Comments on: Hutchison “delighted” with passage of amended launch indemnification act

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:42:02 +0000

Stephen…nice an excellent visual for me RGO

By: amightywind

amightywind — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:07:01 +0000

I have pointed out the problems with moving anything but a tiny asteroid into the earth/moon gravity well. It is really a stupid idea, and not surprising that Friedman was involved. I see no mention of the estimated mass of 1999 AO10. It kinda matters. I would be interested in the weapon potential such a capability.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:09:20 +0000

And with that, I hope someone gave her a couple of ball bearings on her way out the door so she can play with them like Captain Queeg while obsessing over whether Charlie Bolden stole the SLS strawberries for CCiCap.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:45:23 +0000

The only difference between those two things in politics is who you ask.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:14:41 +0000

And in the post-Hutchison world of actual space exploration and development that doesn’t reflect any sense of Congress…

NASA investigates moving an asteroid into a lunar orbit without SLS/MPCV:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23039-nasa-mulls-plan-to-drag-asteroid-into-moons-orbit.html

And private concerns study human lunar landings without SLS/MPCV:

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/golden-spike-contracts-northrop-grumman-for-lunar-lander-design.html#comment

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:04:49 +0000

“‘This action by Congress reaffirms the intent of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, which reflected a hard-fought Congressional and Administration consensus for the future of NASA in the post-shuttle era,'”

Consensus? Or stalemate?