Why didn't he fix it, then, so it would work? Obama cancelled it and didn't substitute any other manned program. That is a matter of public record.
Ironically now, everyone at the time of the moon landing thought that by 2010, humans would be thriving in space. Unfortunately for us, to succeed, one first has to try.
first time in decades when we didn't have some manned space program either in progress or on the drawing board being funded. Now it's just pipe dreams and wishes.
Quote:first time in decades when we didn't have some manned space program either in progress or on the drawing board being funded. Now it's just pipe dreams and wishes.
The space shuttle system only gave us very low orbit manned access to space and we had no deep space access since the Apollo program ending.
The Russian and very soon commerce businesses still allow low earth orbit access and the Chinese now also have low manned low earth orbit access.
I would also not be surprise if we also now have access to low orbit in a black program
The big question in my mind is WHY have we never gone back to the moon? Certainly technology has advanced enough in 40 years to make a moon visit far less expensive. And with international cooperation it could be downright cheap!
Chemical fuels is likely to remain the heavy lifter in getting off the surface for very long time.
Yes there are other way such as push plate nuclear systems but they will not be allow inside the atmosphere .
A space elevator is not in the cards either for the next hundred years or more.
Sorry there are a lot of ways to tap nuclear power to be able to place thousands of tons anywhere in the solar system from the earth surface and had been since the 60s however there is no way that any of them will be allow to be used in the atmosphere where the shear power is most needed.
Hell every time a small probe is launch with a small nuclear "battery" on board to provide electric power it draw protests.
Time to ignore protesters who are wrong. However, in addition to nuclear propulsion, ionic is easy to do, and will conserve fuel. You just can't use it for takeoff and landing.
Quote:Time to ignore protesters who are wrong. However, in addition to nuclear propulsion, ionic is easy to do, and will conserve fuel. You just can't use it for takeoff and landing.
The delta V and the energy needed to get through the atmosphere and into orbit is a very large part of the total energy budget for trips to anywhere in the solar system.
You are not providing a lot of aid by adding nuclear power for short trips such as to the moon for example or likely to Mars after reaching earth orbit.
Side note you are not likely to be allow nuclear rockets in landing or taking off from Mars either.
Ionic could be used for everything except near planets.
Quote:eIonic could be used for everything except near planets.
Yes and the technology is useful however it is not going to effect the cost of man missions.