Falcon 9 + Dragon, SLS + Orion, Atlas V (Vulcan Centaur) + Starliner
Close to orbital payload launch, likely human rated in the future: Vulcan Centaur + Dream Chaser, Superheavy + Starship
Under development: New Glenn + Space Vehicle (?), Neutron
As for Blue Origin and New Glenn, this is an object lesson that simply throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily solve it. Did you know Blue Origin was founded ~18 months before SpaceX?
For the longest time (up until ~9 months ago), Bezos had the former Honeywell CEO in charge of Blue Origin, which to me was such an odd choice. You see, this guy seems to embody everything wrong with corporate America: he was completely focused on not failing rather than succeeding. So there were constant delays with New Glenn and the BE-4 engine, which is years behind schedule. You can't fail if you don't launch.
And the new CEO (David Limp) used to be in charge of Kindles.
I don't know if either of those are actually true, there are plenty of good CEOs who came from zero experience in the industry. And plenty of bad CEOs who came from plenty of experience in the industry. Both of these run successful and not successful companies.
For example the currently Boeing CEO does not have experience in airplanes, came from a business background. And is considered a bad CEO by the average person (though considered a good CEO by stockholders, or at least was before the past few months).
the only assumption i see is the counter to that - a bad CEO equals an unsuccessful company. and i don't think that's a very controversial assumption.
Seems to imply there is an issue with a CEO of a space company previously working on Kindles.
> Bezos had the former Honeywell CEO in charge of Blue Origin, which to me was such an odd choice
Also seems to imply the CEO is bad because their previously only worked at Honeywell on thermostats.
In my mind none of the above has anything to do with how good or bad a CEO is. Perhaps I am misreading it. In which case ignore me.
Long term value, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction are all intertwined. New management is more likely than not to harm at least one of those 3 .
I also reject the financialization of modern companies where we put accountants in charge who aren't subject-matter experts whose only playbook is to cut costs and jack up prices.
It's exactly what's wrong with Boeing today.
Obligatory Steve Jobs quotes on "idea people" [1] and Xerox [2].
> In August 2013, Carmack indicated that following the crash of the STIG-B rocket earlier that year, he had wound down the company operations and had put the company in "hibernation mode."
> In 2015, the assets of Armadillo Aerospace were sold to EXOS Aerospace Systems & Technologies, Inc.Musk is an enormous risk taker.
"Elon Musk" by Ashlee Vance, pg 210
I refuse to think any sufficiently clever billionaire doesn’t have $1-10M in gold buried in a couple geographically distributed places. I know several people with NW of <$50M who have stashed 2-4% of their assets away in this fashion.
World wars happen, governments collapse, favor shifts, etc. Why wouldn’t you have a backup plan when it’s just pennies?
I refuse to believe that he was ever at risk of having less than 5-10M in pocket money left over after everything implodes.
I'm likely missing something here, but to me this minimises the problem to just a reduction in the number of properties you can move into (assuming some are lost and some of the others sold).
10-20kg of gold coins buried at gps coordinates in the deep desert has no such limitations.
I think a lot of ultrawealthy who have experience playing the geopolitical game probably must have some hedges like this. Doesn’t Thiel have NZ citizenship without any explicit intention of residing there?
It’s not like value stored like this loses its utility even if the state doesn’t collapse/confiscate your assets/persecute you.
I can’t imagine circumstances where one would end up being a billionaire then ever being a not-millionaire unless you’re thick as a brick.
Maybe you don't remember this, but Elon wasn't a Billionaire with his exit from Paypal. He made his bones with Tesla/SpaceX (honestly, mostly Tesla, but we'll see how SpaceX turns out, it could be bigger in the end).
The BE-4 was launched earlier this year. I wouldn’t assume that late means never.
There's a phrase "failure to launch" that would imply the opposite sentiment
You can't fail if you don't try, but you can't succeed either.
So, the full stack of SLS costs $4.1B. But that includes the cost of Orion which is ~$1.3B when you include the European Service Module, and it includes the cost of 1 year's worth of ground support equipment including upkeep for various buildings like the VAB, etc.
The marginal cost of a cargo SLS (should one ever launch, which is looking increasingly unlikely) is a bit over $2B. Which is still a horrifically high price.
For people who don't know much about SLS, one way to put its cost into context is, every time the full stack with Orion launches, that's about 1/6th of NASA's yearly budget. And that doesn't count any development cost which is several tens of Billions.
You can of course get higher if you add development cost as well. But that depends on how many launches there are.
From the OIG report[1]:
> We project the cost to fly a single SLS/Orion system through at least Artemis IV to be $4.1 billion per launch at a cadence of approximately one mission per year.47 Building and launching one Orion capsule costs approximately $1 billion, with an additional $300 million for the Service Module supplied by the ESA through a barter agreement in exchange for ESA’s responsibility for ISS common system operating costs, transportation costs to the ISS, and other ISS supporting services. In addition, we estimate the single-use SLS will cost $2.2 billion to produce, including two rocket stages, two solid rocket boosters, four RS-25 engines, and two stage adapters. Ground systems located at Kennedy where the launches will take place—the Vehicle Assembly Building, Crawler-Transporter, Mobile Launcher 1, Launch Pad, and Launch Control Center—are estimated to cost $568 million per year due to the large support structure that must be maintained. The $4.1 billion total cost represents production of the rocket and the operations needed to launch the SLS/Orion system including materials, labor, facilities, and overhead, but does not include any money spent either on prior development of the system or for next-generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.
> And we don't really yet know the cost of the EUS.
We have an idea of an initial cost estimate from this[2].
NASA agreed to buy 2 core stages and 2 EUSes for $3.2B. Since RS-25s are around $100M each and the SRBs are around $200M each, this pushes the cost of the rocket up to $2.4B, maybe a bit more.
---
1. https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-22-003.pd...
2. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-commits-to-future-...
Yeah but you see, they will miss that 'one mission per year' thing by quite a large margin. And it will be more expensive because of that alone.
There are other traps in these numbers. OIG numbers are far better then NASA but I bet in 20-30 years when somebody does the total cost it will be higher.
> prior development of the system or for next-generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.
And I don't think just excluding all 'prior development' as if it was irrelevant makes much sense. Development cost should be considered as part of a program.
So, that's fair. But it's also complicated. Part of that number (for EGS) is for the upkeep of buildings like the VAB. Which is fair - SLS is the only real user, so they get charged for it.
But it's also kind of not fair, since NASA's going to keep it around, even if SLS wasn't a thing. As evidenced by NASA doing just that in the interim period between Constellation and SLS.
> And I don't think just excluding all 'prior development' as if it was irrelevant makes much sense. Development cost should be considered as part of a program.
I completely agree with you in general.
But I think that it's easier to tally the development costs separately.
And it's important to know how much it costs to just build and launch the rocket. A number which NASA (outside of OIG) has been extremely reluctant to release to the public. As far as I know, NASA leadership has never made specific claims about how much SLS costs, just that the OIG numbers are wrong and/or misleading.
Once the program ends, we'll have a better idea of how to amortize the develop costs over the total number of launches.
Investing in commercial approaches as the step 1 doesn't seem to work in multi-billion R&D endeavors.
So yes, it's not fair, but turns out to be better for the country down the road.
"Jostle" you mean competition? That's the idea, right.
So -- awesome.
During peace time, the predominant motive is to maximize profit by dragging out the work.
Humans walked on the Moon in my lifetime. I should be contented with that.
I'm apparently younger than you, and humans have not walked on the moon in my lifetime. I'm discontented by that.
Really probably your grandparents or great grandparents depending on your age. Most Americans born after the moon landings had boomer or gen-x parents. All the men who walked on the moon and the majority of those in high office until roughly the 1990s were silent generation, the GI generation or older. They’re the ones who had the power to keep the space program going but didn’t. Once your parents had significant influence the Apollo program was long gone, the know how to build the hardware was gone, they would have had an even harder time than us rebuilding it because the commercial impetus wasn’t there and we didn’t yet have insane internet billionaires competing for launch contracts.
The 3rd para talks about the (golf) balls.
In between the Greatest Generation and Gen X - "Baby Boomer" was a name, but Destructive Generation seems to fit pretty well.
I think perhaps Dr Strangelove is more educational about the cultural climate around the Apollo program than almost any other media.
Hopefully with vastly reduced cost to LEO it will be put within the reach of normal people who aren’t engaged in the dance of WW3 nuclear brinksmanship.
I think about 30 years should lead to more exploration of Mars, and maybe multiple landers andn robots getting there from here, maybe even a return trip. (human travel to Mars feels so far out, even if Starship works out in the next 10 years).
No, it has no propulsion system. That is the difference between a ship and a station.
Still, even then it will take, what, about a century to get rid of the CO2? (Does it even count as an "atmosphere" at ground level, given that it's past the critical point and the distinction between liquid and gas phases no longer exists?)
There's no realistic way to evacuate that much gas (the surface pressure on Venus is almost 100 atmospheres!).
One option is first to cover the surface of Venus with water, by first creating giant orbital mirrors to let the atmosphere to cool. Then you can sequester the carbon dioxide as elemental carbon under the water surface. Oxygen released in the process will be naturally consumed by all the underoxidized minerals present on Venus.
There will still be a lot of CO2 around though. Now you shade the planet with a giant sunshade and the atmosphere will cool down to the point where CO2 will snow out as dry ice after a couple decades of cooling. What you'll have left is a layer of carbon, followed by a layer of water ice, followed by a layer of dry ice. The atmosphere will be 2 - 3 times as dense as Earth's with almost entirely nitrogen gas. You use autonomous robots and mass drivers to collect and launch the excess dry ice into orbit.
Once you've got most of the CO2 ice out you remove the sunshade and the planet will very quickly thaw out. The planet will be covered mostly in oceans at this point with a thick nitrogen and CO2 atmosphere. At this point use genetically modified algae and microbes which, using the plentiful sunlight, can quickly convert the high CO2 atmosphere into oxygen and organics for the soil. The planet may still need some minor solar shading to keep the temps down until the CO2 approaches earth levels. Introduce Earth life to build a natural biosphere and voila! You've got a whole new Earth whose biosphere should be able to sustain life for millions of years!
The second issue is sourcing H2, water ice is common, you "just" need to redirect enough comets. Comets can be also used to build a solar shade, by placing them into a polar orbit around Venus inside the Roche limit. They'll naturally fall apart and form a cloud around the planet.
Velocity in a gas is a distribution; raise temperature and increasing fraction exceeds escape velocity.
This is why Earth has ~ no hydrogen or helium in the air.
> There's no realistic way to evacuate that much gas (the surface pressure on Venus is almost 100 atmospheres!).
"Realistic" for values including "let's build a mirror the size of a planet, in space, and keep it together for centuries".
It's currently scifi to send more than a mere few tons total mass that way, and mirrors wouldn't even survive decades, so "realistic" is a bad criticism.
It's not going to be a significant fraction to matter, except of truly geological timeframes.
> "Realistic" for values including "let's build a mirror the size of a planet, in space, and keep it together for centuries".
Probably thousands of years. But not hundreds of thousands.
Doing it to heavier gases on human time scales is a whole other scale of problem.
The long night seems like a problem for life but forests already thrive in the warmer parts of the near-arctic. And in times past even Antarctica had tropical rainforests despite experiencing a polar night. Another idea I had was building a ring around the planet of dark material, perhaps of left over carbon after we cleaned up the CO2 rich atmosphere. The dark ring would provide shade to certain parts of the planet during the day and would reflect light for the long night.
Sounds like a sure fire recipe for a (permanent?) super intense electrical storm in right that spot.
Might make that specific latitude uninhabitable due to the planet turning. Though it could be worth the trade off, due to there being a bunch of available land on the planet in other latitudes.
If you have some truly huge arrays of super capacitors such a permanent electrical storm might even be useful. :)
That's a rather weird person to pick, even considering that it's probably a Futurama reference...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2023/nas...
IMO, this one is the least likely.
There are a lot of problems that need to be over come for Dream Chaser to be crew rated. And AFAIK, they aren't getting NASA money to do it.
Intriguing. Can you elaborate?
Starliner has a launch abort system; the Shuttle did not.
From what I understand, they use a very powerful rocket (much more powerful than Crew Dragon) to get the capsule far away from the booster. I guess it can get far enough away that NASA is satisfied that falling bits of burning SRB aren't a danger to the parachutes.
For those who might not know SRB = solid rocket booster. Boeing uses them, SpaceX doesn't. An SRB is basically like a giant firecracker. You light it and it starts burning and doesn't stop until its done. It poses substantial safety concerns in the case of an accident where you need to abort the flight. But they're cheap, extremely powerful, and relatively simple contrasted against liquid fuel engines.
> It poses substantial safety concerns in the case of an accident where you need to abort the flight
SRBs are in general very safe, which is why they're still used for human rated rockets.
I would also observe that NASA has a relatively poor safety record contrasted against the Soyuz (which has not lost crew since 1971 in spite of flying more manned missions), and one of the few completely catastrophic crashes we have had, Challenger, was directly related to the SRB. In either case, I expect variance is playing a much larger role than most might appreciate.
Interestingly, both Crew Dragon and Starliner have eschewed SRB based LES/LAS systems for liquid fueled hypergolic ones. You can tell this because neither capsule has a "puller" on the nose like Apollo/Orion does.
I thought I read about that. Of course that's effectively no actual escape system lol. They'd be long dead by the time they managed all that in an out of control shuttle.
I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Astronauts were trained on the system and it was aboard the shuttle.
Did the astronauts believe that it's likely that the system would save them? Probably not.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/escape-spe...
Yeah personally I would have taken my chances ditching the craft, tbh. It would probably ditch pretty well considering it doesn't have huge engine pods under the wings.
Harebrained is right.
How far did this plan go? Just because it was discussed and documented and thought through does not mean it was something that was actually going to happen. Was this actually developed and the parts&pieces put into place with procedures written up in the flight manual?
Yes.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/escape-spe...
Dream Chaser flies in a fairing for aerodynamic reasons. In order to fly crew (so that the vehicle could have a working launch abort system), they'd need to figure out how to fly without a fairing.
I'm not a rocket scientist, so I don't really know the answer. But I have some questions:
* How reliable will the "blow the fairing" system be? If it's only used in emergencies (instead of the regular fairing separation mechanism) than it'll suffer from the same problem as emergency generators - they're rarely tested and fail very often when needed.
* How easy is it to get the fairing out of the way once it's opened? Normally, regular aerodynamic forces slough the fairing halves off, but an LES/LAS doesn't have time for that - it's escaping a potentially exploding rocket. And those fairings will act like sails - huge surface area:volume ratio means they're just not going to move fast.
* What happens if DreamChaser hits one of the fairings on the wing? Would it damage it enough that it'd have trouble landing? Is it enough to cause it to foul the escape trajectory? Or even put it in a spin?
It seems like a lot of work to get it to work with or without a fairing.
You don't want the LES to activate, seem to be working correctly, and then blast the crew into a fairing panel that did not fully separate. The crew doesn't have time to roll down the window and kick it loose.
A bit complicated but was already used in emergency and worked.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_abort_modes#Jettisonable...
Could be spin from Sierra but that's what they were saying to the press as of 2015 when they announced the cargo variant.
https://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-hopes-dream-chaser-finds...
Seems like Starship fins and Falcon 9 grid fins did that trick as well.
That's a fair point, although my understanding is that parachute systems for small planes are becoming more common.
My view is that flight rate is the fundamental issue at hand. Airplanes and helicoptors fly many orders of magnitude more than these capsules, which means we know they are many orders of magnitude more reliable.
They've also generally been through a long process of refinement - the original airplanes were extremely dangerous compared to modern variants.
Additionally, aircraft can afford to have a lot higher margin of safety baked in to them. Because of how high gravity is on Earth and the nature of the Rocket Equation[1], it's just not possible to have a lot of margin in rockets of capsules. They need to be extremely svelt to launch at all.
And lastly, we have experience with human spacecraft without an LES/LAS - it was the Space Shuttle. And it killed 14 people - easily the most dangerous spacecraft ever created. No one has any desire to build on that particular legacy.
---
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
No, it means we have orders of magnitude more reliability data. Same result, different point.
Those other systems have other redundancies and safety mechanisms.
2) Both planes and helicopters have an ability to glide (or autogyro) to a relatively safe landing in the event of most failures. A spacecraft can also do that with wings or parachutes, but only if it gets far away from its exploding booster fast enough to survive.
3) Many military planes do have the ability to safely eject passengers.
4) astronauts dying live on stream is a really bad look.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/freak...
Here's an attempt to develop a jet fuel that wouldn't burn:
Airplanes need some kind of runway, by contrast, and this isn't usually available within the glide distance. So they can "land", but it frequently won't be a pretty landing.
The main dangers with helicopter engine failures are 1) it happens too close to the ground, so there's no time to react and enter a safe autorotation, and 2) the pilot is too slow to react (low-inertia rotor systems are more dangerous this way, so helicopters like Robinsons are worse).
Unlike the Shuttle there will be a lot more uncrewed testing of Starship, so hopefully it will be more reliable.
Thanks, this is helpful to know. What do you know about the dream chaser problems?
That could happen, but I don't see it as likely. NASA is far more likely to spend ridiculous amounts of money to keep it alive in the name of "competition" or some such.
While EU has none.
Yes and no.
It's probably more accurate to say "human ratable". They're planning on designing the rocket with human rating in mind, so that if they want to do it in the future, it'll be easier.
But NASA doesn't human rate a rocket - they human rate the entire system as a whole, so it doesn't really make sense to say "human rate Neutron".
They comment on a thread about Boeing’s Starliner ferrying NASA astronauts to the ISS atop a ULA rocket.
None of this was done in a vacuum of billionaire self funding.
A vacuum of billionaire self funding? Of course not, but would these ventures have progressed to where they are without the deep pockets of some of these billionaires?
People mock him for being bad at estimating how long projects will take… but even if you agree with the critics, he's still the one-eyed in the land of the blind when it comes to space mission project planning.
Fair, I've heard the same from chatting with someone who shall not be named who got on a different list.
I can't remember if it was them or someone else who said that people lie about their wealth all the time for lists like these; the show-offs who want on them and pretend to have more, and the quiet ones who want off them and pretend to have less. (The person previously mentioned was one of the quiet ones).
We had a launch system that could take humans to the moon in 1972.. haven't had one since. Maybe we will get another one in our lifetime, if it is even possible.
The lowest the RTT gets is six minutes but that is a brief period every couple of years. The longest RTT is 45 minutes.
Even 6 minutes makes any kind of tele-operation infeasible and require system to function autonomously. This restricts the kinds of science that are currently possible.
I wouldn't go that far, but we already had humans on the moon so we can get away with robots doing the science now. I still think sending astronauts to mars would speed up research, for example.
But as long as some subset of humanity believes in this humanity will keep investing in it. Not everyone has to be aligned and we can have many priorities at once, not the least of which is robotic science which I only see as mutually exclusive as long as there’s not plentiful private investment, which there is at the moment. I don’t see robotic exploration as suffering in the build out of extremely low cost launch capability and a general space infrastructure including moon infrastructure. I see it benefiting enormously as the costs and risks drop significantly.
Edit: falcon 9, not starship
I get Starship 34,000,000 kg + 12,000,000 kg vs 747 ~200,000 liters ≅ 150,000 kg, or about 1/300 th of what Starship holds.
Rockets can also be carbon negative in another way. A rocket that uses less than 50% of its fuel getting to orbit would be carbon negative, because it's spending less than 'x/2' fuel to go burn at least 'x/2' fuel away from Earth. Factor in some of the fuel coming from carbon neutral sources, and it quickly becomes quite easy for a rocket to be carbon negative.
Humans definitely can't leave. Humans are even less well suited to interstellar travel than they are to living at the bottom of the ocean, something they also don't do and have no idea how they could ever do.
So, with tremendous effort humans could visit one of their neighbouring planets. All of these planets are terrible. Mars is by far more hostile to life than anywhere humans have even visited, let alone had a permanent settlement. But we could do it. To what end?
Live here, or die here, those are your options and you should get used to it.
To have the species survive if anything ends all life on Earth - apparently not a priority for you but it is for those that enjoy humanity existing.
Also to explore and learn more about the universe we live in. Do you truly not see value in that? Have you never left the city/state/country you were born in?
Nothing the universe has thrown at Earth in the past 3 billion years has been capable of ending all life. And nothing that could happen in the next million years seems possible of doing that either.
It's difficult, but I don't think it is _that_ difficult. Ecologies, like any living systems, can self-heal and regenerate. There are practices that allows us to tap into that regenerative power as societies. They may not happen fast relative to our individual human lifespan, but 50 years is more than enough time to restore wastelands or reverse desertification.
I don't have a good answer to how sustain an economy based upon mining, refining, and manufacturing things out of mineral resources. Many of us have gotten used to modern conveniences (at its own cost related to mental and emotional health, and social cohesiveness). I think what most people balk on are on the perception of having to go back to barely surviving off the land, or having to alter lifestyle. Lifestyle may have to change, but the same regenerative power of ecologies also gives us significantly more resiliency.
Why do anything at all? Who are you to dictate to others what their options are?
I do agree that we should better manage our impact on the only system that we know works.
It's a very unlikely for one, we haven't had an extinction asteroid in 65 million years. Detection and mapping is very good today, and they're relatively simple to deflect given even with current technology, and a long enough lead time. Obsessing about asteroid impact is just an excuse to engage in fantasy.
But saying "We can improve our understanding of ecology by [designing] artificial biosphere", is just the chef's kiss of bullshittery. It's like saying, that we can understand the ocean by getting a fish bowl. Not exactly, and it certainly won't teach us anything about the actual biosphere. Instead, all you'd learn about is atmosphere scrubbers and water reclamation.
and what is this simple method to deflect a large asteroid headed for Earth?
Essentially you have a spacecraft park itself beside an asteroid. It's gravity will minutely change the asteroids trajectory. With enough lead time that's all you need. Since you're not blowing up, or applying a large focused amount of energy to the asteroid it doesn't matter what the targets composition is. You won't break it up.
> This is the lamest of all excuses.
> It's a very unlikely for one, we haven't had an extinction asteroid in 65 million years.
He said "like astroids". Quite frankly we don't know how frequent extinction events happen. We've had nuclear weapons for less than 100 years, and have a couple of close calls[1] already.
---
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
If you want something that uniquely requires leaving the planet for somewhere you have truck in literally everything except rocks, you’re pretty much limited to the sun becoming a red giant. That and gamma ray bursts. That’s pretty much it.
No. We can't detect asteroids coming from the direction of Sun. Just ask people of Chelyabinsk, Russia. [0]
[0] https://www.livescience.com/space/asteroids/the-sun-is-blind...
[I hope an LLM made it polite enough]
Engage in self harm.
I'd say that such an event happening over a populated region of the Earth would be pretty bad. It's worth a bit of investment.
Here's what would happen if Tunguska happened over Paris, using a mid-range estimate of its magnitude: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=30000&lat=48.8583&ln...
To be kind of blunt, even an extinction-level asteroid hit with near-total biosphere destruction is probably still more conducive to human life than any other planet or satellite in the solar system, as evidenced by the continued existence of at least a few forms of life past the extinction event. And many of the events people worry about are far less destructive than even that (nuclear winter, for example, would probably roll Earth's climate back to pre-industrial temperatures, maybe as far as Little Ice Age, which is, uh, nowhere near extinction-level threat to humanity).
It's also worth pointing out that it's possible to do closed ecological studies without the expense of running it in space (e.g., Biosphere 2). The only thing you need space for studying in that regard is "what is the effect of non-1g environments on biological forms?" (to which existing studies suggest the answer is somewhere between "bad" and "horrible").
That would be easier if we could move polluting industries off Earth.
As far as cleaning up pollutants themselves, there are some amazing work by Dr John Todd for cleaning up pollution. Two examples of his work — a system capable of breaking down DDT within 40 days. Another where he cleaned up a superfund site that had all ten of EPA’s top toxic pollutant list.
I think opening up a new frontier however, is valuable - in fact specifically, the transition which would be good would be to move heavy industry out of the biosphere entirely. You can imagine a nearer future where a place like Earth is treated as the paradise it is, and the idea of polluting it when we have all the rest of the uninhabitable space of the solar system to do that in is thought of as ludicrous.
And this isn't really unreasonable - beyond a certain point, the resource and energy availability of space is far greater then the places we can reach despite the advantages of the biosphere - whether we do it by robots or with manned exploration.
There's a zeitgeist change that I think would accompany having enough people working frequently in space: where its a couple of degrees of separation from someone who's looked at the pale blue dot and gone "you have no idea how valuable this is" (I do think we should have a program which sponsors any world leader who wants to on a trip around the moon: send the people making the big decisions out past the dark side, where the thing bubble of air, steel and alloy is the only thing keeping them alive - might not always work but at least then we can know they've had the opportunity for that perspective).
Cities on the moon and Mars are a reasonable and achievable goal. There are resources which can much more easily be exploited with real people on premise, some people will want to live in different environments, there are opportunities for sport, entertainment, tourism, and plenty of industries which will be much more effective with skilled labor on site instead of meticulously planned missions which often fail and if they don't spend a whole bunch of effort overcomming the basics of operating.
Without fail there's always some negative Nelly who already knows the answer to their downer question.
We get it. You don't care about space shit, most people don't. But why go derail a thread about a space accomplishment with negativity?
Is there much practical reason for that?
If they are so much better, why does anyone get up off their couch and do field research? Just let the robots do it.
Besides, it's human nature to explore, in person. As George Mallory said, "Because it's there."
Not saying that there isn't value to sending humans into space - it's just that that value isn't in gathering data for science, other than on the astronaut-subjects themselves.
The Moon is both very near and very easy to communicate with so it is the perfect first place to learn about building a "colony" before moving on to Mars.
Since its only a 3-4 day trip, with transfer windows every month (and non-optimal ones essentially constantly). resupply missions and rotating astronauts/personnel are going to be much easier. Much less of a gravity well to deal with.
The plan would be for in situ resource extraction and manufacturing. With enough of a human presence, projects like local construction of spacecraft become feasible. And something like a mass driver would be much more feasible on the moon. A big enough one and you're even considering interstellar probes ...
It would require a consistent, sustained effort. But not astronomical in US budget terms. Maybe $20-$30 billion/year (about of 3-4% the defense budget)
Starship is a vastly better attempt at more of these goals than STS. But if it misses cost, or payload, or reliability goals it won't solve this problem. It is even possible that it will take too many attempts in which a ship and 39 engines are expended to even get close.
The big one that robots can’t do is studying human biology in space.
How do we fare long term on a foreign body? What does trauma medicine look like? How do we accommodate the diseases and disabilities that frequent our non-astronaut grade population? Is gestation, birth and development possible in low gravity? Et cetera.
Then Moon provides the easiest place to do this at scale by virtu of being the closest place to Earth with in situ resources.
Beyond this though (and also the survival aspect as others have hit on), I'd simply mention the inspirational aspect. Many who lived through the Moon landings (as well as those who did not) see this as humanity's greatest achievement. And I think this sort of stuff helps to create a better future for a people. When asked what they want to be when they grow up, the most popular choice for American children today is a vlogger/YouTuber, the least popular is astronaut [3]. In China, the answers are completely reversed. Who's going to have the better generational outcome in 30 years?
But of course this isn't just for children. So many people just seem completely devoid of hope and optimism for the future. And that's completely understandable the way things have been going for many decades now. But show literally anybody this video of the Falcon Heavy landing [4] and the first question you will always get is, "Is that real?" People just can't even believe what we're achieving, and I think doing even more of this, on a much larger scale, and making it all the more visible would really improve so many lives, and likely the entire country itself. Just read the comments to that video, to see how it impacts people, and those are friggin YouTube comments!
[1] - https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/qa-perseverance-rovers-...
[2] - https://www.space.com/perseverance-rover-self-driving-on-mar...
[3] - https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-...
Also many people see the whole point to be expanding people out into the cosmos, not the science.
Saturn V was ridiculously expensive [1] and very unsafe.
Apollo was built to get to the Moon fast half a dozen times. We’re building more ambitiously today.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V $1.5bn in 2024 dollars
Von Braun was asked if the Saturn V was safe to launch. He asked six of his engineering reports, each replied nein. Von Braun replied that the Saturn V had six nines of reliability.
Why replicate that? Indeed we should ask: Is there a goal to value, other than the obvious "the Chinese would get there first if we don't?"
A lunar "base" would just be a vastly more expensive ISS. We will discover that lunar regolith is a bigger nuisance than floating boogers in the ISS.
Source?
We can design—and are designing—automation into a lunar base in a way we couldn’t with the ISS.
Where’s the barely? What would you have done better?
It was still a great accomplishment, so I would not use barely, but technically it is correct I think. They spend great effort, to just make it to the moon, which was the goal, to beat the sowjets. And that succeeded. No great safety margins, not much room for error - barely.