“Well, if that’s how you feel, I can understand your lack of support. I, on the other hand, don’t think such a thing will be practical in the near future…”

Other than Lockheed Martin, which builds the Orion/MPCV, no one is proposing exploring space in capsules. I think most people would think that living in a capsule for months on end would be impractical. An interesting view into your thinking…

“Also, speaking of Dream Chaser, it should be noted that the HL-20 from which it’s based was originally meant to be launched on the aforementioned NLS-2”

And now they are looking at Atlas V.

“Thought experiment: If an SLS-style HLV were already a given (which I believe it to be), then would you support a core-only variant for crew launches, rather than man-rating the version with SRBs?”

I’m a market-oriented type person, so the first test any new transportation system has to pass is whether there is a need for it. So far the current SLS does not pass that test, regardless if Congress wants to spend money on it or not.

Secondly, the SLS perpetuates the view that space is a program, and not a place, which muffles the expansion of commerce into space. Any NASA transportation system that is dependent on the whims of Congress is not likely to expand past NASA’s needs. We’ve already seen the DoD learn this lesson with the Shuttle, and they won’t repeat that mistake. Likewise, the commercial sector would never depend on NASA for critical business needs, so NASA will end up with a NASA-only transportation system that can only survive on the largesse of Congress.

So no, I would not support any version of the SLS for crew launches.

Maybe if you could convince me (and others) that the crew version of the SLS is the most cost effective way to get crew to orbit, AND that it’s not a Single-Point-Of-Failure (SPOF) again like the Shuttle – then it would be worth taking a second look at. Can you?

I think we’re very close to realizing that purpose-built space-only exploration vehicles is how we will travel around in space…

Well, if that’s how you feel, I can understand your lack of support. I, on the other hand, don’t think such a thing will be practical in the near future…

Also, speaking of Dream Chaser, it should be noted that the HL-20 from which it’s based was originally meant to be launched on the aforementioned NLS-2 (see this paper for an analysis)…

Thought experiment: If an SLS-style HLV were already a given (which I believe it to be), then would you support a core-only variant for crew launches, rather than man-rating the version with SRBs?

P.S.A better link regarding the Phase 2 EELV plan: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf

“You still did not provide any idea as to how to make it a DoD protege. The only plan you offer is this below. My question again is how do you plan to go about it? Politically? What is it you propose so that Congress makes an amendment to the Space Act to go 180 degrees and make NASA a branch of the DoD?”

The only way I could see that senerio ever happening is if there was enough votes in congress to actually shut NASA down. That would be the only way to maybe getting around those votes to save it. But there is nowhere even close to the number of votes needed to end NASA. Hell even Rand Paul doesn’t defund it and he is quite possibly the the biggest budget hawk in congress.

As it stand now, the ‘civilian’ space agency- (which already uses many military-trained astronauts as crews for HSF activities and planning, BTW)

You still did not provide any idea as to how to make it a DoD protege. The only plan you offer is this below. My question again is how do you plan to go about it? Politically? What is it you propose so that Congress makes an amendment to the Space Act to go 180 degrees and make NASA a branch of the DoD? What are your arguments to Congress? Bring your case forth so that we can discuss it.

BTW, not all astronauts are military actually I believe fewer are coming from the military.

“The Space Act is a piece of paper and can be amended/changed. Even the Reagan administration figured that out.”

I do not agree with your view about NASA under the DoD and a lot of people think it won’t ever happen. But I am thinking that maybe you could explain to us how it would work, knowing the the Space Act actually prohibits it. So and I am serious since maybe I and others have missed something, how do you propose that to happen?

I hope you will answer more than with a slogan. Please.

No matter how many times you repeat that something that makes no sense whatsoever and is never going to happen, “makes perfect sense,” it remains lunacy.

Unfortunately Jim Oberg is surprisingly inaccurate (or deliberately vague) on this given his usually cogent commentary. He usually presents a more cogent POV. This time, not so much. .

Examples:

“the same pundits in the West and in Russian who pooh-poohed SDI had also pooh-poohed the odds of Apollo working.” <- Inaccurate.

Critics in the U.S. (many fiscal conservatives in both opinion 'punditry' circles and elective office of the period) balked at Apollo chiefly based on the immense costs and the pork politics in play, not on the engineering ‘odds of Apollo working.’ (Example- soft-landers early on from both nations quieted the ‘deep-dusters.’) Even JFK entertained the idea of a joint lunar expedition early on as Apollo began to coalesce and the cost projections were made. In the USSR, Soviet space engineers, including Mishin and Glushko, lamented years after how underfunded Soviet space efforts were in the years bracketed between Sputnik and Apollo commonly referenced as the ‘space race,’ in comparison to Apollo funding– a race Palin glibly said they ‘won.’ And Russian ‘pundits’ voicing ‘dissent’ on Soviet government policy in 1950′s/1960′s USSR… perhaps- from a gulag, an environment Korelev himself knew all too well. http://www.historynet.com/the-scientist-who-survived-the-gulag-to-launch-sputnik.htm

“the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.” <- Inaccurate.

In fact, the U.S.– inadvertently or by intent– initiated what came to be known as a 'space race' by its own inaction. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_44.shtml American space engineers, chiefly the Army missile team at Huntsville, were capable of orbiting a satellite at least a year earlier than Sputnik and were directed not to by the Eisenhower administration. http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/beginning-project-vanguard/ For the IGY- a non-military, global scientific initiative- Eisenhower indicated a desire to use a civilian research rocket under development, not a military missile, for the American effort to loft a satellite. Soviet scientists also indicated plans to loft a satellite for the IGY as well. http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/sputorig.html The Soviet R-7, used to launch Sputnik, was a military rocket by design. The central issue at the time from the American perspective, classified for years, involved over flight rights and a covert plan by Eisenhower to develop a spy satellite capability for the U.S. to replace the more risky use of aircraft over flights of the Soviet Union. Recently declassified information indicates the ‘Sputnik moment’ worked to Eisenhower’s advantage. By lofting Sputnik, the Soviets verified free access to space by their own act, all but voiding any disputes on over flight rights and national sovereignty in space– something very much in question in the 1950′s. It also made the eventuality of a new American spy satellite system, known today as 'Corona,' that much more legitimate. It was the public and the press that panicked over Sputnik. Eisenhower’s reaction at the time was highly criticized for being far too cool and dismissive, but in fact, it fit with his planning, strategy and goal… pressing on to establish, in secret, a space reconnaissance capability for the U.S.

The fact Ms. Palin's comments need to be repeatedly clarified on intent by supporters, or via Fox follow-up appearences speaks volumes. Such is the cult of celebrity. But she's not a 'go-to' person on specific space activities past, present or future nor history in general. More's the pity. Former GOP conservative Congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough best summed up Ms. Palin's political fortunes when he stated, in simple, Palinesque terms even her most devoted followers could comprehend: "It's over."

@Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 6:07 am
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 28th, 2011 at 6:03 am

There's no such thing as 'space warfare'- at least in the physical sense. And there won't be. you pose a strawman's arguement. The DoD will do as it's told regarding the fate of NASA. Tucking NASA under the protective wing of the DoD through the Age of Austerity makes perfect sense, particularly with a nat'l security umbrella to shield budgets. Given the origins of America's missile programs, it would be a 'back to the future' move and an effective use of assets on hand. But then, it's easy to understand why commercial space advocates and/or shills (Simberg/Oler, et. al.,) would balk at such a wise move.