Yeah, those deadlines and timeframes have worked out really well for human space exploration over the 40 years we’ve spent in LEO since Apollo.

[rolls eyes]

“The FY2011 budget lays out R&D projects but the objectives are pretty nebulous”

The budget calls out technology demonstration missions and robotic precursor missions with specific deadlines. How is that “nebulous”?

Don’t make things up.

“… do exploration in a timely manor [sic].”

In this context, it’s “manner”, not “manor”. Is English not your first language?

“You must be a lawyer. I never said that you used hearsay to claim that NASA was violating an act of congress.”

You accused me of doing what the other poster did. And they used hearsay to claim that NASA was violating an act of congress.

“What documentation do you have that amendments to unrelated bills, ‘often, even usually” are rejected or thrown out because they are unrelated?”

Any idiot can go to THOMAS and compare a few bills at different stages in the legislative process to see this for themselves.

Heck, even LeMieux’s amendment to the FAA bill — the very topic of this thread — got axed for this reason.

“I would think it would be hard to say that these are the will of the Congress.”

If they’re not expressions of the will of members of Congress, then who the heck wrote or approved those drafts? Legislative faeries?

“Resorting to name calling?”

No, you admitted yourself that you’re a troll. You wrote:

“…it’s so much fun to pluck your strings.”

I’m just calling a spade a spade.

“Two people can look at the same set of “facts” and still reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that you can’t accept that.”

No, I readily accept opinions. But you (and others) repeatedly present opinions as facts when they’re not. That’s making things up.

“Quite often you resort to taking comments out of context to set up your strawmen,”

Directly quoting another post is not setting up “strawmen”.

“bullying,”

Calling a spade a spade is not “bullying”.

“mocking and general disrespect to the other person.”

This from a troll who uses insulting variations of other posters’ screennames, who admits that he likes to “pluck [other posters’] strings”, and who thinks its “better” to make other posters “look foolish in the process”?

Please…

“I’m just giving it back to you in a way that I hope others will find amusing”

No one said such about any of your posts in this thread.

“and if I can make you look foolish in the process, all the better.”

Again with the admissions of trolling?

Really?

Ugh…

as a small gov’t civil libertarian I know markets are better

Followed by a bunch of central planning and pseudo-engineering drivel.

Again, as a small gov’t civil libertarian I know markets are better but markets and governance function best when both apply the right balance.

To fuse NASA helter skelter into Dot Space is not the best plan.

I support the SIX PRO NASA SENATORS !!!

Sierra Nevada:

Dream Chaser (like Dynasoar concept an alternative to DIRECT concept
(see:astronautix.com) but not too keen on this hybrid propulsion system.

Show where this EELV (throw away) stack system is cost effective, operational and can effectively scale up from SS1 to capacity shown ?

SpaceDevs Dream Chaser – Hybrid Propulsion

-Based on our proven hybrid rocket propulsion technology
-Over 10 years of development
-Over 300 firings
-Based on motors designed for SpaceShipOne (SS1)
-Human flight rated motors
-Hybrid propellants are safe, non-toxic, storable & human flight tested
-Propellants: nitrous oxide (N20) & rubber (HTBP)
-Common Space Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion Modules (SVPMs)
-Modular construction simplifies production and handling
-Throttleable & restartable
-Thrust vectoring control (TVC) by N2O injection; no nozzle gimbals
-Reaction Control System (RCS) uses N2O

SPACE X:
Like the propulsion system but is it rugged enough robust for recovery and turnaround deployment ? More sport car than space locomotive

The main engine, called Merlin 1C, was developed internally at SpaceX, drawing upon a long heritage of space proven engines. The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin 1C was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.

Propellant is fed via a single shaft, dual impeller turbo-pump operating on a gas generator cycle. High pressure kerosene fuel flows through the walls of the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle before being injected into the combustions chamber. This provides significant cooling, permitting the engine to operate at a higher level of performance. The turbo-pump also provides the high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic actuators, eliminating the need for a separate hydraulic power system.
Additionally, actuating the turbine exhaust nozzle provides roll control during flight.

Combining these three functions into one device, and verifying its operation before the vehicle is allowed to lift off, provides significant improvement in system-level reliability.

Sea Level Thrust : 512 kN (115,000 lbf)
Vacuum Thrust: 569 kN (128,000 lbf)
Sea Level Isp: 275s
Vacuum Isp: 304s

With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin 1C is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and on par with the Saturn V F-1.

Orbital Sciences Corp.
Yawn… another robotica delivery system. Need to be a midget to fit this system for HSF.

Medium class space launch vehicle utilizes proven systems from Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur product lines Rocket incorporates both solid and liquid stages designed to achieve a 98% or greater launch reliability.

Paragon Space Development: This is great but this won’t happen unless it’s delivered, deployed and working on-site. Same for the Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) which again needs to be delivered, deployed, powered and working on site reliably.

Space life support systems developer

Boeing/Bigelow Partnership: Ok, but beach balls spring leaks, shade-sun-shade-sun hope it holds up in space for long periods. Didn’t MiR have pressure problems and that was a rigid habitat. How many inflatable stadium roofs have changed to ridged roofs. Do inflatables structures have long life spans ?? Replacement/repair costs. Besides the market is on soil firma, EARTH-MOON-ASTEROID-MARS etc.

Space Habitiat Developer

Blue Origin:
Aerospike engines tech. button type DCXA maybe linear old X-33 ? Rather ambitious look what happened to those programs-please !!

Program Overview:
Blue Origin is developing New Shepard, a rocket-propelled vehicle designed to routinely fly multiple astronauts into suborbital space at competitive prices. In addition to providing the public with opportunities to experience spaceflight, New Shepard will also provide frequent opportunities for researchers to fly experiments into space and a microgravity environment.

Mission
The New Shepard vehicle will consist of a pressurized Crew Capsule (CC) carrying experiments and astronauts atop a reliable Propulsion Module (PM). Flights will take place from Blue Origin’s own launch site, which is already operating in West Texas. New Shepard will take-off vertically and accelerate for approximately two and a half minutes before shutting off its rocket engines and coasting into space. The vehicle will carry rocket motors enabling the Crew Capsule to escape from the PM in the event
of a serious anomaly during launch. In space, the Crew Capsule will separate from the PM and the two will reenter and land separately for re-use. The Crew Capsule will land softly under a parachute at the launch site. Astronauts and experiments will experience no more than 6 g acceleration into their seats and a 1.5 g lateral acceleration during a typical flight. High-quality microgravity environments (<10-3 g) will be achieved for durations of 3 or more minutes, depending on the mission trajectory.

http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html

United Launch Alliance:
Good solid company for throw away EELV Launch Vehicles Atlas V-Delta IV-Delta II. This is a military SAT delivery system capability going commercial more robotica delivery not HSF. ULA will survive but how far they venture into HSF even with gov’t money remains to be seen ?
Formed in December 2006, United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company. ULA brings together two of the launch industrys most experienced and successful teams Atlas and Delta to provide reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the U.S. government. U.S. government launch customers include the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and other organizations.

Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles have supported Americas presence in space for more than 50 years, carrying a variety of payloads including weather, telecommunications and national security satellites that protect and improve life on Earth, as well as deep space and interplanetary exploration missions that further our knowledge of the universe.

With three families of launch vehicles Atlas V, Delta II, and Delta IV ULA continues the tradition of supporting strategic U.S. space initiatives with advanced robust launch solutions to provide assured access to space and 100 percent mission success.

My point was that, as with all of the other items I was listing, NASA’s old Ares-based HSF plan didn’t leave money to do those things. The new plan has the funds to develop this new and improved RD-180 class engine, which presumably can be used on the Atlas V (reducing our dependence on Russia and helping the U.S. propulsion industrial base), and also used on some future HLV or other rockets.

danwithaplan: “Anyway since when is it the mandate to specify the propellant for an engine in the governmental policy…”

If we’re going to implement an HLV (and I’m not convinced that we should), I’d prefer that we use a competitive approach that allows the contractors to implement the solutions without NASA giving them the details. However, it also makes a lot of sense to me to implement the HLV incrementally by doing things that are useful in their own right (such as an engine to allow U.S. production for Atlas V).

danwithaplan: “Prognosed dates tend to slip, you know. Happened during the Constipation years too…”

Yes, we don’t really know what the dates will be for sure, but those (2016 or earlier and 2017-2019 tending towards the 2019 side) are our independent best estimates from the Augustine Committee and Aerospace Corporation. All we can do is use our best independent estimates, and plan for the possibility that the dates will slip.

danwithaplan: “Anyway, Soyuz and Progress will be in business for a long time and some of it paid by the US if it likes the ISS.”

It’s possible that we’ll still be using them even after U.S. commercial crew/cargo are available. Redundancy has its benefits. However, we wouldn’t depend on them, or use them as much.