Musk said more information in the next 1-3 years… just about the time frame that the SLS will last. Expecially since it fell behind schedule another year.

That makes some sense, though the “serious pain” that cuts to NASA would inflict are serious to the nation at a level of a round-off error. It works both ways.

While cuts to NASA would, as you say, hardly reap much in the way of reducing government spending, it doesn’t really look that way. It is abundantly clear from repeated surveys that the public believes NASA consumes a far larger percentage of federal funding than it actually does. So cuts to NASA will LOOK like a serious response to out-of-control government spending. I’m sure some deficit-crazed legislator won’t hesitate to slash NASA and proudly raise that cut up his or her deficit-busting flagpole.

But it does seem wise for NASA not to draw attention to itself with some grand “vision” right now. Especially a grand vision whose benefits to quality of life in the nation really aren’t that clear. This probably isn’t the time for that. Newt Gingrich should have understood that.

Maybe that’s what Ryan is implying. He sees NASA as some vague factor in national security, but won’t touch even the potential for some expensive grand vision. If Ryan got up there and started spouting about the federal government sending humans to the Moon, NEOs, and Mars, he’s lose a lot of his support. To R&R, “visions” for NASA are really dangerous policy, and the sensible way for them to avoid that dangerous policy is just to say “we’ll look at it”.

“And yet you demand a “vision”. For a round-off error? Get real.”

A good point, and I don’t. I spelled “vision” with a small “v”, which to me means “some idea of what they want to do”, not with a big “V” like in the Vision for Space Exploration that was a grand plan (unaffordable, but grand).

Obama wants redundant, cost-effective access to space for cargo and crew, and to lay the groundwork for future beyond LEO missions.

Romney wants to call a meeting.

Pretty clear choice.

“As to what he would do with space, him not having a “vision” just means he will treat space just like most other politicians…
I’m not impressed.”

Right … NASA’s ~$18B budget represents less than one-half of one percent of the overall USG outlays in FY2012. In terms of just the FY2012 deficit alone, it is less than 2%. Hardly a line item that is going to reap much in the way of reducing government spending when in FY2012 alone (a relatively good year in comparison to the prior three), the USG spent roughly $11 for every $7 it collected. In reality, NASA represent one nickel out of that $11 and is more rightly a round-off error. And yet you demand a “vision”. For a round-off error? Get real.
Given the current budget issues and the anemic economy, NASA would be better served to stay under the radar rather than being placed front and center where the budget axe is more likely to inflict serious pain.

=blink= And this kind of goofy logic is running to be a ‘heartbeat away’ from the Oval Office. Memo to PRC- Luna is yours for the taking/

“Sounds like a giant, super heavy (“Apollo-esq”) rocket to me.”

But not one that is costing the U.S. Taxpayer $30B – big difference.

As to why Musk wants a rocket of that size, he obviously sees a need for one, but that still has nothing to do with the lack of need for the SLS. Where does Congress see a need for the SLS? Can they show a funding stream that supports not only the development of the rocket and EDS, but the 2-3 payloads per year that it will take to adequately justify it?

Remember too the SLS is for purely government payloads, not for competing in the commercial marketplace. Musk may be planning, with others we don’t yet know about, for the eventual push to Mars – but as a privately led effort, not government.

Oh, and just as a reminder, all they are working on is the rocket engine at this time – no rocket. Who knows what the development timeframe will be for that, or if they just decide to compete in the LH/LOX engine marketplace.

This is backwards. It was during the Cold War that we needed flashy civilian space extravaganzas so that we could pretend that “we came in peace for all mankind.” We successfully distracted most folks from noticing that the main thing we were actually doing in space was spying on the enemy, and the main thing we were actually doing with rockets was preparing to nuke them.

Spying is still the main thing the federal government is doing in space — after the 9/11s it’s more important than ever — but there’s no good reason to pretend otherwise any more.

The straightforward and rational way to achieve the Romney/Ryan goals, BTW, consistent with what Romney has said about HSF proposals on the campaign trail, is simply to cancel all NASA HSF projects and move those many billions of dollars into the Pentagon/NSA/NRO space program to make up for otherwise expected cuts to those areas.

Orbital HSF is dead sooner or later anyway. It might as well be sooner. As for science and exploration, it doesn’t really matter whether that’s done by NASA or NSF. So NASA itself may not have much of a future. We don’t need a big space agency any more than we need a big ocean agency, a big underground agency, or the like.

Wow Coastal Ron you oughtta be eating this up.

H-m-m-m … then what do you make of Mr. Musk’s new “MCT” rocket with multiple 1.5 million pound thrust engines?

”

Hard to know…there is a grea deal of speculation on “that” RGO