You are not logged in.
Looking at the budget plan... I think the thing we must remember here is the full thrust of the new Lunar program doesn't begin until 2010. That gives us 5 or 10 years to repeat an Apollo type program, with less budget, but more know-how.
What really gets me thinking is this:
What happens if another Shuttle blows up?
I hate to say this, but will we have a better chance of going to the moon quicker, as the Shuttle and ISS will likely be abandoned?
In other news, Here's a reply I received from Zubrin after posting him this message:
Dear Robert Zubrin,
Us 'Mars People' are not sure whether to feel elated or betrayed by the recent Bush Space Policy announcement. We feel as though Bush has set the wrong goal, and criticize the new policy for its lack of a Mars deadline. We expected Bush to at least uphold his fathers vision of Mars by 2020. What has surprised me most, however, is the press' interest in a Humans to Mars mission. I must ponder whether, if Bush had announced a Mars goal, we might be in a better position to send men to Mars, than to send men back to the moon. There seems to be a lack of interest, public, press and scientific, to revisit the moon.
Please comment soon on this issue.
And Zubrins reply:
Feel challenged. He hasn't given us what we want, but he has opened the door for us to push through.
The Mars Society Steering Committee is working on a statement.
Robert
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Pretty good answer, IMHO.
Offline
Like button can go here
Pretty good answer, IMHO.
Its at least on the table. Pushing for Mars openly right away might not be a good idea. What might be a good short term goal for the nss, planetary society and of course Mars society would be to try to influence congress on the design parameters for the cev.
Clearly a design based on shuttle derived boosters would be perferable than new versions of the atlas , much better for a future mars mission.
Now there's a good shot at that, because of the fate of a great many workers, that a very influetial congressional district.
portal.holo-spot.net
Offline
Like button can go here
I agree, NASA must realize the best way to go about this lunar goal is to first develop a shuttle-based heavy lift launch vehicle, i.e Magnum, Ares, Shuttle C...
"We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel."
I suspect the overwhelming majority of engineers at the Shuttle program work with the Shuttle Orbiter, and its associated life support systems; Systems that will not be incorporated into a heavy lift booster, although these engineers may apply themselves to the CEV.
Only the shuttle engineers who currently work with the SRB's, Main Engines, and other systems, will likely apply their work to this new launch vehicle.
Is it realistic to think NASA may return to the moon without an all new heavy lift launch vehicle?
And again I ask you this:
What happens if another shuttle disaster occurs during the next six years?
Surely we cannot afford another grounding, and the Columbia Report reccommendations will not save the crew from another Challenger-type disaster.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Err... Just refreshing this topic. I feel we should address these concerns.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here