What you don’t seem to understand — and maybe you’re too young to appreciate this fact — is that for nearly four decades, people have talked and talked and talked and talked about sending humans beyond Earth orbit once again — back to the Moon and on to Mars. But it’s been all talk. There’s been one commission after another. Tom Paine put together his vision for space exploration. Sally Ride followed a decade or so later. And there have been others. Virtually every one of them described the following path:

1) Permanent Space Station in LEO
2) Permanent outpost on the Moon
3) Expeditions to (and outposts on) Mars
4) Robotic exploration of the Solar System

1 and 4 have been addressed. VSE took a look at 2 and 3. But time and again, 2 and 3 have been squashed. And some of us “fetishists” (as you so fondly, but rudely, call us) are tired of seeing one “mission to nowhere” after another. And there is no guarantee that “commercial” space will develop to the point of supporting missions BEO any time soon (i.e., in my lifetime). All of which is very frustrating.

One other thing on a more personal note …

You seem to have described yourself as a progressive based on your politics. So having been told by several people that we find your use of the term “fetishist” insulting (and rather immature, if I may say so), why don’t you respect our sensitivities and stop using that word? To some adults (myself included), the term “fetish” implies something perverse (of a sexual nature). You seem to be using the term as a slur, and I find that highly offensive. Even if you don’t find the word offensive yourself, others do. It’s almost like using an ethnic or racial slur because the word is intended to demean other people. For someone who purports to care so much about your fellow human beings, your continued use of the term “fetishist” to describe others here — despite our mild protests — suggests you really aren’t a very sensitive person. Which also implies that you might not be all that progressive, either. Bigotry is ugly no matter what form it takes.

Based on some other things you have written, I don’t think you’re a bad fellow — or a bigot. But please don’t let your enthusiasm get in the way of common decency and good manners. And please stop using the term “Moon fetish.” Call me a “Moon firster” or what have you. But not a fetishist. I don’t care what the dictionary says, I find the word highly offensive. I ask this both sincerely and politely. As I said, your use of that term is somewhat akin to a racial or ethnic slur from my perspective. Whether or not you feel that way, I do. And you really ought to respect other peoples’ sensitivities once they’ve told you how they feel.

1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
3. Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

I am using definitions 1 & 2, not 3

If you and William truly feel the capabilities developed by Obama’s plan would’ve made it harder (or at least were not nearly as efficient) to return to the moon, you would’ve identified those areas, and said “Look, x capability hurts us in going back to the moon – we have no use for it, and that needs to be changed.”*

But the attacks on Obama’s plan (at least from Mr. Mellberg, and to a degree, you, although somewhat less so) haven’t been on a lack of capability developed. They’ve been on the destination. And you’ve both said that had he changed the stated destination, you would’ve supported it.

I personally don’t care about the stated – Obama could’ve endorsed the moon, or mars, or Jupiter, or Alpha Centauri, as the destination, if he offered it up with this budget. Thus, when he leaves office, hopefully in 2016 (at least IMHO, although I’d like to see him move away from the center), we’ll be much closer to whatever destination makes the most sense, because the developments the plan pushes moves us closer to all destinations.

To put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak – some of the CER studies that have been discussed, that were being developed prior to ESAS had some great ideas. Had one of them been selected (for example, I really loved the t/space one, but there were others that had some good points in them to), I would’ve been a huge proponent. Not because of the destination being selected, but by the capabilities being developed (and, FYI, capabilities isn’t limited to technologies). Additionally, my opposition to Constellation had nothing to do with the moon – it was the capabilities that it didn’t develop. Constellation could’ve been targeted at a NEO, at Mars, or something else – but that set of vehicles & rockets & funding would not enable capabilities that really enable exploration, development, and colonization.

So, when you are looking purely at the destination, without considering the capabilities that the program is developing, and will switch your support for or against a plan because of a stated destination, thats why I say someone is a Moon fetish (or a Mars fetish).

Its not a question of whether you oppose it or not – its your rational for opposition to it.

* Minor note – I will grant that FY2011 doesn’t develop a lander real quickly, but we seem to be missing a lander no matter what. And anyway, even under a moon first scenrio (regardless of the mode), the lander seems to be the last thing developed.

I am sorry but your response is a little short on substance. Falcon flew, Dragon flew. Where is Jupiter? You said SpaceX is cocky, not its supporters. So how cocky is it to actually fly, twice, to orbit and reenter a capsule with full success on the first attempt, each.

You on the other hand are very proud that you think your vehicle will be the next HLV. Yet, there is no such indication it is true, no such budget and nothing flies yet. So?

I think you should meditate this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3A+cocky&btnG=Search

“My main problem with too many SpaceX supporters is that they have turned a good idea for future government contracting (ie more hands off, objectives based requirements approach for well understood/proven technologies) into a personality cult. SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”

This whole paragraph is total nonsense. There is one experienced company doing it and it is Boeing and the CCDev manager, Keith Reiley, I believe somewhere said they would still rather use a cost-plus contract. I cannot find the link but if you bother I am sure you will find it. Now why would they rather do it with cost-plus? What do you think?

I am still baffled that you (seem to) call yourself a rocketeer and when a fellow rocketeer does an unbelievable job the only thing you say is to warn doom and gloom.

Now: Jupiter/Orion will not be. Orion will most certainly not be any longer. But you don’t have to believe me, I am sure you are much better connected than I and people already assured you that being the law of the land you’ll get to see your rocket fly.

Oh well. Sorry.

“Nah…politics will kill Orion as the cost escalate and the thing has no real mission…NASA is frankly helping.”

Nah, SpaceX Dragon just killed Orion Give me one simple reason why we woud be able to justify Orion now. Only a rhetorical question of course…