He did?

Can you provide a quote and citation?

It was politically impossible to continue with the shuttle indefinitely after the Columbia. You know this.

“The used of large segmented solids for human spaceflight is the least desirable characteristic of the Shuttle and the one part that should ne be considered in a new generation of reusable spacecraft. They have very high processing costs and hazards”

Hazards? As opposed to pressurized dewars of liquid hydrogen and high speed turbo-machinery? Please. Since the Challenger disaster the redesigned SRB has flown over 220 times without incident. It is an excellent first stage option either alone or where compact high thrust is needed. The fact that both Delta and Atlas use solid boosters says something about their utility.

“The astronomical cost of Constellation has been justified by fanciful claims that going to the moon will magically solve our energy crisis with helium-3″

Nice strawman. I wonder if it is the same magic that is supposed to miracle the US to the asteroids when we lack an HSF option at all. If the US has any ambition in space we must a basic human launch capability and a heavy lift capability. If you do not like Ares I and V you will be building their equivalent out of other, less optimal components.

I've been working in the program for many years, and I'm not aware of any decision that has caused more damage than this one.

Mike Griffin wanted to re-create Apollo. The goal of the program is simply to send people to some arbitrary point in space, be it the moon, Mars, or an asteroid, as quickly as possible. He and all Constellation supporters forget that Apollo was canceled for a very good reason. Its cost was much higher than any benefits that could be gained. Obviously the same fate would await the first man to return from Mars. It would be a one-off, nonsustainable stunt.

That was why we started the Shuttle program; to vastly reduce the cost of human spaceflight so that the work people can do in space is actually worth the cost of sending them there. It did not meet its specifications, but it was only our first attempt, and a great deal has been learned. Reusable launch vehicles remain the only strategy that will permit sustained human spaceflight.

The astronomical cost of Constellation has been justified by fanciful claims that going to the moon will magically solve our energy crisis with helium-3 (we haven't even achieved power production with D-T fusion, which is much easier, and helium-3 can be produced on earth simply by letting tritium decay) or by claiming there will be a new moon race with China (which would serve no political purpose for either country).

Constellation was not even funded by Bush, who claimed credit for it. It's only role now is ISS logistics. The only reason it's needed is because the Shuttle is being eliminated. The only reason the Shuttle is being dropped is to pay for Constellation.

The used of large segmented solids for human spaceflight is the least desirable characteristic of the Shuttle and the one part that should ne be considered in a new generation of reusable spacecraft. They have very high processing costs and hazards, since they are both extremely heavy and hazardous throughout the processing flow, and they have failure modes that cannot be mitigated. They have never been economically reusable due to the need to completely rebuild them between launches.

We have industry offering possibilities and interminable delays – for the most footling and head-scratching (they hadn’t done already THAT – BEFORE bringing F9 to the pad for launch?! Unbeeleeevable!) reasons – ensuring those delays stretch past 2016: including private manned ISS launches.

Which of course, means that in 6 years time it will be all-change as a new Administration scraps the old program and starts yet another “new” one, which doubtless will itself take yet another 8 years to get underway just in time to be canceled by the succeeding…ICGO ad nauseum.

In the meantime our potential partners are pressing on with their plans and charging us what they like for their services…which we need more and more just as we cnow an’t do without foreign oil or Chinese manufacturing…unless we’re talking of the filthy rich, natch.
Hats off to Obama: destroying manned space while making it appear like something new is underway. Very impressive performance…

“Ceteris paribus if all things about the two are equal and the only difference is pollution amounts I would go with the one that costs less to the environment.”

Nonsense. Ceteris parimbus is invoked so often by the left as to have lost all legitimacy. You have only look at the NASA leadership to see what this ruinous concept has wrought: political correctness and gross incompetence in the NASA leadership and all levels of government.

“I can respond with you are nothing but a paid shill working for ATK, we cannot believe a word you say because you are nothing but a paid for mouthpiece.”

No. I used to work at Hughes Electronics (wonderful place!). I no longer work in aerospace. It is not a good business. I work developing medical devices. Same compliance environment, vastly better margins. I don’t hold ATK stock, but I do own Lockmart and Boeing. But I own those because they are profitable oligopolies in defense and commercial aircraft. I wouldn’t want to work at either.

Well, there you have it. NASA is a duly chartered agency of the U.S. Federal government. A government elected by the people of the United States. Not so with private space ventures. This writer doesn’t care what private space industry needs, except that all its needs be met by raising capital, building infrastructure, perfecting spacecraft and LV’s with the risk carried by the investors and not socialized through use of existing government assets. Drax Industries and Destination: Moon are your business plans. Go fly on your own… at your own risk and on your own dime.

No Gary, the reason you “upset so many people” is that you approach debate or conversation as if it was a high school insult game. In the adult world that’s just not acceptable (or clever).

“At least we know what we are dealing with, a tree hugger above all.”

This is why no one considers your arguements, you constantly commit crimes against logic.

“Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)
Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem”. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn’t depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

Regardless if I am a “tree hugger” or not, it has nothing to do with anything I said. The arguement is two rockets, even if the dollar costs were the same, there are still other costs and the effect on the ecosystem is one of them. Ceteris paribus if all things about the two are equal and the only difference is pollution amounts I would go with the one that costs less to the environment.

So if I was to play your game when you say:

“I love solid rocket boosters. There is nothing like an Aluminium salt contrail at sunset.”

I can respond with you are nothing but a paid shill working for ATK, we cannot believe a word you say because you are nothing but a paid for mouthpiece.

But that does nothing to further the debate.