If you have to register in a nation-state, then you’re not a nation-state.

Duh…

Think before you post.

“Who says, you??”

And Buzz Aldrin:

guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/16/buzz-aldrin-moon-mars-space

And Rusty Schweickart:

spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34108

And Bob Zubrin:

nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html

To name a few off the top of my head.

“Its an area and opportunity worthy of a good engineering challenge.”

So what? So are Disney amusement park rides. That doesn’t mean that the taxpayer should be footing the bill.

“‘Please think before you post.’ This writer does.”

No, you don’t.

Sigh…

Don’t be an idiot. I sourced by figures with four or five links. Learn how to use a mouse.

Lawdy…

1. There has to be an ultimate goal to any manned space program- Apollo succeeded in it’s goal. The follow-on failed without it. So I will say it; the ultimate goal is a self-sustaining off world colony. The reasons to establish this colony are the survival imperative and economic development of solar system resources. (the second part is for you Mr. Oler). Expansion into space.

2. I will eliminate the moon and mars as colony sites because they are at the bottom of significant gravity wells, which makes even the moon expensive to travel to and from into space, and they do not have one gravity which is known to be healthy for human beings (along with sea level radiation levels). This leaves space habitats and the best design is the original 1929 hollow sphere concept of John Desmond Bernal, which we will have to build in space. Bernal Spheres.

3. Building these structures will require energy and metal. There is certainly plenty of metal available in the asteroid belt and solar energy is also a plentiful resource that can be economically developed. The problem is utilizing them. Spaceships are needed; true spaceships that provide high speed, radiation protection, artificial gravity, and large payloads for carrying manufacturing infrastructure components. Chemical energy propulsion is completely inadequate; they will have to be nuclear powered. Atomic Spaceships.

4. The only propulsion system that can efficiently use nuclear energy is external pulse propulsion; atomic bombs. A very large ship is necessary and that will have to be built in sections using wet workshops and reusable launch vehicle components. Wet workshops.

5. The only way to lift the needed wet workshop payloads into orbit are with heavy launch vehicles. In addition the only acceptably safe way to transport the fissionable material into orbit is a man-rated capsule equipped with an escape tower. Man-rated heavy lift launch vehicle.

6. These Atomic Spaceships will require massive radiation shielding and the discovery of water on the moon is a great enabler for this mass to be economically acquired.

7. Thus we have all the pieces necessary; the technology to build extremely powerful launch vehicles with reusable monolithic solid strap ons like the AJ-260. Liquid hydrogen motors returnable from orbit with their own ablative module, and escape towers and capsules also reusable. And the empty second stage structure as a compartment in a multi-compartment nuclear powered and nuclear propelled spaceship.

This is a reasonable plan for manned space exploration. Much better than tourists taking their girlfriends up into orbit for zero g romps in the hay.

Who said that wasn’t now finally being discussed?…

if you are implying that DoD is going to be tasked to pay something for a heavy lift vehicle resembling DIRECT then you are simply stating your opinions with no fact to back them up.

Robert G. Oler

Except it is wrong; you cannot do manned BEO with chemical propulsion without building battlestar galactica. Your tugs are like a steel space elevator; it would take the mass of the earth to make it work. That Jupiter is far superior to any other vehicle in use- and your BS will not change that. Stop making stuff up.

“The Jupiter-130 would cost $8 Billion in DT&E and cost $1.5 Billion to operate at 2 flights per year (unmanned missions) or about $4,500/lb to LEO.”

I’m assuming that since this is proposed as a government program, that you are not amortizing the development costs into the launch costs? Still, $4,500/lb is at least 50% more expensive than what Falcon 9 is advertised at. For small launches, you could not compete, but let’s look at your large cargo justifications:

ISS resupply – There are two factors to consider. 1.) Cost – Part of the cost of the current COTS program is for developing the hardware/software systems for commercial providers to use for delivering to the ISS. When the contract is re-bid for deliveries past 2015, the costs will come down quite a bit. Could you compete? 2.) Capacity – How much cargo can the ISS hold? Through 2015, they will be getting regular deliveries of supplies, including perishables. I don’t see the advantage. What happens if your launcher doesn’t make it to orbit? Would the ISS be able to last until the next delivery 6 months later? Costs being the same, whats better – two deliveries, or six?

DOD – The DOD got burned with the Shuttle, and they are quite happy with the EELV family, so although they may have wishes, I suspect they won’t be a lead investor in Direct, but become a customer after it is closer to reality. Unless you think they will fund Direct? Heck, $8B would be a bargain if true, because they are spending over $13B just on their Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. One does have to wonder how your costs are so much lower than what was projected for Ares V…

Everything Else – There is nothing stopping us from using current technology to do the BEO projects you mention. The biggest problem is getting to LEO, after that you can rendezvous with a tug/booster to move you where you want to go. Modular is more flexible, cheaper, able to absorb launcher losses better, and for the $8B it takes to develop Jupiter, you can launch 1,333,333 lbs of mass on Delta/Atlas.

We can do what we need with the current launchers.

Good discussion – no need to reply.