Support NeoGAF

[Orbis]

I wish people would stop making such stupid analogies.

Conquering air is nothing compared to conquering the Sun's radiation.

You can't seem to make your mind up about what's preventing us landing on Mars. Is it a completely unrelated incident which amounted to basically a test aircraft crash? Is it to do with using explosive propellants which have a good enough track record with human flight? Or is it surviving radiation exposure, which will obviously be an issue but has so far not prevented manned exploration of the Moon and long term space habitation?

 

[Shining Sunshine]

We can never land a man on the moon.

The Moon is still partially protected by Earth's magnetosphere, but it doesn't protected it all.

They were lucky. Two powerful solar flares were recorded, and in between them was the Moon landing. If the astronauts had been on the mission during the solare flares, the Moon would have been their grave.

That's why we never did another Moon landing. The mission was just some Cold War space race flaunting epeen.

You can't seem to make your mind up about what's preventing us landing on Mars. Is it a completely unrelated incident which amounted to basically a test aircraft crash? Is it to do with using explosive propellants which have a good enough track record with human flight? Or is it surviving radiation exposure, which will obviously be an issue but has so far not prevented manned exploration of the Moon and long term space habitation?

We need a non-chemical power source that gives us lift and provides magnetic shielding against radiation.
Both problems are solved with the same solution.

 

[Mengy]

Days like these are when I question if we did really land on the moon :-(

Spoiler

bad joke/s

Why is space travel so hard!!!

Buy Kerbal Space Program and learn just how hard it is.


This failure sucks though, I really hope SpaceX doesn't get hurt too bad by it because I want them to succeed very much.

 

[fizzik]

I wish people would stop making such stupid analogies.

Conquering air is nothing compared to conquering the Sun's radiation.

No, it's like, pretty accurate I think...

 

[fizzik]

We need a non-chemical power source that gives us lift and provides magnetic shielding against radiation.
Both problems are solved with the same solution.

Doooo tell.....

EDIT: This had better be good...

 

[Shining Sunshine]

No, it's like, pretty accurate I think...

When we see birds fly, we know flying is physically possible. Any scientist can easily make that assumption and execute on the idea.

We don't see anything in space that's alive, and that should be enough indication that we should only attempt space flight when our technology reaches a viable solution for all space-faring problems.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The Moon is still partially protected by Earth's magnetosphere, but it doesn't protected it all.

They were lucky. Two powerful solar flares were recorded, and in between them was the Moon landing. If the astronauts had been on the mission during the solare flares, the Moon would have been their grave.

That's why we never did another Moon landing. The mission was just some Cold War space race flaunting epeen.

We landed on the moon a few times.

 

[Orbis]

The Moon is still partially protected by Earth's magnetosphere, but it doesn't protected it all.

They were lucky. Two powerful solar flares were recorded, and in between them was the Moon landing. If the astronauts had been on the mission during the solare flares, the Moon would have been their grave.

That's why we never did another Moon landing. The mission was just some Cold War space race flaunting epeen.



We need a non-chemical power source that gives us lift and provides magnetic shielding against radiation.
Both problems are solved with the same solution.

There were 6 landings, and the missions were ended because they wouldn't fund them. Last decade there was a plan to build a permanent manned base on the Moon, and it was not scrapped due to radiation fears, but due to lack of funding.

And we are absolutely nowhere near another method of getting to space, other than possibly space elevators. There's nothing to gain in waiting until we find something that could be hundreds of years from discovery.

 

[fizzik]

When we see birds fly, we know flying is physically possible. Any scientist can easily make that assumption and execute on the idea.

We don't see anything in space that's alive, and that should be enough indication that we should only attempt space flight when our technology reaches a viable solution for all space-faring problems.

Talk about bad analogies. We're freakin' monkeys. Not birds. And I've never seen a monkey fly.

And err... whats this about no life in space? Have you seen the size of space? And have you seen how much of that space we've actually looked at in regards to "can life live here"?

 

[Shining Sunshine]

There were 6 landings, and the missions were ended because they wouldn't fund them. Last decade there was a plan to build a permanent manned base on the Moon, and it was not scrapped due to radiation fears, but due to lack of funding.

And we are absolutely nowhere near another method of getting to space, other than possibly space elevators. There's nothing to gain in waiting until we find something that could be hundreds of years from discovery.

Oh, but we were nowhere near being able to fly some hundreds of years ago. /airflightanalogies.

Please, we're nowhere near being able to land on Mars too, and in the meantime, Climate Change will destroy us in the near future before we get anywhere.

Talk about bad analogies. We're freakin' monkeys. Not birds. And I've never seen a monkey fly.

And err... whats this about no life in space? Have you seen the size of space? And have you seen how much of that space we've actually looked at in regards to "can life live here"?

The more you look into deep space, the more dangerous it gets, and the more lifeless it is.

Earth is a rare jewel in this Galaxy.

 

[owasog]

Earth is a rare jewel in this Galaxy.

And how were you able to determine this? Do you even know how many stars there are in this galaxy?

 

[andycapps]

Oh, but we were nowhere near being able to fly some hundreds of years ago. /airflightanalogies.

Please, we're nowhere near being able to land on Mars too, and in the meantime, Climate Change will destroy us in the near future before we get anywhere.



The more you look into deep space, the more dangerous it gets, and the more lifeless it is.

Earth is a rare jewel in this Galaxy.

This has got to be trolling.

 

[Jezbollah]

This has got to be trolling.

I am inclined to believe you.

Anyway, news conference is supposedly due up anytime soon

EDIT: STARTING NOW ON NASATV

 

[dyergram]

Went to watch this today as in in cocoa beach on holiday. Didnt see it blow up but I did see some manatees come to see what the noise was so swings and roundabouts. Also rockets are loud.

 

[Orbis]

The more you look into deep space, the more dangerous it gets, and the more lifeless it is.

Yeah nope, bailing out here because this is just a trolling attempt.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

And how were you able to determine this? Do you even know how many stars there are in this galaxy?

Because all the great astrophysicists and cosmologist determined it?

You should read up on Earth's formation before saying that it is more common than you know.

 

[fallout]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that slapping expensive cargo onto a controlled explosion is the greatest idea, but it's certainly the only option that we presently have.

Ignoring manned spaceflight for a minute, the incredible discoveries and value that unmanned spaceflight have provided to humanity are immeasurable. A small list of examples of what we have achieved:

• GPS that can tell you exactly where you are down to a few metres.
• Weather satellites providing realtime data on natural disasters.
• Telecommunications satellites that allow for reliable and near instantaneous connection for people in remote areas.
• Telescopes that need to be in space to make discoveries like the confirmation of the Big Bang, the study of special and general relativity and the study of light in wavelengths that the Earth's magnetosphere protects us from. There are literally things we have confirmed and discovered about how the universe works that would not have been possible from Earth.

That's all from taking expensive equipment and slapping it onto a controlled explosion.

So yeah, it's expensive and dangerous, but the payoff has been huge. Seems silly to me to reflect on that and decide that it's not a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that slapping expensive cargo onto a controlled explosion is the greatest idea, but it's certainly the only option that we presently have.

Ignoring manned spaceflight for a minute, the incredible discoveries and value that unmanned spaceflight have provided to humanity are immeasurable. A small list of examples of what we have achieved:

• GPS that can tell you exactly where you are down to a few metres.
• Weather satellites providing realtime data on natural disasters.
• Telecommunications satellites that allow for reliable and near instantaneous connection for people in remote areas.
• Telescopes that need to be in space to make discoveries like the confirmation of the Big Bang, the study of special and general relativity and the study of light in wavelengths that the Earth's magnetosphere protects us from. There are literally things we have confirmed and discovered about how the universe works that would not have been possible from Earth.

That's all from taking expensive equipment and slapping it onto a controlled explosion.

So yeah, it's expensive and dangerous, but the payoff has been huge. Seems silly to me to reflect on that and decide that it's not a worthwhile endeavor.

If you're talking about spaceflight around Earth, no problem.

I'm talking about the pointless Mars landing idea, or any travel outside the Magnetosphere, which is the goal of all these space flight companies/organizations.

 

[zeshakag]

Sorry I'm late to this thread so this may have been asked.

In the future when the launch escape system is installed, is it intended to abort the payload as well? I thought it was only to save the command pod.

 

[fizzik]

Because all the great astrophysicists and cosmologist determined it?

You should read up on Earth's formation before saying that it is more common than you know.

We're done here.

 

[ScepticMatt]

In the future when the launch escape system is installed, is it intended to abort the payload as well? I thought it was only to save the command pod.

the capsule can be saved, the extra cargo trunk can not.

 

[fallout]

If you're talking about spaceflight around Earth, no problem.

I'm talking about the pointless Mars landing idea, or any travel outside the Magnetosphere, which is the goal of all these space flight companies/organizations.

Then why were you arguing about the potential folly of the transportation method? You said this was a waste of money when this is exactly a case of "spaceflight around Earth."

You're making some incredibly disingenuous points here if you just don't like the idea of manned spaceflight.

 

[Mengy]

Because all the great astrophysicists and cosmologist determined it?

You should read up on Earth's formation before saying that it is more common than you know.

What the hell are you talking about? It's actually the opposite, many astrophysicists believe that life is fairly common due to carbon's propensity to react chemically with everything. If we find evidence of past life on Mars some day, and if we also find any kind of life on Europa, well then statistically life would be everywhere throughout the universe. But the fact that we haven't even tried to seriously go life hunting yet makes any "determination" pure speculation and not scientific at all.

In other words, you're not making any sense.

 

[RyanardoDaVinci]

Oh, but we were nowhere near being able to fly some hundreds of years ago. /airflightanalogies.

Please, we're nowhere near being able to land on Mars too, and in the meantime, Climate Change will destroy us in the near future before we get anywhere.



The more you look into deep space, the more dangerous it gets, and the more lifeless it is.

Earth is a rare jewel in this Galaxy.

Please, yourself.

Watch Robert Zubrin's "case for Mars" speech about a proposed manned Mars mission from ~15 years ago.

"Nowhere near" my ass.

We've had the tech to land on Mars for years, probably decades. We lack the WILL.

 

[Norml]

Not good. Space tech seems like it needs to be kept simple. Just strap it to a plane and launch midway up and use parachutes for landing.

 

[Jezbollah]

Not good. Space tech seems like it needs to be kept simple. Just strap it to a plane and launch midway up and use parachutes for landing.

Do you know how much thrust (size of rocket) is required to establish LEO? If you do, then you would know there is no aircraft invented that is able to carry such a rocket for the amount of cargo that needs to go to the ISS.

 

[Flai]

Do you know how much thrust (size of rocket) is required to establish LEO? If you do, then you would know there is no aircraft invented that is able to carry such a rocket for the amount of cargo that needs to go to the ISS.

And that's just LEO. GEO/Mars will require even more fuel (and in case of Mars, cargo).

The size of SpaceX's Mars rocket will be huge compared to Falcon 9.

 

[Norml]

Do you know how much thrust (size of rocket) is required to establish LEO? If you do, then you would know there is no aircraft invented that is able to carry such a rocket for the amount of cargo that needs to go to the ISS.

Nope, didn't think about it But what if could get midway and then fuel up midair like they do for the airforce?

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Then why were you arguing about the potential folly of the transportation method? You said this was a waste of money when this is exactly a case of "spaceflight around Earth."

You're making some incredibly disingenuous points here if you just don't like the idea of manned spaceflight.

Never seen SpaceX's goal?

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.

Their mission isn't for putting satellites into orbit. We already know how to do that.

What the hell are you talking about? It's actually the opposite, many astrophysicists believe that life is fairly common due to carbon's propensity to react chemically with everything. If we find evidence of past life on Mars some day, and if we also find any kind of life on Europa, well then statistically life would be everywhere throughout the universe. But the fact that we haven't even tried to seriously go life hunting yet makes any "determination" pure speculation and not scientific at all.

In other words, you're not making any sense.

Finding sentient life on an Earth-like planet, atmosphere, and size within the Golden Zone of a proper star is not at all common. We're not talking about how life is formed, we're talking about the probability of another Earth.

If you find life on Europa, it sure as hell won't be sentient, and we definitely won't be able to live on it. Oh, and there's also the first problem of how to get to Europa because you'll be blasted with radiation on the way.

Please, yourself.

Watch Robert Zubrin's "case for Mars" speech about a proposed manned Mars mission from ~15 years ago.

"Nowhere near" my ass.

We've had the tech to land on Mars for years, probably decades. We lack the WILL.

Zubrin doesn't take radiation seriously.

 

[RankoSD]

Finding sentient life on an Earth-like planet, atmosphere, and size within the Golden Zone of a proper star is not at all common. We're not talking about how life is formed, we're talking about the probability of another Earth.

Of course it's not common because our sample size is soooo big that it shouldn't even be called a sample.
It's like going to the ocean shore, filling up a cup with water and saying "See, I've told ya, we have now determined that there are no fish in this ocean".

 

[zeshakag]

Nope, didn't think about it But what if could get midway and then fuel up midair like they do for the airforce?

I encourage you to research a bit about launch profiles, do some initial learning. A basic understanding of the effort of rocketry is extremely rewarding, and only takes a bit of time to obtain.

Small rockets have been successfully launched from midair (google NASA's recent endeavors). The cost benefit equations shift heavily when you need to deliver a hefty payload, and there is a reason why literally everyone in the rocket industry to date has used a ground launch.
These organizations are filled with people who have gone to school and practiced engineering, budget analysis, aerodynamics, fluid and materials sciences, orbital mechanics, and general physics.

They are at the forefront of our spaceflight. They are the bleeding edge. The people with ideas and the ability to work out the math already work in the industry.

 

[fallout]

Never seen SpaceX's goal?

Yes, I am very aware of their goals. So let me see if I can understand your argument: SpaceX suffers a loss of spacecraft on a resupply mission to the ISS. This is a waste in your eyes because their ultimate goal is to get humans on Mars. I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but I really don't think the two are as related as you're implying.

 

[Concept17]

Finding sentient life on an Earth-like planet, atmosphere, and size within the Golden Zone of a proper star is not at all common. We're not talking about how life is formed, we're talking about the probability of another Earth.

If you find life on Europa, it sure as hell won't be sentient, and we definitely won't be able to live on it. Oh, and there's also the first problem of how to get to Europa because you'll be blasted with radiation on the way.

It's less about how common it is, and more about us being able to have the resources to find it. We are extremely limited in how we observe other stars and planets. We've already found thousands of potential Super-Earths, but our ability to actually determine if life is there is very limited.

Furthermore, our planet is barely the right size to sustain life. In most cases, a habitable planet is better off being much larger than our own planet, and Earth itself barely scraped by in providing the atmosphere we needed. We've found many that are a better size.

NASA and Space X both know any other propulsion technology will not come in our life-time, at least not beyond something in a research lab. We CAN however explore our own solar system and learn a lot about how to survive in space, among a billion other things we don't understand about our universe.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Of course it's not common because our sample size is soooo big that it shouldn't even be called a sample.
It's like going to the ocean shore, filling up a cup with water and saying "See, I've told ya, we have now determined that there are no fish in this ocean".

But what's the point speculating life existing outside our visible universe has space-faring capabilities?

Like I said, we see birds, so we know flight is possible.
We have no evidence in our visible space that there is anything living IN space.

Yes, I am very aware of their goals. So let me see if I can understand your argument: SpaceX suffers a loss of spacecraft on a resupply mission to the ISS. This is a waste in your eyes because their ultimate goal is to get humans on Mars. I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but I really don't think the two are as related as you're implying.

I think the money is better spent accelerating the research on non-chemical propulsion no matter how far it is. That's my opinion when it comes to any Mars Mission.

It's less about how common it is, and more about us being able to have the resources to find it. We are extremely limited in how we observe other stars and planets. We've already found thousands of potential Super-Earths, but our ability to actually determine if life is there is very limited.

Furthermore, our planet is barely the right size to sustain life. In most cases, a habitable planet is better off being much larger than our own planet, and Earth itself barely scraped by in providing the atmosphere we needed. We've found many that are a better size.

NASA and Space X both know any other propulsion technology will not come in our life-time, at least not beyond something in a research lab. We CAN however explore our own solar system and learn a lot about how to survive in space, among a billion other things we don't understand about our universe.

I'm still saying we're not going to be able to go that far from Earth without a solution to the radiation problem.

NASA did a radiation test with the Mars Rover and found that the radiation accumulated on the travel to Mars is lethal even with current radiation shielding technology.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Edit: ah crap, didn't mean to new post. Merging with previous post.

 

[Mengy]

But what's the point speculating life existing outside our visible universe has space-faring capabilities?

Like I said, we see birds, so we know flight is possible.
We have no evidence in our visible space that there is anything living IN space.

So does that mean we should stop looking? Just because we haven't observed it yet with our minuscule peek into the universe, it can't possibly exist?

 

[Norml]

I encourage you to research a bit about launch profiles, do some initial learning. A basic understanding of the effort of rocketry is extremely rewarding, and only takes a bit of time to obtain.

Small rockets have been successfully launched from midair (google NASA's recent endeavors). The cost benefit equations shift heavily when you need to deliver a hefty payload, and there is a reason why literally everyone in the rocket industry to date has used a ground launch.
These organizations are filled with people who have gone to school and practiced engineering, budget analysis, aerodynamics, fluid and materials sciences, orbital mechanics, and general physics.

They are at the forefront of our spaceflight. They are the bleeding edge. The people with ideas and the ability to work out the math already work in the industry.

Wish I had time to.Just for small things though, I don't see the problem. Get up to like 50k or whatever with an empty shell and load up with fuel midair. Saves time needed to reach space,which means less chance of problem for rocket to happen.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

So does that mean we should stop looking? Just because we haven't observed it yet with our minuscule peek into the universe, it can't possibly exist?

How do you propose we keep looking beyond Keplar and other telescopes?

Suicidal missions to Mars isn't going to be anymore helpful compared to our telescopes when it comes out looking for life.

 

[Jezbollah]

How do you propose we keep looking beyond Keplar and other telescopes?

Suicidal missions to Mars isn't going to be anymore helpful compared to our telescopes when it comes out looking for life.

Can I ask that you guys take this discussion to the Space OT, if you are no longer on subject (re the re-use of SpaceX's first stage)?

Thank you.

 

[KHarvey16]

How do you propose we keep looking beyond Keplar and other telescopes?

Suicidal missions to Mars isn't going to be anymore helpful compared to our telescopes when it comes out looking for life.

Isn't your posting here a waste when you should be calling up NASA and letting them know how stupid they are?

 

[perfectchaos007]

Yikes. 2 "failed" missions in a row wont help their public perception. I'm sure they are learning with each failure, which in turn makes them one step closer to successful missions, but these growing pains are going to be tough. Hopefully their funding doesn't take a hit in the process. Elon may need to dip into his other companies like Tesla if a dip in Space X funding occurs

 

[RyanDG]

Yikes. 2 "failed" missions in a row wont help their public perception. I'm sure they are learning with each failure, which in turn makes them one step closer to successful missions, but these growing pains are going to be tough. Hopefully their funding doesn't take a hit in the process. Elon may need to dip into his other companies like Tesla if a dip in Space X funding occurs

What are you considering their two failures? This is the first failure on a resupply mission that they've had. Unless you are wanting to count the attempted rocket landings as failures.

 

[legacyzero]

How do you propose we keep looking beyond Keplar and other telescopes?

Suicidal missions to Mars isn't going to be anymore helpful compared to our telescopes when it comes out looking for life.

Baby steps, dude. It's not 2001 Space Odyssey up in here.

Wait....

Also: With the staggering number of stars in just our galaxy alone, and the planets that we've already proven to orbit them, I'd say that's proof enough, that mathematically, life in some fashion exists. It's just a numbers game at that point.

 

[perfectchaos007]

What are you considering their two failures? This is the first failure on a resupply mission that they've had. Unless you are wanting to count the attempted rocket landings as failures.

I said public perception. And yes that video showing the rocket falling into the water last time didn't help their image

 

[KHarvey16]

I said public perception. And yes that video showing the rocket falling into the water last time didn't help their image

I haven't heard anyone refer to the landing attempts as failed missions.

 

[duderon]

I said public perception. And yes that video showing the rocket falling into the water last time didn't help their image

It did nothing but help their image because they were attempting something never done before, and 99% of people watching the video realized that. No one thought, "Gee it's so easy to land a rocket on a barge in the middle of the ocean, why did they fail?"

This was the first major failure in under the public eye and it won't be the last. Hopefully they can fix what went wrong and make the stages even more reliable.

 

[Jezbollah]

I said public perception. And yes that video showing the rocket falling into the water last time didn't help their image

Their primary mission is to get payload into LEO on an intercept course with the ISS. Anything SpaceX do after the disposal of the first stage is irrelevant to the mission. Today was the first failure of a proper mission by SpaceX. Their image was never an issue before today.

 

[fallout]

I said public perception. And yes that video showing the rocket falling into the water last time didn't help their image

There are several other spaceflight companies out there that keep a low profile, do good work and don't get this kind of media attention, even when they suffer failures. Meanwhile, SpaceX has opted to put themselves in the spotlight. The good side of it is that it's helped get people excited about space exploration, but there's certainly a risk in damaging the public's perception.

 

[rokkerkory]

Damn amazing shit, can't wait 10 years from now when it'll work flawlessly

 

[perfectchaos007]

There are several other spaceflight companies out there that keep a low profile, do good work and don't get this kind of media attention, even when they suffer failures. Meanwhile, SpaceX has opted to put themselves in the spotlight. The good side of it is that it's helped get people excited about space exploration, but there's certainly a risk in damaging the public's perception.

Of course, and overall its much better for them to stay in the public eye. But with that comes a spotlight on every mission that fails or succeeds. They need a successful mission asap to put this one behind them