10 ms·

I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. I mean we've done some great work, but we haven't ma

• ska 6y ago
  > but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? I think it's pretty much politically impossible. The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). It's pretty easy to come up with other major challenges that most people will consider more important that also aren't getting funding ... so private industry looks more likely to get some traction. States might get interested if/when those efforts start to get more interesting or threatening. Mars in your lifetime is implausible, but not impossible I suppose.
  • NortySpock 6y ago
    China's public plans include a semi-permanent base on the Moon. That oughta ruffle some feathers in Congress. Chinese paper on plant-based life support systems for extended crew stays. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1
    • Something1234 6y ago
      Did the Chinese build their own biosphere 2 (Arizona)?
      • andi999 6y ago
        Since you mentioned biosphere 2, I was really surprised to learn the Steve Bannon was director for 2 years of the project.
        • Something1234 6y ago
          I wonder what impact he had. Looking at his wikipedia page he had a very long career.
    • lenkite 6y ago
      Really hope China ditches the Outer Space Treaty and claims sovereign territory on the moon. Only then will the space race ignite again. It seems only competition makes the human spirit move.
      • hutzlibu 6y ago
        I suspect any player powerful enough to have the means to claim territory on the moon, will ditch the outer space treaty eventually. Unless it is a purely scientific mission, but that is un likely at the moment.
  • newsclues 6y ago
    Like the last space race you just need the military to fund the research under the guise of civilian space exploration.
  • peteretep 6y ago
    > The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match And then next one will be too, only with China
  • bnralt 6y ago
    > The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). My understanding is that the Defense Department was interested in human manned spy satellites liked the planned Manned Orbital Laboratory early on, but that automation progressed to the point where it was preferable. I think that's one thing people miss when they talk about lack of progress in space. We use space, a lot. The thing is, in terms of things we actually want to do, automated vessels work a lot better than manned ones. People who are focused on manned space missions aren't focused on space, they're advocates for one particular tech stack that's extremely inefficient at doing the things we currently want to do in space.
    • godelski 6y ago
      There's still a lot of defense reasons to go to the moon. You can put much larger telescopes there, though you're back to windows of time you can look at a location but you can have good will and dedicate time to scientists. Though they might not want to reveal the resolution even though this can be roughly back tracked through size. There's also the weapons incentive even though that's illegal. But if you're able to cheaply and consistently put people on the moon then you clearly have the resources to cheaply put large rods of tungsten in orbit (good luck responding to), being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc), replace/upgrade satellites quickly, etc. The Apollo missions were always about how much payload you could put in orbit. It's also beneficial if you want to start space mining, really essential for that actually.
      • fuoqi 6y ago
        >being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc) You can easily do it without having objects in orbit. You can simply launch a ballistic cloud of debris at suborbital speeds and kinetic energy of the targeted satellite will do the rest. Time to hit could be shorter for an orbital system, but not significantly so. This is why I consider the recent news about the Russian orbital satellite killer to be a cheap fearmongering.
      • Dylan16807 6y ago
  • blackrock 6y ago
    But Elon says they’ll land on Mars in 2026. Say it ain’t so.
  • OJFord 6y ago
    > Mars in your lifetime is implausible, Do you say that to mean 'anyone living's lifetime', or on the assumption that GP was alive for the 'moon landing 51.5 years ago' mentioned?
• ghostpepper 6y ago
  What does "new deal" mean in this context? Large amount of public funding?
  • monkeywork 6y ago
    "New Deal" generally implies making it a federal priority and putting proper funding and focus on it. See: FDR New Deal / The Green New Deal
  • mjevans 6y ago
    As the sibling already mentioned, FDR's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal It's also the framework I think of when I use my own phrase 'New New Deal', as in a jobs program that focuses on building fresh public infrastructure (not-broken window jobs).
• rtkwe 6y ago
  There has to be some revenue stream beyond just satellite launches and government research. Right now there's only so many reasons to go to space and a lot of those are pretty small markets or able to be served by one or very few provider(s) pretty well.
  • ChuckMcM 6y ago
    Frankly, I expect the zero-g sex market to be a pretty big draw for the folks with more money than sense.
    • pixl97 6y ago
      I can only guess that it would be much harder to accomplish than one would imagine. Definitely want a padded room so you dont bang your head, or other parts slamming into sharp objects.
      • ChuckMcM 6y ago
        I note that the Bigelow Aerospace semi-inflatable module[1] that is attached currently to the ISS has no windows and padded walls. [1] https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/ https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/
        • GordonS 6y ago
          Putting aside space-sex, I really like the idea of an inflatable module that can quickly (and presumably fairly cheaply) increase the space on a station.
    • lmm 6y ago
      A few people will do it once or twice, sure. Doubt that's a sustainable market unless you can get the cost way down.
    • edgyquant 6y ago
      Zero-g sex is extremely dangerous. There was an episode of the Universe about it.
• waheoo 6y ago
  That's what space force was wasn't it?
  • godelski 6y ago
    Space Force is specifically for military and not public. To protect strategic assets like keystone satellites, launch detection system, etc. Stuff the Air Force was doing but the sub department in the AF grew big enough that it became it's own thing. Similarly it's not unlikely to see a cyber force happen in the future.
• merpnderp 6y ago
  Look at the SLS, how much money was spent, and how unlikely it is to ever do anything, and it looks like we aren't even capable of a Space New Deal if we wanted to. Luckily we have SpaceX.
  • khuey 6y ago
    Going to space is only a secondary goal for SLS though. Keeping a bunch of people in politically influential states and congressional districts employed is the primary goal and it's succeeding at that.
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      Government spending "creating jobs" is a lot like a business plan where you pay people to buy your products, or a car that makes its own fuel.
      • khuey 6y ago
        I'm not saying it's a good goal but it is clearly the goal.
        • iguy 6y ago
          While I am horrified by the sums of money, I think there's a slightly less cynical take than the congressional districts one. If you want to have an industry of people who make X, then there need to be people employed making X, every year, for decades. And at more than one company, so that it isn't too fragile a career path. When X is single-use rockets there is the advantage that after one flight you have to re-build, whereas when X is tanks (or other long-lasting hardware) you have to choose to throw the old ones away.
      • etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
        Well, in the literal sense, the government can raise revenue via tax and employ people. So it's literally true... You might not like it, or it might be ill advised, or might believe that all taxation is theft, but it is what it is.
• akeck 6y ago
  I feel like we sort of did get a "Space New Deal" in the form of "Let's just send robots everywhere." Not great from a human space flight perspective, but political will is what it is.
• d_silin 6y ago
  Well, if you want something done, the best way is to do it yourself. How much labour/$$$ are you willing to put per month for the space exploration efforts?
• WalterBright 6y ago
  It is simply too expensive for government to do it. It'll have to be private enterprise. (Not that private enterprise could pay what NASA spends either, but that it would be 10x cheaper for private enterprise to do it.)
  • lordlic 6y ago
    You think NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc can build the ISS but they can't raise it to a higher orbit? Honestly, this cheering for privatization of space research is getting out of hand.
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      I'm saying that the bill for NASA doing it would be 10x what a free market operation could do it for.
      • lordlic 6y ago
        It's not too expensive for governments to do it, and it doesn't have to be private enterprise. Neither of those things are true. Nor is it even clear that it would be cheaper to contract with some private provider to boost the ISS than for the space agencies to figure it out themselves with the launch vehicles they have. How do you think NASA, ESA, etc build rockets anyway? They contract with Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, Northrop, and others to build them. Having the whole operation be under the auspices of SpaceX doesn't do much other than make other governments more reluctant to help fund it.
        • WalterBright 6y ago
          Government contracting is not at all indicative of how the free market works. Also, the free market would never have built a design like the space shuttle. Pushing very heavy wings and landing gear into space doesn't make sense and never did.
          • NewLogic 6y ago
• mynameisash 6y ago
  > I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime I just told my youngest kid this the other day: When I was his age (~25 yrs ago), my dad told me with a bit of a sad look on his face, "I hope we return to the moon within your lifetime." At the time, I kind of laughed because, hey, we're sending people to the moon CONSTANTLY. It took me a minute to realize that I was sorely mistaken and that we haven't sent a human to the moon at ALL in my lifetime. I was taken aback. All this history about Neil Armstrong and the Apollo missions and the space shuttles -- we even got to see from Cocoa Beach a shuttle launch on a family vacation. So much of it even from MY DAD's youth, him telling us about when he got to hear the famous "One small step for [a] man" live from his Scout Jamboree trip. All of that, and we haven't actually been to the moon in decades? It totally blew my mind. I think before that moment, I must have assumed that it was Real Soon Now before we'd have a permanent base with people living and even being born. And to learn that we sort of gave up... It's not unlike when I was six and remembered reading about fully autonomous cars that were coming Real Soon Now, too. Thirty+ years later and that reality actually seems farther away than I had imagined despite the actual progress we've made.
• jldugger 6y ago
  What do you think the fuel charge would be on a martian round trip?
  • sgtnoodle 6y ago
    Since there's virtually no drag between the planets, the distance doesn't linearly determine the amount of fuel. What matters is velocity changes. It's about 10km/s to get into orbit, and 5km/s or so to transit to Mars. Coming back is a lot easier because Mars has less gravity and atmosphere, and you don't need to bring as much stuff back. So maybe let's call it 20km/s total? Fuel has mass, so it takes fuel to bring fuel. If you were to bring all the fuel you needed along, it's probably going to end up being 5-10x the fuel for getting just to low earth orbit. Either you build one giant rocket, or more realistically you launch a few smaller rockets. Alternatively, if you can manufacture fuel on Mars, you only need to take along 15km/s worth of fuel. A single falcon heavy launch could probably handle that. Said another way, such a mission could probably be completed with one or two falcon heavy launches. That's basically equivalent to 3-6 falcon 9's worth of fuel, and a falcon 9's fuel cost is something like $200k. So, $600k-$1200k in fuel. A spaceship system actually suitable for going to Mars would probably use cheaper fuel than falcon heavy. By the time it's actually built, though, inflation and politics will have made the fuel expensive again. So my best guess is a cool $1million!
    • jldugger 6y ago
      .... Did you factor in the fuel you need to actually stop? I'd prefer not to be the next martian crater.
      • sgtnoodle 6y ago
        I assumed aero-braking and parachutes would work out.
• JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  I've been watching a lot of documentaries about Mars and the more I learn the more it seems so incredibly daunting and overwhelming. The atmosphere isn't even thick enough to slow down properly from the massive speed you need to get there at a time scale that works. >The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to the density found 35 km above the Earth's surface.
• JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  I've been watching a lot of documentaries about Mars and the more I learn the more it seems so incredibly daunting and overwhelming. The atmosphere isn't even thick enough to slow down properly from the massive speed you need to get there at a time scale that works. How do you land large colonization facilities, landers, etc. in an atmosphere that is 1% as dense as Earth's? How do you then have enough fuel to leave? I know there are workarounds for everything but there are some hard physics walls here. >The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to the density found 35 km above the Earth's surface.
  • grey-area 6y ago
    How do you land large colonization facilities, landers, etc. in an atmosphere that is 1% as dense as Earth's? With supersonic retro propulsion on a rocket that can be reused. How do you then have enough fuel to leave? You don’t, so you need to make the fuel with robots landed on one-way missions first. Luckily there are plenty of raw materials on Mars (in the atmosphere, soil and water deposits). It’s very hard but it’s certainly doable if you can do the first part.
  • posix_me_less 6y ago
    You have been mislead, we don't need atmosphere to slow down. We have rocket thrust for that.
  • edgyquant 6y ago
    I don’t think colonization of Mars is the future regardless, but landing on Mars isn’t more difficult than landing on the moon.
• snomad 6y ago
  Seems we have dialed back manned missions, but the rovers on Mars, the satellites orbiting Jupiter (Juno) and Cassini, reaching Pluto (New Horizons), and asteroids (Hayabusa) and soon to be James Webb Telescope are all very exciting and represent significant progress.
• leptons 6y ago
  TV and movies have sold you a fantasy.
• mlindner 6y ago
  > I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. Space is making progress at incredible rates right now. It's moving faster than it ever has in history. So I'm not sure what the issue is.
• exporectomy 6y ago
  I don't share your gloomy view. The annual rate of orbital space launches has been steadily climbing since 2000 and is now double what it was then. It's still slightly below the peak of the 1960s-70s but I'm pretty optimistic based on the clear trend. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html Men on the moon was just a gimmick. I'm pretty excited by all the stuff we keep sending to Mars. There's another rover landing there in just a few weeks' time. It's not just NASA and SpaceX. We've recently seen Israel go to the Moon, Europe and India go to Mars, Japan return samples from an asteroid, and China return samples from the Moon. Who knows what one of them will do next. The only value I see in having people on the Moon or Mars is in working towards a permanent colony that could eventually become self-sufficient. Anything less and what's the point? We have robots to do almost all the stuff humans used to be needed for.