I posted some pretty good comments on that Space Review article. I post as Chad O. Had to break it down to someone who thought they knew what they were talking about. Mister smarty pants thinks he knows everything.
:lol:
:lol:
I posted some pretty good comments on that Space Review article. I post as Chad O. Had to break it down to someone who thought they knew what they were talking about. Mister smarty pants thinks he knows everything.
:lol:
A link to article posted by Orbinaut Pete on the ChatBox:What about WISE? Why don't they just extend the WISE mission? Is it limited by fuel or power?
Musk says provisional concepts for a deep space architecture were outlined as “brainstorming ideas” by Markusic. “The only thing SpaceX is intending to do for sure in the long term is to try to move toward super heavy lift,” Musk says. The key element of this, as outlined in Markusic’s presentation, is development of the Merlin 2 engine.
NASA will be listening when scientists present their recommendations for the next decade of astrophysics research Friday, but some of the proposed missions could be at the mercy of soaring costs on the $5 billion successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.
...
Spaceflight Now: NASA says JWST cost crunch impeding new missions:
Some interesting reading. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSST"]Large Synoptic Survey Telescope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] and [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFIRST[/ame] come out as top prioroties. Their wide FOV contrasts markedly to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST"]James Webb Space Telescope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].
The small field of view of JWST would render it incapable of carrying out the prime WFIRST program of dark energy and exoplanet studies, even if it were used exclusively for this task.
A presidential task force released its recommendations Tuesday on how to best invest $40 million in aid for Florida's Space Coast workforce as the space shuttle program is retired next year.
...
Because of the on-going dispute over the future of human space exploration, I have been reminded of the longstanding perception that in the 1960s NASA’s Apollo program enjoyed great public support. That is a misconception. The belief that Apollo enjoyed enthusiastic support during the 1960s and that somehow NASA has lost its compass thereafter still enjoys broad appeal.
...
Polls in the 1960s also consistently ranked spaceflight near the top of those programs to be cut in the federal budget. Most Americans seemingly preferred doing something about air and water pollution, job training for unskilled workers, national beautification, and poverty before spending federal funds on human spaceflight.