Commentary on politics, science, science in politics, and politics in science.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
NASA Jupiter DIRECT vs. ARES: a no-brainer for the USA, but a no-go for USA politicians
NASA "rebels" Jupiter DIRECT system is safer, would cost $8b to develop, vs $35b for ARES, would lower cost-to-orbit from $32k/kg to $5k/kg, and can be built sooner, with existing technology. Also, the space station would have cost $1b to build with DIRECT, versus $100b with the Space Shuttle. Will we go with DIRECT? Probably not - it's less "politically viable". Thanks, Congress!