Quote from: joek on 06/10/2013 12:57 amQuote from: Warren Platts on 06/10/2013 12:49 amWell, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! Cool! Can't wait to see it! Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.Is there a thread around here someplace for otherwise unpublished plans?
Quote from: Warren Platts on 06/10/2013 12:49 amWell, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! Cool! Can't wait to see it! Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.
Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak!
Quote from: Andrew_W on 06/10/2013 03:42 amQuote from: joek on 06/10/2013 12:57 amQuote from: Warren Platts on 06/10/2013 12:49 amWell, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! Cool! Can't wait to see it! Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.Is there a thread around here someplace for otherwise unpublished plans?I've seen people start a thread for their plan and get some crowdsourced feedback. At least once since I started hanging out here recently. Maybe more in the past.
At the moment 23% vote "Cannot select one of the above", so what would these people select?
Should be able to pick more than one. E.g., a combination of Golden Spike (for affordable human precursor missions) ULA/ACES (because of their heavy landers, big 3rd stages, and passively cooled depots), and Spudis and Lavoie (because of the emphasis on ISRU.) IMHO opinion, while each of them is a step in the right direction, to really get where we need to be, we need to take the best aspects of all three IMHO.
Quote from: joek on 06/10/2013 12:57 amQuote from: Warren Platts on 06/10/2013 12:49 amWell, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! Cool! Can't wait to see it! Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.It would be an awesome article, but even better, a great VC presentation
The number of "cannot reply" answers is also interesting. I think every poll should include that option.I chose only options that were "on the table" in some sense...
What if we went to the moon, started doing ISRU and then concluded methane from lunar volatiles was a much more convenient, safer fuel?
My choice is to industrialize space massivelyhttp://data.spaceappschallenge.org/aerospace.pdfBecause there is reasons to think that launch costs won't lower enough.But robotics advanced without doubt. So, if we want real colonization, our best choice is to use local resources massively.The Moon offer the best path for this, because we could use telepresence on near real time. If we want a manned program, perhaps some missions to Moon and Mars coulb be build on a Apollo or Mars Direct style. But full colonization can not be done with this approach.
So... if budget allows it, two parallel programs. Massive robotics to the Moon, and austere manned program to Moon and Mars.
I chose Spudis and Lavoie, as it at least builds something that makes future spaceflight better.
If NASA goes to Mars [or Mercury, if sudden shift in public opinion] ...
I Selected option 8.(I'd actually be happy if they just adopted ANY of them).I think they should contact Elon and tell him and Golden Spike to implement a program. Then just leave them to it (after we tell congress to butt out..)Yeah I know. Never going to happen.
Hi Rusty, Here is a link to your first post on page 20.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19189.msg874979#msg874979