Comments on: Commercial space advocates regroup

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:30:41 +0000

GaryChurch wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 12:13 pm “There is no cheap.” ‘Cheap’ is a relative term. Applied to space operations the day may come when a cheap, ‘universal’ LV is pretty much a basic standard for lofting payloads of varying weigh classes. Doubtful the private sector will ever craft one as long as the market remains as limited as it is in this era. Expect one by the end of the century.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:25:45 +0000

The policy is to provide taxi services. <- Never thought of Elon Musk as a Louie DePalma-type but there may be something to that after all.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:19:31 +0000

Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 27th, 2010 at 9:34 am <- inaccurate. 'Governments' have been probing Mars for decades, albeit with instruments by extension representing the reach on Man. The physical touch will come in time, when government(s) launch an expedition.

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:24:32 +0000

“Satellite Servicing.â€” … This is part of the Space Operations budget. This could have a lot of value, depending on how itâ€™s implemented, especially considering the Lagrange point emphasis in the Flexible Path and the emphasis in the earlier Senate drafts on cislunar space capabilities.

I wonder where the money will fall? Will it go to Orion? Potential commercial satellite service providers â€“ crewed or robotic? Will it fall mainly on the â€œservicingâ€ side, or on the â€œservicedâ€ side (i.e. the observatories)? It is interesting that it falls within Space Operations rather than Exploration technology demonstrations.”

This is pork earmarked for Goddard provided by Sen. Mikulski via backroom deals. Money will end up in the hands of the Hubble operations group that has been responsible for the various Hubble servicing missions thus the direction of the funds through SOMD.

By: Bennett

Bennett — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:24:17 +0000

Excellent job on the article, Rand. You hit all the points solidly. One of the "Related Stories" linked at the bottom of your piece was: Human Space Flight Needn't Rely on NASA by Michael Belfiore from Feb 1. He hits the nail on the head wrt the proposed direction, back when most people were still trying to figure out what it meant.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:02:13 +0000

“in which I steal a table from Major Tomâ€™s comments”

Gladly.

FWIW…

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:00:45 +0000

“By the way, has anyone heard a veto threat over recent Congressional bills? Thatâ€™s right not at all. Not even for the House bill.”

Veto threats (or other White House demands) are transmitted in Statements of Administration Position, which either havn’t been sent yet or leaked yet on these bills.

FWIW…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:57:32 +0000

My latest thoughts at Popular Mechanics (in which I steal a table from Major Tom's comments).

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:49:39 +0000

the dire fiscal situation the Feds have created.

Irony overload. This dire situation was created by the same mindset that thinks it is OK to spend other people’s $10B to fund an unnecessary launcher after $9B has already been wasted on Ares-I I might add.

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:47:10 +0000

Development time of 66 months at a cost of about 10 billion.

Are you not even slightly embarrassed that you are proposing wasting $10B on an unnecessary launcher that would compete unfairly with commercial launchers and would get in the way of RLVs, even though these could lead to a breakthrough in manned spaceflight, both commercial and publicly funded?