Do they say how many inverse femtobarn they need to distinguish the multiple technicolor higg bosons, or what energies they would need to smash them up?
I....I can no longer tell if this is a real sentence or not.
Do they say how many inverse femtobarn they need to distinguish the multiple technicolor higg bosons, or what energies they would need to smash them up?
I....I can no longer tell if this is a real sentence or not.
A barn is the unit for atomic cross section[0]. The entomology stems from the phrase 'hitting the broad side of a barn' as I recall. An inverse femtobarn is used to talk about the number of collisions per femtobarn that your data actually contains. In essence, the question is how many collision events do they need to get some useful data.
edit: I would talk about the technicolor bit, but my recollection of it has slipped enough that I'm no longer qualified to do so in any detail without a substantial quantity of reading.
Loosely speaking, it's a follow on of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which attempts to explain at least the strong force. This is where I start to get really fuzzy. In this theory, quarks have a property called color that is related to their strong force interactions and comes in three charges: red, green and blue. Basically, the folks who named it had a property that had three possible values[1] and wanted an amusing and conceptually easy name for those values. Since mixing quarks of various colors gives you various particles the conceptual link to the RGB color system brings along at least most of the right concepts and is thus sensible. Well, at least as sensible as splitting quarks into up, down, charm, strange, truth and beauty[2].
Technicolor theories attempt to expand on QCD to handle other forces[3]. Effectively, it's an upgrade to color theories, so ... technicolor.
0: Functionally, it's a measure of how easy it is to get a collision
1: Really, it's 6 once you count anti-red/green/blue, but those are pretty straightforward once you're comfortable with quarks and anti quarks
2: Or top and bottom if you have no soul
3: Electro-weak and maybe gravity?
Do they say how many inverse femtobarn they need to distinguish the multiple technicolor higg bosons, or what energies they would need to smash them up?
I....I can no longer tell if this is a real sentence or not.
Actually, it isn't, because inverse femto barn is integrated in the time domain. I should have said just barn or inverse femto barn hours, if I was going to say "how many".
It is a measure of, basically, observed collisions per second(technically, the summed crosssectional of the area of the particles that collide in a average instant). It is used by the folks working at the detector (ATLAS or CMS) parts of CERN to determine how much data the LHC is generating.
The folk running the actually accelerator bits would gerally express this as the power output of the colider, or luminosity.
The linked article predicted that rather than one higgs boson, there are actually several, made up of small particles which have a sort of multilinear chargelike property(kinda like magnetic charge, where positive and negative attract, but with multiple possible values, kinda like how light is sort of made of RBG, but here a r would be attracted to a -r paricles or, probably, a composite BG particle).
Which means there would be a whole itty bitty periodic table, just making up the higgs boson.
I was, trying to, ask if the article said how many hours we would have to run the LHC(or how much more effective some other collider would need to be), which currently runs at about 1 -fb but it is creeping up as they improve things, for us to say that the little bump on the graph that shows us a higgs like particle exists, is actually 3 or 6 or 27 or some value that is not closely tied to 3 little bitty bumps all piled up together.
Or if it said how hard we need to smack two bits of stuff together that even the little higgs like bits themselves come apart into those even teenyer bits.
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
What about since then? Where NASA has faced a shrinking budget, and a congress/population that doesn't give a shit about that stuff.
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
What about since then? Where NASA has faced a shrinking budget, and a congress/population that doesn't give a shit about that stuff.
Between the CGI cityscape, the music, and the name of the tech firm all made me think of Mirror's Edge. Great! We're looking forward to a distopian urban future run by technocratic corporations with German sounding double names like Pirandello Kruger.
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
What about since then? Where NASA has faced a shrinking budget, and a congress/population that doesn't give a shit about that stuff.
That was less than a decade.
Well technically the goal was this decade which means 69 would have been the cutoff. And they were being thrown money because for that brief moment science = fighting the communists
Has NASA ever successfully delivered on a scheduled mission slated over a decade in advance without it either getting significantly delayed or canceled due to budgetary reshuffling?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
What about since then? Where NASA has faced a shrinking budget, and a congress/population that doesn't give a shit about that stuff.
NASA has a poor record on getting flagship-class missions done in time and under budget, but it's no worse on that front than, say, the DoD.
Our next step is deep space, where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples. This experience in human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit will help NASA test new systems and capabilities, such as Solar Electric Propulsion, which we’ll need to send cargo as part of human missions to Mars. Beginning in FY 2018, NASA’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will enable these “proving ground” missions to test new capabilities. Human missions to Mars will rely on Orion and an evolved version of SLS that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown.
One of Orion's early missions in the 2020s will send astronauts to explore an asteroid, which will be placed in a stable orbit around the moon using a robotic spacecraft. This Asteroid Redirect Mission will test new technologies, like Solar Electric Propulsion, which will help us send heavy cargo to Mars in advance of human missions. Astronauts aboard Orion will return to Earth with samples of the asteroid, having tested a number of collection tools and techniques we'll use in future human missions to Mars or its moons.
The Asteroid Redirect Mission is one part of NASA’s Asteroid Initiative. The initiative also includes an Asteroid Grand Challenge, designed to accelerate NASA’s efforts to locate potentially hazardous asteroids through non-traditional collaborations and partnerships. The challenge could also help identify viable candidates for ARM.
NASA plans to launch the ARM robotic spacecraft at the end of this decade. The agency is working on two concepts for the capture: one would capture an asteroid using an inflatable system, similar to a bag, and the other would capture a boulder off of a much larger asteroid using a robotic arm. The agency will choose one of the two concepts in late 2014.
After an asteroid mass is captured, the spacecraft will redirect it to a stable orbit around the moon called a “Distant Retrograde Orbit.” Astronauts aboard NASA's Orion spacecraft, launched from a Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, will explore the asteroid in the mid-2020s.
Asteroids are left-over materials from the solar system's formation. Astronauts will return to Earth with far more samples than have ever been available for study, which could open new scientific discoveries about the formation of our solar system and beginning of life on Earth.
The robotic mission also will demonstrate planetary defense techniques to deflect dangerous asteroids and protect Earth if needed in the future. NASA will choose an asteroid mass for capture with a size and mass that cannot harm the Earth, because it would burn up in the atmosphere. In addition to ensuring a stable orbit, redirecting the asteroid mass to a distant retrograde orbit around the moon also will ensure it will not hit Earth.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
I'd honestly prefer the asteroid.
Uh, yeah. I think asteroid shenanigans is far more likely to lead to us actually exploiting/regularly being in space than going to Mars.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
I'd honestly prefer the asteroid.
See, and that's fine. I mean, I disagree, but your position is defensible in and of itself. I'm just sick of hearing "well yeah Mars is the goal, but to be able to get there we first have to [capture an asteroid/build a moonbase/build VASIMR/whatever other unrelated thing]".
It's still worth noting that a lot of this could change with the introduction of the SpaceX BFR, which is slated to finish testing in the same approximate time window as SLS Block 1. An alternative with a much higher mass to LEO (in the neighborhood of 250 tons to LEO vs 130 tons for SLS) at what may very well be a dramatically lower cost could accelerate NASA's schedule considerably. That's even ignoring the possibility of a three-core BFR variant hitting above 700 tons to LEO; that's enough to launch about 1.5 International Space Stations at once.
They haven't even started building the test stands for the Raptor engine, though. The most optimistic timeframe for the Falcon super-heavy that I've seen is the mid-2020s, which is theoretically a few years after the time SLS/Orion is supposed to be doing their manned asteroid mission.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
I'd honestly prefer the asteroid.
See, and that's fine. I mean, I disagree, but your position is defensible in and of itself. I'm just sick of hearing "well yeah Mars is the goal, but to be able to get there we first have to [capture an asteroid/build a moonbase/build VASIMR/whatever other unrelated thing]".
Actually this is a dual purpose mission. Bringing the asteroid to orbit the moon is testing their solar propulsion, trajectory, "Asteroid Defense System". Landing humans on it will involve testing the docking system, the new suits, new EV suits, collection of materials in near-0g, ect.
They need to test all of these systems so they're combining them and both missions act as stepping stones to each other.
Also, the first test flight of the Orion capsule is tomorrow morning at 7:05am ET, using a Delta IV Heavy to put it up for two orbits. So we'll be back to where we were in 1962! Yay!
They haven't even started building the test stands for the Raptor engine, though. The most optimistic timeframe for the Falcon super-heavy that I've seen is the mid-2020s, which is theoretically a few years after the time SLS/Orion is supposed to be doing their manned asteroid mission.
I agree, manned BFR flights are unlikely before 10 years from now, but considering the launch cost of SLS versus even the higher end projections for BFR there is the potential for a lot of interesting additional or expanded mission work to be done with the cost savings.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
Whatever it takes to make farnsworth.jpg a reality.
Given NASA's current and likely future budget for manned spaceflight, the asteroid mission is a distraction from the potential Mars mission, not some kind of prerequisite.
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
I urge you to actually read the appropriations on pages 5 through 7.
On the capsule, how does it make sense to make something capable of atmospheric reentry to send to Mars and back as opposed to something that can dock with a vehicle specifically designed only for the reentry that would stay in earth's orbit? (or even a space station, then use whatever that space station is already using to exchange astronauts since you don't even have to argue about costs of designing two separate vehicles)
On the capsule, how does it make sense to make something capable of atmospheric reentry to send to Mars and back as opposed to something that can dock with a vehicle specifically designed only for the reentry that would stay in earth's orbit? (or even a space station, then use whatever that space station is already using to exchange astronauts since you don't even have to argue about costs of designing two separate vehicles)
Because to return from Mars you need to do an orbital insertion burn to get into Earth orbit. That's much, much more expensive (in fuel and other costs) then just ploughing into the atmosphere and aerobraking your way back to Earth and it's not clear you can save a lot on heat shielding and fuel by trying to slow down in the atmosphere and then inserting into orbit.
Even if your orbital insertion were cheap (which it easily can be from slingshots - but again, slingshots are easier with robots then manned craft) you'd still have to carry reaction fuel to plane-change/phase with the thing you needed to rendeavouz with.
+1
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I really want to believe we're going to Mars, but man.
Last time I got all excited about something involving spaceships, all I got was The Phantom Menace.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On the capsule, how does it make sense to make something capable of atmospheric reentry to send to Mars and back as opposed to something that can dock with a vehicle specifically designed only for the reentry that would stay in earth's orbit? (or even a space station, then use whatever that space station is already using to exchange astronauts since you don't even have to argue about costs of designing two separate vehicles)
Because to return from Mars you need to do an orbital insertion burn to get into Earth orbit. That's much, much more expensive (in fuel and other costs) then just ploughing into the atmosphere and aerobraking your way back to Earth and it's not clear you can save a lot on heat shielding and fuel by trying to slow down in the atmosphere and then inserting into orbit.
Even if your orbital insertion were cheap (which it easily can be from slingshots - but again, slingshots are easier with robots then manned craft) you'd still have to carry reaction fuel to plane-change/phase with the thing you needed to rendeavouz with.
Most NEO (that we have found) are named I think. Still, loadsa hot air. Let' see some launches, first. And oh yeah a drive to actually move the bugger. We're far from any technology proposed so far that could do the actual moving within a decade.
Cornucopiist on
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Most NEO are named I think. Still, loadsa hot air. Let' see some launches, first. And oh yeah a drive to actually move the bugger. We're far from any technology proposed so far that could do the actual moving within a decade.
Posts
I....I can no longer tell if this is a real sentence or not.
Tests of the system coming in 2016.
edit: I would talk about the technicolor bit, but my recollection of it has slipped enough that I'm no longer qualified to do so in any detail without a substantial quantity of reading.
Loosely speaking, it's a follow on of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which attempts to explain at least the strong force. This is where I start to get really fuzzy. In this theory, quarks have a property called color that is related to their strong force interactions and comes in three charges: red, green and blue. Basically, the folks who named it had a property that had three possible values[1] and wanted an amusing and conceptually easy name for those values. Since mixing quarks of various colors gives you various particles the conceptual link to the RGB color system brings along at least most of the right concepts and is thus sensible. Well, at least as sensible as splitting quarks into up, down, charm, strange, truth and beauty[2].
Technicolor theories attempt to expand on QCD to handle other forces[3]. Effectively, it's an upgrade to color theories, so ... technicolor.
0: Functionally, it's a measure of how easy it is to get a collision
1: Really, it's 6 once you count anti-red/green/blue, but those are pretty straightforward once you're comfortable with quarks and anti quarks
2: Or top and bottom if you have no soul
3: Electro-weak and maybe gravity?
Actually, it isn't, because inverse femto barn is integrated in the time domain. I should have said just barn or inverse femto barn hours, if I was going to say "how many".
It is a measure of, basically, observed collisions per second(technically, the summed crosssectional of the area of the particles that collide in a average instant). It is used by the folks working at the detector (ATLAS or CMS) parts of CERN to determine how much data the LHC is generating.
The folk running the actually accelerator bits would gerally express this as the power output of the colider, or luminosity.
The linked article predicted that rather than one higgs boson, there are actually several, made up of small particles which have a sort of multilinear chargelike property(kinda like magnetic charge, where positive and negative attract, but with multiple possible values, kinda like how light is sort of made of RBG, but here a r would be attracted to a -r paricles or, probably, a composite BG particle).
Which means there would be a whole itty bitty periodic table, just making up the higgs boson.
I was, trying to, ask if the article said how many hours we would have to run the LHC(or how much more effective some other collider would need to be), which currently runs at about 1 -fb but it is creeping up as they improve things, for us to say that the little bump on the graph that shows us a higgs like particle exists, is actually 3 or 6 or 27 or some value that is not closely tied to 3 little bitty bumps all piled up together.
Or if it said how hard we need to smack two bits of stuff together that even the little higgs like bits themselves come apart into those even teenyer bits.
They're aiming for a mission around 2030, so we're only, uh, 45 years behind the Von Braun plan.
So as far as Science goes we're ahead.
This big:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade": September 12, 1962
"That's one small step for a man": July 20, 1969
What about since then? Where NASA has faced a shrinking budget, and a congress/population that doesn't give a shit about that stuff.
That was less than a decade.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Between the CGI cityscape, the music, and the name of the tech firm all made me think of Mirror's Edge. Great! We're looking forward to a distopian urban future run by technocratic corporations with German sounding double names like Pirandello Kruger.
Well technically the goal was this decade which means 69 would have been the cutoff. And they were being thrown money because for that brief moment science = fighting the communists
Given current budget levels, almost zero.
NASA has a poor record on getting flagship-class missions done in time and under budget, but it's no worse on that front than, say, the DoD.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars/#.VH-8h6NQ5RW
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-orion-flight-test-and-the-journey-to-mars/index.html#.VH-yXaNQ5RU
http://www.nasa.gov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission/
AHHHHHHHHHH! I'M SO HAPPY RIGHT NOW!
I mean, I'd love for them to have the money to pursue both, but they don't.
The whole thing was authorized and planned out back in 2010
The Von Braun Plan, that had as a goal a Mars mission by 1985, was authorized and planned out in the mid sixties, and then Nixon skullfucked it. We're watching a rerun.
Look, the largest risk to NASA's flagship missions has always been political. They need to go through as few administration changes as possible between mission start and mission completion, or it doesn't get done. That means that if you want to go to Mars, going to an asteroid or the Moon first will dramatically decrease your chances of launching the real deal before Washington decides it's time to start over from square zero.
I'd honestly prefer the asteroid.
Uh, yeah. I think asteroid shenanigans is far more likely to lead to us actually exploiting/regularly being in space than going to Mars.
See, and that's fine. I mean, I disagree, but your position is defensible in and of itself. I'm just sick of hearing "well yeah Mars is the goal, but to be able to get there we first have to [capture an asteroid/build a moonbase/build VASIMR/whatever other unrelated thing]".
Actually this is a dual purpose mission. Bringing the asteroid to orbit the moon is testing their solar propulsion, trajectory, "Asteroid Defense System". Landing humans on it will involve testing the docking system, the new suits, new EV suits, collection of materials in near-0g, ect.
They need to test all of these systems so they're combining them and both missions act as stepping stones to each other.
I agree, manned BFR flights are unlikely before 10 years from now, but considering the launch cost of SLS versus even the higher end projections for BFR there is the potential for a lot of interesting additional or expanded mission work to be done with the cost savings.
Which wasn't signed into law.
When I said it was "authorized in 2010", I mean the entire plan was outlined and signed into law by a bipartisan vote from congress.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
That bill authorizes funding through 2013, not through the whole program, obviously. Do I need to make a list of programs that were partially funded for a few years and then cancelled by Congress? There's a long and illustrious history there.
I get that we've been on year-to-year continuing budget resolutions since then, but surely you're not saying that Congress won't pass another budget before 2030. Actually, maybe that would happen. I would laugh myself to death if Congress was fighting with themselves too much to screw over NASA again.
It has all already been paid for in that budget. You're making an incorrect assumption about this. When it comes to development costs, you could spend the money and it could take more than a year to get the resulting product. They have to spend the given money within a given amount of time, but that doesn't mean that they will receive the product or have it ready for launch within that time. The SLS, the Orion, the robots? Those are already paid for by the earmarked funds. The problem NASA has is getting funds earmarked for them, but once they have the funds they're using them even if they don't have something to show the public for 8 or 9 years.
Whatever it takes to make farnsworth.jpg a reality.
I urge you to actually read the appropriations on pages 5 through 7.
Because to return from Mars you need to do an orbital insertion burn to get into Earth orbit. That's much, much more expensive (in fuel and other costs) then just ploughing into the atmosphere and aerobraking your way back to Earth and it's not clear you can save a lot on heat shielding and fuel by trying to slow down in the atmosphere and then inserting into orbit.
Even if your orbital insertion were cheap (which it easily can be from slingshots - but again, slingshots are easier with robots then manned craft) you'd still have to carry reaction fuel to plane-change/phase with the thing you needed to rendeavouz with.
Last time I got all excited about something involving spaceships, all I got was The Phantom Menace.
That makes a lot of sense.
There any good links to read up on how they're planning to get back, or are the human explorers going as observers and going to remain in orbit?
not really