Comments on: Still waiting on an SLS decision

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:14:45 +0000

“In a later news briefing, she disagreed with criticism that the agency was dragging its heels on the SLS decision”

Well, of course she’s dragging her heels, and I have one thing to say about it: You go girl! Because it’s the right thing to do. With that much money NASA could, and should, do something of practical value.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:00:26 +0000

NASA needs to save money. SLS and Orion are a huge drain on the budget and produce nothing except pork. The NASA leadership is right to try to jettison them. Congress is wrong to force them down NASA’s throat.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:37:01 +0000

DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 2:50 pm

“No ISS, no NewSpace.”

Well it’s an academic argument on your part anyways, since the ISS will continue to pass over your head (like most things) through at least 2020. In case you’re having trouble doing the math, that’s more than 8 years from now.

And given the Coastal Ron axiom that “a funded program that has achieved operational status tends to stay funded“, it is more than likely it will be funded well beyond that.

Isn’t it funny how the things you argue against tend to go along and succeed without ever noticing you have doomed them?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:50:32 +0000

@Coastal Ron wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
No ISS, no NewSpace. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

By: ok then

ok then — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:19:18 +0000

The SLS details must be released now why exactly? Are the Russians closing the power point gap? They have CAD stations in Cuba?

So much panic over some bean counting. CGI doesn’t make it real if the budgets don’t show up.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:52:08 +0000

VirgilSamms wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“DOD will gladly fly bigger and better satellites on the SLS.”

I’ll agree with the response to this above and add to it that the DOD is not interested in larger satellites. Satellite size is really only relevant for surveillance optical systems, and the sizes they have now suffice. In fact, the DOD is well aware that satellites are easy targets for destruction and or inspection, and putting a lot of eggs in one basket is not a smart military posture. You don’t see them announced much, but the small sats that the DOD lofts, on modest sized launchers, is where a lot of the activity is.

Commercial might have some need for the SLS, but the commercial launch providers, unlike the Senate, are smart enough to build to where they see the market. They aren’t building them, nor even proposing them.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:33:23 +0000

DCSCA wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

“No ISS, no NewSpace.”

LOL. The ISS may represent a portion of “NewSpace” business (whatever that is), but not enough to put anyone out of business. But since Congress likes the ISS, things will continue along like you don’t even exist…

Go back to your 40-year old Apollo models and leave the future to others.

By: GaryChurch

GaryChurch — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:36:14 +0000

First of all I did NOT say anything about AresV.

Freudian slip? No, irritation.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:35:38 +0000

Coastal Ron wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Desperation. No ISS, no NewSpace.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:18:31 +0000

“We went to the moon with a HLV with hydrogen upper stages and a hydrogen earth departure stage.”

We went to the western frontier on horseback and wagons, guess we should still be using them …. because … you know . that’s how we did it in the past.