New Mars Forums

My understanding is that low lunar orbits are rather unstable. Not good for long term station keeping.

L1?

Lots of folks like L1 as a transfer point, for reasons which include the ability to accomplish plane changes and reach any point on the Moon.

Once source suggests its about a ten hour trip to/from L1 and the lunar surface.

Edited By BWhite on 1118180248

Michael Griffin knows he needs HLLV and he knows what you say about Rumsfeld and the Air Force. We will see, soon enough.

t/Space is proving damn inconvenient for Big Aerospace.

The ISDC program was printed saying the Lockheed guy, Karas would give a detailed presentation at dinner about their CEV design. Instead, he told some jokes and gave some history.

When asked to discuss Lockheed's CEV, his expression was priceless and his answer simple: "No!"

First let's ask whether the same vehicle is appropriate for both the USAF and NASA. Back in 1970, the idea was that the Air Force would use the shuttle orbiter extensively, to keep the costs down. Look where that got us.

Let's not tailor the VSE into something that "needs" EELV just because we believe USAF & NASA dual use will save some money. An EELV only VSE allowing some military types to collect rocks, pose for pictures and wave the flag ain't worth the money.

And, EELV will no more transform into genuine-RLVs than shuttle derived. Indeed, if NASA EELV purchases are holding down the cost for the USAF there will be strong pressure to resist new systems like t/Space.

NASA (in my opinion) should be building destinations for private sector humans-to-LEO and eventually private sector humans to the Moon.

Open the Moon to private development then send NASA on to Mars. EELV cannot do Mars.

Cobra 1
Lucas 0

He still has more money than you, however.

And what we will get is the "Emperor's new space program" with NASA buying EELV for the same reason the Air Force leases refueling tankers.   

Finding a profitable business model is the only objective that matters. Otherwise nothing is sustainable.

CEV has yet to be defined. Its mission remains ambiguous.

What exactly is the objective of the VSE, anyway?

WHY should CEV be a top priority?

= = =

NASA's objectives SHOULD be set by Congress.

And I reserve my right to whine and complain at anyone who says "Bush said, therefore it shall be so."

"Dr. Bush" to quote Robert Zubrin.

Edited By BWhite on 1118153986

"Good relations with Wookies, have I"

That line still cracks me up. So many gutters for my mind to run through, so little time.

So we need a rich shrewd gambler with good political skills and the ability to play brass knuckle hardball when needed.

Remind me again why I believe Abram/Abraham's journey from Ur to Canaan is the best historical precedent for humanity becoming spacefaring?

When I first joined this board, long, long ago but still in this galaxy, I recall that clark tended to quote Rousseau rather frequently.

Do I remember correctly?

Anyway, waiting for government(s) to grant land rights to celestial objects may result in a long wait. Someone needs to just follow Rousseau's advice:

Go out there. Build a fence. Say "this is mine" and see who objects.

= = =

PS - - Pay for it by selling the televison rights.

Edited By BWhite on 1118081490

The t/SPace proposal makes no business sense whatsoever unless they plan on selling lots of flights.

Other than tourists, who do they contemplate as customers?

For the foreseeable future, Florida is the toll booth for the White House. Why do you think Jeb moved there (and George to Texas) in the first place?

Florida jobs trump all other jobs in this equation.

Now who is more cynical? Griffin may well have been chosen to preserve the Florida jobs option.

= = =

Another PS  - -  If SDV is dead per Rumsfeld, someone screwed up politically by letting Griffiin encourage the folks at Michoud.

Edited By BWhite on 1118069714

Fair enough.

Except t/Space's plans aren't really about the VSE. t/SPace is really after the orbital tourism market. As clark wrote (or implied) getting NASA to pay for t/Space development would give Gump a free rocket to sell to tourists.

Thus, the political question becomes "what is the proper objective for the VSE?" - - might tweaking the VSE's goals & objectives result in more science and an expanded commercial presence in space all for less money?

= = =

Is the goal to perpetuate or shatter the paradigm that says: "Spaceflight = NASA and NASA = spaceflight?"

How does (or should) the VSE fit into that question?

= = =

Add: Rick Tumlinson frames the question exactly the right way, IMHO:

Are we von Braun-ians, Sagan-auts or O'Neill-ians?

And that is a purely political question. What do we want or seek from space exploration?

Edited By BWhite on 1118066391