Total Members Voted: 102
Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to SLS.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/26/2016 04:47 pmReturning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to SLS.I think the argument is different than the will of congress and cost projections. I think the argument is, whether NASA is doing something tangible or just designing paper rockets and spacecraft that don't fly.Congress has jobs in their districts to protect, most American's and world public think NASA does great amazing things, China and Europe are open about want to go to the moon.One SLS flight every 3-4 years is not sustainable, either the vehicle goes or flies more often.I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least. It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection. Finally there is a point of pride. Does America, does Trump, want to see China or Europe walking around the moon while America pontificates here on earth?Trump, no matter what one thinks of him, seems to like action. He likes things happening or getting built and I'd bet he doesn't accept the status quo on prices and schedules. I think it's very likely that the Moon becomes NASA's stated goal very soon.
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...
Problem with Moon-first is it will inevitably push off Mars instead of being a springboard (as proponents claim) if it becomes the Agency's priority.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/05/2017 01:47 amWhy can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
More to the point, whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible. I'm a pretty strong advocate of lunar development, but I'd rather see NASA HSF keep its focus on Mars, while throwing lunar advocates a bone in the form of a Lunar Cargo COTS.
if Europe actually funds Moon Village, Lunar COTS can be the NASA contribution, much like ATV/HTV is ESA/JAXA's contribution to ISS).
... whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible.
To put it simply: Yes, NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon. A meaningful human spaceflight exploration program in the current geopolitical climate would have to be international. Russia and ESA are both interested in the Moon. NASA should be included, too, and the construction of an outpost in Lunar orbit should be a priority.
Too many people just don't seem to understand the scale of what it is going to take to survive on Mars. Getting there safely in a pretty spaceship is the really easy part.
Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale.
see also https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASAProbably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.
Cost drivers include: SpaceX every-day-low-prices posted online for planning, abundant water (especially at the poles, for life support and hydrolyzation into fuel), areas of near-continuous sunlight (for PV) and shade (for thermal management), 3D-printing of structures for ISRU (in situ resource utilization), inflatable habitats, a rail gun to send water to LEO, and various other advances in commercial space price points.