Whichever is more expensive. -R
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM Henry Vanderbilt <
hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is that a wind tunnel, or a particle accelerator?
On 11/10/2016 12:20 PM, Randall Clague wrote:
Europa is good and hard; that should soak up lots of money. After all,near-
don't we need a Mach 150 hydrogen atmosphere wind tunnel to validate the
TPS?
-R
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:28 AM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The current fig leaf is the test flight around the moon, then Europa.
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 07:26 -0600, Nels Anderson wrote:
> Assuming, as I personally think likely, that Orion/SLS survives the
> presidential transition unscathed, what will be its ostensible
> termfor
> application? Surely ARM will be dead, since the only kind words
> itit's
> in government circles come from the departing
> administration. Congress
> mumbles about returning to the moon, but then it would have to
> allocate
> money for a lander (the great thing about Mars as a goal is that
> far enough in the future that you can pretend you're going thereasteroid)?
> without
> confronting the cost). So, what's left? Keep up the Mars talk and
> send
> astronauts to a cis-lunar hab (a bit like ARM without the
> ESA pays for a lunar lander (don't see its budget stretching thatof
> far)?
> Does Trump talk his buddy Vlad Putin into supplying a lander? Find
> ways
> to make Orion keep slipping while launching lots of outer-solar-
> system
> probes on SLS?
>
> Or is this conundrum just evidence that my premise -- the survival
> Orion/SLS -- is faulty, despite clear Congressional support?
>
