“Even assuming we had the power to do so, to what idyllic climate do you think that we should attempt to reset the earth, and try to keep it there?”

Why are you trivializing my comment? Did I say I have an answer to that? Don’t you think that it’s worth trying to understand in order to mitigate the associated consequences? If and when the sea levels raise “too much” there will be major displacement of population, possibly. Forced immigration if you will. The societal consequences of this may be dramatic. I don’t think any one knows. So it is safe to at least keep an eye on it. Try to understand it. Can we do something about it today? Maybe not. Can we try to not worsen it? Maybe yes. So what would you rather do? Sit and watch? Come on Rand you can do better than that.

“There is no market that will get humans into space…”

Tell that to the Russians. They have the ISS and tourist market to themselves right now, and for at least another 5 years.

Maybe you don’t think $50M/customer is much of a market, but it’s someplace to start. Seems to me most markets start small, and then expand as supply & demand forces come into play.

For now, the ISS will be a source of demand through at least 2020, and there are other entities (Bigelow as the furthest along) that would like to offer in-orbit destinations, but need a dependable crew transportation system to rely upon. This is why the NASA Commercial Crew program is so important, because it benefits NASA (long-term savings, reliability, etc.) and it lets capitalism try out different business models to see what works. Dependable and affordable crew transportation to LEO is what has been holding back private efforts at human spaceflight.

Wait for Congress to give NASA enough money to build something if you want, but that didn’t work out so well on Constellation, and nothing has been done to address the root cause of the cost & schedule issues that led to it’s cancellation.

“There is no new technology, no wishalloy or unobtainium that is going to make it suddenly cheap.”

Cheap is a relative term. The better term is “whatever the market will bear”, which is the supply & demand market forces at work.

I have long stated that my personal opinion is that the commercial crew market will be slow to expand. If we get 20 paying customers per year, that will be doing pretty well in the first year or two.

But the key here is that HSF under NASA is very predictable, because it depends on the whims of Congress, so you always know what the high-end is. With a commercial crew market, it’s less predictable for the high-end, because there are so many more potential sources of funding and demand.

For instance, who would have thought that an NGO (Astrobotic) would be buying a Falcon 9 flight to send a robotic explorer to the Moon this decade. That is the power of capitalism when it has access to basic pieces of infrastructure, which in this case is the affordable Falcon 9 launcher.

That could not happen for the same level of funding with a NASA program, and it is a stark example of why Congress will never be able to afford to have NASA build your 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship.

So while you pout in the corner because no one is listening to your space fantasies, the commercial space industry will be slowing gaining capabilities that will finally allow human expansion into space, which ironically is what you say you really want anyways. Funny how that works…

There has never been a period in the planet’s history in which the climate wasn’t changing. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years. Even assuming we had the power to do so, to what idyllic climate do you think that we should attempt to reset the earth, and try to keep it there?

Dennis:

We are turning into a bunch of losers!

Speak for yourself.

I am sorry you know but what you actually write is a laundry list of wishes at best. All I see is unsubstantiated claims. I would love, really, that you show us a plan, as detailed as possible. Maybe a link where the plan is exposed? But so far what you say is baseless. Mostly baseless. Evidence! Evidence please.

Assume that I want to help. What evidence do I have with your claims to go forward in front of a scientific/engineering panel?

We are tired of you posting the same inane nonsense.

Common Sense, I have spelled it out exactly half a dozen or more times. The regulars just dogpile in a good ole boy group guffaw every time- and ignore the facts. Why don’t you try for once to accept a couple simple truths instead of digging up the same childish sophistry to deny them?

Simple truth 1. There is no market that will get humans into space- we are so greedy we would absolutely be there by now if there was. LEO endless circles is not space- BEO is. There is no new technology, no wishalloy or unobtainium that is going to make it suddenly cheap. There is no cheap- space flight is inherently expensive. The shuttle program failed because they tried to go cheap.
The nice powerpoints of fuel depots and pretty little spaceships are just powerpoints. The only reason to go into deep space is the survival imperative; planetary defense and a separate population as insurance for the human race. That’s it. And it is a far more important reason than filthy lucre or profits from DOD contracts.

Simple truth 2. Space is a nuclear industry. As steam was to the industrial age, nuclear energy is to the space age. Space is not an ocean, it is a vaccuum seething with radiation. Only mass and distance can shield humans from the worst component of space radiation- on the order of 15 feet of water and 500 tons for a small crew cabin. This mass cannot be propelled by chemicals and the power required cannot be supplied by simple radioisotope batteries or solar panels- not in the asteroid belt where the easy resources are. Not only massive shielding, but artificial gravity will be required on long duration missions- and they will be long duration. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons to deflect impact threats are the requirements.

Simple truth 3. Sidemount is the only vehicle possible in the current fiscal climate than can effect a planetary protection and beyond earth orbit human space flight program. DOD is the only possible and the most appropriate source of funding considering the vast DOD budget and nuclear involvement. NASA has the SD-HLV infrastructure and human spaceflight base. Sidemount also has the orion LAS system that is adaptable to lift nuclear materials into space as safely as possible. Lifting the components of true spaceships into space- is a job for HLV’s. Piecing together smaller payloads is a recipe for failure. The most likely source for shielding is lunar ice and the lift required to put EDS and lunar water refineries in position for polar missions makes anything but an HLV a miserable proposition.

I am tired of writing.

Your space fantasies are the ones that say everything is cheap and easy and the market will open up the solar system.

It seems to me you are the one that does not understand. The “blinkered view” is the one that only can see space travel in terms of airline travel and retiring on mars.

You really don’t understand there is no market, there really is a threat that needs to dealt with, and my “fantasy” is pragmatic view that takes into account how hard it really is.

Sidemount is the heavy lifter that can put the big pieces up in the shortest amount of time for the least amount of money and in the fewest possible launches. No fantasy 27 engine first stage launched refueling depot tinker toy schemes. I am showing you reality and now you know.

Very rarely is there only a single path towards a goal. When there appears to be only one path, I tend to take it as an indication of a blinkered view.