On Jan 21, 7:34*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote]

Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo.

That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair)

If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie
mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build
mission, it's going to be a big lander.

On your private nickle (meaning fully taxed private loot) there's no
problem. Go right ahead.

At best this spendy moon thing should become a 50/50 deal, of private
and public loot. If you can't get at least 50% in private sponsors,
then perhaps there's something wrong with the plan.

~ BG