Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV

On 9 Jul 2005 08:43:50 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Will McLean"
<mclean1382@xxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

>> >Yes and No. The Apollo system was poorly optimized for extended surface
>> >stays. It's possible to considerably improve the exploration payoff
>> >even if you still use large expendable launchers.
>>
>> Of course, it's possible to improve it, and even "considerably"
>> improve it. But that's setting a ridiculously low bar, given how
>> horrifically expensive it was for the exploration return. That
>> doesn't mean that it's possible to make it affordable or sustainable
>> over the long term. Will people really think that it's worth over a
>> billion dollars to send less than half a dozen government employees to
>> the moon, a couple times a year?
>
>Evidently. People have been willing to spend in that ballpark each year
>to keep the manned space program going since Apollo. The payoff has
>been jobs, pride and prestige, some technology improvement and a modest
>amount of science.
>
>So a similar effort with with a somewhat greater payoff looks
>sustainable.

For a while, until we realize that it's actually almost as pointless
as Shuttle and ISS. Those have been fueled largely by pork, but also
by overselling on the part of NASA, a game that can no longer be
played with them. Now they've shifted to a new false promise, and it
will come to the same end as them, and Apollo.

There was a reason we built Shuttle (in addition to the need to give
NASA something to do after Apollo). It was to make it more affordable
to get into space, though it failed at that goal. NASA will only be
able to sustain its current path and budgets as long as people don't
come to realize that there are better ways to do things, something
that the private sector will be demonstrating long before they
actually return NASA astronauts to the moon.
.

Relevant Pages