|
|
| Re: Amazon now ready to strike eBay with ICBM's (1328802) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Amazon now ready to strike eBay with ICBM's |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Nov 26 08:50:34 2015, in response to Re: Amazon now ready to strike eBay with ICBM's, posted by AlM on Wed Nov 25 13:05:28 2015. Go there to stay, or at least visit for longer periods, and answer some of the questions Apollo created. For example how common is the Orange volcanic soil found by Apollo 17 and what is its significance? What caused the flashes seen by orbiting crews? Is Aristarchus still actively volcanic, or are there other explanations for what appear to be eruptions from that area? And then there are the questions we didn't know to ask in 1969. We can see holes in the lunar surface which may be the collapsed roofs of lava tubes which may be large enough that they could be sealed off and inhabited as relatively cheap, likely radiation proof lunar colonies. But the big questions to arise since 1972 would relate to the quantity and quality of the water locked up in the polar craters. Utilizing that resource could make it far cheaper to maintain a moon base and indeed to support a solar system wide exploration program.Back here on Earth, ditching NASA's contractor welfare approach to spaceflight (as exemplified by the Space Launch System) and breaking its payloads up into multiple flights on existing vehicles (or at least commercially developed vehicles) would not just make exploration cheaper, the economies of scale would mean every other space launch would become cheaper. All the vital satellites in Earth orbit providing weather, communications, navigation, and early warning services would become cheaper to launch because instead of us launching four rockets from each manufacturer we might launch a dozen or two from each manufacturer. Tripling or sextupling our launch rate may sound expensive, but NASA is already spending much of that money developing a rocket with no missions, no payload, and no commercial applications. We could get far more for our money by spending it flying rather than studying the possibility of flying in 20 or so years. Keep in mind I'm not counting on reusability here. But as Blue and SpaceX show partial reusability is a very real possibility, and even ULA is planning to do partial with their next generation Vulcan rocket. The economics of resuable rockets look a lot better in comparison with expendables when there is a high flight rate, so it's possible that in a competitive environment reusables will win out and deliver the savings the Shuttle failed to provide. And of course if you have a reduction in launch costs due to a high flight rate, reusability, or both, then the loss of a satellite isn't as much of a killer for the operator, so satellites can be made less expensive. There is a feedback mechanism which we saw in the 1960s when flights on repurposed ICBMs were relatively cheap and spaceflight was accordingly low cost despite its cutting edge status. But that has disappeared since the 1970s. I wouldn't say we're going to get to the point where Spaceflight is cheap, but by choosing to return to the moon in a manner that maximizes the benefit here on earth we can certainly make better use of our existing investment. I'd argue that means going to the moon and sustaining a presence there. The actual outlay of funds by the government could well be less than for the ISS, but the impact could be far greater. Unfortunately NASA's current program of record stand squarely in opposition to anything like these ideas. |
|
|
|