|
Keep debates civil. |
Sounds more like two agencies came together and made a deal, rather than two governments. Especially when in the article it brings up other projects falling from favor with this administration. Nice try though.
E: It also seems as that Russia gets more out of the deal than the US. We use their rockets, which we'll pay for. We'll also have to pay for the cargo we send up and the astronauts at a price far higher than normally acceptable. We have our own rockets that we could use, correct? Also, blaming Obama for shooting for Mars and skipping the moon isn't fair and you should retract that. EVERYONE is shooting for Mars. NASA would rather go to Mars than back to the moon.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 28 2017 10:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Sounds more like two agencies came together and made a deal, rather than two governments. Wat? This is pretty much just nonsense.
On September 28 2017 10:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Especially when in the article it brings up other projects falling from favor with this administration. Nice try though. You mean reversing Obama's "Moon stupid, let's dick around with other stuff" plans? Yeah, the Trump administration did what any sane person would do. And suddenly Roscosmos and ESA are on board, surprise surprise.
On September 28 2017 10:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: E: It also seems as that Russia gets more out of the deal than the US. We use their rockets, which we'll pay for. We'll also have to pay for the cargo we send up and the astronauts at a price far higher than normally acceptable. We have our own rockets that we could use, correct? Russian technology, American money. Same old story. As it so happens, Russian technology just so happens to be quite good for building a moon station compared to what the US has. Station building technology is just flat out superior in Russia, and as far as launching rockets go, using Proton and Angara makes more sense in a lot of situations than Atlas or Delta IV Heavy or SLS for moon missions. It's likely both will see light though, and maybe even some of the newer rockets if they ever develop the ability to launch those kinds of missions.
Also Energia 5 which is at least another decade off had seen some interest, though not mentioned in this article.
On September 28 2017 10:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Also, blaming Obama for shooting for Mars and skipping the moon isn't fair and you should retract that. EVERYONE is shooting for Mars. NASA would rather go to Mars than back to the moon. None of this is true, Obama was a dunce on space, and I take nothing back. Only Congress tempered Obama's stupidity in forgoing moon missions. Roscosmos and ESA didn't sign up on Obama's Mars stupidity because they rightly saw it as premature.
And besides, DSG is a great gateway to a future Mars launch, so it's not like it's even a setback to go Moon first.
|
Conversation is ended. We're never going to see eye to eye on anything space related. It was a pleasure thus far. Good day sir.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I mean, if you argue feels over reals then yes, I'm going to call you out on it. And that's sort of what you've been doing. The facts simply don't agree with what you've been saying, so there really isn't any "debate" per se here in the first place.
Yes, you like Obama and don't like to see his policies criticized. I get that. He was a pretty shitty space president though.
|
|
I was seeing posts on FB about it and I was getting confused. I guess it's Friday over there, so it's correct?
|
|
I'm confused...6EDT has already passed, right?
|
It's tonight at 0030 EST.
|
Thank you good sir. 2330 here I suppose then. Kinda excited.
|
So it seems Lockheed Martin is adopting Robert Zubrin's idea for Mars more less without the structures.
Mr. Musk’s tweets suggest that the giant rocket has slimmed to a diameter of 9 meters, or about 30 feet. The original design was 12 meters in diameter, with 42 individual engines powering the booster stage. His reference to “some unexpected applications” could be how SpaceX expects to generate enough revenue to pay for the rocket’s development.
SpaceX also will not be getting to Mars as quickly as Mr. Musk originally forecast. The company had planned to launch one of its Dragon 2 capsules without people, to Mars in 2018. (The capsule is under development for taking astronauts to the International Space Station.) This mission, called Red Dragon, was intended to demonstrate that SpaceX’s technique of using thrusters at supersonic speeds to slow down a spacecraft — essentially the same technology it uses to land the boosters of its Falcon 9 rockets — would work on Mars as well. The Red Dragon capsule was to be bigger and heavier than anything NASA has landed on Mars.
But in February, the launch date slipped to 2020. In July, Mr. Musk acknowledged that landing thrusters had been removed from the capsule design, and that appeared to mark the end of Red Dragon.
SpaceX is not the only company with proposals for the red planet. A few hours before Mr. Musk’s talk on Friday, Lockheed Martin provided an update of its own Mars mission vision, called Mars Base Camp. Compared to Mr. Musk’s ambitions, the Lockheed Martin plan seems quaint and slow. It would not head to Mars until 2028, it would take only six astronauts and the first trip would not even land on Mars but instead circle the red planet for a year before returning to Earth.
From Mars orbit, astronauts could control robotic explorers like rovers more easily.
Mars Base Camp is also more of a suggestion to NASA of what the agency could do than a corporate strategy for Lockheed Martin. And unlike Mr. Musk’s dreams, Mars Base Camp would not require new, unproven business plans or new technologies. Lockheed Martin officials said that their plans would fit within the NASA budget, building on the agency’s plans to put a space station high above the moon. This week, the Russian space agency announced that it would collaborate with NASA on this lunar space station, called the Deep Space Gateway.
In this year’s update, Lockheed Martin officials described a lander that would take astronauts to the Martian surface on a follow-up mission.
Source
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Wow, those are certainly some artist impressions!
Rumor has it FH is delayed btw. Again.
|
|
|
|
Next version won't require legs, working on next version of dragon will simply dock on it's own.
|
|
The first BFR ship will start to be built next year and probably completed in about 5 years.
|
|
|
|