Quote from: blasphemer on 11/17/2010 06:29 pmBut why? Is expanding human presence permanently beyond LEO sufficient? Would the public be satisfied if the only result was fancy hotels on the moon catering to the super wealthy? Personally i think there needs to be a little more meat to make most Americans believe this is a worthy investment. Reducing our reliance on the middle East oil; minimizing global warming, curing cancer,...I think they could be satisfied with rich tourists on the moon. The problem with human space flight as it exists now is that it is totally dependent on the government dole. It needs to move towards being self sustaining. The wealthy are the first to adopt many things because they have more disposable income. If you get a situation where a company transports NASA astronauts as well as passengers to the moon you are in a better position than NASA transporting its own select few to the moon at tax payer expense. As the passenger market grown it becomes less and less dependent on the government. If the tax payers tire of lunar travel there is hope that all is not lost.It also gives the ability to travel to more groups than just a few NASA screened astronauts.
But why? Is expanding human presence permanently beyond LEO sufficient? Would the public be satisfied if the only result was fancy hotels on the moon catering to the super wealthy? Personally i think there needs to be a little more meat to make most Americans believe this is a worthy investment. Reducing our reliance on the middle East oil; minimizing global warming, curing cancer,...
Quote from: blasphemer on 11/17/2010 06:29 pmNASA senate bill got it right, IMHO:QuoteThe long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbitThis basicaly boils down to a moon base. Its time for us to go back, and this time, to stay. But why? Is expanding human presence permanently beyond LEO sufficient? Would the public be satisfied if the only result was fancy hotels on the moon catering to the super wealthy? Personally i think there needs to be a little more meat to make most Americans believe this is a worthy investment. Reducing our reliance on the middle East oil; minimizing global warming, curing cancer,...
NASA senate bill got it right, IMHO:QuoteThe long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbitThis basicaly boils down to a moon base. Its time for us to go back, and this time, to stay.
The long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit
The public is primary reason why a moon base would be best. What are the alternatives? Visiting a NEO, or a flyby of Venus or Mars. I believe permanently manned Moon base is the most interesting for the public out of these. Also, it is the best choice for research, we have barely scratched the surface, and a human presence will greatly help the exploration.
The mission depends on the transportation. Design, build the robust transportation, then ask, what can we do with this? Build on that as we gain practical experience out there and technology advances. We are presently caught up in an endless cycle of analysis paralysis and hand wringing anxiety.Get on with it already.INTEGRATOR
The mission depends on the transportation. Design, build the robust transportation, then ask, what can we do with this?
There are no less than 3 private (thus hopefully, quite cheap) launch systems available for NASA to launch the heavy payloads - Atlas, Delta and Falcon. I think it would make much more economical sense to upgrade to super HLV one or more of these, than to develop yet another launcher or SDHLV from scratch.
Assume there is no political influence or need for redundancy (not realistic) and a decision is purely driven by economics.1) ULA with frequent EELV launches and depots (for which they will have to eat ACES development)2) The Direct Corporation with SDHLVs with or without depots but having to eat the developmental cost3) SpaceX with Falcon or Falcon derivatives and depots (they have to eat development costs.)4) None of the above
I'll vote #5) otherWhile NASA could start by buying launch services using Atlas and Delta and "quickly" start pulling in Falcon as it proves it self and ramps up rate, I believe the real benefit of this competition is the continuous improvement aspect. Have on ramps, such as already exist in NLS2, that allow additional competitors to bid on the launches. This will force ULA and SpaceX to continue to upgrade their vehicles and process or be shut out. Innovation will be the name of the game. This not only benefits Exploration but every other aspect of space utilization. For now only America has the space spending power to enable this kind of a future. It certainly would be nice to capitalize on it.
Quote from: blasphemer on 11/18/2010 04:20 pmThere are no less than 3 private (thus hopefully, quite cheap) launch systems available for NASA to launch the heavy payloads - Atlas, Delta and Falcon. I think it would make much more economical sense to upgrade to super HLV one or more of these, than to develop yet another launcher or SDHLV from scratch.Delta isn't cheap.