I'll be honest, I speak my mind and I say it plainly. Now I can definitely be wrong, so back your opinion with facts or theories.
Anyone ever hear the term "To big to fail"? It is a term that was spread around during the recession of 2008 that referred to banks that were to big to fail. This meant if those banks did eventually fail, it might plunge America into a full blown financial depression.
Lets fast forward a decade to 2018. Companies like ULA and Orbital ATK (now NG) have done very little to innovate ULA's plan is to go with the Vulcan which will still cost more then the private aerospace companies' alternative. Their one saving grace is the ACES upper stage could drastically reduce prices for payloads to LMO if it is done as joint missions with other companies. Orbital's (NG) Omega rocket reuses the same booster tech from the space shuttle which has been shown to be more expensive to refurbish then create new SRBs. Orbital also has shown a history of not being able to use their own rockets for CRS missions. All indications is that those rockets can't meet current market prices and definitely won't be able to meet market prices when the next generation of rockets are developed. The SLS is WAAAAAAY over budget and will cost WAAAAAY more per launch then the next generation of rockets. In my opinion, the only reason to keep SLS funded is because it's further along then the alternatives, but when the alternatives start flying, the SLS will instantly become obsolete. Of course cynical people think the real reason SLS is around is because of corrupt congressmen that are ignoring nation interest in favor of jobs in their state and getting re-elected.
Now allot of people want to go to mars. Humans have never been there.
Allot of people want to go to the moon in preparation of going to mars. This has merit.
What seems to have absolutely no merit is building a Deep Space Gateway first.
If the purpose of going to the moon is to test technology for mars, don't we need to know what we need to send to the surface of the moon before we build a station to support it?
150 tons to the lunar surface could be done by the BFR. 20-30 tons could be done with ACES. 5 tons could be done with a current rocket. Getting payloads directly to the lunar surface won't be a problem. Some architectures require in-orbit refueling. Any station doing any support would greatly differ depending on the number of items sent.
The other major argument for the DSG is for missions into deep space. In theory this is a great idea but it depends on one very important ability. The ability to EASILY make fuel on the moon is the only redeeming factor of the DSG. Lets be honest, there is proof that there is water in some of the polar craters and there are studies to produce pure oxygen from oxides in lunar rockets.
Here is the key point, studies and theories are far from practical and functioning technologies. Could we make fuel from water on the moon, probably. Will it be cost effective or scale-able? Maybe?
In my opinion, we shouldn't build the DSG until/if we prove that making fuel on the moon is financially viable.
It is also odd to keep hearing the chicken and egg argument for the DSG. Basically the argument is that we need the DSG because we have the SLS and we need to develop the DSG to need the SLS. This argument is pure circular reasoning.
In the end, we're just making excuses of us to be dependable on the SLS. Boeing, Lockheed, and Orbital ATK (NG) are trying to milk it for as much as they can. Making everyone dependent on them makes them money and gives no results.
So, please tell me why we need a DSG.
Submitted July 10, 2018 at 03:06AM by macktruck6666 https://ift.tt/2L1zum1
No comments:
Post a Comment