It is all political. He is trying to get support for Clinton. You have to take every thing a career politician says with a grain of salt.
Let's go back to the moon.....nah, we have already done that......Let's go to Mars, nah it's too expensive .......Let's go to an asteroid ...... nah, it's too difficult.......Let's drag part of an asteroid near to earth.......Ya.Ya..Ya .....Let's colonize Mars before Musk does it........Ya,Ya,Ya......we can't let some crackpot get there before we do!!
Quote from: Big Al on 10/11/2016 04:33 pmLet's go back to the moon.....nah, we have already done that......Let's go to Mars, nah it's too expensive .......Let's go to an asteroid ...... nah, it's too difficult.......Let's drag part of an asteroid near to earth.......Ya.Ya..Ya .....Let's colonize Mars before Musk does it........Ya,Ya,Ya......we can't let some crackpot get there before we do!! Choosing the destination (lunar) and a date (2020) allowed the 2000s Congress to retain shuttle derived and the lunar focus presented a very limited, incredibly expendable architecture that has ZERO missions. It is the exact opposite of a moonshot challenge.Augustine said one needs 3B/yr more....Let's see the budget for SLS/Orion is about 3B/yr. So if one shifted redundant, excess launch capacity and multiple capsules to say a DSH or other needed technologies (Closed ECLSS, lightweight crew health, demonstrating the reliability of the deep space long duration (>6 months vs 3 day trips to lunar), landing heavy objects economically through an atmosphere, ISRU- asteroids, Martian Moons, etc), it opens up the possibility of a BEO mission, rather than zero.Inspace refueling reduces LV size, enables reuse, and expanded NASA and DOD missions (BEO, space junk, and tech maturation) lower launch costs to create/expand new markets in faster global coverage communications, SMART Electric Grid, Transportation, Drone Delivery and the IPs can also help reduce costs by providing 70% of the mission mass: dirt cheap, class D propellant.Bottom line: The current approach must change or it simply is Ya..Ya...Ya.. What will change: SLS/Orion/ISS?
Quote from: muomega0 on 10/11/2016 05:19 pmThe current approach must change or it simply is Ya..Ya...Ya.. What will change: SLS/Orion/ISS?I disagree. All active parties with current ambitions of BLEO exploration (SpaceX, Blue Origins, China, NASA) are not advancing smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling, but are in-fact designing and building SHLLV (ITS, New Glen/Armstrong, LM-9, SLS) which is counter to your argument.
The current approach must change or it simply is Ya..Ya...Ya.. What will change: SLS/Orion/ISS?
Quote from: Khadgars on 10/11/2016 05:28 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 10/11/2016 05:19 pmThe current approach must change or it simply is Ya..Ya...Ya.. What will change: SLS/Orion/ISS?I disagree. All active parties with current ambitions of BLEO exploration (SpaceX, Blue Origins, China, NASA) are not advancing smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling, but are in-fact designing and building SHLLV (ITS, New Glen/Armstrong, LM-9, SLS) which is counter to your argument.Khadgers, you keep ignoring the fact that what SpaceX and Blue Origin propose to do is on an entirely different scale from what NASA proposes to do. NASA wants to send a few people to Mars every decade. SpaceX and Blue Origin envision launching large numbers of people -- many thousands per Mars launch window, in SpaceX's case. If their plans come to pass, their vehicles will have huge flight rates. NASA's will not. That SpaceX and Blue Origin envision large rockets is in no way an argument that NASA needs one, much less needs its own unique rocket.As for the Chinese, we don't know what their plan is, do we? It could easily be the case that to the extent China really is making progress toward Long March 9, its interest may be driven by the prestige of having a large launch vehicle.
But my point is, that none of of these plans are calling for smaller LV's, none.
The whole idea of creating smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling has not been endorsed by a single entity, and that all relevant parties are in-fact moving to SHLLV, albeit with different architectures.
Do we know what Blue Origin's plans are?
I disagree. All active parties with current ambitions of BLEO exploration (SpaceX, Blue Origins, China, NASA) are not advancing smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling, but are in-fact designing and building SHLLV (ITS, New Glen/Armstrong, LM-9, SLS) which is counter to your argument.
Now, you could point to the in-orbit refueling currently purposed for ITS, but ITS is an order of magnitude more powerful than Saturn V. NASA missions may yet use in-orbit refueling, but there is no indication this will lead to smaller LVs.
The speech by Obama is a welcomed one. It is just reaffirming what we already knew, that Mars is NASA's HSF goal. Hopefully in the next Administration, we can check off a couple more boxes that we need on our journey to get there.
Quote from: Proponent on 10/11/2016 06:08 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 10/11/2016 05:28 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 10/11/2016 05:19 pmThe current approach must change or it simply is Ya..Ya...Ya.. What will change: SLS/Orion/ISS?I disagree. All active parties with current ambitions of BLEO exploration (SpaceX, Blue Origins, China, NASA) are not advancing smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling, but are in-fact designing and building SHLLV (ITS, New Glen/Armstrong, LM-9, SLS) which is counter to your argument.Khadgers, you keep ignoring the fact that what SpaceX and Blue Origin propose to do is on an entirely different scale from what NASA proposes to do. NASA wants to send a few people to Mars every decade. SpaceX and Blue Origin envision launching large numbers of people -- many thousands per Mars launch window, in SpaceX's case. If their plans come to pass, their vehicles will have huge flight rates. NASA's will not. That SpaceX and Blue Origin envision large rockets is in no way an argument that NASA needs one, much less needs its own unique rocket.As for the Chinese, we don't know what their plan is, do we? It could easily be the case that to the extent China really is making progress toward Long March 9, its interest may be driven by the prestige of having a large launch vehicle.I fully understand the differences in architecture between SpaceX/Blue Origins and NASA. I actually believe if ITS ever does come to pass, it will likely be using some technology demonstrated by NASA before hand (ECLSS, In-Situ,etc).But my point is, that none of of these plans are calling for smaller LV's, none. The whole idea of creating smaller LV's with in-orbit refueling has not been endorsed by a single entity, and that all relevant parties are in-fact moving to SHLLV, albeit with different architectures. Whether you believe NASA's SHLLV or SpaceX SHLLV is the right path (or doable) is another argument.I agree, a lot can change over the next 10 years. Exciting times indeed
I'm bemused by the amount of attention this event has garnered in the International media.
We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America's story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time. Getting to Mars will require continued cooperation between government and private innovators, and we're already well on our way.
Here is the most relevant part of the Op-Ed:Quote from: President ObamaWe have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America's story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time. Getting to Mars will require continued cooperation between government and private innovators, and we're already well on our way.