New Administration Needs To Put Off Ares Review to 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mr_mark

Guest
That when we'll know for sure if Falcon 9 is a go which I'm sure it will be. After that your options will be more open either through Falcon or direct launch. Nasa could at that point just work on a remake of Orion which could fit on Falcon 9 which is human rated. By 2012 when the shuttle quits there will have been planty of launchs of Falcon 9 to show reliability. Why should Nasa spend tax money on launchers when there are plenty to go around. Let private space to the work and let Nasa work on payloads.
 
T

ThereIWas2

Guest
<p>There are two aspects of Ares/Orion/Constellation that the new Administration could be looking at.</p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Is Ares/Orion the best way to meet the mission objectives? &nbsp; Lots of debate about that, and Griffin is partly right - the new people might indeed not be fully qualified to make that judgement.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Is the mission itself in our best interests today, considering other challenges?&nbsp; On that topic, the new people are very much qualified.&nbsp;</p><p>If the moon mission itself is tossed out, then it doesn't matter if Ares would have worked.</p><p>Ares-I was justified as a stepping stone to Ares-V, which is needed for the moon mission.&nbsp; Without the moon, you don't need Ares-V.&nbsp; That leaves ISS, and if that is the mission for the next decade, then Ares-I has lots of competition, F9 being just one of them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are two aspects of Ares/Orion/Constellation that the new Administration could be looking at.&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Is Ares/Orion the best way to meet the mission objectives? &nbsp; Lots of debate about that, and Griffin is partly right - the new people might indeed not be fully qualified to make that judgement.2.&nbsp; Is the mission itself in our best interests today, considering other challenges?&nbsp; On that topic, the new people are very much qualified.&nbsp;If the moon mission itself is tossed out, then it doesn't matter if Ares would have worked.Ares-I was justified as a stepping stone to Ares-V, which is needed for the moon mission.&nbsp; Without the moon, you don't need Ares-V.&nbsp; That leaves ISS, and if that is the mission for the next decade, then Ares-I has lots of competition, F9 being just one of them. <br /> Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>While I do fully support the ISS efforts, cutting out going back to the moon, and therefore just going to LEO on a continuing basis is just not the right thing to do at this time.</p><p>The resources of both the moon and NEO's are going to be absolutely necessary for going further out into the solar system and building a true space faring civilization.&nbsp; And without such a civilization in the next hundred years or so humanity is going to run out of the resources even here on the Earth, and ANY kind of advanced civilization for humanity is going to become impossible.&nbsp; I do NOT want that to happen to my descendents!</p><p>Now, exactly how this is done may be in some question here, but at least on this and other space oriented sites, there should be NO arguments about doing it! </p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts