Would Mark Watney have been able to stay sane?
I think it’s realistic to think he’d have been fine, as long as he had some level of hope, and tasks with which to occupy himself.
Would Mark Watney have been able to stay sane?
I think it’s realistic to think he’d have been fine, as long as he had some level of hope, and tasks with which to occupy himself.
This is the sort of thing we’re going to have to figure out. But at least we’re building an unaffordable monster rocket.
I'll bet Mars bars would taste much better on their planet of origin. #Fresher https://t.co/scXue2Cjuw
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 22, 2015
…is going to finally be scrapped.
Seems like a shame. It’s an interesting bit of history. Might make a nice toy for a(nother) billionaire.
Of course, it appears that Paul Allen is building the equivalent for space.
From space historian, and mission controller Jim Oberg. Interesting discussion in comments.
[Tuesday-afternoon update]
Another review, from Alex Knapp.
[Bumped]
Rick Tumlinson channels me in this Space News op-ed:
If settlement is the goal, Apollo redux is dead. Giant expendable government rockets hurling government employees and return vehicles at Mars won’t cut it in the long run. The main reason to do so is government public relations, as the heroes return and share their stories. If settlement is the goal, we send other kinds of PR heroes — settlers — who land and live out their days on camera, building the first community as more and more follow. Again, it’s different models. One model works for government, the other for private ventures. And since the one-way model is so much cheaper, and the people who will have working one-way systems first are private sector, they may well beat the government to Mars.
He proposes a much more viable approach, but for now, it’s politically unrealistic. Congress doesn’t want to send people to Mars. It wants to build big rockets.
"If settlement is the goal, Apollo redux is dead." And if settlement is not the goal govt HSF is a waste of money. http://t.co/GM5ksrGSvC
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 21, 2015
[Afternoon update]
Keith Cowing isn’t impressed.
It’s stiff competition, but this may, in fact, be the stupidest space piece ever written. As Stephen Green says, the Left jumps the shark, in a rocketship.
Reportedly, they want to do a first — land a probe on the far side.
No mention of how they plan to communicate, though.
The Senate Launch System is four years old (if you count from when NASA actually rolled out the design — it’s more like five years when it was first stipulated in the NASA authorization bill). Some thoughts at the time from Jerry Pournelle.
And Stephen Smith has a history of Orion (the capsule, not the nuclear-powered spacecraft, which just slipped another two years, and even NASA is no longer pretending will ever go to Mars):
SpaceX spent 100% of its own money to develop the Falcon 9 booster and the upcoming Falcon Heavy. The cargo Dragon capsule cost $850 million to develop; $400 million was NASA seed money, while $450 million was SpaceX money. It was only four years from SpaceX receiving its first commercial cargo contract in August 2006 to the first test flight in December 2010. The first Dragon delivery was in May 2012. Dragon was designed with the eventual goal of using it for people, so the crewed Dragon V2 would seem likely to avoid much of the design delays that might plague other commercial crew companies.
Orion and SLS have no urgency, because there’s no profit motive. The contractors get paid regardless of their pace or success; it’s required by law. Their lobbyists ensure through generous campaign contributions that Congress will prohibit any competition. Representatives of NASA space centers populate the space authorization and appropriations committees in the House and the Senate; their priority, sometimes stated explicitly, is to protect the taxpayer-funded government jobs in their districts and states.
Maybe, someday, we’ll actually see NASA crew climb into an Orion capsule atop a Space Launch System booster at Pad 39B. But it will be tens of billions of dollars after we see commercial crew companies do it for far cheaper.
Yup. I’d bet it never happens. It certainly shouldn’t.
The problems she describes with the federal procurement system afflict both Air Force and NASA space projects as well.