NASA Won't Fly Astronauts On First Orion-SLS Test Flight Around the Moon (space.com) 92
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: The first flight of NASA's next-generation heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), is now scheduled for 2019 and will not include a human crew, agency officials said today (May 12). As of 2016, NASA had planned for the SLS' first flight to take place in 2018, without a crew on board. But the transition team that the Trump administration sent to the agency earlier this year asked for an internal evaluation of the possibility of launching a crew atop the SLS inside the agency's Orion space capsule. Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator, said during a news conference today that, based on the results of this internal evaluation, a crewed flight would be "technically feasible," but the agency will proceed with its initial plan to make the rocket's first flight uncrewed. The internal evaluation "really reaffirmed that the baseline plan we had in place was the best way for us to go," Lightfoot said. "We have a good handle on how that uncrewed mission will actually help [the first crewed mission of SLS] be a safer mission when we put crew on there." SLS' first flight will be called Exploration Mission 1, or EM-1, and will send an uncrewed Orion capsule (which has already made one uncrewed test flight, aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket) on a roughly three-week trip around the moon. The first crewed flight, EM-2, was originally scheduled to follow in 2021.
Sounds Smart (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds Smart (Score:2)
It is possible that Americans worked for BA as Concorde pilots, but not very likely.
Re:Sounds Smart (Score:5, Interesting)
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Re:Sounds Smart (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never liked picking sides in the "manned vs unmanned" space debate, as I believe a comprehensive space program requires both, although perhaps not in equal numbers.
Deep space missions and exploration? Yeah, it's pretty clear that robotics are the way to go. But I also want to get humans seeded on other worlds, or in permanent, self-sustaining space-based colonies. It's true that crewed space missions inflate the costs tremendously, so we have to pick those missions very carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never liked picking sides in the "manned vs unmanned" space debate, as I believe a comprehensive space program requires both, although perhaps not in equal numbers.
Exactly. I am all for the deep space probes we are doing now. Just as one example, the Pluto flyby had (has) me entranced. I can't imagine doing such a thing with humans until we can get a lot more velocity to our space transports. But without the concept of human presence off earth, what would be the purpose of having any space program at all? We can bring up comm satellites, maybe GPS, but we can do without those.
The anti-human space exploration folks just don''t seem to get that the science of robot e
Re: (Score:1)
We know you're mentally ill, but the question is, do you?
Couldn't think of anything clever or funny or even pertinent to say, but that didn't stop you now did it?
Re: (Score:2)
You've never said anything clever or interesting either, but it doesn't stop you from spewing your Space Nutter fantasies every chance you get.
No one is going anywhere.
Game on?
Re: (Score:1)
LOL whatever you delusional loon. You've had the "game" on for half a century, and this is the result:
Howzabout a real pseudonym you childish coward, Saturday night, and it's fun playing with the trollerenas.
But you can't can ya, because almost certainly, you're just a robotic lover slipping into tiny coward mode becaue I have you so pissed off that you'd be showing that your thin skin cannot make a cogent argument.
Now get better at this and quick, you're starting to bore me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would much rather they spend the next 10-20 years with only robots and getting that worked out completely leaving room for humans in all the designs maybe, so that one day when humans may really need to be in the ship, the robots are so good it makes the job that much easier. There is no reason to have humans along of the ride today, and all the technology that comes from working on putting the robots in space would be much more valuable here on earth as well. They can always work on new designs for human
Re: (Score:2)
I would much rather they spend the next 10-20 years with only robots and getting that worked out completely leaving room for humans in all the designs maybe, so that one day when humans may really need to be in the ship, the robots are so good it makes the job that much easier. There is no reason to have humans along of the ride today, and all the technology that comes from working on putting the robots in space would be much more valuable here on earth as well. They can always work on new designs for humans in space during this time, and some testing, but I would say sending humans to mars for instance should come after we have landed robots there and had them setup shop for us before we ever arrive.
There is absolutely no reason at all to do this stuff at all or ever if humans aren't in the loop.
On a purely practical and pragmatic level, there is no reason to send robotic probes to anywhere. We have the technology to put satellites in orbit, and for today's technology, that is enough. No reason to go to Jupiter or Saturn, or have telescopes in space, or do one bit of science. Close down the entire space program except for necessary satellites. De-orbit the Space Station, and close most of the spacep
Re: (Score:2)
They are more afraid of losing votes stagnating some social program by 1% than of pissing off a million NASA fans, 2/3rds of which would never jump from their party anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
I don't have any issues at all with an unmanned first flight around the moon at all. There isn't the time pressure there was with the Apollo program, and won't be until the Chinese start pulling ahead of us, and politicians who starved NASA demand to know how we got so "far behind."
But my comments are more toward the overarching aspects of NASA and the other rocketeers. People as part of the picture are critical to the existence of the programs. The robotics are a wonderful first step and a thrilling sci
Re: (Score:2)
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies.
Some might be the word you are looking for there.
With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
So basically, you intend to hold the dream of exploring space to ransom because you like the comedic circus which is human spaceflight. You think spectacle is more important than actual, objective advancement.
For me, and the growing crowd of robotic advocates like me, it's a zero sum. Taking money that could be used for space exploration and diverting it to tinned humans with webcams is just the same as taking that money and
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you are honest.
Of course. I am a technologist and very very interested in technology and space exploration and have been for a log time, and always happy to put in the time and effort to make things work.
That's my definition of a Space Junkie, and if you still have a problem with it, well, that informs me of many things.
So basically, you intend to hold the dream of exploring space to ransom because you like the comedic circus which is human spaceflight. You think spectacle is more important than actual, objective advancement.
> I intend to let politicians who control the pursestrings know what my wishes are.
At least you are honest.
could be used for space exploration and diverting it to tinned humans with webcams is just the same as taking that money and giving it to tobacco farmers, or buggy whip manufacturers, or whatever anachronistic government program designed to the purposes of nostalgia.
> And what a magnificent and well played strawman you make. Read any other posts I'v
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. I am a technologist and very very interested in technology and space exploration and have been for a log time, and always happy to put in the time and effort to make things work.
You're not that interested in it, since you insist that space exploration should not be funded unless you get your historical re-enactments along with it. You might as well be dead against it, for the amount of support your are actually offering.
And what a magnificent and well played strawman you make. Read any other posts I've made in this story?
No. Why would I?
Read any other posts I've made in this story? I do support robotic space exploration. I support it as long as it is in conjunction with manned effort .
That is like saying "I support space exploration as long as we are also funding my pet project to fling trout into space". Firstly it is not all clear to me that your "support" is desirable or something we've sought. Let alone enough to be worth the
Re: (Score:2)
And what a magnificent and well played strawman you make. Read any other posts I've made in this story?
No. Why would I?
That says it all about you, Wallow in your willful ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing, and perhaps this response from you illustrates this : nobody cares about your religion. You chose to come here and post stuff : you seem dreadfully offended that I didn't take an afternoon to read through your guff. Space nutters aren't priests, or sages, and the whole topic that entrances you - of how somehow tinned humans flying around the moon leads inevitably to star trek like universes of settled planets in other star systems,
Re: (Score:2)
Way to address the substance of my argument. Well done.
Here's the thing, and perhaps this response from you illustrates this : nobody cares about your religion. You chose to come here and post stuff : you seem dreadfully offended that I didn't take an afternoon to read through your guff. Space nutters aren't priests, or sages, and the whole topic that entrances you - of how somehow tinned humans flying around the moon leads inevitably to star trek like universes of settled planets in other star systems, green aliens and magical technology - not that interested, sorry, it's just another hollywood story to most of us.
Way to address the substance of my argument. Well done.
Here's the thing, and perhaps this response from you illustrates this : nobody cares about your religion.
That's good, because I have no religion. Passion isn't religion. You are allowing me great insight into your logic - or lack thereof - with these strawman attacks. It speaks to your having internal conversations where you tear apart the evil Olsoc by making the Evilz Olsocz fit into some pre-made position that the normal Olsoc doesn't have and never had.
You chose to come here and post stuff : you seem dreadfully offended that I didn't take an afternoon to read through your guff.
You are projecting, muchacho. Mostly I'm kinda bored of you at this point. One can only be offended by a person they respect. I'd like ot respect you, but
Re: (Score:2)
That's good, because I have no religion.
Weird - because you described tinned humans as "the raison d'etre of space travel" - and you threatened the future of space exploration if you didn't get your little fantasy funded. Actions speak louder than words - and the words speak pretty loud as well.
Passion isn't religion.
Passions can be articulated: people who are passionate about something can always explain why they are passionate about that thing, whether it be a sport, or a hobby, or a person. Yet 5 posts in, and you have yet to describe even one objective benefit ari
Re: (Score:2)
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Speaking of useless, care to explain to the rest of us your fucking logic? How exactly does humans in space justify spending for the defense department again?
Re: (Score:2)
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Speaking of useless, care to explain to the rest of us your fucking logic? How exactly does humans in space justify spending for the defense department again?
Allow me to explain. Sorry, I had no idea that people couldn't grasp what I was writing. But here goes.
In 2016, the United States of America budget was:
1.1 trillion dollars. To get a little better idea, that is $1,100,000,000,000.00 . Hella lot of zeros.
Now the 2016 budget for NASA was:
19.3 billion dollars. That's a smaller number, like $19,300,000,000.00
Now here's the tricky part. See those extra zeros on the Defense department numbers? That means the Defense Department gets more money than NAS
Re: (Score:2)
How ironic you speak of seething rage and a hatred for humanity, since the reason the defense department gets a 1.1 trillion dollar budget to play with is to continue their rather unique self-appointed position as the global police force, making a few people very rich by proliferating the idea that pointless warmongering must continue for all of eternity.
Ironic? It's rather difficult to figure out what you are arguing about. In a world where huge sums are spent on space exploration rather than the military, perhaps your Jeremiad wouldn't be needed. If that's what you mean. REally hard to say.
Meanwhile, its just a shame that some proponents of restraining human presence to earth only, are so adamant about it, they are accepting no funding at all instead of a huge increase in spending, just one that has something in it that enrages them - human exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds Smart (Score:2)
Re: Sounds Smart (Score:1)
Re: Trump Kills (Score:2, Insightful)
Typos can be fixed, but there is no fixing stupid.
Trump is a winner (Score:2)
He wins so hard he is probably thinking, 'what could possibly go wrong'.
Put him in it (Score:5, Funny)
They could put some private person on it, who craves attention tremendously. Sad.
Re: Put him in it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Were you intellectually honest enough to take a closer look at the congresscritters that were instrumental in converting Obama's initial "kill Bush's Constellation" into the abortion that became SLS you'd discover Democrats on the front lines, if not leading the pack. But hey, if Trump can lie, so can you, right?
As for the COTS program, take a closer look at just who signed that into law and when it happened. Hint: It wasn't Obama.
I do give Obama credit for not torpedoing a program he didn't come up with
Re: (Score:2)
It was CONgress, specifically, the house and the GOP within it, that pushed that abortion. O was opposed BUT went along with with.
As to the dems backing this, a MINORITY of them in both the senate and the house did push it. Ppl such as nelson,along with the bitch from maryland.
BUT, all in all, the SLS has been MASSIVELY pushed by you GOP nightmares.
In addition, it was the GOP esp in the house that gutted private space. Yes, COTS was started under W. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't lived in the states in over 30 years & the last time I voted in a US election was for Obama so your "you GOP" misses absurdly.
That you are self blinding yourself to inconvenient truths that do not fit your preconceptions is clear. Obama came in with the 111th congress and had a majority in both houses for his first two years which is precisely the time period that the SLS pork-fest was created, rising from the ashes of constellation. SLS is NOT some uniquely Republican creation but a bi-partisan
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he cancel the predecessor? This is nothing unusual, of course. New administrations regularly cancel NASA programs of the previous admin, lest the some president stand there while it launches, thanking an erstwhile Kennedy for getting the ball rolling.
Re: (Score:2)
The point being that he didn't cancel SLS which has cost tens of billions, almost all of it during his presidency with very little to show for it.
Re: (Score:2)
How many politicians and lawyers do you think would fit?
Obviously that's where the bases are (Score:3)
Because aliens.
Or Battlezone.
China's progress?. (Score:1)
This will change depending on what China does.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. We knee all along we'd go back, but only when the Soviets made the move. But now it's China. Woe be to the president and party in power as China gets the high ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why advanced manned missions belong in the private sector.
Why did we/are we building it? (Score:2)
From my understanding, Orion is basically a somewhat pared down version of Constellation which was a gigantic pork project for Congressmen (and Senators) to funnel money to their districts. While I wish Obama had raised more of an objection to it, I don't think (as another poster said) it was his baby. While I wish he spent more time on the space program, I think he had other things on his mind (like rescuing the nation from the greatest financial panic since the 1920's and getting tens of millions of Ame
Re: (Score:2)
So, are there any TECHNICAL reasons why the SLS booster is better than the booster for the Interplanetary Colonial Transport? While, it has been under development for (far) longer and cost much more, as the delays keep piling up it might not get finished before the ICT. Like, is it safer? (though I doubt it with the use of solid rockets in its heavy version).
No. There are no technical reasons. There is a military reason.
SLS, and Constellation and Shuttle before it, exist for the purpose of pretending that military spending isn't military spending. They are there to continue funneling money into ATK, maker of the solid fuel rockets. Why? Because the other name for a solid fuel rocket is 'ICBM', but the Air Force hasn't been allowed to buy new ICBMs since 1978, when the production run of the Minuteman III ended. The START treaties started requiring reductio
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, thanks, never thought of that.
Spacex may send humans to moon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ITS is in very early development stage and probably still couldn't do moon missions, despite having awesome lift mass the second stage relies on atmospheric breaking and onsite refueling, both impossible on the moon.
ITS second stage only requires atmospheric braking to land in deeper gravity wells. Lunar gravity is sufficiently low that ITS can land there just fine. Whether or not it could take off again depends entirely on how much payload it's carrying. If it's maxed out, yes, it probably can't lift off again without refueling, and Lunar refueling would indeed be exceedingly difficult. If it's carrying very little, it could very likely lift off again.
This is typical of everything in space. How much you're carryi
Re: Spacex may send humans to moon (Score:2)
It's also a "misison" to the moon (Score:2)
"Umm... possible? Not really, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are not powerful enough for manned moon missions, not without many orbital rendezvous and other trickery. Don't be fooled by the moon tourism flyby mission, its a free return flight, Dragon capsule will not enter lunar orbit let alone attempt landing, it doesn't have enough delta v for it. ITS is in very early development stage and probably still couldn't do moon missions, despite having awesome lift mass the second stage relies on atmospheric breaking
2019 flight (Score:2)
That's leaving a lot of work to be done to get someone landed on Mars in the remaining time of Trumps first term! /s
Me neither (Score:2)
No shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but it won't be the SLS's first flight (...and Orion has already flown).