New Mars Forums

If not the USAF, then a new US Space Command. Theres actually a large mission for the DoD in space, ranging from operating constellations of recon, navigation, communication, and surveillance satellites that all services depend on, even if there are no "weapons" up there, to sub-orbital bombers/space planes, to solar weather observatories, to dedicated asteroid/comet observatories, to manned survey missions to practice NEO defense methods.

Not to replace NASA of course, but a dedicated Space Service with full DoD funding would work wonders for the civil program.

We could try to pick apart Mr. Wrights statements with logic, facts, and common sense. But he's only interested in preying upon the hopes and fears of parishioners to fill the collection plate.

Obama is not stupid, he knows this. The only reason to go along with Mr. Wright is because Obama either believes him, or wants to tap the kind of fanaticism Mr. Wright is able get, or both.

Such men should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, the US Senate, or even the Chicago pound.

There never really has been any significant operational connection between manned and unmanned flight. And its likely to say that way until manned interplanetary voyages suffer communications disruptions from orbital mechanics.

Ouch.  :twisted:

NASA has a lot of tough decisions to make. They have to balance the competing interests of manned and unmanned space flight, plus the observatory crowd, and the aeronautics crowd, interests that rarely intersect.

Really, NASA should be split into separate services for manned, unmanned, and observatory missions, with aeronautics farmed off to DARPA or something.

Well, such a plan is dependent on there being nothing else there, so there is apt to be several cargo flights just to fill the thing so its productive.

But, we're doing 6 Shuttle launches this year. If we can put one wet workshop down, we can fling 5-6 regular 20ton cargo flights to outfit it through out the rest of the year. In 1 year. Not 11 years. And have a capability that far exceeds any other method.

In such a situation a dedicated reusable lander would probably be more appropreate. The Delta Clipper comes to mind. We'll have to figure out how to get Orion to Lunar Orbit.

Only assuming you want to use one rocket. It's quite worth it to use a second, or even a third (think wet workshops!), to put a single piece that large on the surface. The same would still be true if the Ares V was capable of lofting 200tons to orbit and 40+ tons to the surface.

They are going to have to switch to a horizontal lander design at some point however to do so. Some of the more fleshed out designs already have, which really makes me wonder why they are bothering with all these "requirement studies" now. Either they knew what they needed then, and are wasting time now, or didn't and those previous designs are rubbish.

If this is true, its downright criminal.

Plutonium Shortage May Thwart Future NASA Missions to Outer Planets

I also found this, I don't know if this ever worked out.

U.S. Has Plans to Again Make Own Plutonium

Energia was also the product of Soviet defense contractors, only theirs performed under the threat of a one way trip to Siberia.

American defense contractors answer to stockholders, millions of Americans of all walks of life who all depend on maximum profit to fund retirement, college, ect.

Actually, thats not bad policy to begin with, so long as they can turn around an Ares I that fast as well. Its a great way to keep the flight rate up.

I think a mid range launcher is going to be essential to making full use of the Ares V payload capability. Having a launcher that can put a massive amount of payload to orbit means nothing if you can't get it to your destination. Particularity with the obvious advantage of using spent stages as cheap wet workshop modules to expand surface installations.

If we where to launch a payload taking full advantage of the Ares V, something in the 120 ton range to LEO, with only enough fuel to maintain its orbit for a time, like the Progress does for the ISS, how much fuel would we need to launch in the form of a dedicated EDS to get it from LEO to LLO, and then, how much would we need to transfer to the payload to have it successfully decent from lunar orbit to the surface?

I think the closest we'll get is a large high rise with empty stalls were modular dwellings can be lifted in and out.

The first ones will have to be, only cause theres no way to get ecavation equipment there first.

Really it comes down to volume. The more we have the more people we can support, the more people, more time, more science, more construction, more people. Thats why it boggles my mind that while we have wet workshop experience with Skylab, and already have prototype inflatables in orbit, we are even bothering to think about something the size of a travel trailer.

There will have to be many, many more yeas before anything get off the ground.