space in a spacecraft won't:

   

1) save anyone who is alive today from an upcoming disaster

2) save anyone's offspring from an upcoming disaster*

 

Therefore it's rather useless. 

 

*unless the offspring is in the spacecraft, but this would only be true for a very small amount of people.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

On 2/12/2020 at 7:39 AM, straight_stewie said:

We likely won't walk on an another planetary body again, including our moon, until we move past combustion engines for spaceflight. (Yes, I'm saying Trumps promise of the moon by 2024 is complete and utter bullshit. For more reasons than just this too.)

Woah woah woah. Hold on here - 2024 for the moon is not utter bullshit. We already have a rocket capable of reaching the moon (Falcon Heavy could do it in fully expendable mode - possibly a few other heavy lift rockets) - even if we ignore the SLS, and the half dozen other super heavy-lift rockets in current development.

 

A lander might be the limiting factor, but that's simply a budget matter. There are multiple proposed landers for Artemis - with the Boeing lander being the likely choice.

 

Getting a lander ready in 4 years is 100% doable, if money is sufficiently applied.

 

There are no technical limitations preventing us from putting boots on the Moon by 2024.

[straight_stewie]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

even if we ignore the SLS,

The SLS will never carry a human. Not unless there are some very serious and significant changes in the way that our government has been treating space flight, and in the design of the system. It has not yet flown, it is behind it's original schedules, and it is being severely underfunded with too tight a deadline. On top of that, every single space shuttle accident was caused by either the external tank, or the external boosters. Both of which are core components of the SLS. The fact that they have been significantly improved and modified for the SLS is not relevent: Every single politician who does not see the value of very expensive and dangerous space flight, which is currently most of them, will fight very hard to prevent the SLS from ever carrying a human.

 

Politically, the SLS is a non option. This means that we rely on Falcon Heavy to get there. NASA itself is fighting SpaceX on carrying humans to space, so there is quite a bit of ground that needs to be covered before SpaceX becomes a viable option either.

 

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

There are no technical limitations preventing us from putting boots on the Moon by 2024.

Technical as in knowledge, you're right.

 

Technical as in red tape and existing machines? This is absolutely untrue. The US has been unwilling to recover man carrying capabilities since 2005. Since the Space Shuttle was grounded, no proposed or even already built machines have been approved for manned flight.

 

Additionally, even in the intense heat of the early cold war, with nearly unlimited funding and the entire nation behind the program, it took $2.2 billion dollars (of back then money, no less) and a lead time of 7 years to get the first man rated LEM to fly. Currently, the government is only willing to budget $1.8 billion dollars to the program in total, and is giving a lead time of only 4 years. And there is currently next to no political pressure, or support, to get it done.

Work on Artemis hasn't even really started, and useful funding isn't even budgeted for this year.

 

We simply will not make the deadline, and I believe, not the program either. The political and financial support just isn't there, and the will of the people isn't there to push the politicians to get it done either.

Why do you think Trump would set a deadline of 2024? Is it because he thinks we can actually do this in the allotted time? Or is it because that's the last year he might possibly be in office?

[harryk]

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

NASA itself is fighting SpaceX on carrying humans to space, so there is quite a bit of ground that needs to be covered before SpaceX becomes a viable option either.

NASA confirms Crew Dragon almost ready (possible May 7 launch date)

 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

NASA confirms Crew Dragon almost ready (possible May 7 launch date)

 

NASA is holding them up to higher standards over Boeing - but they're not exactly fighting them.

 

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

The SLS will never carry a human. Not unless there are some very serious and significant changes in the way that our government has been treating space flight, and in the design of the system. It has not yet flown, it is behind it's original schedules, and it is being severely underfunded with too tight a deadline. On top of that, every single space shuttle accident was caused by either the external tank, or the external boosters. Both of which are core components of the SLS.

Well hold on a second - do you know why the boosters and external tank were problematic? It's because of the foam that kept falling off, and striking the body of the orbiter (usually damaging the heat shielding).

 

That's literally not a problem with SLS, because foam can fall off and it's totally harmless. It cannot strike the heat shielding, as that is on top of the rocket and covered while launching.

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

The fact that they have been significantly improved and modified for the SLS is not relevent: Every single politician who does not see the value of very expensive and dangerous space flight, which is currently most of them, will fight very hard to prevent the SLS from ever carrying a human.

Do you have any evidence of this? Links to politicians specifically making statements about the danger of human crews on the SLS, etc?

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Politically, the SLS is a non option. This means that we rely on Falcon Heavy to get there. NASA itself is fighting SpaceX on carrying humans to space, so there is quite a bit of ground that needs to be covered before SpaceX becomes a viable option either.

As seen above, the Dragon Crew capsule should be certified within a few months.

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Technical as in knowledge, you're right.

 

Technical as in red tape and existing machines? This is absolutely untrue. The US has been unwilling to recover man carrying capabilities since 2005. Since the Space Shuttle was grounded, no proposed or even already built machines have been approved for manned flight.

 

Additionally, even in the intense heat of the early cold war, with nearly unlimited funding and the entire nation behind the program, it took $2.2 billion dollars (of back then money, no less) and a lead time of 7 years to get the first man rated LEM to fly. Currently, the government is only willing to budget $1.8 billion dollars to the program in total, and is giving a lead time of only 4 years. And there is currently next to no political pressure, or support, to get it done.

That's a hard comparison. In the 60's, we were starting from scratch. A lot of the science and technology was unknown, and we were developing it as we go.

 

Now? We know all of the things we need to know. We just need to develop new hardware.

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Work on Artemis hasn't even really started, and useful funding isn't even budgeted for this year.

 

We simply will not make the deadline, and I believe, not the program either. The political and financial support just isn't there, and the will of the people isn't there to push the politicians to get it done either.

Why do you think Trump would set a deadline of 2024? Is it because he thinks we can actually do this in the allotted time? Or is it because that's the last year he might possibly be in office?

Of course he picked a random number out of his ass - that doesn't mean the number is impossible to achieve.

 

Personally I think even if the 2024 date slips, we should still get there before 2030 easily.

[Bombastinator]

32 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

NASA is holding them up to higher standards over Boeing - but they're not exactly fighting them.

 

Well hold on a second - do you know why the boosters and external tank were problematic? It's because of the foam that kept falling off, and striking the body of the orbiter (usually damaging the heat shielding).

 

That's literally not a problem with SLS, because foam can fall off and it's totally harmless. It cannot strike the heat shielding, as that is on top of the rocket and covered while launching.

Do you have any evidence of this? Links to politicians specifically making statements about the danger of human crews on the SLS, etc?

As seen above, the Dragon Crew capsule should be certified within a few months.

That's a hard comparison. In the 60's, we were starting from scratch. A lot of the science and technology was unknown, and we were developing it as we go.

 

Now? We know all of the things we need to know. We just need to develop new hardware.

Of course he picked a random number out of his ass - that doesn't mean the number is impossible to achieve.

 

Personally I think even if the 2024 date slips, we should still get there before 2030 easily.

I did at one point talk to the daughter of the husband and wife team that worked on designing the bit that ruptured during the challenger explosion.  Apparently they were both watching the tv when the thing went, and one looked at the other and said “o-rings” at which point both of them rushed off.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Bombastinator
Corrected for accuracy. I don’t know what bit exploded. Fuel tanks were in the conversation, but I don’t know if that was the actual bit or not

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I did at one point talk to the daughter of the husband and wife team that worked on designing the bit that ruptured during the challenger explosion.  Apparently they were both watching the tv when the thing went, and one looked at the other and said “o-rings” at which point both of them rushed off.

Yeah I watched a documentary about Challenger a while ago, and yeah most of the engineers basically told NASA not to launch, and they were overruled.

[straight_stewie]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

do you know why the boosters and external tank were problematic? It's because of the foam that kept falling off, and striking the body of the orbiter (usually damaging the heat shielding).

The problem with the boosters was not the insulation foam, it was a faulty design with a single point of failure: The seals between sections. They claim to have rectified this, but they have not changed the design significantly, they have simply changed the seal shape and material. The seals are still a single point of failure.

 

And yes, the tank foam still comes off, it's actually worse than it was during the shuttle days. The solution they chose was to move to a foam that does not harden as much when frozen. The idea being that if the foam isn't hard enough to damage the boosters, it won't damage the boosters when it hits them. The tradeoff was insulation performance: The outside of the tank freezes significantly more than it did in the shuttle days, causing actual ice to fall off of the tank.

 

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you have any evidence of this? Links to politicians specifically making statements about the danger of human crews on the SLS, etc?

I have none specifically about the SLS, no. However, since the 16th Apollo flight, the most popular view was to be against spending money on space flight. Once the Russians started on their own space station program, things heated up enough to gain support for the Shuttle, but even that evaporated 19 years before the shuttles were grounded, with many politicians openly and publicly calling for an end to the space shuttle program throughout most of the programs life.

Since 2005, I cannot recall a single time where space flight was popularly supported in the legislature beyond what directly helps the military and honoring existing commitments. I can think of many times where politicians said that they wanted to push getting to Mars, only to immediately vote against funding anything that had to do with US manned space flight.

With over 30 years of the most popular political view being to not spend money on manned space flight, I think that the point is self evident and it should have to be proven that we are actually dedicated to getting it done, and not the other way around.

 

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

In the 60's, we were starting from scratch. A lot of the science and technology was unknown, and we were developing it as we go.

Now? We know all of the things we need to know. We just need to develop new hardware.

That's funny, considering that from first US manned space flight to landing on the moon took only 8 years.

The SLS has already been in development for almost 9 years, and has yet to fly a single time.

 

In addition to that, the US has not been conducting self supported manned space flight in the mean time.

 

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Personally I think even if the 2024 date slips, we should still get there before 2030 easily.

If modern military programs are anything to go by, you are absolutely correct. The date could slip by 20 years and everyone would claim that everything is fine.

However, if we go by the history of our space programs, significant deadline misses are very bad news, usually leading to project cancellation.

[Guest]

Frankly... Before even thinking of leaving our nice cosy little planet, maybe we should first think about doing some clean up

 

Spoiler

 

And also do something about this kind of crazies:

https://globalmeteornetwork.org/?p=570

https://www.sciencealert.com/starlink-is-being-an-absolute-nuisance-to-astronomers

Spoiler

At least to have the poor Hu-Mans to be able to look and point to where they want to send their invader little buggers

Nice way to start an intergalactic war

[Donut417]

On 2/14/2020 at 6:55 AM, straight_stewie said:

every single space shuttle accident was caused by either the external tank, or the external boosters. Both of which are core components of the SLS.

I recall the last Shuttle burning up due to the protective titles following off during launch.