If SLS/Orion is canceled, do not do it until AFTER a new program has been laid out with a destination, timetable, and at least notional designs for the spacecraft. This is the complaint about SLS: “no funded need” = “no program and no spacecraft” (even though no spacecraft has ever been designed BEFORE there was a launch vehicle available to launch it). Pouring money into “research” is a load of bull — busy work so it looks like NASA is going somewhere when, in fact, it’s going nowhere; all the important mission related decisions are deferred indefinitely.

Either have a fully fledged plan or commit to what we are doing — pick one.

Let’s just leave it here. I’ve stated my case, explained my reasoning and you choose to disagree.

I’ll leave you with the final word, my friend.

Have a nice day.

“an issue? Talk to a 747 pilot. Maxing out at 975,000 lbs, a 200 lb person is roughly .0002% of the weight of the vehicle. When the pilot has his/her hands on the controls he/she can feel a single person moving inside the cabin as the balance of the plane shifts ever-so-slightly.”

No. I fly Boeings. I hand fly Boeings…you are wrong.

The only way one would even remotely notice this is if you took a large “mass” of people say oh 10 or more big ones over 200 lbs so about a ton of people give or take a few pounds… and had them walk quickly very fast like almost run from one end of the airpane to the other stop turn around and then come back the other way…..what would it feel like? at best a “burp” on the trim.

the pressure that you would feel on the elevator as the “cg” changed would be well trivial…and if you had the airplane perfectly in trim when they started the affect on the pitch would be trivial.

Sorry. Robert G. Oler

“SLS is a geo-political strategy for the United States. Commercial crew is not. ”

You are funny Putin-boy. Commercial Crew replaces a Russian service, which is by nature a geo-political issue.

By contrast, since the SLS has NO FUNDED USE, it does NOTHING to make the affect the balance of power in favor of the U.S. In fact, since we’re BORROWING money from China to build the SLS, then if anything the real geo-political effect is that the SLS is making us weaker around the world.

Funny you can’t see that, and since you have never bothered to explain your inane theory, it’s quite easy for me to refute it…

“As for the transfer of torque through to a stationary component of a vehicle, there are no perfect lubricants or bearings.”

You do realize that we use spinning masses to stabilize the ISS, right? They are called control momentum gyroscopes (CMG), and they work quite predictably and well.

“So, where do you get 4% of GDP as the cost of development and 100 to 150 years before it’s a reality? ”

You said developing this new power supply would take an effort equal to the Apollo program, and at it’s peak during the Apollo program (which only lasted 11 years) NASA consumed over 4% of the Federal Budget.

As to 100 to 150 years before it’s a reality, I pulled it out of thin air, just like you pulled 25 to 30 years out of thin air.

“If you plan on staying a while in orbit you’re going to need a place to work and live so a habitat has to come with you on your day and a half journey to Mars.”

Once you reach orbit, that habitat no longer has 1G of acceleration to provide a sense of gravity, then what? If you’re going to have people in orbit we’ll need some way to provide comfortable living conditions. We still need to prove out what the options are for creating artificial gravity. NASA and scientific community think rotating structures can provide artificial gravity, so excuse me if I don’t rely on your word that it is impossible.

“As for being for or against a one-g unit, if you’re not against it, why are we having any disagreement?”

Because you claim artificial gravity using rotating structures won’t work, and you want the U.S. Taxpayers (which includes me) to spend a vast amount of money over decades of time to find what you admit is an unknown solution to high-power yet lightweight electric power generation system that can operate in space for applications that are not yet funded or planned to be funded.

To say the least, the only thing we agree on is that the SLS is a waste of time.

“Balance isn’t an issue? Talk to a 747 pilot. Maxing out at 975,000 lbs, a 200 lb person is roughly .0002% of the weight of the vehicle. When the pilot has his/her hands on the controls he/she can feel a single person moving inside the cabin as the balance of the plane shifts ever-so-slightly.”

You know Frank, you are funny. Really funny. Being a pilot of far smaller airplanes than 747’s, I can tell you that 747 pilots don’t feel one passenger walking around a fully loaded 747. Heck, pilots aren’t even flying a 747 most of the time, it’s on autopilot.

And I’m not sure why I have to keep reminding you, but the forces involved with a rotating space station are different than those involved with an aircraft flying through the air.

For instance, let’s say that a 200 lb human shifts their weight at the end of a 225 meter radius space station that happens to be the same mass as the 747 (which is also the weight of the ISS). Let’s say it alters the CG of the space station by .0002%. What difference does that make to the operation of the station, especially when people and fluids will be constantly moving around anyways? The radius won’t change much, nor will the rotational speed.

You haven’t made a very good case for why this would be a problem, even with your Earthbound analogs.

That’s an interesting proposition for SLS. It means that we don’t have to USE it. We just have to BUILD it. Maybe launch it once or twice to show that it works. Hallelujah! Over a decade or two, can you imagine how much money that will save if we don’t try to use it? We’ll be launching EELVs, Antares, and Falcons up the kazoo, with fuel depots everywhere, while we proudly point back at our we-could-it-if-we-really-wanted-to SLS. Apollo proved that model conclusively with regard to humans on the Moon. As a lasting geo-political strategy, where we never actually USED humans on the Moon, Apollo was tremendously effective. Even as a program that lasted only a few years, forty years ago. I have to assume that’s exactly what JFK has in mind. Brilliant.

Ask NASA about what happens when a satellite gets out of balance for any reason. Watch the Apollo 17 liftoff from the Moon as it visibly tilts to the side as it consumes more oxidizer (Nitrogen Tetroxide) than fuel (Aerozine 50). The very design of the LEM shows how the Aerozine tank is further off-center than the oxidizer tank to minimize the unequal consumption and different densities with the oxidizer being denser than the fuel. Buzz Aldrin commented on the expected rocking of the ascent stage and correction by the RCS system as a disturbing sensation even though they knew it would happen. Balance, my friend, is everything in space.

And don’t think for a second that just because something possesses a large mass that shifts of even small amounts of mass within will be self-mitigating or inconsequential. Precessions will set up and if not corrected quickly will overwhelm the structural limits of the design causing your vehicle to come apart. Spinning spaceships and space stations do not work as a source of gravity and are all-but-impossible to design and build.

As for the transfer of torque through to a stationary component of a vehicle, there are no perfect lubricants or bearings. Torque will be transferred and because it is space and not the Earth there will be nothing to keep it from rotating with the spinning component.

So, where do you get 4% of GDP as the cost of development and 100 to 150 years before it’s a reality? An Apollo-like program doesn’t mean it will take 4% of the GDP. In this case, I’m referencing the can-do attitude and, yes, more and specific funding but I would agree that in the current political climate 4% of GDP isn’t realistic.

I’m not sure what you mean by dissing myself in the same sentence. Once you get to Mars orbit there’s no more acceleration so you’re weightless. If you plan on staying a while in orbit you’re going to need a place to work and live so a habitat has to come with you on your day and a half journey to Mars.

As for being for or against a one-g unit, if you’re not against it, why are we having any disagreement? As much as I think it is correct space policy to pursue this project vigorously it needs to be vetted carefully and all of the design elements looked at critically. Contrary to your opinion, it is based on solid science and not science fiction. If you believe otherwise, please show your evidence.

I’m absolutely opposed to wasting money but I believe this is the best use for our limited funding rather than an SLS (wasn’t that our original point?). So, if there is something that’s a show stopper in the concept or design then that needs to come out early rather than late. That will only happen with the best minds looking at it in an objectively critical way as in a feasibility study.