<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bolden&#8217;s &#8220;exile&#8221;, more on Kosmas-Adams, and Hall&#8217;s ambitions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331132</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Major Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta.&quot;

First, there is no &quot;recently signed appropriations bill&quot; for NASA.  All appropriations have been tabled until after the election.

Second, the NASA _Authorization Act_ of 2010 only states that the SLS should be capable of lifting the MPCV and that the MPCV should be capable of riding on the SLS.  The Act doesn&#039;t prevent the MPCV from riding other LVs.  Furthermore, there&#039;s no guarantee that the MPCV will be Orion-derived or that the SLS will resemble Jupiter 120.  The Act requires the MPCV and SLS to utilize existing Constellation work only to the extent practicable and sets lift requirements for the SLS that can be met by at least several different vehicle concepts and families.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta.&#8221;</p>
<p>First, there is no &#8220;recently signed appropriations bill&#8221; for NASA.  All appropriations have been tabled until after the election.</p>
<p>Second, the NASA _Authorization Act_ of 2010 only states that the SLS should be capable of lifting the MPCV and that the MPCV should be capable of riding on the SLS.  The Act doesn&#8217;t prevent the MPCV from riding other LVs.  Furthermore, there&#8217;s no guarantee that the MPCV will be Orion-derived or that the SLS will resemble Jupiter 120.  The Act requires the MPCV and SLS to utilize existing Constellation work only to the extent practicable and sets lift requirements for the SLS that can be met by at least several different vehicle concepts and families.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: byeman</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331119</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[byeman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta.&quot;

I don&#039;t hope, I know, unlike you since:
1.  You aren&#039;t in the business
2.  What you do know, doesn&#039;t amount to squat and is usually wrong.

The bill doesn&#039;t constain Orion to SDLV.  Orion&#039;s early and LEO flights will be on Delta IV.  It is in work now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t hope, I know, unlike you since:<br />
1.  You aren&#8217;t in the business<br />
2.  What you do know, doesn&#8217;t amount to squat and is usually wrong.</p>
<p>The bill doesn&#8217;t constain Orion to SDLV.  Orion&#8217;s early and LEO flights will be on Delta IV.  It is in work now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amightywind</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331110</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[amightywind]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;cite&gt;Orion is going to fly on Delta IV, period. Anything you say, Windy, is not going to change that fact. Any change in the political makeup is not going to change that. Ares I is dead, get use to it.&lt;/cite&gt;

The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta. But keep on hoping if it makes you feel good. Ares I is dead. But the Direct design has even more margin for the LEO mission. I&#039;m fine with it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><cite>Orion is going to fly on Delta IV, period. Anything you say, Windy, is not going to change that fact. Any change in the political makeup is not going to change that. Ares I is dead, get use to it.</cite></p>
<p>The recently signed appropriations bill says that the carrier vehicle for Orion will be shuttle derived, not a Delta. But keep on hoping if it makes you feel good. Ares I is dead. But the Direct design has even more margin for the LEO mission. I&#8217;m fine with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beancounter from Downunder</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331085</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Beancounter from Downunder]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 03:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[30 years of failed vehicle development attempts, ISS hanging in there, Shuttle going, Ares gone, Orion, HLV ... No cash, no mission, no payload, ... NASA HSF dead in the water.  Congress engineering. Great track record.   The Russians had it right when they laughed at NASA plans and timelines for asteroid missions et al.
Sound bites transmission now ended.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>30 years of failed vehicle development attempts, ISS hanging in there, Shuttle going, Ares gone, Orion, HLV &#8230; No cash, no mission, no payload, &#8230; NASA HSF dead in the water.  Congress engineering. Great track record.   The Russians had it right when they laughed at NASA plans and timelines for asteroid missions et al.<br />
Sound bites transmission now ended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: byeman</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331021</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[byeman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered&quot;

Delta IV Heavy has more performance than Ares I.  

Ares I has not been manrated at this time. 

Orion is going to fly on Delta IV, period.  Anything you say, Windy, is not going to change that fact.  Any change in the political makeup is not going to change that.  Ares I is dead, get use to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered&#8221;</p>
<p>Delta IV Heavy has more performance than Ares I.  </p>
<p>Ares I has not been manrated at this time. </p>
<p>Orion is going to fly on Delta IV, period.  Anything you say, Windy, is not going to change that fact.  Any change in the political makeup is not going to change that.  Ares I is dead, get use to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-331000</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Major Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-331000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill.&quot;

Only as a backup.  And then only if NASA chooses to pursue Jupiter-120 (or its facsimile).

&quot;At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year.&quot;

If the Republicans take control of Congress and NASA gets redirected, it will be in the context of a budget cut.  The Republicans have proposed cutting the federal discretionary budget, where NASA is funded, by 21 percent.  The DIRECT proposal is not executable under that kind of reduction.

&quot;The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating 

Jupiter 120 &quot;lacks man rating [sic]&quot;, has no flight history, and doesn&#039;t even exist.

&quot;...and is under powered.&quot;

Delta IV-H has over 1,300kg of margin to LEO versus Orion GLOW as of last summer (before the FY11 cancellation).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill.&#8221;</p>
<p>Only as a backup.  And then only if NASA chooses to pursue Jupiter-120 (or its facsimile).</p>
<p>&#8220;At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year.&#8221;</p>
<p>If the Republicans take control of Congress and NASA gets redirected, it will be in the context of a budget cut.  The Republicans have proposed cutting the federal discretionary budget, where NASA is funded, by 21 percent.  The DIRECT proposal is not executable under that kind of reduction.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating </p>
<p>Jupiter 120 &#8220;lacks man rating [sic]&#8221;, has no flight history, and doesn&#8217;t even exist.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;and is under powered.&#8221;</p>
<p>Delta IV-H has over 1,300kg of margin to LEO versus Orion GLOW as of last summer (before the FY11 cancellation).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-330997</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-330997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@  Ferris Valyn wrote @ October 20th, 2010 at 10:04 am

&quot;And that raises an important question â€“ which is more important â€“ an HLV, or beginning BEO spaceflight sooner?&quot;

I am afraid you already answered your question:

&quot;Because you could launch Orion on a Delta IV heavy right now, unmanned, and then fly up &amp; dock with the Orion on a Commercial Crew vehicle, and go to BEO locations (GEO, lunar orbit).&quot;

I believe you&#039;re optimistic about Orion launched now, but... So, what takes? Easy is it not? Politics. HLV and Orion but less so Orion (there is a lot more cash in an HLV than in Orion) is all about politics. Pork so to speak. Therefore they will put cash in an HLV and fail again. Now don&#039;t get me wrong: Congress will fail, not NASA. I am sure NASA knows very well there is not enough cash to build an HLV.

Oh well...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@  Ferris Valyn wrote @ October 20th, 2010 at 10:04 am</p>
<p>&#8220;And that raises an important question â€“ which is more important â€“ an HLV, or beginning BEO spaceflight sooner?&#8221;</p>
<p>I am afraid you already answered your question:</p>
<p>&#8220;Because you could launch Orion on a Delta IV heavy right now, unmanned, and then fly up &amp; dock with the Orion on a Commercial Crew vehicle, and go to BEO locations (GEO, lunar orbit).&#8221;</p>
<p>I believe you&#8217;re optimistic about Orion launched now, but&#8230; So, what takes? Easy is it not? Politics. HLV and Orion but less so Orion (there is a lot more cash in an HLV than in Orion) is all about politics. Pork so to speak. Therefore they will put cash in an HLV and fail again. Now don&#8217;t get me wrong: Congress will fail, not NASA. I am sure NASA knows very well there is not enough cash to build an HLV.</p>
<p>Oh well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ferris Valyn</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-330996</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ferris Valyn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-330996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill. At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year. Aviation Week has a nice summary. The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Not a done deal, IMHO.  

You don&#039;t need to launch Orion manned, if you want to use Orion on a BEO mission. 

And that raises an important question - which is more important - an HLV, or beginning BEO spaceflight sooner?  

Because you could launch Orion on a Delta IV heavy right now, unmanned, and then fly up &amp; dock with the Orion on a Commercial Crew vehicle, and go to BEO locations (GEO, lunar orbit).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill. At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year. Aviation Week has a nice summary. The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not a done deal, IMHO.  </p>
<p>You don&#8217;t need to launch Orion manned, if you want to use Orion on a BEO mission. </p>
<p>And that raises an important question &#8211; which is more important &#8211; an HLV, or beginning BEO spaceflight sooner?  </p>
<p>Because you could launch Orion on a Delta IV heavy right now, unmanned, and then fly up &amp; dock with the Orion on a Commercial Crew vehicle, and go to BEO locations (GEO, lunar orbit).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amightywind</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-330991</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[amightywind]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-330991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;cite&gt;Orion is going to fly on Delta IV heavy.&lt;/cite&gt;

It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill. At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year. Aviation Week has a nice summary. The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><cite>Orion is going to fly on Delta IV heavy.</cite></p>
<p>It would appear it is going to fly on Direct according to the Authorization Bill. At least until the GOP redirects NASA again next year. Aviation Week has a nice summary. The Delta IV Heavy lacks man rating and is under powered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: byeman</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/17/boldens-exile-more-on-kosmas-adams-and-halls-ambitions/#comment-330990</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[byeman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4025#comment-330990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The $9B was for Ares, Orion, and infrastructure development â€“ which includes the new launch tower and retooling Michoud among other thing&quot;

OK, let&#039;s say at this point, 1/2 the 9 million is for  Ares I, which includes some Michoud tooling, a half completed launch tower, mostly complete first stage and an upperstage that just finished design reviews.

For the 1.5 billion provided by the US Gov&#039;t, the 1.5 by LM and the 2.5 provided by Boeing, the US got:  two operational launch vehicle families, two launch bases with 2 pads each and two rocket factories.  During OSP timeframe for about 2 Billion, the US Gov&#039;t could have had two manrated vehicles and pads.  

That is water under the bridge.  Orion is going to fly on Delta IV heavy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The $9B was for Ares, Orion, and infrastructure development â€“ which includes the new launch tower and retooling Michoud among other thing&#8221;</p>
<p>OK, let&#8217;s say at this point, 1/2 the 9 million is for  Ares I, which includes some Michoud tooling, a half completed launch tower, mostly complete first stage and an upperstage that just finished design reviews.</p>
<p>For the 1.5 billion provided by the US Gov&#8217;t, the 1.5 by LM and the 2.5 provided by Boeing, the US got:  two operational launch vehicle families, two launch bases with 2 pads each and two rocket factories.  During OSP timeframe for about 2 Billion, the US Gov&#8217;t could have had two manrated vehicles and pads.  </p>
<p>That is water under the bridge.  Orion is going to fly on Delta IV heavy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
