You are not logged in.
True these dtractors of Science are misleading ewith their numbers, even if it is 1 Trillion,
We are talking about a timeframe of 20-30 years which really only means 40 billion a year, they probably also include inflation over the next 20-30 years to pruposely mislead their audience. with inflation and an average of 3% growth for 30 years our GDP will be like 32 Trillion anyways... 1/32nd...
God, please dont let inthe "international community"... then we can have more fights over who does the least work for them most money like the ISS.
Sorry, but The ISS is just one in a string of international collaborations that have gone bad, I am forever sour to them. Everyone wants the other person to foot the bill and at the same time wants to preside over it.
Competition is what got us on the moon, and space Technology. Collaboration got us a 500% overbudget and operationally scaled down Space Station, and the Useless Nations.
"Mothball the ISS. Cut our bloated military budget."
ISS is garbage, yes.
The military budget is small compared to the porkish social garbage plagueing the government.
Would it be possible to flip the craft around and use it's main engines for decelleration, a la Apollo? even if it took an hour that is still not much on interplanetary flight.
A while back I had the ultimate Idea, one that would give us mars without the been there done that syndrome. A reusable orbital transfer vehicle, mad for Mars-Earth payloads.The Vehicle would be modular, any part that needs replacement could be replaced quickly. The vehicle would look like a long scaffold tower, At the very back there would be the propulsion unit. This would be a high ISP rocket, perhaps Ion, GNCR, etc. The tower would then stretch far to the Nuclear Reactor, which again could be replaced if needed. The space in between would be a modular space for Fuel tans, the Loading station would be plenty long and fuel tanks could be added for extra payloads and the like. In front of another tower would be general storage(water, food, etc.), a cylinder with four stationing points, which could be loaded with the needed supplies. connected on front would be a Spinning artificial gravity wheel where the crew would live, and work etc. in front of that in the center, would be the docking port for all sorts of Spacecraft; Mars landers; etc. In front of that at the very front would be the heavy payload, if the mission was just a landing, then It might have nothing and not need as much fuel tanks aft, but the front could contain small bases, Space Stations and such.
When in orbit around earth or Mars it could act as a space station, and if it had a 20-30 year life which nuclear power could Give IMHO, hen it could to many mars missions.
Granted this idea is still a concept, but what do you think?
In a crash program I am sure we could mount a lunar vehicle on the Shuttle launcher in place of it; for further exploration we will need 200+ ton Cheap boosters
Perhaps an evolution of the proven Saturn design, like the V-4X?
Then we will need nonchemical rockets with 4 digit ISPs or more to truely open up the stars.
Anything would be better than ad nasuem pointless shuttle launches, the Space agency needs a direction.