Comments on: New bill would redirect NASA back to the Moon http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Chad Overton http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409696 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:29:02 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409696 You can tell NASA to go anywhere you want. The Moon, asteroids, Mars, L2. But if your not going to back it up with funding you are just wasting everyone’s time. In my estimation (admitedly I am cynical) NASA will continue to go nowhere, regardless of which party is in office. You can underfund every plan, change direction every 4-8 yrs and expect something to happen.

Btw, Constellation was THE most expensive way to do anything. Definitely not the right way to go.

]]> By: Rick Boozer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409678 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:02:09 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409678 No Matt. You have it wrong. What we would like to see is a NASA developed deep space vehicle (similar to Nautilus X) assembled in space with parts brought up via commercial rockets. You never did understand that even before you took your hiatus. Building SLS is a waste of NASA’s talent and resources.

]]> By: Robert Clark http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409503 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:44:46 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409503 That lunar outpost study Marcel mentioned is here:

Costs of an International Lunar Base.
Johannes Weppler, Vincent Sabathier, and Ashley Bander September 23, 2009
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
http://csis.org/publication/costs-international-lunar-base

It estimates 17.6 mT cargo per year delivered to the lunar surface. The Early Lunar Access proposal delivered 8.5 mT to the lunar surface per launch. So two launches would be about at the yearly amount of this CSIS lunar colony proposal.
The Early Lunar Access proposal would only require a 52 mT to LEO launcher which could be done by the Falcon Heavy. SpaceX says they will offer the 53 mT Falcon Heavy for $120 million. This would result in sharp cut in the yearly launch costs, perhaps by a factor of 5 to 10.

Bob Clark

]]> By: Hiram http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409502 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:23:22 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409502 the Constellation program was going in the right direction until the Norm Augustine commission turned directions

That’s a diplomatic way to put it. The Constellation was never going to get where it was going, but at least it was going in the right direction!

]]> By: Matt http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409494 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:13:50 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409494 Fantasy, Ron, is NASA flying a commercial vehicle on an exploration mission (which some here cling to as an example for a lunar mission under commercial auspicies). That scenario is politically impossible.

Remeber the D.C. adage: “The Administration proposes, The Congress Disposes.” See NASA’s original FY 11 budget proposal for an obvious example.

]]> By: Rick Boozer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409335 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:23:09 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409335 You need to read a few NASA, industry, and university studies that say otherwise. Links have been posted to them here before. I don’t have the time to find them for you and re-post them, but I’m sure there are other people here who will do it.

]]> By: DCSCA http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409328 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:12:39 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409328 You’re far behind the core argument, ron. This is another ‘fitrs and tarts’ pitch. this perios of ‘free drifyt’ is actually a crossroads for U.S. space policy. You clamor cor commercialism which is inevitably doomed to LEO ops. But for projects of scale, the need for the United States to articulate a sound rationale for HSF is needed. It has nver had one and given the natire of it’s quixotic society and short term attention span, it may never take root.

]]> By: Grandpa Dave http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409293 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:30:06 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409293 YES… BRING BACK CONSTELLATION.

IMHO, the Space-X’s, Orbital Science’s and other commercial-guys are not ready for moon walking this decade.

]]> By: Grandpa Dave http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409283 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:53:15 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409283 Say… Is Flash Gordon still kicking. He, Buck along with Buzz (Light-year) Adrin might be able to work out a plan.

]]> By: JimNobles http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/11/new-bill-would-redirect-nasa-back-to-the-moon/#comment-409275 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:15:02 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6345#comment-409275 Here’s the actual audio of the Knapp/Bigelow interview that Knapp refers to in his article. Some quite extraordinary things are stated.

If even part of it is true then DCSCA and a few others need to keep their Nitro tablets handy…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycj-0duSAxY&feature=player_embedded#!

]]>