The first listed non-technical risk factor is "Instability of USG long-term commitments". That a NASA-funded study comes right out and says this is interesting.
They propose an International Lunar Authority modeled on CERN to deal with that. (The name Lunar Authority makes me think of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress...)
Wow. A grammatical error in a key sentence. Something akin to a Freudian slip, perhaps?"SpaceX currently operates the Falcon 9 that has a payload of 13.1t to LEO at 28.5° at a per launch cost of $62.1M ($4750/kg) as per there Web site."
Next trick would be selling this to the winning presidential candidate. .... as much as I'd love to see work on Mars this ARM nonsense over the last 8 years hasn't done much.
I'm thinking a combination of Lunar resources and NEO asteroid and cometary materials could be used to set up a MAINTAINABLE infrastructure for both Mars missions and lunar facilities.
Such NASA lunar exploration could be finished by 2025. And also NASA should be finished with ISS. But NASA finishing with ISS should not include de-orbiting ISS, rather NASA needs to establish a way that the international Space Station can continue to be used by other nations space agencies as well as the private sector in general. So this probably requires putting ISS into a higher orbit and possibly include having ISS with enough shielding against that higher radiation environment, but for NASA part, it's mothballing ISS, in such a manner that it can un mothballed by other parties wishing to use it.And this allows NASA, once it's finished spending yearly budgetary funds on ISS and lunar exploration, to devote more funding needed for Mars Exploration program, which begins in 2025.
Quote from: gbaikie on 07/23/2015 05:41 pmSuch NASA lunar exploration could be finished by 2025. And also NASA should be finished with ISS. But NASA finishing with ISS should not include de-orbiting ISS, rather NASA needs to establish a way that the international Space Station can continue to be used by other nations space agencies as well as the private sector in general. So this probably requires putting ISS into a higher orbit and possibly include having ISS with enough shielding against that higher radiation environment, but for NASA part, it's mothballing ISS, in such a manner that it can un mothballed by other parties wishing to use it.And this allows NASA, once it's finished spending yearly budgetary funds on ISS and lunar exploration, to devote more funding needed for Mars Exploration program, which begins in 2025.I don't think anyone can justify the expense of maintaining ISS when comparing it to the cost of new station or stations. The ISS design is simply one that requires to much support both in space and on the ground. In theory at least, the lessons learned at ISS should allow any new station being built to require substantially less support.
Prior to ISS, I don't think many people thought a space station would cost more than 3 billion per year to maintain it.Now, ISS as shown that space station are things that cost more than 3 billion dollars per year to maintain,and this idea will persist until new evidence is provided.I don't think people should think that space stations will cost over 3 billion per year, and that international space stations are then crashed into the atmosphere, deliberately.