"One of these days, Alice, BANG, ZOOM, straight to the Moon"

glhs837

Power with Control
SO, in case anyone missed it, President Trump yesterday signed off officially changing NASAs focus from sending Man to Mars, and instead shooting for the moon. Personally, Ive advocated this for years, I see it as a case of baby steps. Lets master this whole setting up shop in a hositle environment a bit closer to home, say a three day trip vs a three month trip. And in a place where the gravity well isnt quite so tough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-the-question-is-how/?utm_term=.eb1015940115

Straight to the Moon.jpg
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Probably cheaper to go to the moon than to Mars.


Of course. It's three days each way, not six-eight months. With the accompanying reduction in crew life support and fuel requirements. And far less fuel needed to land and take back off, until you build a railgun to handle both of those, at which point it's free to land and take off.



Wondering how we accomplish this goal when the very same President has proposed CUTS in the NASA budget?

So, I pondered not putting the Presidents name on this, simply because I knew the baying pack couldn't resist giving chase. I would like to keep this on a technical level, but before we do, if you think President Obama was a friend to the space cause, you are sadly mistaken. In simple terms, his switch to Mas was like a parent telling the kids that we couldn't afford a trip to Six Flags because we we saving up for a trip to Disney. No money to build stuff, just money to study Mars, because studyings cheap. One reason any fan of space should cheer this switch, because politicians are shortsighted animals, and having them agree to a short range achievable goal makes it more likely something actually gets done.


So, who wants to argue why Mars is better for our first shot?
 
Top