Comments on: A minor miracle?

By: Space Politics » A step closer for a little extra for NASA

Space Politics » A step closer for a little extra for NASA — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:56:27 +0000

[…] Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) was the scheduled speaker at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon on Thursday, but with votes taking place on the Senate floor that morning, it wasn’t clear that he was going to make it—so much so that the luncheon organizers drafted a last-minute replacement, NASA administrator Mike Griffin. However, Nelson was able to get away and make it to the luncheon (after Griffin had started speaking) and he brought good news: the Senate had voted 75-22 to pass its version of a supplemental appropriations bill that, while primarily intended to fund military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, includes $200 million for NASA. […]

By: Space Politics » Maybe you need a better hope

Space Politics » Maybe you need a better hope — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:20:27 +0000

[…] here is on the FY2008 supplemental appropriations bill working its way through Congress, which has an extra $200 million for NASA in the Senate version (to be marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee today), but none in the House version. […]

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:09:02 +0000

“why not land IN THE OCEAN”

Why not land on land, so when the landing takes place, it’s over. You do not have to worry about the capsule sinking, you do not have to worry about loss of crew drowning, you do not have to worry about the loss of samples. You land on land and the mission is over, you do not have to marshal ships and planes to find it and load it onto a ship.

Granted the earth is 70 percent covered in water, but if NASA can’t hit a target the size of desert state like nevada how are they going to land on the moon or mars. Drop the capsule on USA somewhere, the astronauts can pop out get on their cell phones and with GPS can call in the location and get picked up, no need to worry about drowning the occupants.

If the soviets can drop a can from space for 30 years is it unrealist to believe NASA can also?>

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:28:03 +0000

I disagree with the way this money is being added

I disagree with with increasing NASA’s budget because the existing budget is mostly supporting highly inefficient organizational practises. The administravia side of NASA must shrink before the engineering side can grow.

By: gm

gm — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:24:27 +0000

“The AIAA thought of that”

yes, it’s the link I give in my article

“why not land IN THE OCEAN”

too expensive… good only for the (unlimited funds) Apollo project

By: Keith Cowing

Keith Cowing — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:16:52 +0000

Hey, here’s a concept: why not land IN THE OCEAN!!!

By: gm

gm — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:59:54 +0000

thinking again… the Orion’s TPS and the parachutes may act like wings giving some (limited) lifting force to the capsule, then, MY concept CAN (also) control (in part) the descent to have a much accurate (maybe, close to a few meters) Orion landing precision… …a really good concept, indeed…

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:35:54 +0000

The AIAA thought of that

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0405/event-06may05/pres/pres013.pdf

By: gm

gm — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:14:27 +0000

post edit: change “my concept can control the descent” with “my concept CAN’T control the descent”

By: gm

gm — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:11:05 +0000

my concept can control the descent, of course, but only the directions (that’s enough for a precision landing) the place for the (very small and light) electric engines and propellers are in the Orion’s sides and that needs only good engineers to design it