|
Post by echnaton on Feb 2, 2010 10:35:13 GMT -4
In my understanding it would only if there were significant resources there to exploit. The most needed item would be fuel. If we could lift an unfueled deepspace craft to lunar orbit and bring the fuel up from the moon, it might be cheaper than a fully fueled launch from earth. That is assuming we are using conventional chemical powered rockets.
Other proposed methods of powering a ship, such as scaled up electrically powered engines like those used to control satellites, would not benefit from a stop on the moon. A physicist I spoke with a few years ago, who was working on the electrically powered motor, though Bush's idea for a moon base would slow down the development of a mission to Mars.
|
|
|
Post by space on Feb 5, 2010 23:41:38 GMT -4
space program must be continued !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Feb 11, 2010 17:51:06 GMT -4
I'm interested in Jay's opinion on the subject. Hint hint!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 11, 2010 18:31:46 GMT -4
I think Jay commented on this subject on BAUT or in a different thread here.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Mar 3, 2010 12:28:17 GMT -4
2010 This is the last year for the space shuttle also. I read Nasa will have to pay $41 million per astronaut to have them return to the International Space Station via the Soyuz. In1986 the airforce awarded hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of the new shuttle with scramjet engines to achieve 25 X speed of sound right off of the runway. Maybe they will unvail such a aerospace plane soon.
|
|