Well, pretty much all they really have in common is that both are phallus shaped. The Orion was supposed to be nuclear powered IIRC and the wings on the Hydra are really solar panels
I understand the "wings" on the Hydra/MCT are solar panels. I simply meant the rendering reminded me of renderings of the Orion shuttle from the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
As for being nuclear, that is not mentioned in the movie, nor is the name Orion. All of that appeared in the model kit and other behind-the-scenes material.
One must also be careful when dropping the name "Orion" in regard to spacecraft, as NASA has one in development, and Dyson's proposal was definitely nuclear powered.
But, it's a two-edged sword, because who could control an unanswerable CEO, if she/he gets lured to the "dark side"?
You're right. No government would ever run amok. It's always those foaming-at-the-mouth CEOs.
Personally, I don't understand what the difference is between a mission to the Moon and a mission to Mars, other than distance and duration.
As Sojourner already noted, the relationship between planets is dynamic. Even if we ignore that for a minute, how does a space station somewhere in between help? The station needs to be routinely supplied; it's not another Earth that is independent. Roadside inns don't work in spaceflight.
Perhaps you are suggesting some sort of supply convoy, which has been addressed in many studies. A fleet of ships might be sent, or a supply vessel might be sent on ahead to wait at Mars, or even be intercepted along the way as part of a complex navigation scheme.
Creating a Moon colony first has many advantages. It is much closer, affording the possibility of an abort back to Earth if anything catastrophic happens. The proximity also means there are potential financial returns, while Mars is just too far away with current technology. And there's the experience factor. Long duration missions on the Moon, or even a permanent colony could be very valuable in testing various survival technologies.
