I think that Mr.Earl is not in the same league as Marcel, Chris etc.

It seems to me that Mr.Earl wants to compromise rather than really push for SLS/MPCV. Now of course he is wrong about SLS/MPCV and I suspect he knows it. His logic it seems to me is to abide by Congress’ logic if there is any.

Further, Congress will let go of SLS/MPCV as soon as they feel 1) Commercial is safe (enough) and 2) when sequestration makes it obvious SLS/MPCV is a total waste. Watch Dragon reenters soon…

Ah if ATK/LMT could get any cash for their monstrosity, that would ease the pain…

If you want to be ‘technical’ the quote is directly from Armstrong in his own words as noted, as aired on C-SPAN. It’s in their archives.

“The full policy statement articulately reiterated by Armstrong, formulated by the Bush administration based on recomendations from the CAIB report reads: “Finish the intenational space station, return to the moon, establish a permanent presence there and venture onward toward Mars.” “

Well, if you want to be TECHNICAL about President Bush’s policy statement he also said this:

“For cargo transport to the Space Station after 2010, NASA will rely on existing or new commercial cargo transport systems, as well as international partner cargo transport systems. NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities”

Oh and this little gem:

“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”

Okay, now that we are looking at the full policy statement by President Bush, what was he saying:

A) Reusable
B) flexible enough for multiple destinations
C) Small ground crews
D) fuel depot
E) module
F) Assembled in space

Gosh, what happened? Where is the fuel depots? The in space assembled vehicles, flexible enough to goto multiple destinations.

It seems you forgot to articulate this part of President Bush’s policy.

If I didn’t know better this sounds like the Nautilus X.

“Except they do. And it’s available in stores, too.”

I love it when you end up proving my points for me.

That website you cite as “proof” gets less than 3,000 unique visitors a month – during a good month. And using normal internet sales sell-thru, that would mean that less than 100 people a month are ordering those videos. Likely those are retired aerospace workers wanting to remember their past.

As a comparison, this automatic cat litter box website gets 8X more visitors per month. Even SpacePolitics.com gets more hits than your website does.

You obsess over the past – the vast majority of the U.S. doesn’t, which is why you see so much media coverage for your beloved Musk and SpaceX.

Thanks for proving my point.

Knowing history and historical details is quite a bit different from understanding its affect/effect on the present.

Armstrong and Aldrin might indeed be the modern Alcock and Brown…(and that Collins fellow…well being the father of a soap opera star is not bad! LOL) RGO

“Except they dont mean anything.”

Except they do.

If there was no interest (aka market) hundreds of millions of dollars would not have been spent/invested to maintain production of same over the decades to reap billions in profits. =eyeroll= The interest exists, as the success of the likes of Wells, Clarke, Heinlein, Asmov, Bradbury, etc. reaffirm. Pearls of wisdom…sober up, and catch up on Alcock & Brown.

@Coastal Ron wrote @ May 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

“People don’t want to watch HD video of people picking up rocks on some lifeless gray landmass in space”

Except they do. =eyeroll= And it’s available in stores, too.

http://www.spacecraftfilms.com.

“To put it simply: If the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy can not explain science and technology (uncluding space policy)m he or she should be fired immediately if not sooner.”

Yep.

@Coastal Ron wrote @ May 26th, 2012 at 12:31 pm

And what is our justification for a new Moon program – that Neil Armstrong wants us to go back? Yeah, right.

No, wrong. The full policy statement articulately reiterated by Armstrong, formulated by the Bush administration based on recomendations from the CAIB report reads: “Finish the intenational space station, return to the moon, establish a permanent presence there and venture onward toward Mars.”

“Since then [2010] Congress has reaffirmed that they don’t want a Moon program.” =yawn= No, Congress simply underfunded the programs associated w/t the aforementioned policy for several years (wars are expensive) and the current administration did a 180 on its space policy pronouncements from the campaign and scuttled it. . What a maroon, indeed.

@Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm

“I would be surprised if Armstrong is viewed in the same historical light as the Wright Brothers… ”

So would Armstrong (and anybody else for that matter) as he’d immediately refute any attempt at such a comparison. It’s as absurd as equating an unmanned satellite launch in the wake of thousands of other satellite launches over half a century w/t solo piloting of a single-engined monoplane on a non-stop, one-way flight between NY and Paris. -eyeroll=

@Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 26th, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Goofy. But if you wanna pitch dropping a Dragon into luinar orbit as a demo, go for it. Frankly a manned suborbital flight would carry more weight (so to spea) that is, magnify importance for Diminished vision propagandists such as yourself. But then, we’ve already established on this thread (and others) how you dont understand history very.…oh well. Remember to bone up on Alcock & Brown.

Not likely or at least not soon>>

Not soon but its coming. Emergency escape is/will eventually go the way of the same notion on nuclear submarines…RGO