Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
I think there are plenty of Apollo ideas worth emulating, but a human Mars flyby without a landing? Duh. Maybe if you landed on one of the moons, but how long would you stay and what would your return trajectory be? It would be safer to just land on Mars and enjoy a little gravity and radiation shielding rather than spending the equivalent time in space.
Sorry to sound as if I’m casting doubt on your article, Keith. It’s more an expression of “impending announcement fatigue”.
Boyd, one good thing about this (rumor though it still is at the moment), from the Mars Society perspective, is that it involves a return to the Moon as a step towards Mars, rather than a substitute for it. If Mars is still on the table (however tenuously), that means MS still has a function.
NASA needs to stop wasting billions of dollars on advanced launch vehicle concepts that get nowhere! NASA should choose SpaceX as it’s launch vehicle provider in the future and to financially support them. SpaceX have already adopted the Saturn V type architecture for their Falcon V rocket which will have engine out capability. If you don’t believe me, check out SpaceX’s website at http://www.spacex.com. SpaceX say that they can build and launch a Saturn V class SHLLV for less than $1 billion. This is the only way to get humans on Mars within a decade!!!
I chose the term “rumor” to reflect the fact that the Administration’s plan has not yet been released, and as an expression of the “impending announcement fatigue” I mention in the comments above.
But maybe you’re right, and “rumor” wasn’t the best choice of words. Since I have as yet nothing official from the Administration against which to evaluate the accuracy of the information you present in your article as to what is in the plan, perhaps “hearsay evidence” would have been a more accurate term.
I think there are plenty of Apollo ideas worth emulating, but a human Mars flyby without a landing? Duh. Maybe if you landed on one of the moons, but how long would you stay and what would your return trajectory be? It would be safer to just land on Mars and enjoy a little gravity and radiation shielding rather than spending the equivalent time in space.
Wednesday at NASA Headquarters.
Any thing which says that we need to go to the moon to practice for Mars is just plain stupid. On the other hand two paralell programs I could see.
BWS
Sorry to sound as if I’m casting doubt on your article, Keith. It’s more an expression of “impending announcement fatigue”.
Boyd, one good thing about this (rumor though it still is at the moment), from the Mars Society perspective, is that it involves a return to the Moon as a step towards Mars, rather than a substitute for it. If Mars is still on the table (however tenuously), that means MS still has a function.
NASA needs to stop wasting billions of dollars on advanced launch vehicle concepts that get nowhere! NASA should choose SpaceX as it’s launch vehicle provider in the future and to financially support them. SpaceX have already adopted the Saturn V type architecture for their Falcon V rocket which will have engine out capability. If you don’t believe me, check out SpaceX’s website at http://www.spacex.com. SpaceX say that they can build and launch a Saturn V class SHLLV for less than $1 billion. This is the only way to get humans on Mars within a decade!!!
Our articles are not rumors.
We are in Washington DC.
You are not.
What a childish thing to say, Keith.
I chose the term “rumor” to reflect the fact that the Administration’s plan has not yet been released, and as an expression of the “impending announcement fatigue” I mention in the comments above.
But maybe you’re right, and “rumor” wasn’t the best choice of words. Since I have as yet nothing official from the Administration against which to evaluate the accuracy of the information you present in your article as to what is in the plan, perhaps “hearsay evidence” would have been a more accurate term.