View Single Post
Old December 9 2012, 08:52 AM   #28
sojourner's Avatar
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Spacex CEO wants to co-build and fund huge Mars colony effort

publiusr wrote: View Post

At about 1.4 billion...about the price of an SLS. I really don't see the Grabthar's hammer.
Yep, for the price of an unlaunched SLS with NO PAYLOAD, you get an entire moon mission. Sounds like a deal to me.

This is why heavy lift matters. Had Apollo
It's been 40 years, let it go.
--or Constellation--been allowed to continue, you could have had real infrastructure to allow for a true moonbase with sizable rovers and an ability to DO WORK.
Nope, You'll have a pad queen that gets launched MAYBE once every 2 to 4 years if they can find the money to scrounge for a payload. We've been over this. Seriously, put down the Kool -Aid and start looking at the numbers.
One way or another, BEO is going to cost billions--so you might as well spend a bit more, preserve infrastructure here, and have real capabilities out there.
Agreed. Spend more on infrastructure like EELVs that cost a fraction of SLS and build up infrastructure in space like EML-2 and fuel depots. Get some real capabilities out there.

Apollo allowed for a pretty good haul of moon rocks that were selected in situ and by hand no less. The LEM, already pushing it mass constraint wise, was a tank compared to this contraption. A thimble too much of regolith and you're not coming back. The LEM allowed a lander which covered more ground faster than any robotic rover before or since.
Your seriously going to judge their plan based on virtually no details beyond an artist's rendition of a possible lunar lander?

GS is basically asking for its astronauts to dance barefoot atop a razor blade over the Pit... that's the margin you are talking about here.

What they are selling as their plan's biggest strength is actually a weakness. No new LV capability that will allow simpler, more robust missions farther afield like SLS for comparable amounts of money.
IF SLS were actually "comparable money" this might be true. Reality is that it will be the usual government work program over inflated costly boondoggle. NASA needs to get out of the transportation business.

Therefore GS's plan is more "Flags and Footprints" than Apollo itself was--because that's all the blasted thing will hold. In retrospect--Apollo allowed more real science than GS affords.
Remember, this is only phase A of Golden Spike's plan.

Were I a very wealthy investor, I would launch a Bigelow module to ISS, try to inherit that for a song--and put the other 6 billion into MCT and Skylon development.
Somehow I think the governments that run ISS would turn you down. Musk owns SpaceX, he might take your money, but your not getting the company. Good luck with Skylon.

Remember, the big arguement against SLS was that it was too expensive--and an alternative could be found.
It is too expensive and the argument is that alternatives already exist. No searching needed.
Well, here it is--and many folks seem to take a dim view of that and question its savings too.
You should actually read what the folks on those forums are saying. They aren't questioning the savings. They are questioning where the investments will come from. GS is asking for a lot of money up front, but still a small percentage of what NASA would need to do the same mission.

In fact, that's why I wasn't really excited by the Golden Spike announcement on Thursday - No big investors announced with it. Just more dreamers I fear.

As the saying still goes - "No bucks, No Buck Rodgers".
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote