“Then again, I am not an expert at comedy.”

Nor do you seem to recognize the difference between comedy and satire.

Some people, Mr. Sense, are endowed by their Creator with multiple talents. Tom Lehrer, for example. Do you think Professor Lehrer was unqualified to discuss mathematics because he also happened to be a highly successful political satirist?

You are probably familiar with Tom Lehrer, but if not …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer

As I said, some people are multi-talented, and I make no apologies for my dual career. On the contrary, I’m rather proud of it. And only an ignoramus would mock it.

Common Sense added:

“I tried [to be funny] sometimes on this very website and I hope you did enjoy it.”

I did not. For one thing, I didn’t notice it. For another, I find nothing funny about cyber bullies who insult others — especially when the insults are flung by an anonymous individual who purports to be an expert, but who hides behind an ill-fitting pseudonym. That’s cowardly, not comedy.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1586

“We understand there are many programs competing for limited NASA funding; however, Commercial Crew funding must be kept as one of the top priorities if America is to retain its position as the world’s number one spacefaring nation, ahead of other spaceflight powers like Russia and China. Simply put, Commercial Crew represents the most rapid way for America to get back its human space transportation capability following retirement of the Space Shuttle, and for America to end the “gap” in human spaceflight. The US will be back with its own capability soonest through Commercial Crew. Without Commercial Crew, America will be on the sidelines for years and years. And as long as America lacks a domestic means to access and maintain our $100 billion International Space Station, then we are running a risk that any setback to the Russian space program or a deterioration of US-Russian relations could force us to temporarily or perhaps permanently evacuate the American crew from the ISS. “

“Now tell us about your experience. How about starting with your real name?”

Talk about pompous and pontificating. But hey I never was lectured by a comedian before. I suppose there is a start to anything. You truly have aerospace experience that humbles mine. Especially in the area of HSF.

As I said before to you. My name is none of your business. What should be important to you is whether my arguments hold or not. Obviously they don’t since you can base your judgement on a long and successful career in aerospace. Right?

Or maybe your good friend Harrison Schmitt is helping you out a little? You know there is a difference between writing books about other people’s experience and actually trying to do something.

Then again, I am not an expert at comedy. Though I tried sometimes on this very website and I hope you did enjoy it.

“The N1 was never part of the Soviet circumlunar L1 (Zond) project. The L1 circumlunar missions were built around the Proton, although problems with the Proton prevented Soviet cosmonauts from beating Apollo 8 around the Moon.”

Yes, quite correct. I remember the anticipation at the time, that they might do a manned Zond (though they would’ve called it something else, I’m sure) circumlunar flight, as little as two weeks before Apollo 8, and the relief for some, when the Russian December Lunar launch window closed without event.

That program is well chronicled here:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyz7kl1.htm

However, the Space Adventures plan doesn’t involve the late 60’s single-launch configuration, which was essentially a deep-space Soyuz with one man, and minus the orbital compartment. This requires the launch of a Soyuz in its more typical configuration (though with the heavier heat shield, and possibly a somewhat larger parabolic antenna for the greater distance), and a Proton-launched transfer stage, including additional habitation volume, and using ISS as a staging point for docking and checkout of the two elements before departure…just as it was long envisioned that flight beyond LEO would be done:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/05/05/space-adventures-lunar-flyby-include-hab-module/

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33481

My point in referencing N1 and Energia,however, was only to show that one can do these kinds of things, and more, without heavy-lift launcher development, just making good use of what already exists. And this would be clear proof of that, if they make it happen…

As for a US launch provider possibly doing something similar, the speculation at least, is already out there…

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=30771

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/if-spacex-falcon-heavy-was-used-for.html

“In any case, you cannot say that Harrison Schmitt doesn’t support commercial space.”

Dr. Schmitt has been active enough to have an informed opinion, which is why I didn’t mention him. I have disagreements with him, but at least he is more current than Armstrong, who been out of the loop too long.

Armstrong could get current by just picking up the phone and asking for personal tours of all the commercial aerospace companies – everyone (except Blue Origin) would accommodate him, no matter what he has said in the past. I wonder why he doesn’t do that?

“Having two space programs directed from two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue won’t work.”

It’s not just our government, but the aerospace community as a whole. There is a lack of general agreement on not only the destinations but everything in between.

If the space community can’t reach consensus, then blaming the politicians is pretty fruitless.

I would imagine that it is going to have to take an agreed upon exploration roadmap developed by science and industry to get us past this point, but I have no idea who or when it could happen. Who knows when or if that could happen, but we’re not going far without it…

“Where’s the scientific and economic return from the ISS?”

Do you want a list? There is a very long one if you decided to actually look. And as a Congressionally designated National Laboratory it’s job is not to produce economic returns per se, it would be easy to justify part of it’s economic benefit as retiring risk for future spaceflight.

“In any case, CxP wasn’t about returning more Moon rocks. It was about learning to live on another world and using its resources to help supply a permanent outpost.”

That was a romantic view of the Constellation program, but not one grounded in reality. In reality the program was only budgeting for a few short stays, and there was no money budgeted for ISRU or truly “learning to live” on the Moon.

Maybe Congress would have expanded the program to do what you think it should have done, but after two decades of being absent from space maybe Congress would have decided to do something else with NASA, or even shut it down for lack of results.

Waiting two decades for a mission to start is too long. NASA can do better, for less, and much quicker – why don’t you support that?

“The Moon has water, and plants can be grown there in greenhouses.”

The same can be said about Mars, yet we don’t even know how to stay alive for long periods of time beyond LEO. No matter where we go we have to learn how to live, work and survive in space – that will always be the common “place” as we expand out into space. That is why the ISS is the first step, not the Moon.

“So if the long-term goal is to send humans to Mars and populate the Solar System, the Moon is an excellent place to get a first foothold.”

With all this talk about living and working on the Moon, I hear no talk about how to get there, support the operations, and rotate personnel. It sure seems like you are hoping that instantaneous transportation between the Earth & Moon gets developed for your Moon plans to work, because you’ve given no thought to developing a cost effective logistical system that will support a lunar development.

The MPCV/SLS aren’t cost effective, and if you tried using them you wouldn’t have enough money leftover to do anything.

I don’t fault anyone for having grand dreams of eventually living on the Moon or Mars, but I do not support plans based on unsupportable fiscal spending, and that’s what all the current Moon plans are.

Really what it seems like you are most angry with Obama about is that he stopped your gravy train for the Moon. I have no sympathy for you if that is the case. Our expansion into space is going to be very slow with NASA, so focus on small steps that reinforce the previous ones and build towards the next – no giant leaps that lack fallback points.

“Russia isn’t going to resurrect N1 or Energia to do this, just use the Protons they’ve got.”

The N1 was never part of the Soviet circumlunar L1 (Zond) project. The L1 circumlunar missions were built around the Proton, although problems with the Proton prevented Soviet cosmonauts from beating Apollo 8 around the Moon. Of course, the L1 missions wouldn’t have been able to orbit the Moon. Just quick flybys. But a quick loop around the Moon would be pretty exciting in itself for a wealthy space tourist. And it would certainly draw attention to human spaceflight Beyond Earth Orbit. So I’m hopeful that the Russians finally succeed in sending their modified Soyuz around the Moon. Better several decades late than never. In short, I agree with your comments about the proposed Russian lunar ‘holidays’.

“You think the government should continue to spend HUGE amounts on a massive space program that returns more Moon rocks for analysis. Bottom line was that CxP truly was Apollo on steroids, and it wasn’t worthy enough for our Nation to keep it going. We can do better, for less.”

Well, one could argue that we are spending HUGE amounts to keep the ISS going around and around and around the Earth. And with what return on our taxpayer investment? Where’s the scientific and economic return from the ISS? One almost has the impression that Skylab returned more science in one year than ISS has produced in ten years. In any case, CxP wasn’t about returning more Moon rocks. It was about learning to live on another world and using its resources to help supply a permanent outpost. That’s something we cannot do in LEO where everything (water, food, etc.) has to be brought up from Earth. The Moon has water, and plants can be grown there in greenhouses. So if the long-term goal is to send humans to Mars and populate the Solar System, the Moon is an excellent place to get a first foothold.

Coastal Ron also wrote:

“Armstrong is no friend of ‘commercial’ space. It’s OK to have informed questions or doubts, but Armstrong has not displayed any of that.”

Actually, Mr. Armstrong does support commercial space. But he also understands commercial economics and reality. In any case, you cannot say that Harrison Schmitt doesn’t support commercial space. He’s been on the Board of Directors at Orbital Sciences for decades. Which is why he, too, understands commercial economics and reality. However, as Dr. Schmitt’s book makes clear, he is also confident that it will eventually be the private sector that carries the ball in space exploration and settlement. And Mr. Armstrong knows that the private sector, not the government, has designed and built all of America’s spacecraft over the years. He flew with North American (X-15), McDonnell (Gemini) and Grumman (Apollo). None of the vehicles he flew were built by the government, even though they were paid for by the government.

Coastal Ron opined:

“No one has clean hands in politics, so don’t be surprised.”

That’s certainly true here in Illinois where we send both Democrat AND Republican former governors to prison. And there is no shortage of crooks in Crook County … from both parties. But it will be interesting to see the national poll results one year from today.

And Coastal Ron wrote:

“Let’s stick to finding middle ground on what we want to do in space instead of fighting about who’s pig has more mud on them.”

Yes. It’s the only way we’re going to get anywhere. No one has a monopoly on good ideas, and we need to put our heads together rather than butting heads (as I wrote above). We must find the common ground that serves the common good. Having two space programs directed from two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue won’t work.

Finally, Coastal Ron wrote:

“I think you’ve been pretty consistent about saying you support commercial space, so I believe you.”

Thank you.

“Sir, you totally MISunderstand me, if you think I’m like the damned Flexible Path people who are dead-set against going to any place that American astronauts “have been””

(shrug) It was you that claimed ‘boredom’ with LEO. I don’t have to invoke (and never specifically had in mind) Flexible Path, to understand that.

“But I will tell you, that, Low Earth Orbit is still a wholesale ludicrous fall back plan, because we could be stranded there for a lifetime!”

Again, going on to ‘The Next Big Thing’ (as LEO once was) isn’t what it’s all about, it’s one part of it. There continues to be science to do in LEO. There is business to be done in LEO, and the Space Act does require NASA to support the commercial use of space. It will be true, no matter how soon or how often we go beyond it, again.

And the ships to go again, will be assembled in LEO. All those things mean various ‘aluminum cans’ and inflatables for humans to do them in. That logic can be extended to the Moon, Mars, and whatever is within the ‘cutting edge of exploration’ of the moment. What we do, is as much about *utilizing* space, as *exploring* space.

“Just how near & close to the Earth can we be, and still simultaneously claim to be traveling through “space”??? Do you all see the big problem?—LEO is the bare freaking minimum we could ever be doing, in terms of sending astronauts “into space”. Building more & more castles in LEO in one flagrant mission to nowhere!”

You seem to see it as either/or, and primarily about exploration, and it’s not. You do A. As you continue to do, and get better at A, you do B. As you continue to improve those abilities, you do C, etc. LEO isn’t a ‘fallback’ plan, it’s PART of the plan. Not doing it will make serious movement beyond, harder, not easier. And…

“Truly what we should be developing, is a FULLY reusable manned spacecraft.”

Actually, you’re right about this. Now tell others of your viewpoint that we need a better means of reaching LEO (to do the things I outlined above, but more and cheaper than ELVs could do, beyond a certain traffic level), and they, too, will accuse you of wasting time and money on LEO, and not ‘going somewhere.’ (I’ve heard similar nonsense about how the Shuttle ‘can’t go beyond LEO,’ as if anyone had ever promised anything else) And they will say it, oblivious to the fact that it enables and enhances the deep space missions they actually want. I often liken it to trying to reach the summit of Mt. Everest, directly from your hotel room down in town, and having no good means of reaching your base camp…or even understanding that you should *have* a base camp.

This is an example of what an RLV can give you (if you don’t like Skylon in particular, substitute any RLV of the same capacity):

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/mars_troy.pdf

But any such vehicles won’t be developed *just* to assemble deep-space ships (not all of which will be purely ‘exploratory,’ either, see my comment to Dennis…but they’ll use much of the same technology, helping assure continued development for those ‘boldly going’), they’ll serve *any* LEO customers who need that capacity. (yes, ‘commercial’ service) And the more, the better. Expanding infrastructure in LEO and beyond, in order to do more. That’s what this is about. And each step *will* become mundane as it becomes common, but it’s the shoulders on which the explorers stand.

@ Dennis:

“Now Im for the planned for commercial Soyuz mission around the Moon, but here to the price tag is way to high.”

Certainly too much for you or I. But there’s one rider signed up, and they say they need at least one more to make it happen. I’m hoping for this as well, because it weakens the argument of those who say ‘commercial will never take us beyond LEO,’ and show that such things can be done by multiple launch of existing rockets. Russia isn’t going to resurrect N1 or Energia to do this, just use the Protons they’ve got.

And it will be interesting to see the former Soviets go beyond LEO for the first time themselves, not for geopolitical prestige (though they won’t waste the bragging opportunity either), but for…money. (giving pause to those who think China is about to rule the solar system would be nice, too, IMO. Their launchers *could* enable a similar flight [even Mike Griffin said so], but it’s a long way off..)

If we’re lucky, it’ll encourage SpaceX and/or others here, to ask themselves if they could undercut the Russian price for a commercial circumlunar (or even Lunar orbital) flight, and the commercial ‘race’ will be on…

“Some people here seem to think that I oppose “commercial” space. I do not.”

I think you’ve been pretty consistent about saying you support commercial space, so I believe you.

“Nor do people like Neil Armstrong and Harrison Schmitt.”

Armstrong is no friend of “commercial” space. It’s OK to have informed questions or doubts, but Armstrong has not displayed any of that.

This gets back to the same thing I said about Cernan. Other than accident panels and being a Board of Director for numerous companies (including ATK), Armstrong wasn’t really involved with the aerospace industry – he wasn’t even a businessman.

So why is his opinion any more informed than the current generation of astronaut/business people? I don’t think it is, and his experience is far less relevant for the plans that Congress has funded at this point.

“Candidate Obama promised to bring American together.”

Yes, and Republicans have done everything they can to compromise with Obama, but to no avail…. LOL

Cut the political naivete act Mr. Mellberg. Poll after poll show that Americans think far less of Congress than Obama, and a recent poll in Florida even showed that 23% of Republicans thought that Republicans in Congress were damaging the country in order to make Obama look bad. No one has clean hands in politics, so don’t be surprised.

Let’s stick to finding middle ground on what we want to do in space instead of fighting about who’s pig has more mud on them.