Flying Grandpa to Sydney doesn't advance scientific and technological knowledge bases. It doesn't accelerate and foster many different advancements in many different areas. It doesn't create thousands of jobs. It doesn't unite a nation or nations with a singular vision of a grand dream. It doesn't inspire our youth to dream big, to innovate. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many things on Grandpa's hypothetical plane ride to Sydney came from NASA-related roots?It's not the destination- it's the journey and how we learn along the way.
Quote from: BackInAction on 04/16/2012 05:20 pmOP - "The hunter who chases two rabbits catches neither"1st reply - ...With a Gateway Station and propellant depots, a lot of options open up...
OP - "The hunter who chases two rabbits catches neither"
Quote from: Warren Platts on 04/16/2012 05:14 pmQuote from: BackInAction on 04/16/2012 05:20 pmOP - "The hunter who chases two rabbits catches neither"1st reply - ...With a Gateway Station and propellant depots, a lot of options open up...That addresses the very problem mentioned by the OP by repeating it. The 'Gateway Station at EML' is a task and program without destination, only location. The claim of going 'anywhere' is not a means to achieve goals, but in reality a Flexible Path to Nowhere.
The best basic and focused objective should be to reduce the costs of human spaceflight. We should not focus on any specific destination because we are not interested in a single destination. We are not interested in only going to Mars or the moon and forgetting about the rest of the universe. If our true objective is to explore and utilize space, and perhaps in the future colonize it then we need infrastructure and technology that will accomplish this goal.With human spaceflight the primary obstacle to anything is cost. Why do we not have a moon base? Why do we not have a presence on Mars? Why do we send robots to Mars, but not humans? Why do we not have bigger space stations? The answer to all of these questions is the cost. Eliminating this barrier will help us in all of our objectives.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 04/20/2012 04:09 pmThe best basic and focused objective should be to reduce the costs of human spaceflight. We should not focus on any specific destination because we are not interested in a single destination. We are not interested in only going to Mars or the moon and forgetting about the rest of the universe. If our true objective is to explore and utilize space, and perhaps in the future colonize it then we need infrastructure and technology that will accomplish this goal.With human spaceflight the primary obstacle to anything is cost. Why do we not have a moon base? Why do we not have a presence on Mars? Why do we send robots to Mars, but not humans? Why do we not have bigger space stations? The answer to all of these questions is the cost. Eliminating this barrier will help us in all of our objectives. Reducing the cost of spaceflight is an admirable goal. But if you really want to do that, there is only one actual spaceflight mission that can do that, and that is a mission to the Moon in order to get Lunar rocket fuel. ...
It's a good goal to have but it's not the first marker post NASA is aiming for.Near Earth Asteroids are a good target.This demonstrates deep space exploration capabilities and matures the technologies required for longer stays in space and going a long distance from the Earth and coming back.The big gravity well and needing to wait for a conjunction to return to Earth make Mars more difficult.Going straight to Mars orbit is too big a first step.Playing around on the moon is too small a first step.Developing DSH and SEP to take Orion to an asteroid seems like a good deal to me. Do a few missions like this and the technology being used should mature quickly.Next visit Phobos obviously needing the most capability without landing at Mars.The first people to view the Red planet from orbit will be very lucky. I don't think I'll be that bothered they will not be landing.Then develop a MAV. ISRU ascent stage. Possible technology demonstrators on sample return missions.Of course you could go chemical and not the SEP but the mass penalty will be totally unaffordable. Even ISP at 450 is low and requires your IMLEO to be huge. Or IMLLO? I know Warren will say Lunar hydrogen is better but I don't believe that.Electric propulsion is awesome just needs bucket loads of money thrown at it to up scale for human exploration needs. The investment is worth it because it allows mass efficient transport to Mars for crew and cargo. The same engines can be used with nuclear reactors for even deeper space missions.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 04/20/2012 04:09 pm(1) The best basic and focused objective should be to reduce the costs of human spaceflight. (2) We should not focus on any specific destination because we are not interested in a single destination. We are not interested in only going to Mars or the moon and forgetting about the rest of the universe. (3) If our true objective is to explore and utilize space, and perhaps in the future colonize it then we need infrastructure and technology that will accomplish this goal.With human spaceflight the primary obstacle to anything is cost. ... Eliminating this barrier will help us in all of our objectives. (1) Reducing the cost of spaceflight is an admirable goal. But if you really want to do that, there is only one actual spaceflight mission that can do that, and that is a mission to the Moon in order to get Lunar rocket fuel. Sure, there are other things we can do to reduce the cost of spaceflight, like spending billions and billions on RLV's and SEP's, but none of those projects actually require spaceflight to achieve. That said, I'm all for pursuing those avenues; but in the meantime, let's actually do some spaceflight, and if we are going to do spaceflight, then let's channel that spaceflight into a mission that has some promise to reduce the cost of spaceflight itself: go to the Moon for ISRU propellant. ...
(1) The best basic and focused objective should be to reduce the costs of human spaceflight. (2) We should not focus on any specific destination because we are not interested in a single destination. We are not interested in only going to Mars or the moon and forgetting about the rest of the universe. (3) If our true objective is to explore and utilize space, and perhaps in the future colonize it then we need infrastructure and technology that will accomplish this goal.With human spaceflight the primary obstacle to anything is cost. ... Eliminating this barrier will help us in all of our objectives.
I think the chance favor Musk building a 70 ton launch vehicle before NASA builds it's 70 ton launch vehicle.I think it's reasonable question that the public could have is why is NASA building a 70 ton launch vehicle costing the tax payer billions of dollars per year which will cost 1 billion dollars per launch, when we could use a American rocket which cost tax payer nothing to develop and could be half the launch cost per launch.A dull person could blame Musk for building such a rocket...
But the plan appears to build on this failure to then building on this failure to build the 130 ton rocket. But no one else in the world will have a 130 ton rocket. There is no reason why anyone would build such a rocket. This 130-metric ton rocket evolution will not debut until the 2030s."So NASA is planning on spending +18 years on extremely easy mission of making a rocket.
Musk wants colonies on Mars by 2030s.
A big problem with NEO's as a primary initial focus is that a suitable one only comes around like once a decade. We can go to the Moon, and still do a little side mission to an asteroid every now and then if we want. Also, while I admit that it is premature to say exactly how much Lunar materials will be worth, it is equally premature to say that they won't be worth anything. What would suck is if the US were to blow off the Moon and then have its potential unlocked by Chinese and Indian players. The the US will be faced with the choice of realigning its space program in order to play catch up, or else simply face up to the fact that it will be a second-tier player for the foreseeable future.
Lunar materials will only be worth something when the cost of humans getting at them is much lower.If cheap access to the moon is somehow possible there might be some investments made.
All possible claims over the cold traps are still theoretical. It might still be an option to keep such areas pristine for the science.
I guess there's only one way to find out for sure.Global Lunar surface access.