Comments on: The new national space policy is out

By: Bruce Behrhorst

Bruce Behrhorst — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:28:21 +0000

In my opinion White House politics on TOTAL reliance on ‘Commercial Space’ development was and is bad policy & politics and what you observe today is a ‘Kooky House’ of competing interests that will effectively kill HSF in the short term unless this policy is untangled carefully with strong leadership from gov’t-&-industry quickly.
I do praise Sen. Nelson on Heavy Lift because he’s after all pragmatic on the NASA side of the space equation which has no other alternative but to go nuke in space and HLV is a key component toward this aim. It is up to gov’t space to lead the way and Heavy lift (liquid & solid Ares) is the way to go for future space markets to open (most NS readers advocated this 10 years ago and many space nuke professionals dedicated a lifetime to develop).
The fact is future space will require in-space infrastructure and nuke propulsion & power a key component to protect U.S. industry and worker skill sets and space jobs.
I also do want a commercial sector to start participating in space but providing the services they can easily manage efficiently without failures to allow them to be sustainable.
Everyone knows by now these are very difficult economic times characterized by bloated sometimes with corrupt politics by gov’t bureaucratic and private banking business practises. Only fair free trade in international and increased domestic production, sound money, healthy savings accounts and transparent monetary policy can once again establish trust and grow a fair market economy. ITAR issues need to reflect fair investment in quality information through fair policy in gov’t-to-gov’t and industry-to-gov’t. reciprocity and not be calling out to discredit potential customers on charges of industrial espionage.

There is no doubt. If you want a robust sustainable U.S. Space Program you need to be paving the road with a trustworthy business and governmental policies and practises. One sure technical engineering method and science is nuclear energy and I approve of the administration’s notice of this basic fact in at least employing words to describe it in this current U.S. space policy- it is about time Space Nuclear science and technology be recognized for its potential to grow human and robotic presence in our solar system.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:09:25 +0000

Because we may find enough evidence for the development of life on Mars that we donâ€™t want to put any humans on its surface to avoid the back contamination risk and potentially existential threats such lifeforms could pose to civilization and life on Earth.

Think before you post. Uh-huh. And you believe the probes sent there already were completely sterile, too, no doubt. The place could be crawling with mutant microbes now, courtesy of some fellows muffled cough while working on Viking 1. Think before you post.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:00:13 +0000

Besides littering this forum with inane posts, whatâ€™s your point? <- indeed, what's yours?

By: Bennett

Bennett — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:07:10 +0000

Justin Kugler wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

I always enjoy reading your comments, and am glad you take the time to offer your perspective.

Thanks.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:59:44 +0000

“Why go to Antarctica. We can see it on TV. Why go to a ball game when you can watch it on TV.”

Well, I have little interest in Antarctica or baseball to begin with.

Besides littering this forum with inane posts, what’s your point?

“Itâ€™s a cost-effective argument to stop flying sales staff from Los Angeles to Manhattan for meetings, too.”

Well, no duh, especially in the videoconferencing age. Your sales staff should be out making sales, not wasting time travelling to meetings at your corporate sites.

Again, besides littering this forum with inane posts, your point?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:52:55 +0000

@MajorTom “A fair argument that goes to the rationale and justification for civil human space flight.” It’s a cost-effective argument to stop flying sales staff from Los Angeles to Manhattan for meetings, too.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:48:57 +0000

Major Tom wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 11:46 am <– Exactly. Why go to Antarctica. We can see it on TV. Why go to a ball game when you can watch it on TV.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:32:01 +0000

“Of course, ultimately thatâ€™s the real flight test, but Iâ€™d want to do extensive testing close to home first, to wring out bugs. Itâ€™s called expanding the envelope.”

Fair enough.

FWIW…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:20:42 +0000

Repeatedly turning and sweeping the vehicle through its own, active ionosphere may have a relatively high pucker factor. It may. It also may not. It's not obvious to me that it would. Depending on the Mars and Earth arrival/entry methods, the vehicle may have to do that a couple times anyway. But repeatedly doing so seems unnecessary. I would say that doing it repeatedly would either give you a high level of confidence that it could be done a couple times, and was a very robust system, or tell you what the limitations of the system were. Iâ€™d say swingby a useful target, like a NEO or Phobos, for the test. It will be a much more accurate test regime. Of course, ultimately that's the real flight test, but I'd want to do extensive testing close to home first, to wring out bugs. It's called expanding the envelope.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:37 +0000

“No, you wouldnâ€™t. Youâ€™d just turn around while firing.”

Repeatedly turning and sweeping the vehicle through its own, active ionosphere may have a relatively high pucker factor. Depending on the Mars and Earth arrival/entry methods, the vehicle may have to do that a couple times anyway. But repeatedly doing so seems unnecessary. I’d say swingby a useful target, like a NEO or Phobos, for the test. It will be a much more accurate test regime.

FWIW…