Time for the U.S. to Colonize the Moon and Mars.

The only thing that you can look into and PHYSICALLY SEE....is to check out a Google Earth group of Photos that show the tell tale signs of a Nuclear Pulse Detonation Engine Craft taking off from Area 51...or the Groom Lake Facility.....heading East and traveling around the entire planet without refueling and flying back over the Pacific and landing back at Groom Lake.

The time calculated by these Google Earth Sat. Pics tells us the velocity of this Secret U.S. Aircraft to be astounding.

The tell tale signs of a Nuclear Pulse Detonation Craft is tiny puffs of smoke spaced closely apart like pearls on a necklace.

Check it out.

AboveAlpha

 

And that wouldn't be a violation of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?

 

The treaty itself is useless if China actually goes there and does it and nobody else tries or is capable. What could anyone else do? Whine about it? That rarely gets good results with the voters, instead they'd vote in someone that demanded we compete for whatever was left...

 

I just post the facts and try to stay out of the Politics.

AboveAlpha

 

I think it's way too much of a stretch to use the Obamacare website as an example of why government should not be involved in building a moon-base. The United States government put 12 men on the moon. The United States government is the only organization to land anything on Mars. I would choose to land at the moon-base that gets built as soon as possible. That's the one that will require every capability at our disposal, not just the private ones.

 

A self-sustaining base on Earth would be a great idea to test the recycling and ISRU technologies needed for space colonisation. Somewhere in Antarctica maybe. Biosphere 2 proved that a self-sustaining base is possible, recycling its own energy, food, air, water, altough the first run was not without problems.

 

What a pile of rubbish! I have often seen these 'Nuclear Pulse etc' tell tales in the contrails of overflying passenger jets on regular flight-paths. Try pulling the other one...or educate yourself on varying atmospheric conditions.

 

The men sent to the Moon where led by a President JFK who would be considered a Center Right President by today's extreme Leftist Democratic Party.

The Apollo project was done by a far, far different, and far less corrupt and Liberal NASA than we have today.

The entire cost of the Apollo project, all of the moon shots combined, costs less than what we have spent on the ObamaCare web site so far, and that web site is STILL far from working.

If we put men like JFK back into Office, including the administrator and staff positions of NASA, then you might be justified in your claims here, but under Obama?

You'd be NUTS to put your life in the hands of a Government led by Obama/Reid/Pelosi and a NASA administered by Charles Bolden:

[video=youtube;aUNc9bWu_1I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUNc9bWu_1I[/video]

Number one priority is make Muslims feel good?!!!

That is political correctness gone wacko!

That Garbage will not colonize the moon.

If you even tried, it would only get good people killed.

Furthermore, the Apollo program DID rely quite heavily on American Industrial firms such as Grumman, Rocketdyne, Rockwell, Ratheon, Lockheed, Pratt&Whitney, ALCOA, Collins, General Electric, Dupont, Boeing, Morton-Thiokol, ...
-

 

How come? Apollo program cost was $25.4 billion at the time. In todays dollars it is estimated at between $100 and $200 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost

 

The cost of ObamaCare is already up to 2.5 Trillion!

Yet all we have to show for the spending thus far is a non-functioning Web Site!
http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/estimated-cost-of-obamacare-is-now-26.html

And you want these guys running a Lunar Colony Effort?

-

 

Ah, when you are talking about the whole Obamacare, not just the website, then of course it is more.

 

All we've gotten for our money so far is allot of empty promises, lies, and a web site that is grossly incomplete and does not work.

How would you like to land on the moon with a prefab Moon Base that is promises, lies, and a site that is grossly incomplete and does not work?

The JFK era Democrats and America Government and its Agencies can make it to the Moon, but Today's ObamaNation doesn't stand a chance in hell of colonizing it.

But Exxon, Dow, Lockheed, Boeing, Microsoft and Corell could.

-

 

Who do YOU think FUNDED "all those space craft and developed all the technologies need to get us to the Moon, probes on Mars and other planets and because of such R&D in the past we have GPS and Cell and Satellite Phones....and Telecommunications unthinkable just 3 decades ago." ...government is the answer. The private sector cannot invest more and more cash without some reasonable ROI.

It's great to dream about space exploration, colonizing the moon or Mars or wherever, but those dreams are rudely awakened when you talk about the necessary funding and this is the part I call reality...

 

I have no problem with private enterprise mining space to acquire He3 (very rare on Earth) if it funds further space exploration. I just object to using my tax dollars to pay for it. Why should the wealthy owners of a private enterprise profit from my earnings that I'd be forced to pay in taxation?

 

Why only US colonize moon and mars? Germany has the same goals.

 

I think one thing that's implicit in this thread is that even though many would love for the US to go back to space, it's unlikely to do so. The Chinese are more likely to end up owning the solar system than the US.

It's still a wide open frontier, so Germany is welcome to a piece of the action, but I think it's unlikely to do so for the same reasons that the US isn't likely to do anything.

 

Due to the enormous funding requirements and scope of effort these types of programs should be international...

 

Whether it's space exploration, or education, or infrastructure, etc. they become moot when the nation has little resources and mounting debt...kind of ties our hands...

 

International Government? ... or International Corporations?

Governments often don't play well together, corporation do compete, but they do so within the rules, modes, laws and traditions of Business Conduct, which usually involves allot less lying, cheating, stealing and killing than the interactions between national governments.

Governments have military ready to hand, day and night, 365, and "Think" in those terms of War/Peace as a norm. Corporations have defensive security, and very, very rarely, and usually only as rogue member of the community of Corporations, build armies and go to "War".

Colonizing Space will require Cooperation and Civilization that Governments do have have the laws, culture and traditions to provide.

Corporations do not build up the kinds ridiculous debts we see in Greece and America, because they don't and cannot play the silly Racial and Identity Group Bread and Circuses Pandering games we see from failed Governments.

Just more reasons that what ever happens, it will not be Governments, but International Corporations that achieve.

With the invention of Ethnocentric Marxism, Governments became fatally flawed.

-

 

Nonsense. Private industry is already planing to colonize Mars. Frankly if space colonies and space travel can't be done by private firms there is no future for space travel.

Yeah. Private industry are total screw ups. But you know what. When a business fails they go out of business. The successful business, the business that has the chit together keeps on going. When government screws up they just pour good money after bad. They don't get punished by market forces for doing a bad job.

 

I believe we should build non mobile bases on the ocean floor which can build mobile bases, regardless of climate change for both national fun and national profit.

 

External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion.



And its Potential for the Near Future.

Copied from a government website with restricted database viewing.
Original Source.
Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use.


J. A. Bonometti, P. J. Morton and G. R. Schmidt
NASA MSFC, TD40, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 35812
Joe. Bonomett@msfc. uasa. gov/ (256) 544-40 I9 / Fax: (256) 544-5926
Phillip.Morto~?~~.n~sfc. nasa.gov/ (256) 544-4613 / Fax: (256) 544-5926
Geo~~ge.Schlnit~t~~m~~~. nasa.gov/ (256) 544-6055 / Fax: (256) 544-5926

Abstract. This paper examines External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion (EPPP), a propulsion concept that derives its thrust from plasma waves generated from a series of small, supercritical fission/fusion pulses behind an object in space. For spacecraft applications, a momentum transfer mechanism translates the intense plasma wave energy into a vehicle acceleration that is tolerable to the rest of the spacecraft and its crew. This propulsion concept offers extremely high performance in terms of both specific impulse (1s~) and thrust-to-weight ratio, something that other concepts based on available technology cannot do. The political concerns that suspended work on this type of system (i.e. termination of Project ORION) may now not be as insurmountable as they were in 1965. The appeal of EPPP stems from its relatively low cost and reusability, fast interplanetary transit times, safety and reliability, and independence from major technological breakthroughs. In fact, a first generation EPPP system based on modern-day technology (i.e., GABRIEL - an evolutionary framework of EPPP concepts) may very well be the only form of propulsion that could realistically be developed to perform ambitious human exploration beyond Mars in the 21 st century. It could also provide the most effective approach for deterrence against collision between earth and small planetary objects - a growing concern over recent years.

INTRODUCTION
NASA is currently conducting research on advanced propulsion technologies capable of supporting ambitious human exploration of the solar system in the early part of the next century. Most research to date has been geared towards concepts that offer tremendous performance improvements over current systems. The only problem is that virtually all of these technologies, such as fusion, antimatter and beamed-energy sails, have fundamental scientific issues and practical weaknesses that must be resolved before they can be seriously considered for actual applications. For instance, fusion is limited by the fact that we are still far away from demonstrating a device having energy gains sufficient for commercial power, let alone space applications. Antimatter has much appeal because of its high energy density, but it is severely hampered by extremely low propulsion efficiencies and high costs of current production methods. Beamed energy offers great potential too, but requires materials far beyond current state-of-the-art and tremendous investment in ground/space-based power beaming infrastructure. Although we are optimistic that some of these issues will eventually be overcome, there is no guarantee that any of these technologies will be available by the first half of the next century. This state-of-affairs points to the disappointing fact that none of the advanced, high-power density propulsion concepts being considered by NASA could, with any degree of certainty, meet the goals and timetables of NASA’s own Strategic Plan. This is especially true in light of the conservative fiscal environment of the post-Apollo era, which could limit the sizable investment needed to resolve the fundamental issues associated with these concepts. Moreover, the cost for developing actual vehicles based on these technologies and their required infrastructure could realistically be on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. To obtain a quantum jump in propulsive capability by the early part of the next century, we must have safe, affordable systems with very high-power densities. Precedents suggest that any device engineered within the next 30 to 50 years should be based on the well-understood physics of today. The need for high power densities eliminates all but nuclear energy sources. The emphasis on known physics and affordability limits the scope still further to fission processes. Of the fission-based concepts that have been considered in the past (e.g., solid-core nuclear thermal, gas-core, internal and external nuclear pulse), only external nuclear pulse circumvents the Isp constraints imposed by containment of a heated gas, and provides the very high power densities needed for ambitious space transportation.

CP504, Space Technology and Applications International Forum-2000, edited by M. S. El-Genk 2000 American Institute of Physics l-56396-919-X1236
In the past, both internal and external pulse-engine concepts have been considered. Comparisons between these two approaches pointed to external pulse as the best candidate mainly because of its higher temperature limits and lower inert mass (Martin and Bond, 1979, Nance 1965). In addition, several researchers have investigated various forms of external momentum coupling. The most prominent examples are the standard pusher plate (Reynolds, 1972) the large lightweight sail/spinnaker (Solem, 1993) the rotating cable pusher (Cotter, 1971) and the combined pusher plate/magnetic field (Martin and Bond, 1979). The most familiar effort in the area of external pulse-engines was Project ORION, which took place between 1958 and 1965. The Air Force spent approximately 8 million dollars on the program over its first 6 years (Prater, 1963). ORION, which was classified throughout most of its brief lifetime, engaged an impressive group of physicists and engineers who carried out numerous studies and tests on most aspects of the vehicle. The basic ORION design is shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1.

The proposed ships were large (from 10 to 30 meters in diameter) since performance tended to increase with diameter of the ship’s pusher plate. This was due to the higher specific yields (i.e., bum up fractions) of larger pulse units, and the wider propellant interception angles at the minimum standoff distances allowed by material strength considerations. NASA funded several additional studies until 1965 when the entire effort was terminated - primarily for political reasons. The extensive analyses and experiments performed for ORION and subsequent studies indicate that spacecraft with high thrusts (-1 to 10 g accelerations) and high Isp’s (-10,000 set) could be built, even with 1960’s materials technology.

CONCEPT OVERVIEW
At first glance, a nuclear pulse rocket appears to be quite radical, although it is conceptually very simple. Thrust is produced by ejecting and detonating small, fission-driven, pulse units at the aft end of the vehicle. This “external” engine operation, where the fission process is unconfined by material walls, is relatively independent of the reaction rate, temperature, pressure and other characteristics of the fuel. In practice, the system must be operated in a pulsed mode to allow the transfer of energy into a practical acceleration of the ship, which is limited by human and equipment tolerances. The physics behind creating a highly efficient fission burst is well understood, and in a vacuum, it produces a shell of ionized particles with an extremely high radial velocity. Thus, this concept of “riding on a plasma wave” is appropriately termed External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion or EPPP.

Key to EPPP’s extraordinary performance are the facts that: (1) common materials can withstand an intense nuclear environment for very brief periods of time (i.e., nanoseconds), and (2) nuclear detonations are not only well understood, but also come much closer to achieving the maximum power density available from the fission process. Also, high thrust over a relatively short time imparts nearly optimum impulse to the vehicle for fast, efficient trajectories. In sharp contrast to the original ORION approach, recent analyses based on present-day considerations and technologies (e.g., dedicated in-space operation, low-energy pulse unit yields, low-ablation pusher plate materials) indicate that the performance advantages of EPPP could be applied to relatively small vehicles. If this is the case, then it is possible to develop small spacecraft that could carry human crews between Earth and Mars in just 1 to 3 months, as opposed to 6 to 12 months with chemical or nuclear thermal propulsion technology. In addition, EPPP would permit much more flexible return windows and eliminate the need for long stay times in the vicinity of Mars. Most importantly, EPPP provides a technology path leading to much higher Isp’s (-100,000 set) using larger vehicles and more energetic detonations (e.g., fission/fusion and fusion) which could ultimately be used to open up the entire solar system to human exploration. The main objection to EPPP has been the concern over nuclear contamination. Since modern-day practices would assuredly limit this concept strictly to space, radioactive contamination may not be as serious of issue as with ORION. Furthermore, the harsh environment of space has far more background radiation (particularly in the form of harmful gamma rays) than that produced by very small pulse units. Within 24 hours, the pulse unit’s ionized mass dissipates completely into the background of the nominal space plasma density. Depending on the pulse unit efficiency, the exhaust velocities of the radioactive particles could exceed solar escape velocity (certainly beyond that of earth escape). Thus, there is no residue or permanent contamination to the environment beyond the natural sun’s radiation.

Application #1: Human Interplanetary Exploration. There are two reasons for seriously considering EPPP as an option for future development. The first is its potential for human exploration. Since the early years of the space program, most human exploration studies have concentrated on either the Moon or Mars. Although it is recognized in NASA’s Strategic Vision that the ultimate goal is to extend human presence throughout the solar system and eventually the stars, only a negligible amount of effort has been devoted to these type of missions. EPPP provides a technology that would allow us to seriously consider missions to the outer planets. It would also enable dramatically shorter trip times to Mars and other nearer-term destinations. The propulsion concepts that have been traditionally considered for Mars missions are chemical propulsion based on 02/H2 combustion and solid-core nuclear thermal propulsion. Although the Isp of nuclear thermal (-900 set) is approximately twice that of chemical (-450 set), both systems suffer from the same limitations with regards to trip time and mission planning. The main advantage of nuclear thermal is its potential to reduce vehicle mass in low-earth orbit, thus reducing the number of heavy-lift vehicle launches. The performance that characterizes these two concepts favors Hohmann-type transfers into very slow heliocentric orbital trajectories. This narrows the available trajectories for return and necessitates long stays on the Mars surface while awaiting favorable return windows. This leaves the crew and equipment exposed to an extremely hostile environment for long periods of time - nominally 560 days surface stays with 170 to 200 day transit times (Kos, 199 . Cost is also significant, since earth launches are about half the mission budget in most conventional scenarios. Longer missions translate to larger payloads and more expendables, both of which increase launch requirements. EPPP can solve this problem with its much higher Isp (5,000 to 10,000 seconds), while still providing the high-thrust needed for fast orbit transfers. The result is higher energy transfer orbits, which could greatly reduce not only transit time, but permits broader return windows. This provides much more flexibility in mission planning and would not constrain the crew to long stay times on the Martian surface. It would also reduce the crew’s exposure to the highly radioactive space environment and long periods of weightlessness.

Application #2: Comet/Asteroid Deflection. The other and perhaps most compelling application for EPPP is its use in asteroid or comet defense. Collisions between the Earth and small planetary objects occur frequently, with the typical result being that the objects burn up in the atmosphere. However, there is a low, but not negligible, probability of a collision with objects of sufficient size to cause catastrophic damage or an extinction-scale event. Good risk management would dictate that some effort be placed on devising countermeasures, if possible. Past studies identified a number of possibilities, almost all of which entailed ground and space-based infrastructure more extensive than that envisioned for ballistic missile defense. Because of the limitations of current propulsion technology, these systems would require permanent deployment of interceptors in deep space in order to allow engagement at a sufficient distance from Earth. In addition, the low-impulse methods of altering the object’s trajectory, such as sails or electric thrusters, would probably not provide enough time for adequate trajectory alteration between detection and impact - especially in the case of a comet.

EPPP could be applied to the development of a much less expensive, purely ground-based deterrence system. If a likely catastrophic collision were identified, an EPPP-propelled interceptor could be launched into space using a conventional chemical launcher. It would have the power density necessary to rapidly travel to the target in time to force the threatening object from its collision course. The object’s course change might be performed using sails or electric thrusters. However, these schemes are very risky since their effectiveness depends on the body’s size, shape, speed, trajectory and many other properties. There is little room for error once the target is engaged, and the propulsion systems must operate reliably for very long durations to effect the change. Alternatively, the same EPPP system that propelled the interceptor could be used to move the target. Single or successive pulse detonations at a predetermined distance from the asteroid’s surface could be used to easily “nudge” the planetesimal and alter its course. The first wave of X-rays from the pulse would illuminate the planetesimal’s surface causing ablation and thrust parallel to the object’s projected area. The second wave of pulse fission products would produce another impulse in the same direction. This approach has important advantages. It does not require asteroid capture or attachment of a propulsion unit to a highly variable surface. Since the “thrust” is parallel to the object’s projected area, this approach is independent of the object’s relatively indeterminate mass distribution and angular momentum. Also, the amount of impulse delivered can be easily tailored to any asteroid by the number of pulses, detonation standoff distance, and type of pulse unit.

DESIGN CONCEPTS UNDER STUDY.
The realistic maximum Isp obtainable with fission-based EPPP is -100,000 seconds. However, this type of performance would only be possible with very large spacecraft. Such vehicles would be impractical until the cost of access to space dropped substantially or in-space manufacturing became available. Therefore, a more conservative approach has been taken by considering smaller vehicles with lower performance (Isp 10,000 seconds) using technology available in the near-term. This concept has been informally termed “GABRIEL.” The GABRIEL series includes an evolutionary progression of vehicle concepts that build upon the nearest-term implementation of EPPP. This concept roadmap eventually culminates in larger systems that employ more sophisticated methods for pulse initiation and momentum transfer. GABRIEL is characterized by the following four levels:
1. Mark I: Solid pusher plate and conventional shock absorbers (small size)
2. Mark II: Electromagnetic coupling incorporated into the plate and shocks (medium size)
3. Mark III: Pusher plate extensions such as canopy, segments, cables (large size)
4. Mark IV: External pulse unit driver such as laser, antimatter, etc. (large size)
All of these levels, besides the GABRIEL Mark I, require technology that is not currently available, but may be attainable for a second-generation vehicle. The Mark I (Fig. 2) is also the smallest and least expensive version, but suffers from the poorest performance (nominally 5,000 seconds and 4 million newtons of thrust).


Figure 2

Nonetheless, the Mark I has better Isp and thrust than any other known rocket system that could be reasonably developed within the next 20 years. Its heavy payload capacity and short trip times would significantly reduce the development challenges associated with manned spacecraft, as well as add extra safety margins through redundant systems, large reserve supplies and increased robustness. Interestingly, the same shielding used to protect the astronauts from solar flares could be used during engine operation (usually only a few hours at most), and the resulting radiation dose received would be much less than conventional multi-year missions. It is even conceivable that a vehicle with a performance as high as 4,000 seconds and 2 million newtons of thrust could be deployed and assembled in orbit using several Titan IV launch vehicles. Several technical issues and trades must be addressed in order to define even a Mark I vehicle. These are the type of pulse unit, its degree of collimation, detonation position and fissile bum-up fraction. These issues dictate propulsion efficiency and drive design of the vehicle’s mechanical elements. Another issue is the pusher plate-plasma interaction. The amount of ablation experienced during each pulse could be significant and would dramatically affect Isp and thrust levels. Other issues include shock absorber efficiency, timing and dynamic response. Reusability will be important, so component wear must be kept to a minimum. In-space assembly, earth-to-orbit launch packaging and pulse unit safety and loading also must be addressed. Most of these issues have been investigated in the past and, although engineering challenges still remain, there are no formidable technical problems to overcome. The ultimate hurdle in developing EPPP would be political in nature. Although GABRIEL does not face any insurmountable technical or financial obstacles, it does face one of perception. Use of nuclear material is almost always met by vehement opposition. However, there have been some important changes in the political landscape that may afford EPPP a chance where ORION failed. The Cold War is over and the fears of a large-scale nuclear conflict have abated somewhat. The existing ban on nuclear weapons in allow peaceful uses of EPPP-type techniques below certain energies. space actually has provisions that may. Even if EPPP is still viewed as too controversial for development in the near future, it would be worthwhile to begin reexamining it within the context of modem technologies and capabilities. Unlike physics, the sociopolitical environment does change, and a propulsion system with this tremendous capability may be needed - possibly on rather short notice (Fig. 3). The fact that many of the advanced propulsion concepts being researched now may never move beyond the “proof-of-principle” phase suggests that EPPP may be the only option we have for very ambitious human exploration of space in the foreseeable future.

SUMMARY.
The case for reexamining nuclear pulsed propulsion and more modem embodiments of the EPPP concept has been made. The modem version of this propulsion concept, GABRIEL, is distinguished by its superior performance (i.e., both high Isp and high thrust-to-weight), its practicality (borrowing from only existing technologies), benign environmental impact (i.e., dedicated in space operation and reduced crew radiation exposure) and its economics (i.e., small size and reusability). More advanced systems with much better performance could be developed as technology in key areas mature. Improved performance can be achieved through advanced materials, magnetic fields (both on the pusher plate and along the shocks), novel momentum transfer schemes, and pulse unit drivers. However, it is the rationale for considering EPPP that is most important. EPPP offers a highly effective method for deflecting comets or asteroids. Trips to and from Mars may be significantly shorter and safer than with conventional propulsion concepts. The flexibility of missions employing EPPP is enormous, allowing massive payloads, emergency return capability and routine transit from a reusable vehicle. Beyond Mars, missions to the asteroid belt, Jupiter and other planets are possible with the same basic system. Timing for development of EPPP may also be better than during the days of ORION. In many ways, international cooperation is more prevalent, and could conceivably be extended to the peaceful application of unused nuclear material. Stockpiles of fissionable material can be permanently disposed of and environmental contamination is negligible if used outside the earth’s magnetosphere. Finally, the human race is at the threshold of truly exploring, developing resources and permanently inhabiting space. GABRIEL may provide the best means of accomplishing this in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
The authors would like to thank George Dyson for providing much of the background documents on the ORION program, and Peggy for providing the many final proof readings and grammatical corrections.

REFERENCES.
Cotter, T. P., “Rotating Cable Pusher for Pulsed-Propulsion Space Vehicle,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA-4666-MS
UC-33, Propulsion Systems and Energy Conversion TID-4500, 1971.
Kos, L., “Human Mars Mission: Transportation Assessment,‘? AIAA-98-5 118, 1998.
Martin, A. R., Bond, A., “Nuclear Pulse Propulsion: A Historical Review of an Advanced Propulsion Concept,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 32, pp.283-3 10, 1979.
Nance, J. C., “Nuclear Pulse Propulsion”, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, February, 1965.
Prater, Lt., F. A. Gross, Nuclear Impulse Propulsion, Project 3775, (ORION), USAF document, 1963.
Reynolds, T. W., “Effective Specific Impulse of External Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Systems”, NASA Technical Note, NASA TN D-6984, 1972.
Serber, R., The Los Alamos Primer, Berkley CA, University of California Press, 1992.
Solem, J. C., “Medusa: Nuclear Explosive Propulsion for Interplanetary Travel,” Journal ofthe British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 46, pp. 21-26,1993.

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Yeah...real rubbish eh?

I love it when people who are not in the loop or even have an ability to use Google state something does not exist.

AboveAlpha

 

NASA will no longer be in the business of placing Men into orbit as this will be done by the PRIVATE SECTOR.

Sure...there will always be Government Subsidies....but there are very real LARGE PROFITS for private industry in the eventual Colonization of the Moon and Mars.

It is not a question of whether or not this will happen....it is just a question of WHEN it will happen and the sooner the better.

It would seem that a strong U.S. Economy coincides with Lofty Goals specific to Space.

AboveAlpha

 

Colonization of the Moon and Mars as well as eventually other large moons orbiting Jupiter would be INTERNATIONAL....but the U.S. needs to lead to get this started.

We have certain....extremely advanced classified propulsion systems that are multiple decades if not perhaps close to a century ahead of any other country.

The problem will be getting the Pentagon to release such High Technology for Interplanetary Exploration.

When I first agreed to do my...JOB....I was told by a Family Member who also worked in the same field that I occasionally do now.....and he said...."Whatever or however advanced you might think or dreamed certain Secret and Classified Technology we are sitting on is....multiply it by 1000....and you still won't be close."

I thought he was just trying to scare the New Kid.....and figured it was just an overstatement.

Then I grew up......FAST.....real fast.

AboveAlpha

 

I don't believe so. One should note, that germany and ESA for that matter leads in Aviation and germany plans missions to moon and mars. The ExoMars Mission for example. I'm ok with partnership programs but not a leading nation. I dont think USA has the economic strength to pull up such projects. I also don't think private corporations can do it. I simply dont trust them.