|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
I think the president has his priorities wrong. As much as I would love to
see colonies on the moon and manned missions to mars, why are we doing it now? It costs over $10,000 per pound to put cargo and people into low earth orbit. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to greatly reduce this price first? Could we build a launch system that could put material in orbit for $100 per pound? What will it take to get there? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
The current plan is to use advanced technology to reduce the mass that needs
to be sent into orbit and beyond for exploratory missions. So, rather than make a rocket that is twice as cheap, the payload will instead be half the size. "Robert Kent" wrote in message ... I think the president has his priorities wrong. As much as I would love to see colonies on the moon and manned missions to mars, why are we doing it now? It costs over $10,000 per pound to put cargo and people into low earth orbit. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to greatly reduce this price first? Could we build a launch system that could put material in orbit for $100 per pound? What will it take to get there? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
In article ,
"David Anderman" wrote: The current plan is to use advanced technology to reduce the mass that needs to be sent into orbit and beyond for exploratory missions. So, rather than make a rocket that is twice as cheap, the payload will instead be half the size. In the near term, it's probably better than trying to depend on inventing unobtanium to make your system work. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
I think the president has his priorities wrong. As much as I would love to see colonies on the moon and manned missions to mars, why are we doing it now? It costs over $10,000 per pound to put cargo and people into low earthorbit. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to greatly reduce this price first? Could we build a launch system that could put material in orbit for $100 per pound? What will it take to get there? Low cost to orbit houyld be the first and foremosat goal. Because it helps make everything coming after it affordable. Sadly this would mean less pork and jobs, unless the volume of launches increased dramatrically. ths its not a election year kinda thing to do. bushes plan is smoke and mirrors to help get him votes, and to be nearly forgotten b7y ovember 3rd |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
In article ,
"David Anderman" wrote: The current plan is to use advanced technology to reduce the mass that needs to be sent into orbit and beyond for exploratory missions. So, rather than make a rocket that is twice as cheap, the payload will instead be half the size. Calling all midgets; apply for astronaut training now. -- free men own guns - slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New moon and mars missions...
In message , Nick Hull
writes In article , "David Anderman" wrote: The current plan is to use advanced technology to reduce the mass that needs to be sent into orbit and beyond for exploratory missions. So, rather than make a rocket that is twice as cheap, the payload will instead be half the size. Calling all midgets; apply for astronaut training now. IIRC, using amputees has already been half-seriously considered. No legs to get in the way, less problem with blood pooling where it shouldn't in microgravity. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later | Al Jackson | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:40 PM |