Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8l1cf wrote

They want my money for a ground based solution not a station based solution. What they purpose is wasteful

−1

Anderopolis t1_jc9vc07 wrote

What do you think a ground based solution is?

Because an orbital tug is definitely not ground based.

2

ClioBitcoinBank t1_jcbncm8 wrote

By ground based solution I mean you accomplish 99% of the deorbit construction phase of the mission on the ground instead of sending up parts in the cargo missions and slowly building a deorbiter system or whatever you want to call it. Those same missions could siphon off fuel from the resupply mission upper stages, but a ground based solution might be to send a dedicated vehicle, purpose built for this mission. Imagine your going on a camping trip, you wouldnt assemble the tent and then walk it into the woods, you would take the tent into the woods in pieces, and assemble it there. I like the idea of Nasa sending a simply single mission vehicle to solve this problem, I jsut dont like that it would cost a ton of extra money for what basically boils down to a demolition job, demolition should be the cheapest and least reliably type of mission Nasa has ever conducted, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to cheap out.

1