“Ron: did you see the stuff from that “space summit?” All of the presenters at that event (granted, singing from the same songbook) had HLV in their exploration outlines.”

If you tell everyone to make plans assuming an HLV will be available, what do you expect?

Instead, tell everyone to make plans assuming they have to use existing launchers, and guess what? Their destinations and missions don’t change much, but the costs go down dramatically and the start dates get closer. What’s wrong with that?

“Augustine practically declared it necessary.”

Lots of people assume that some sort of HLV will be needed at some point, but if you ask them when (i.e. which decade or century) they’ll say they don’t know.

I’ve asked you the same question, and you can’t even answer it.

What year will it be that Congress authorizes & funds NASA to start building and launching 1/2 Million pounds of equipment, vehicles, structures and supplies into low Earth orbit every year for a decade or more?

I don’t know why I ask, since you never even try to answer. I guess Cernan was right about you – you don’t know what you don’t know…

Is there some reason he should care?

“I’ve only seen one columnist for a paper that covers space advocate using EELVs”

Goto yahoo, enter “EELV exploration” I believe you will more that a few papers that advocate using current launch systems.

vulture4: Since NASA is tax-supported, I believe that it should do whatever, within its capabilities, will provide the greatest benefit for the nation. Most of this work will not be doing things in space, but rather developing new technologies on earth. In the case of technologies for HSF, they should be focused on providing customers outside NASA, such as tourists and scientists not funded by NASA, with the ability to travel in space at a practical cost. This will allow HSF to become a productive industry rather than a political stunt.

This is much harder than going to the moon with a blank check. But as Kennedy said, “We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

Again, Ron, there is a difference in what you want to do and what Congress will allow you to do. If the Administration had “made the sale” on what they had in mind a year ago, we may not be having this conversation. They didn’t sell their proposals to a Congress that was skeptical at best, and in many cases, downright hostile. And this was a Congress that was friendly to the Administration!

And for what it’s worth, I’ve only seen one columnist for a paper that covers space advocate using EELVs: this guy here:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110828/COLUMNISTS0207/108280328/Matt-Reed-After-Russian-crash-turn-F-150-American-rockets&sa=U&ei=KJRdTtOIDevD0AGjw6jtAg&ved=0CCYQqQIwAQ&sig2=ljK_KImfzRzuTU-x9-NBVA&usg=AFQjCNE-GifNKuU2FZN1e2Z36906JtQtDg

I would imagine that Senators Nelson and Rubio are not happy with this guy at the moment.

“I guess the question then is what type of HLV IS affordable? ”

that wouldnt be my question…although it certainly is a good one.

My question would be what do we want to launch into space and why, so that means we have to figure out what we want to do in space.

Sorry I am not an “exploration” guy. The notion that we have to spend even tens of billions so a few NASA types can go to some other body; stay a few “time periods” sing some songs make goofy statements written by the PAO and then come back…isnt all that much with me.

I think that we should be building federal infrastructure in space that has some value to the rest of the country; and that starts with a NASA that can do things for a reasonable price. RGO

I wrote: I wonder if Cheney’s book will discuss the topic at all?

Apparently not. Unless they just completely failed to index it.

MAYBE Mike Griffins head is just constantly exploding…he has an op ed in Space News that is typical sour grapes Mike RGO

(my apologies to our host for a double post.) RGO

I wrote: I wonder if Cheney’s book will discuss the topic at all?

“Apparently not. Unless they just completely failed to index it.”

MAYBE

Curses, my plans to derail the thread have been foiled yet again!

Anyway, you could propose any target for an exploration mission and you’d hear the exact same arguments from the HLV proponents that we’ve debated to death here.
It boils down to every problem looking like a nail when your only tool is a hammer.

get ESA to build a hab module to spread out costs and get them involved in exploration

ESA has neither the money nor the desire to participate in this flawed approach to “exploration”. Not when it was called Constellation, not now.