Thanks Ferris. I just watched it, and I think Greason summarized rather nicely the state of the current space program.

Matt, if you watch this video, there is no way you can come away with the impression that Greason thinks we must have an HLV. If anything, he makes a very good argument to “use what you have”, with a specific example about using Delta IV Heavy.

I think his biggest points regarded the spending habits of Congress, and the lack of fiscal restraint or accountability that NASA inherently has.

But the TEDx talk was good too

TEDx talk

At TEDxSanJoseCA Greason said that NASA can’t take us into space, because it has been an organization that is built to explain why problems “are not that serious” (that was in reference to the Challenger accident). Because of Challenger, he realized that no matter how much money Congress gave NASA, they were not going to open up space as a frontier.

He puts his faith in competition and quick evolution of the ideas and hardware.

I don’t know about his comments about “build the rocket”, but it doesn’t sound like he was talking about the Senate Launch System, and he was probably talking about commercial launchers.

Ferris, can you provide that link?

Why, because you generally follow advice from these people or because you happen to like their conclusion? The rocket and Orion are totally unnecessary and you know it. What we need is the hab module (Bigelow?) or a lander. We already have plenty of launch vehicles.

I’d follow what Ed Crawley and Jeff Greason said: build the rocket, build the crew vehicle (Orion), build any necessary hab module, and GO PLACES. Get some exploration done so that by the time NEO (PLYMOUTH ROCK) is out of the way, lunar return is back on the agenda as an action item.

And the problem is that the case for doing the Senate Launch System (instead of keeping the trade space open for a Space Launch System) does NOT close. There is not enough money in the budget, and it will eat so much, and it will endanger the Space Station. The idea of sunk cost s a fallacy in this case, and always.

So, here is the question – which do you want? A Direct/Ares V-lite rocket, or space exploration? If you answer the former, you aren’t getting the later. There isn’t any money for it

“TPF is the planned Terristrial Planet Finder.”

If it’s not in the budget, it’s not planned – it would be an unfunded concept. And there are probably hundreds of unfunded concepts floating around NASA right now, including HEFT and Nautilus-X, which are far enough along to know that they DON’T need the SLS.

In looking at the website for TPF, I don’t see a need for anything bigger than Delta IV Heavy, and that would only be if you wanted to launch the pieces with integrated departure stages.

Matt, in the business world you would go bankrupt with the SLS business plan you’re supporting. It is truly a faith-based program (build it and oversized payloads will be funded?).

I’ll tell you one of the reasons why I see a whole lot of waste coming down the road if the SLS is actually finished by 2016. The payloads it will require to be SLS unique have to be built in brand new factories, with brand new fixtures and test equipment like vacuum chambers. Oh and the concept for the designs have not been communicated to the aerospace industry so they can start providing feedback about manufacturability and potential costs. And lastly you still need to fund and compete each payload contract.

We are ten years away from having a complex SLS-only payload ready to launch. What is the SLS going to be doing in the meantime? Other than forcing NASA to spend part of it’s budget on an idle standing army…

I see a lot of waste, don’t you Matt?

Unsurprisingly nothing on JPL’s TPF page suggests it would need an HLV. Did you simply make that up?