Orion (poor man's Saturn V and capsule) won't be ready until at least 2023

Should have just USED existing Apollo technology and modified it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 04:32:10 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Should have just USED existing Apollo technology and modified it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

It seems that the tiny number of individuals who own and control our planet have no plans to go elsewhere. Which strongly suggests that they must be aliens themselves. They certainly share none of our normal human morals nor show the slightest empathy for our own species. The accumulation of wealth and power is hardly foreign to our species. Though the individuals, throughout history, with this crippling sickness may be directly descended from early visitors. Will they pilot our species into thermal oblivion? Or are they simply raising the temperature to better match their own planet for greater comfort with a much higher CO2 concentration thrown in? It may be, of course, that they are simply steering us away from a global nuclear confrontation for vanishing resources under massive overpopulation? A handy bit of genocide without the accusing fingers of history. It certainly makes a complete mockery of any loyalty to nation, religion, politics, sport [or any other pointless and backward superstition] to know that our fate lies entirely in the hands of so few. Perhaps we ought to be examining exo-planets much nearer their stars for the Milky Way's true master race? Rather than clinging to some narrow, imaginary, Goldilocks zone which only suited an accident of our ancient past.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:32:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Should have just USED existing Apollo technology and modified it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

So what? We don't really have much use for Orion or Apollo technology.
Money sinks.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 12:52:31 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:32:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Should have just USED existing Apollo technology and modified it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

So what? We don't really have much use for Orion or Apollo technology.
Money sinks.

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between launches can be kept short.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:21:31 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

We have "little need" to drive 600 miles to see annular eclipses.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

I don't need to go there to recognize that nobody has really come up
with any compelling reason humans need to be there on a regular basis.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

I don't need to go there to recognize that nobody has really come up
with any compelling reason humans need to be there on a regular basis.

I think it would be a great way to get a handle on the rate of bone loss under low gravity, for example.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

I don't need to go there to recognize that nobody has really come up
with any compelling reason humans need to be there on a regular basis.

I think it would be a great way to get a handle on the rate of bone loss under low gravity, for example.

We already have a pretty good handle on that. And it's not all that
important of information. The effects of microgravity are much more
interesting and useful, and we can do that research in low Earth
orbit. And neither really justifies the development of an expensive
launch system intended primarily for manned space flight.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 12:10:24 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

I don't need to go there to recognize that nobody has really come up
with any compelling reason humans need to be there on a regular basis.

I think it would be a great way to get a handle on the rate of bone loss under low gravity, for example.

We already have a pretty good handle on that... tripe edited

No, actually all we know is that 1 G is good and that ~0 G is bad. We don't know if either 1/3 G or 1/6 G is good enough.

Having a base on the Moon would enable use to do -science- WRT bone loss. But then, you really don't understand science, peterson.