So it was half a trillion dollars. Over thirty years, i.e. 500/30 = $16.66...etc billion per year. Which is not much more than the budget it has had since the late '80s. Annoyingly, I can't actually find any link online to the budget you're talking about... but I know the one you mean.If by "Bush and the Moon" one means Bush 41 and the Moon, then an interesting ATL could be imagined. Bush 41 proposed his own exploration program, which was almost immediately deep sixed by Congress and, oddly enough, NASA's leadership which came back with a study that suggested that it would take thirty years and a half trillion dollars.
What use would it be?That makes me sad, I would love to see a man on Mars sometime before I die. In this field, I think we had slipped backwards.
Do none of you imbeciles know why Russia, China and India want to get to the moon. For NASA its just sentimental but
every else wants the moons Helium-3 supply which could power the world for centuries and the technology will come
within the next 25 years.
What use would it be?
To define the human race as a growing thing, as opposed to a dying thing.
What use would it be?
Nonsense. Especially for Russia, China and India it would be all about national prestige. Helium-3 is nice, but 1) lunar Helium-3 is overhyped and 2) fusion power isnt invented yet.
I hadn't heard about these problems... they sound stupid and self-imposed....
Bush 43 plan (still running!) is the VSE, Vision for Space Exploration.
Main line is, "use shuttle hardware for lunar return in 2019, followed by Mars... later."
Shuttle hardware = SSME, tank and solid boosters, converted into expendable rockets.
Ares 1 is a solid with a SSME stage ontop, and a manned capsule ontop of that.
Ares V had five SSME plus two solids, a Saturn V class booster.
The plan had been derailed when the SSME had proved too expansive; it has been replaced by Apollo's J2 for Ares 1, and Delta IV RS-68 on Ares V.
RS-68 and J-2 have lower cost but lower performance compared to SSME.
So Ares V and Ares 1 have grown in weight and size to try to fill this gap. Result is Ares 1 have now bad performances, while Ares V has turn into a true monster rocket, which no longer fit the Cape VAB, crawlers and LC-39s...
... why are they white elephants? As opposed to "things which could actually be done"?Other uses that come to mind [for developing space tech] are the other space white elephants. Space solar, asteroid mining, and the dinosaur-buster. None of which has any kind of short-term payback, but the get out of jail free card from that last one is nice to pick up earlier in the game than later.
Well, from what Ive heard its not exactly all that many helium-3. It could be used as stepping stone to "mining" the gas giants, but until we have technology to do that (and we dont even have remotely), it would be a waste.Where is it overhyped? It'd need a lot of tech-proving to be shown viable or not (sampling missions, extraction equipment prototyping, sample-return fto fuel a prototype reactor...), but the only stuff I've ever found on it were from Artemis and Jack Schmidt in the mid-90's. Most of the early hits I get on google are quiet articles popular magazine webpages from ten years ago.
Gah. I should just write an article in the AH.com wiki and link to it.... its annoying to explain why the yoru last item ("fallback option") doesnt work like that. Settling space is not like settling America! If Earth is destroyed, any space colony will fall at latest a decade later. Even if we assu,me hydroponcis and the like to make them independant on basic matters, they could not build up an industrial-technological base to produce advanced technology - limite dpopulation alone would prevent that. However, those colonies, in space and worlds more hostile than the bleakest spot of Antarctica, would need that technology to even survive!Other uses that come to mind are the other space white elephants. Space solar, asteroid mining, and the dinosaur-buster. None of which has any kind of short-term payback, but the get out of jail free card from that last one is nice to pick up earlier in the game than later.
I hadn't heard about these problems... they sound stupid and self-imposed.
Ah, I see... yeah, I have come across the DIRECT proposal before. It looks good... recycling, really.They are. NASA "preserved" a large chunk of Apollo workforce into the Shuttle.
I mean, two exemple
- Boeing Michoud produced Saturn stages, it has been recycled to build Shuttle tanks
- LC-39s pads launched the Saturns, they launch the Shuttle.
Both places involve what is called "a standing army"
40 years later, such workforce has to be preserved again.
So the future program has to reuse Shuttle hardware. Why not ? After all it is not so bad. The Shuttle orbiter litterally hides a heavy-rocket; just replace the 80-tons orbiter by a 80-ton payload.
Since then, the DIRECT guys found a much, much better way of using the said hardware and workforce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT
The Jupiter 120 is particularly interesting.
Ares I has serious performances problems. The J-2X is far from the SSME in performance, so the first stage has to fill the gap. Alas, the said first stage is a solid rocket motor, not the best thing.
Shuttle boosters have four segments of solid-propellants. Ares 1 was supposed to use that with a SSME second stage ontop.
Once they dropped the SSME, the J-2X lower performances forced NASA adding a fifth segment.
This created teething problems. The solid first stage is 3m in diameter, while the second stage is 5.5m, with the Orion ontop of that.
The whole Ares 1 is now... 96m high. So the heavy second-stage with Orion ontop "oscillates", creating very dangerous vibrations and G-forces, threatening the crew.
Ares V was supposed to use, too, the 4-segment shuttle SRB. But it now use another variant, a 5.5 segment SRB. It also dropped the 8.4m shuttle tank in favour of a 10m diameter stage, and six RS-68. Such number of engines cause severe heating of the base of the rocket.
And on, and on. NASA forum attitude toward the Ares architecture future is very grim.
The Ares V is still a paper project, an expensive one, while Obama face a severe economic crisis. This would left the crappy Ares 1 alone, so why not launching Orion ontop of the Delta IV Heavy, to the ISS only...