"That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel."
"Reusable capsule" is almost an oxymoron. And the cost of fuel (or oxidizer) is not what makes this expensive.
Some rocket designs burn essentially the same high-grade kerosene that jet engines do, but commercial airlines have vehicles that can be turned around to fly again within an hour (and a demand that requires it) and nowhere near the number of support personnel per aircraft that launchers do. Only the DC-X came close (and it was suborbital, but an orbital version might only have needed one or two more people for TPS inspection)
"Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible."
In spite of all that's gone before, between Shuttle and Orion, it will be impossible for the US to do so.
"Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible."
In spite of all that's gone before, it's impossible to do at this moment. Both of those facts are pretty sad, for the year 2009.
"It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere."
Until we have the vehicles (and that means RLVs) and infrastructure get to LEO on a regular, economical, reliable basis (and preferably the same for the Moon), building 'habitats elsewhere' will be an unsustainable effort.
Otherwise, my fear is that, like Apollo, we may finally get to Mars and after a few successes, support will dry up again. Bringing operational costs down enough to stay below the government funding radar as much as possible (Does anyone even ask how much Antarctic research costs? Transport and operation there is done with well-matured, low cost [compared to current spaceflight] technologies.) and bring in private companies as much as possible.
If you don't leave a robust space transportation infrastructure behind as you expand outwards (and Mars won't be the end of the line, either), it'll be like a wine glass. You're putting a lot, on a fragile, narrow stem...
Slashdot Mirror
"That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel." "Reusable capsule" is almost an oxymoron. And the cost of fuel (or oxidizer) is not what makes this expensive. Some rocket designs burn essentially the same high-grade kerosene that jet engines do, but commercial airlines have vehicles that can be turned around to fly again within an hour (and a demand that requires it) and nowhere near the number of support personnel per aircraft that launchers do. Only the DC-X came close (and it was suborbital, but an orbital version might only have needed one or two more people for TPS inspection) "Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible." In spite of all that's gone before, between Shuttle and Orion, it will be impossible for the US to do so. "Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible." In spite of all that's gone before, it's impossible to do at this moment. Both of those facts are pretty sad, for the year 2009. "It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere." Until we have the vehicles (and that means RLVs) and infrastructure get to LEO on a regular, economical, reliable basis (and preferably the same for the Moon), building 'habitats elsewhere' will be an unsustainable effort. Otherwise, my fear is that, like Apollo, we may finally get to Mars and after a few successes, support will dry up again. Bringing operational costs down enough to stay below the government funding radar as much as possible (Does anyone even ask how much Antarctic research costs? Transport and operation there is done with well-matured, low cost [compared to current spaceflight] technologies.) and bring in private companies as much as possible. If you don't leave a robust space transportation infrastructure behind as you expand outwards (and Mars won't be the end of the line, either), it'll be like a wine glass. You're putting a lot, on a fragile, narrow stem...