Comments on: Back to the Moon? Not any time soon, says Bolden

By: supple supplement

supple supplement — Thu, 22 May 2014 13:24:28 +0000

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon Stags Leap District Oak Vineyard ($62).
A very light and sophisticated fine red wine, Pinot Noir is pronounced ‘Pee-no No-our’, and is great
with meat dishes, goat’s chesses and scallops.
If you don’t want to use Vaseline petroleum jelly on your hands, consider taking a needle and pricking Vitamin E
capsules then rubbing the Vitamin E into your hands.

By: DraftyBeer

DraftyBeer — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:45:36 +0000

My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick’s Widow.

http://mountzion144.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

By: Dargo

Dargo — Sun, 26 May 2013 23:42:31 +0000

Good point Madhu. Still, you and the others, I believe are missing the main point:Propulsion system. In my opinion, until they will design a new kind of propulsive system, allot more powerful allot smaller and using a new kind energy and propulsive principle, I honestly, do not see any viable future for ANY space research mission. The today’s propulsion systems in use,are based on a more than 400 years principle, remember!?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:36:29 +0000

What he couldâ€™ve done, but didnâ€™t, was offer the affected districts something like â€œYes, we have to cancel Constellation, but your facilities and workforce wonâ€™t be idle. There are commercially derived rockets that will be available, and those facilities can be used as a second source for those rockets.â€

…For whatever reason, the Administration didnâ€™t throw those bones, and the result is what we know now.

Perhaps because it wasn’t an administration bone to throw? The White House doesn’t decide where commercial companies are going to build their rockets. That’s a big advantage of having rockets built commercially.

By: Robert Clark

Robert Clark — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:45:56 +0000

Posey Reintroduces REAL Space Act to Return Astronauts to Moon. Marcia S. Smith Posted: 10-Apr-2013 Updated: 10-Apr-2013 01:29 PM http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/posey-reintroduces-real-space-act-to-return-astronauts-to-moon Bipartisan Legislation Sets NASAâ€™s Focus on the Moon. Washington, Apr 10.

Specifically, the REAL Space Act directs NASA to plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence there as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations within our solar system. The legislation also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the United Statesâ€™ preeminence in space, and underscores the necessity of preserving Americaâ€™s independent access to space.

http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=327243 A return to the Moon by 2022 would make it by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo program. Bob Clark

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:03:24 +0000

@Madhu Thangavelu & Robert Clark;….NASA does indeed need a lander vehicle, for the Moon, and eventually other worlds. The Flexible Path people are fools to believe that the building of a lander is some kind of burden, to be avoided forever. Fools, they are, I tell you! A Mars lander would be ten-thousand times more difficult to build & develop compared to a Moon lander! If we are to be such wimps that we can’t create a 21st century lunar lander craft—-both manned & unmanned variants—-then we might as well just stop talking about humankind ever reaching the Red Planet…ever! In any case, the idea of mounting advancer Moon missions, & making them viable, near-term, by going smaller, is an idea that gets floated around. It has some merit. Maybe we can use less-than-Heavy-Lift, medium-type rockets, and simply do more launches to get all the cargo elements launched to space. (With either multiple flight steps and/or rendezvouses of vehicles; either EOR or LOR.) Maybe, it could be done. But I have NO faith in Commercial Crew doing it! It would definitely have to be a government project, from the get-go.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:33:59 +0000

@Pathfinder-01 & Matt;….If a Delta rocket of suitable size could be used in lieu of an ARES 1, to launch the Orion craft, THAT would sound like a viable alternative to me. I also like the idea of utilizing a non-‘Commercial’ rocket. I fully admit it: I have zero, zilch, nada confidence in the New Space providers! Those entrepreneurs will get us SO trapped in LEO! NASA will be wedded to LEO stations for decades to come, if the government puts all its trust in them. But aside from my biases, I STILL believe that a Heavy-Lift rocket will subsequently be needed, if the United States is ever to get serious about cis-lunar/deep space manned ventures. I agree, that in full absence now, of a specific & definable mission plan, NASA could afford to delay building a particular Heavy-Lift; as the cargo parameters are yet unknown. After all, did the Saturn 5 & the Saturn 1-B get built WITHOUT any thought to what it was intended to carry?? (That is, in the total absence of any Lunar plan & Lunar vehicles??) Which brings me to BAD EFFECT #3, (to Constellation’s demise); The termination of the Space Shuttle rocket production lines. The facilities & the workforce were basically layed-off. All that engineering & industrial expertise was cast into the wind. Plus, the proposed Ares family of rockets were to have been derived largely from the Shuttle’s launch systems. Evolutionary incarnations like the Side-Mount cargo scheme, that might’ve had deep space applications have gone down the chute, apparently.

By: Robert Clark

Robert Clark — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:34:33 +0000

Nice post. A manned lunar mission is doable by going small:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

Bob Clark

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:23:00 +0000

What he could’ve done, but didn’t, was offer the affected districts something like “Yes, we have to cancel Constellation, but your facilities and workforce won’t be idle. There are commercially derived rockets that will be available, and those facilities can be used as a second source for those rockets.” It satisfies concerns about retaining the workforce, ensures that the local businesses that depend on those workers (everything from shopping malls to mom-and-pops like cafes) won’t be affected, and it gives the existing rocket suppliers not just a second source, but they get revenue from the production licenses. And to satisfy the heavy-lift people-and this caveat is virtually a must-R&D on heavy lift would continue, but no decision on procurement until exact needs and capabilities are determined. For whatever reason, the Administration didn’t throw those bones, and the result is what we know now.

By: Madhu Thangavelu

Madhu Thangavelu — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:08:20 +0000

Anyone who says we are not going back to the Moon is not following common sense, let alone good, proven engineering sense. The first destination on any architecture beyond low Earth orbit is the Moon. Why ? …because as countless independent committees have said(besides every single NASA recommendation document out there – except this new wave of asteroid lovers)have clearly noted that the Moon as the next destination provides the ideal location to simulate and shakedown vehicles and systems headed to destinations further out. However, it seems really weird to me, that the Orion capsule is in development, the SLS too, but there is no lander ! No lander in development ! Several architectures seem to dodge this important element that is needed for surface operations. One silly reason that asteroids have been bounced around as target is because “we don’t need a lander” Truly, this type of rationale or architectures derived therof will fetch an F, even in any common sense graduate studio !
It might be that we have no budget for a lander, but then someone somewhere has to realize that if we are going “somewhere” we better have all the elements in the architecture. Look at Apollo. If we had gone to the Moon without a lander, what would we have done ? …throw stones from orbit and return ?…..these things are beyond the best education that engineering can offer, these types of programmatic issues and questions are best answered in the policy of nations dept. Again look at Apollo, the missions could even be seen as a series of simulations of ever increasing complexity…the hallmark of good engineering of complex systems….because without hard data flowing back, good engineers cannot build anything of value, let alone push the envelope, from set after set of powerpoint charts…which is what we have been doing…..for a long, long time.