Total Members Voted: 87
Skip the transport, go for the gateway. Do some initial tests in cislunar space, then down to the surface, but don't spend billions (tens of billions?) on something that will still leave you stuck at 1AU while purporting to take you to Mars.
Skip the gateway, go for the transport. Do some initial tests in cislunar space with it, but don't spend billions (tens of billions?) on something that will still leave you stuck at 1AU.
Nope. Quit throwing good money after bad. Cancel the 2 albatrosses. Focus on facilitating commercial companies who have their eyes on Mars and are focused on use of cutting edge technology rather than legacy antiquated tech that is really just a pork portal.
Give up NASA plans. Give up SLS. Give matching fund money to SpaceX for Mars plans. Give matching fun money to BO for lunar plans/manufacturing plans. Give ULA matching funds to develop Vulcan/ACES and modules/habs for both Mars and Lunar expeditions. Use a COTS style program for other companies to develop modules/habs/mining/construction equipment. NASA would become the funding agency by having matching funds available for Space developers. That way, twice the money at least, would be spent on Space related stuff. Half government, half private companies. As equipment and things are developed, then pay for rides. This could be a public/private/foreign assisted partnerships to get things down in space.
NASA did well with COTS program. Trump is wanting to do the same with the infrastructure. Public/private. It will be like toll roads and bridges. Private companies recouping their private investment money with tolls. With NASA, You have two billionaires who want to do things, but they can only move so fast without a little kick start. COTS for the moon, COTS for Mars, etc. Let's see everyone's plans, which is the least expensive? Which is the most practical? Which gives the most bang for the buck? Even if it is the most expensive, it would be the least expensive and get the most done in the long run.
Based on the IG report, even the cheapest SLS/Orion plan would require annual HSF budget to increase by 2.4% every year....