Slashdot Mirror
NASA Hedges Their Bets On Return To Moon
With budget cuts in the works for everyone these days, NASA has decided to float an alternate plan for returning to the moon that is just a little bit cheaper than the current proposal. Of course, the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned. "Officially, the space agency is still on track with a 4-year-old plan to spend $35 billion to build new rockets and return astronauts to the moon in several years. However, a top NASA manager is floating a cut-rate alternative that costs around $6.6 billion. This cheaper option is not as powerful as NASA's current design with its fancy new rockets, the people-carrying Ares I and cargo-lifting Ares V. But the cut-rate plan would still get to the moon."
why not just outsource it to China....
You know it makes sense. India or China could do it much cheaper. I'm sure they will be more than happy to stick a Stars and Stripes flag on the moon for you. And from this distance you won't even be able to see the 'Made in China' stamp on the flag.
On software licenses... Lower their TCO and get to the Moon? We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
...the laws of physics are a motherfucker.
Do you sell T-shirts or bumper stickers?
They will hich a ride with the Chineese.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
is it cheaper than just do it again in Hollywood? Probably yes.
God's gift to chicks
Your 18 month old has an oven in it?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
There is probably even a guy proposing they just dust off the old set and fake it again. It's win-win. It would save money and give Michael Bay something to do besides making crappy summer action movies.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It'll take 5.5 years to man-rate a Delta IV, and you'll have to pay for the privilege and gift the ULA new launch facilities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2m-UoOM7eg). Alternately, you could fund COTS-D and have a manned vehicle from SpaceX in 2.5 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O81Zq02eStg).
OTOH, with the Delta IV and the ULA, you'll have a manned launch vehicle in 2.5 years, while you might have one in 5.5 years from SpaceX. What? My prediction doesn't agree with your prediction? Well that's the fun of making predictions when you have no information on which to base those predictions.
yes but the atmosphere leaves something to be desired
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Bingo. The ultimate goal should be a colony that is capable of growing without further input of matter or energy from earth. In the interim a base would be necessary to sort out the bugs and get proof of concept. There are probably many other things that can generate the know-how on earth for a fraction of the price.
The Moon
Colonizing such a region is about THE STUPIDEST IDEA I could ever imagine. It's why we've never colonized Antarctica or Death Valley.
Science fiction is great, and some of it inspires the creation of real technology, but some ideas are destined to remain fiction.
Unless there's some huge breakthrough in power generation. Which might happen, but I'm not holding my breath...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
But what if we don't want the moon to explode as soon as they land on it?
So how do you learn how to make powerpoint slides?