A Commercial Solution to NASA's Exploration Program?

As the Augustine Commission mulls the future of the American space
program, an argument has broken out over how NASA should develop
launch systems that it needs to conduct the exploration initiative to
send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ploration.html

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
As the Augustine Commission mulls the future of the American space
program, an argument has broken out over how NASA should develop
launch systems that it needs to conduct the exploration initiative to
send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ploration.html


To quote the article....

"The main criticism of doing a lunar COTS stems from the fact that building
a trans lunar launch system is by orders of magnitude more challenging and
more expensive than a launch system designed to take payloads to
low Earth orbit."

That wouldn't be a problem for a Space Solar Power program.

This Augustine Commission must be a bunch of rubes if they think
a commercial /manned/ launch industry should replace NASA.

The reason is simple, launch capabilities are a crucial national security
asset for the coming decades. Perhaps the most important of all
considering the next war will likely involve nukes and rockets.
This country can't, shouldn't and WON'T give up it's ability
to launch over to commercial entities. That doesn't mean the two can't
coexist, but as the article points out so clearly, commercial builders
are poorly suited for the very expensive, very long distance and very
high tech manned flights to the Moon and Mars.

And as the article points out so clearly, commercial builders are better suited
to launch bulk cargo into low earth orbit. Not people long distance.
And not to sound like a broken record, but SPACE SOLAR POWER
is perfectly suited for the commercial industry. Not just in being ideally
suited for commercial builders. but also the..steady..paid..govt..cargo
that could jump start a commercial space industry....at last.

It's just a crying shame that logic isn't being applied to this particular
government agency. The upcoming decision, if arrived at by the
usual corrupt means, will be decided by a fight between the Military
and Big Aero.

A small goal, with small accomplishments, designed by 'tools' with
similarly small minds. Get ready for a big let-down.


Jonathan

s

Good. We need this debate.

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Good. We need this debate.

The problem is this debate should have happened a long time ago. Griffin,
and his cronies, ramrodded Ares I and Ares V down the throats of everyone,
contractors included. Engineers at ULA knew that EELV's could do the job of
Ares I, but was told to keep quiet. Ares I was viewed as necessary to hide
(some of the) development costs of Ares V.

The current review is only happening due to the schedule overruns and delays
of Ares I. It's becoming quite clear to the Commission that the current
architecture (the 1.5 launch architecture which requires both Ares I and
Ares V to be developed and operated in tandem) is simply not possible given
the current level of funding.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon