NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission delayed until 2024

>>6913063
The fuck, wasn't the deadline supposed to be no later than 2021?

File: Obama-Buzz-Lightyear.jpg (43KB, 400x314px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x314px

>>6913071

I believe so.

I must admit I'm disappointed as fuck.

Realistically, the mid 2020s in a lifetime away politically and the chances of such a mission getting cancelled are high if you look at recent NASA history.

I also don't think ESAs ability to provide constant support for the Service Module can even be maintained for that long. They have other shit to do.

>>6913111
Next dragon capsule is to launch in a few days with that robotic landing booster....

I am excited

This is what happens when an administration has one idea and congress another.

Look on the bright side. Unlike Bush's Constellation disaster Obama's flop didn't cost any serious money.

I think after the SLS flight in 17/18 things will draw into a coherent plan.

File: nasa-mtv-copernicus.jpg (73KB, 823x447px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 823x447px

>>6913120

SLS has so much potential.

If the US government actually had some vision we could build a Moon base and set up a couple of Mars Transfer Vehicles in the 2020s EASILY.

I like Obama but in the realm of space he has failed dramatically.

SLS is a slight improvement over the Ares rocket, but other than that he has done nothing his predecessor didn't do.

All of this is sad as fuck.

>>6913138
>If the US government actually had some vision we could build a Moon base and set up a couple of Mars Transfer Vehicles in the 2020s EASILY.
And back in the world of realistic budgets that isn't going to happen. Instead of ballooning the budget and promising huge investment and then having to cancel the program in 6 years time because congress changed again. Vision isn't all it's cracked up to be, what we need is a stable funding process and an affordable model.

>SLS is a slight improvement over the Ares rocket, but other than that he has done nothing his predecessor didn't do.
SLS is properly funded. I'd call that a huge improvement over Constellation. Neither had a mission (after Altair was canned), they were both infrastructure. But we need that before talk of mars.

>>6913138
Know what is saddest?

Current Govt. doesn't due it because money & politics. They know it is important but it isn't on their plate as main course.

The people around us will one day be the new government. People who go "lol iphone is such an amazing computer" generation who say "why do we waste time on space! we need more money going to african kids, the iraq, and transgender women appreciation organizations!"

Face if. Humanity is doomed without the corporations pushing forward... I actually feel like movies such as interstellar may be our only hope to inspire the idiots of this generation to care...

File: 1407783440260.jpg (8KB, 217x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 217x250px

>>6913198

>>6913179

so much truth it hurt

>>6913229
>that moment in interstellar
>tin foilers won
>we never went to the moon . edu
I never raged so hard.

>>6913094
What will ESA do? Europe isn't ambitious on overtaking America's role.

>>6913262

The point is that building something like a service module is not like building a car in an assembly line.

It's not easy to tell ESA to build one service module and then expect them to just build another one in 10 years.

>>6913285
Could Orion be launched on an Ariane?

>>6913285
ESA will build the first few for the scheduled test flights, that much has been agreed. What happens after that is negotiable, NASA will receive materials if they and ESA do not wish to continue the agreement. However in that time some supply chains will disappear.

>>6913063
> Americans will basically remain in Low Earth Orbit for at least another decade, if not longer.

Longer = Forever. Humans are economically incapable of doing things like this. There's just no rational profit to make for the sheer expense of the effort. Basement-dwelling virgin-nerds disagree, but as a class they aren't capitalists and as such, they just don't understand economic motivations.

By the year 2100 AD, Humans will never leave Earth's atmosphere, ever again. There just won't be enough cheap energy sources available to fuel such economic absurdities.

Go back to your stupid scifi. I'm reading one of those now: "Proxima" by Stephen Baxter. His use of cryo-suspension and "kernel drives" to make interstellar flights even remotely possible may as well be MAGIC. It was a grand dream, but that's all it was: A stupid dream. Just like the dream of liberty and fraternity. Now in this age of Peak Oil, the jackboot is being made that will finally smash the human face, forever. By 2100 AD all that governments will care about is war, war and more war, to secure that last remaining major oil fields. And they will sweep up your children and grandchildren in the madness, and the planet will burn in a bonfire of violent simians. By 2200 AD, there might be 2-3 billion survivors.

Be glad you live NOW, when cheap petroleum gives you the best lifestyle that Humans ever had, and will EVER have. This age is transient. It's coming to an end.

>>6913294

I don't know what the Ariane payload is, but the Delta IV Heavy that will be launching it in a few days can put it into orbit.

But for the deep space missions you need more than that. Including an advanced upper stage and as far as I know Boeing is the only one designing such a thing, for now.

>>6913333
>>6913334
How about missions to the ISS?

>>6913339
he forgot to mention jews, it wasnt /pol/

Imagine if each Gemini mission had been basically a decade apart.

Elon please save us

>>6913331
could you tell me what happened to you that made you a level 100+ cynical?

I can't recall a single spark of hope in any of your posts, ever

>>6913366
>could you tell me what happened to you that made you a level 100+ cynical?

Reality. Education. Intelligence. Give those a try sometime.

>I can't recall a single spark of hope in any of your posts, ever

Because there isn't any.

Look out at the galaxy and realize there's a good reason why you don't see any galactic empires. It's called ECONOMICS. Lifeforms have to compete as well as cooperate, and you get farther by competing (as long as you win). Lifeforms change on biological time scales, but the imposition of technology happens orders of magnitude faster than those changes. If we're any indicator along with the Silent Sky, then it's obviously the case that lifeforms don't survive the onset of technical intelligence. Instead of cooperating for a glorious galactic imperial future, they fling poo at each other, trying to attain the most profit. The cheap energy phase passes, and it becomes energy-impossible to pursue spaceflight emigration.

By the year 3000 AD, Humans across the world will live pretty much like Humans did in Europe around 1750 AD. That will go on for millennia. The question is, as Humans continue to change biologically, will they continue to value competition over cooperation? If so, then Humans will go extinct eventually, and spaceflight will be less than a myth by then, 100 thousand to 300 thousand years from now.

>>6913339

Is there anything I've said that's factually incorrect? NO.

Keep reading Stephen Baxter and his ilk. You should be buried with their books, since their words are the closest to the stars that you'll ever get. Scifi authors are drug dealers, pushing HOPE on you Cheetos-eaters. There's no economic model that allows any of their space colonization proposals to exist.

>>6913394

your post operates under three key assumptions:

1. competition will always be the norm for all intelligent life forms forever
2. once fossil fuels run out there will be no cheap sources of fuel
3. The fact that we haven't had contact with any sort of spacefaring civilization means that there aren't any currently

and there just isn't enough data currently to say much of anything about whether those assumptions are true or not, and without them everything you're saying falls apart

so you might be right

but you just as well might be wrong

File: spacexrockets.jpg (25KB, 580x374px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 580x374px

SpaceX is out only hope.

>>6913414

His name is "Violent Simians Guy". What do you expect?

>>6913394
I think that your view is heavily anthropomorphized. The biggest known issues to the creation of galactic empires are just the huge distances in space and the time needed to go through them.

A fast technological development could well be a particular human feature.

Oil could not be present in other worlds, the "cheap energy phase" could not be the common case.

Also, you are deliberately ignoring all the solutions being developed for the current energetic problems.

>>6913426
Some fun facts about "VSG": He is over 40, he only has an undergrad degree in some kind of engineering, he is unmarried and currently unemployed.

>>6913450
how do you know these things?

>>6913331
Bullshit. So much of it. Do you even heard about nuclear ?

+ Dick waving would take us to space like it already did.

>>6913423
That was just an image made by someone who used to work at spaceX, it doesn't reflect reality.

It would never happen, but the way to fix NASAs problems it to detach its decision making from congress. Give them $X amount of funding for missions and let the professionals decide how to use it.

>>6913637

Allowing a governmental agency to have no oversight over the money is a bad idea.

Has been proven over and over again

private companies will surpass nasa in 10 years

PART THE FIRST

> your post operates under three key assumptions:
>
> 1. competition will always be the norm for all intelligent life forms forever

Where are all the galactic empires? You just can't get around that glaring absence. Explain the Silent Sky (which is also visually absent of any indication of stellar engineering). Protip: You can't. Because you can't ADMIT what might well be true: Lifeforms are a bunch of fuckers. Our entire biosphere shows that singular trait; competition overrides cooperation by orders of magnitude. You can't run a technological society like that, once the dirt-cheap petroleum energy input dries up.

> 2. once fossil fuels run out there will be no cheap sources of fuel

There won't be. What, fusion is still only 20 years away? It's been "only 20 years away" for 60 years, dude.

Just man up and admit that you believe in the "unobtainium" fuel source. You behave like Humanity will drill just another few meters in one particular site and another new fuel source will come gushing out, never seen before. That's lunacy. Geologically we're DONE with energy sources. Petroleum was Humanity's "maximum fuel"; it was so superb that we used it for fucking EVERYTHING. But it's a very finite resource and our 80-90 million barrels-per-day usage is greatly depleting it. And nothing can possibly replace petroleum, for its three factors:

1. Dirt cheap.
2. Energy dense. (Nuclear power is much more energy dense, but is nowhere near as cheap or practical.)
3. Extremely practical.

Reminder: You have to take in ALL factors AT ONCE, to find a replacement for petroleum. It's called a COMBINATION. When it comes to understanding petroleum, suddenly, all sorts of otherwise intelligent people CAN'T EVEN ADD. It's lunacy.

(CONTINUED)

>>6913458
by being here too long

>>6913407

PART THE SECOND

> 3. The fact that we haven't had contact with any sort of spacefaring civilization means that there aren't any currently

Do some math. If our sort of civilization conquered solar systems, how long would it take to affect a significant swatch of the galaxy? Remember, the Milky Way is about 8 billion years old.

> so you might be right
> but you just as well might be wrong

Keep hoping. But the Silent Sky wipes its ass with your hopes and dreams.

>>6913407

(DUNNO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST PART, LOOKS LIKE MOOT FUCKED IT AGAIN)

PART THE FIRST

> your post operates under three key assumptions:
>
> 1. competition will always be the norm for all intelligent life forms forever

Where are all the galactic empires? You just can't get around that glaring absence. Explain the Silent Sky (which is also visually absent of any indication of stellar engineering). Protip: You can't. Because you can't ADMIT what might well be true: Lifeforms are a bunch of fuckers. Our entire biosphere shows that singular trait; competition overrides cooperation by orders of magnitude. You can't run a technological society like that, once the dirt-cheap petroleum energy input dries up.

> 2. once fossil fuels run out there will be no cheap sources of fuel

There won't be. What, fusion is still only 20 years away? It's been "only 20 years away" for 60 years, dude.

Just man up and admit that you believe in the "unobtainium" fuel source. You behave like Humanity will drill just another few meters in one particular site and another new fuel source will come gushing out, never seen before. That's lunacy. Geologically we're DONE with energy sources. Petroleum was Humanity's "maximum fuel"; it was so superb that we used it for fucking EVERYTHING. But it's a very finite resource and our 80-90 million barrels-per-day usage is greatly depleting it. And nothing can possibly replace petroleum, for its three factors:

1. Dirt cheap.
2. Energy dense. (Nuclear power is much more energy dense, but is nowhere near as cheap or practical.)
3. Extremely practical.

Reminder: You have to take in ALL factors AT ONCE, to find a replacement for petroleum. It's called a COMBINATION. When it comes to understanding petroleum, suddenly, all sorts of otherwise intelligent people CAN'T EVEN ADD. It's lunacy.

>>6913414

Why would I care how I sound? That's part of what's wrong with consensus science today; it's ruled by fear of being outside the group. Science needs to run on examining evidence, not on consensus shaming. Time to get out of the grade school... or the higher academic institution, which tends to act in much the same way. Where are the galactic empires, dude? YOU DON'T DARE FIND OUT, because of what it implies about Humans.

>>6913435
>The biggest known issues to the creation of galactic empires are just the huge distances in space and the time needed to go through them.

Then you are talking about ECONOMICS. The limits of resource exploitation. Why is that so difficult for /sci/ducks to admit?

When it comes to anthropomorphization, isn't it most of YOU that indulge in that? You just assume Humanity will continue to expand, since you follow the recent past. But Humanity has run out of expansion options. It's as clear as the nose on your own face. You were supposed to learn about energy in your physics courses, but when it comes to petroleum and Human energy usage, all that physics is tossed out the window, and people just RELIGIOUSLY assume energy use will continue to expand. Why? Because Humans are greedy little shits who suffer from profound cognitive delusions.

>>6913466
>Do you even heard about nuclear ?

Nuclear power is nowhere near as cheap and practical to use like petroleum, natural gas and even coal are. And its pollution potential is utterly terrifying, as it should be. The nuclear power industry is a nuclear poison, not just a chemical one. The effects of its pollution cut matter itself, and wrecks the hell out of biological organisms. As more time passes and the silly monkeys at the controls of various nuclear facilities are proven to be absurdly incompetent, the evidence is well adding up that nuclear power on the risks alone, isn't worth betting on. And it STILL can't match petroleum's cheapness AND practicality.

The future must be one of less, per-capita, and that's not just the math from 9 billion people. It's the math of RESOURCE DEPLETION. Humans are great at exploiting resources... too good, as it happens. We pick all the low-hanging fruit first. Then the fruit harvest only gets more difficult.

is this Violent Simians Guy person mentally ill?

i'm not too familiar with /sci/

based violent simian guy

>>6914060
Judging from >>6913450 I'd say he is pretty fucked in the head. What 40-something man would spend his days annoying pop sci teenagers on a cartoon forum?

File: USAF X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle Post Landing.jpg (19KB, 340x238px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x238px

>>6913179

you're misguided if you seriously think this is true

why aren't we going to space? We'll, first that notion itself is wrong: we are already in space, it's just that most of our space projects are overheaded by the DoD and are keep secret from the public. Look at the x-37, it's basically a space shuttle v2 and has already been on multiyear endurance missions all of which it has been recovered from. But it's all secret, because it's all done at the behest of the air forac, navy, and NRO.

you have to realize that NASA itself at it's core is just a civilian wing of the larger department of defense, which means that they get table scraps from the DOD which takes priority over them. No defense spending, no war in short. The reason NASA has been sliding since the 80s at all is because the DOD's funding itself has been less stable (cuts in the 70s, then boost in the 80s, then cut from the end of the cold war through 9/11) and because other intelligence agencies - especially the NRO and NSA - want fancy and expensive space tech and more importantly want it kept secret so they can have a monopoly on it

so when you say something like "nobody wants space travel because libruls" you're just being dumb. Nobody really wants space travel (or more accurately, nobody wants to fund research for space travel) other than massive companies like Lockheed and GE that directly benefit from it. Furthermore, it needs to be said that oftentimes liberals are the biggest champions of space investment - because it requires a big government bureaucracy in order to implement it. It also needs to be said that somewhere you there some liberal is saying something like "hurr we can't be in space because of stupid rednecks and their guns and jesus". And, once again it does need to be stressed: nobody cares about space travel except those that immediately profit over it. You cannot "inspire" the desire for space travel, the desire for it is born out of fear.

With all of the challenges we are currently facing such as Climate Change, impending financial recession, redundancy of humans in the workplace, distributions of income inequality, aging populations, etc, I'm partly glad that we aren't spending inordinate amounts of money on space travel.

>>6914328
Just looking at that vehicle (x-37) there is no fucking way that thing can make it to low earth orbit without some sort of fuel assistance.

>>6914353

neither can the space shuttle

>>6914362
The British are currently developing an air breathing space plane that can get into leo with no fuel assistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29

File: World's_First_Five_Spaceplanes.png (195KB, 1080x571px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1080x571px

>>6914365
Looks like it is housed in a giant faring. Why do they even need to put wings on it?

>>6914367

>developing

just like NASA's plans to go back to the moon by 2020

and who would be the biggest customer of this company's product? The RAF and USAF. The former don't have the money to maintain their current fleet and the latter will just buyout the company (or force it to hand over all of it's "defense related" patents as they are allowed to under US law) and then keep their super spaceplane tech all to themselves

those crafts apparently have a cost of $12,000,000,000, at a time when the UK has no industry to actually produce them. And this comes from a country that outsources all of it's defense to the US and all of it's space research to the EU. Needless to say I doubt it will be built, and if it is it'll be locked up in area 51 or Vandenberg along with the SR-71

>>6914379
The air breathing tech itself is a huge breakthrough. They recently tested the engine, and everything went well, so the British gov has given them money to build a full scale engine prototype. I agree that the British likely don't have the industry to capitalize off of this technology to its fullest, but I'll bet the US gov, Russian gov, hell maybe even China or India will buy this tech and utilize it to its fullest potential.

File: soviet shuttle.jpg (169KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 800x533px

>>6914375
Is this one of those?

>>6914389
Yeah that's the Buran. It only flew once though.

>>6914385

>but I'll bet the US gov, Russian gov, hell maybe even China or India will buy this tech and utilize it to its fullest potential.

the US government will, if they haven't already. And they will pay top dollar for it just so that they can keep it a secret

and assuming it actually does make it onto the commercial market, it will fare about as well as the Concorde did. In case you haven't noticed, the entire airline industry is collapsing and now the trend is to replace ageing 737s with more fuel efficient turboprops. This type of market doesn't want a space plane because nobody wants to fly in it

>>6914405
With the price of oil and therefore plane fuels decreasing, I wouldn't be so fast to think that turboprops will replace commercial jets. I can imagine short range flights (that europeans love) will be replaced with turboprops, but long flights will always be the domain of standard jet engines.

>>6914405

>Concorde

funny we just had a really depressing thread about that on /n/ >>>/n/752376

>>6914415

>With the price of oil and therefore plane fuels decreasing

the current oil drop is a temporary and deliberate ploy by the saudis as a shitty attempt to slow the rise of the domestic US oil industry and a means of the US government to push back at Putin because of the current Ukraine civil war. It's not something that will last longer than a year or so, if that and everyone with a brain in their head knows it. The fact that the price of oil can just drop so suddenly is partially proof why airlines ares so obsessed with efficiency, because they don't know if they'll continue to be profitable in a year when OPEC and the US are done sending a message to Russia

turboprops are already the future, especially when 150-200 seaters are made. Why would airlines not want to cut costs? These are companies that won't take cash because it's too heavy. Turboprops are fuel efficient and their pilots cost less to train and hire. It's a no-brainer, especially when you realize that the only successful airlines right now are ones that make their bread and butter on shorter trips, ala SF - LA or NY - Miami. Of course longer flights will continue to use ageing 777s, but in the future 90% of air travel will be done from small prop aircraft.

>>6914422
I can guarantee you that long flights will never be phased out to turboprops because the turbojet is way more efficient over long haul flights. Turbojets can fly higher, longer, farther, and carry more passengers and cargo.

>>6914430
You willing to put your money where your mouth is on that? Go buy some crude oil futures next week. I'm predicting oil won't reach 70 per barrel for a long ass time.

>>6914439
That would be unbelievably awesome. Sign me up.

>>6914441

I'm already buying futures m8

but it's not going to last, nothing about the current drop implies that it will be longer than perhaps 24-48 months max. The goal of the drop is to stop the US from developing it's own domestic oil industry, something that it basically unstoppable unless the saudis are willing to operate at less than their potential. That's something no company is going to accept, especially one that has to routinely pay off terrorists so they don't get attacked while building massive towers in the desert. Worldwide oil demand is only growing especially thanks to China and Russia. A few years of artificially lowered prices is not going to stop that.

File: image.jpg (292KB, 1250x912px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1250x912px

>>6914379

Reaction Engines goal has never been to be in charge of mass production of Skylons.

They plan on basically allowing other countries to use their tech, build it and use it as they see fit.

For a fee of course.

And they would have to do that until they can recoup the 12 billion( government loan) that it would take to develop a full working demonstration vehicle.

All this on top of the fact that Skylon is looking like it won't be SSTO. It'll likely piggyback on a carrier aircraft like stratolaunch.

People keep saying how Skylon has passed all sorts of reviews and that development is just cruising along, but the reality is that so far they've shown the cooling system works , which is great.

But there is a worlds distance to go before they can go all the way.

Hypersonic aircraft are incredibly difficult to build, and one that flies under its own weight and becomes a spacecraft even more so.

The best of the best from the USA and USSR were not able to do it.

I would be blown away if they actually get it to work.

File: 1280px-DM-SC-92-03658.jpg (65KB, 600x396px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x396px

>>6913063
OP I think you are misinterpreting this as a huge blow to SLS and future BEO travel, when it really isn't. The asteroid mission has been on thin ice for awhile, and support int Congress is growing for it's outright cancellation in favor of a different mission. In all likelihood this is just the final blow to that particular mission, but the first SLS/Orion launch is still fully funded and on track for 2018, and there are several currently unofficial missions that have a good chance of occuring between the SLS test flight and the asteroid redirect. SLS is fully funded and enjoys bipartisan Congressional support, this is the best chance for returning to deep space that we have had in 4 decades. The asteroid mission will be cancelled, but in it's place we will have better, more ambitious proposals. With private companies taking over LEO travel and NASA on track to return to the stars, the future of space travel has never looked brighter.

Well, the good news is that - once a suitable system is available - a mission to the Moon could potentially be launched at any time. Launch windows open daily.

>>6914367
Skylon is fucking retarded. Even their projected performance for SABRE (which is dubious to begin with) is still inferior to that they would obtain by switching to conventional LH2/LOX engines.

>>6914459
The fact that they solved the cooling problem leads me to believe that they can go all the way with Skylon. Seriously, in all previous SSTO designs using similar engines, the heating issue was always the show stopper. Arguably this was the hardest problem and they solved it.

>>6914375
The X-37 was originally planned to be larger and launched without a fairing, similarly to the X-20 concept, but this was rejected in favor of using a fairing. They may yet revisit the unfired approach with the X-37C.

Also your image is missing a few unmanned testbeds from the Cold War era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASSET_(spacecraft)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_X-23_PRIME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOR-4

>>6914494
>unfaired*

>>6914480
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24621.225
Start reading.

>>6914474
This kind of cynicism is what kills innovation.

>>6913423
>wouldn't the cryo engine require significantly different fuel tanks and plumbing
Not significantly. LNG is a bit less dense than RP1, but it's nothing like LH2.

>>6914551
So you think we should innovate just for the sake of innovation, even if it's objectively a step in the wrong direction?

>>6914021
Here's the thing about fusion you long winded nobody.

Net gain has been achieved at Lawrence Livermore.
It's held back because of the potential for fusion weapon proliferation.

I'd wager that it's been a possibility, just a problem of scale for a given design, for decades.

>I'll try my new bullet-proof vest tomorrow, too tired to do it today

The governments have a serious hard-on for obsolete technology. No serious proposals for spacetram, spacetower, spacefountain or launch loop.

>>6914721
How do we determine whether something is objectively a step in the wrong direction? Was landing on the moon an objective step in the wrong direction? Werner Von Braun had made all the calculations necessary to land people on Mars. Would it have been wrong to pursue this goal instead of spending the uncounted billions on miscellaneous military expenditures like nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines?

>>6914811
Rockets are far from obsolete.

>>6914827
Yes they are. In so many ways.

>>6914811
No love for space guns?

>>6914835
No, they aren't.

File: lofstrom_loop.png (830KB, 1920x1344px) Image search: [Google]

830KB, 1920x1344px

>>6914857
Spacetram is gun-type. An electromagnetic accelerator with a few twists that make it more plausible. And the launch loop is also one kind of linear accelerator.

>VSG
Go write me an article on how you feel about things, get it peer reviewed by some people. Convince them.

Yelling at people on 4chan won't do much

>>6914328
I never once said libs. I'm a fucking liberal myself. So you just made yourself look like an asshat to me.

What I am saying is: in CURRENT government, what you say is true. Hence "money and politics" which is a catchall for most of what you said in regards to DOD etc.

FUTURE government will be ran by IDIOTS who have no understanding of how the real world works. Why? Because they have been taught all that matters in the world is other people's feelings and their own short term gain.

If you genuinely believe the iPhone generation of teens and young adults will replace our leaders in an intelligent way - then I hope you are right.

>>6914467
>but in it's place we will have better, more ambitious proposals

Like what?

There are no plans anywhere for any type of lunar or martian lander.

Where would you send astronauts into deep space?

If there is no ARM, the only options are the Moon, Phobos or Mars.

>>6915114
we could land on the sun at night?

>>6913409
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsIAOXh8Ao

>>6914823
>Even the optimistic projections place it in a lower level of performance than existing technologies
How are you not getting this? Again, see [>>6914501]

>>6915114
Well there are several unofficial proposals. Before going to an asteroid we may do a slingshot around Mars or something.