Comments on: Disappointed advocates, advocating scientists

By: Heinrich Monroe

Heinrich Monroe — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:24:51 +0000

would astronauts still be national heros for NASA to take advantage of

Get with it. It’s been a long time since astronauts were real national heroes. Human space flight at NASA is not relevant, because it’s already just another job. Congressional members never benefit from the “status quo”. They benefit from the dollars shoveled into their districts. As to the latter, you betcha it’s been the plan all along, and it will continue to be.

By: NeilShipley

NeilShipley — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:32:00 +0000

Vladislaw wrote @ September 11th, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Zounds Watson, you could be onto something here! (with apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:45:40 +0000

Neil wrote:

“NASA has wasted all opportunities to expand beyond leo and demonstrate what could be done by HSF.”

But if it expanded .. and hundreds of people were flying to LEO for work and play… would astronauts still be national heros for NASA to take advantage of? Would NASA still be relevant if spaceflight was common and just another job? Would the congressional members who benefit from the status quo .. still reap the same benefits?

Was it wasted or has it been the plan all along?

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:53:40 +0000

NeilShipley wrote @ September 9th, 2012 at 10:30 pm

“Elon talks about Mars and wanting to make mankind an interplanetary species but so far I think he sees them as assisters, not leaders.”

I think that’s a fair assessment.

Musk sees SpaceX as being a transportation company – they will get you and your payload where you’re going. For now that’s LEO to GEO, but later it will be to the surface of Mars (and points in between).

I haven’t heard any talk about SpaceX building exploration-specific hardware.

By: common sense

common sense — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:38:58 +0000

Oh my. So here we stand next to sequestration right? And we are going to ask for “more” money. Please tell me I just did not understand. That’s fine. For? Planetary Science? You know, don’t get me wrong I think all science should get a budget hike in general. But let’s see, say I support it. Then who’s next? How about those who will lose their jobs because of sequestration? Will they support Planetary Science?

Now if some one was to say we’ll cut SLS/MPCV out of their misery and take some in sequestration and the rest redirected if anything is left… Kinda maybe. But is this going to happen?

Or was someone seen waving at Kepler or something? And *I* think Kepler is fantastic stuff.

Anywho. Back to SciFi I guess.

By: NeilShipley

NeilShipley — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:04:09 +0000

Gooogaw wrote @ September 9th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

‘There is one group that this has been extremely unfair to. One group that has been astronomically screwed by this. The taxpayers.’

Another view is possible here. If space was such an important issue to the ‘taxpayer’, then why is it that Congress (i.e. taxpayers’ representatives) have not be demanding solid progress in your terms? Could it be that the taxpayer is quite happy knowing that NASA is spending their dollars doing the work they do and providing jobs; not necessarily what many who have a specific interest in Space HSF, exploration, et al, want!?! Just a thought!

By: NeilShipley

NeilShipley — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:30:02 +0000

Well put RGO. So far, NASA has wasted all opportunities to expand beyond leo and demonstrate what could be done by HSF.
Perhaps Musk can do better. He’s showing that SpaceX has the capability to do the hard yards, but so far we can only rely on that as evidence that they can go further. Elon talks about Mars and wanting to make mankind an interplanetary species but so far I think he sees them as assisters, not leaders. Perhaps that will change or maybe I’m not reading the tea leaves properly.
I’m hopeful that SpaceX and Bigelow continue together and really work up a plan to get to Mars. FH and BA330’s. Who knows!

By: Heinrich Monroe

Heinrich Monroe — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0000

Let me amend that. Although the Act went nowhere by itself, some parts of it were evidently incorporated into the 1989 NASA Authorization bill, signed by the President. I can’t find that language. If that’s the case, then yes, there indeed was space settlement language once in congressional legislation, albeit almost 25 years ago. Good catch.

By: Heinrich Monroe

Heinrich Monroe — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:07:49 +0000

How soon we forget the Space Settlement Act. Not that it had any effect whatsoever.

Ah, delightful. That was in 1988, when George Brown did a Newt Gingrich. Know what happened to that bill? It died in subcommittee. Never was even voted on by Congress. It was never really legislation nor in a budget proposal. No wonder why we forget about it …

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:45:10 +0000

Gooogaw wrote @ September 9th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Look we have not had a fair analysis of what people can do in spaceâ€¦

50 years and nearly $500 billion have been put into trying to demonstrate this. ”

yes I agree but and it is a big but…the reality is that the 10 billion a year has always been spent by an aging federal agency that is more interested in justifying its existence then expanding national horizons…and as long as we continue to do that we will get the same exact results.

SpaceX has so far demonstrated “there is another way” RGO