You haven’t even come close. My submission was not about the F9/SLS core stage combination. That was just the enabler. Your comments indicate to me that either you haven’t read it or you aren’t willing to rationally analyze or comment on anything related to launch vehicle and space habitation technology. The fact that you are suggesting that ANYONE should not submit white papers to the NIAC reveals some kind of deep seated disgust for freedom of thought, expression and action.

That fact that you keep bringing up requirement related to NIAC submissions is deeply revealing. You seem completely unaware of that.

Ethics? What do they have to do with understanding an RFP?

You are a very confused person if not a troll. And very defensive on top of that. I give you an explanation of why you should not submit to NIAC and you essentially tell me that NASA has no ethics????

Oh well.

I passed on that for reasons that seem obvious to everyone but you and NASA. You see, I have something called ‘ethics’. Charlie Bolden could learn a little bit about ‘ethics’ from on James Hansen, given recent statements made hy him and his staff.

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/niac_solicitations_new.html

>>>Aerospace architecture, mission, or system concepts;
>>>Revolutionary, yet technically substantiated;
>>>Very early development (TRL 1-2 or early 3; aiming 10 or more years out).

In actuality you can think of even as far as 20/30 years out but it still need to be technically sound, based on science and not magic.

I would hope that you realize that a stack (of some form) launch vehicle is NOT TRL-1-2-3. It is indeed at best incremental. And certainly not revolutionary. Even if the loft capabilities afforded by such vehicles might be revolutionary. On the other hand if you propose an EELV class vehicle capable of lofting 120 T for say the same cost…

I will give you this though. The decision is very subjective and dependent upon the people who judge the technology that is to be implemented so far out in the future. Dependent so much as to what their notion of such technologies ought to be. A computer scientist will not have the same perspective as a mechanical engineer. Yet the TRL level is fairly clear.

Now and then rather than focusing on existing launchers/technologies if you were to propose some sort of new propulsion system. Some sort of thing that if it existed would facilitate exploration for example. Think warp-drive. You might stand a chance.

There are no outstanding engineering challenges of mating F9s and large body cores, Energia demonstrated the basic technique long ago. Your pessimism is without merit.

NIAC white papers are definitely “anything goes” considering what you sent. But those selected are not.

I look forward to cool new future monatomic hydrogen powered launch vehicles.

The U.S. could very well be the ‘Portugal’ of the space age in the end…>>

I am tempted to ask who you think is “The Spainish”

You’re comment is not consistent with the notion you have of relying on the Russians for access to ISS or even splashing ISS and “moving on”

There is no obvious “Spain” on the horizon in therms of the human space age…at least if you are referring to Columbus and the voyages to the “Indies” which lead to the new world…and Spanish efforts there.

After 50 plus years of human spaceflight there is no cost to value rationale for the effort. Why? Its a double edge sword in my view. Government cost to orbit are so high in retrospect to every nation that is trying its economy (ie the Russians would not even be on ISS if we were not paying for them). The Indians for instance have relatively cheap access to space, but not for their economy.

Also what is done in space by humans is so limited.

So far every nation that is doing it (including the US) is simply doing it for either national “”chest beating” or simply on bureaucratic inertia.

Unless either or both those sword edges are blunted; ie cost go down and versatility goes up…then there is nothing to suspect that human spaceflight will ever be more then a curiosity.

The bookends are clear. The South Pole has a thriving population because being there is so cheap…but there are no cities or settlements or even people living beneath the seas…and probably never will be. There are submarines (national security) adn oil platforms that have long term stays…but cruise ships are very temporary and no one is planning “ATlantis”.

There may be nothing that fits in those bookends, but we have spent 50 yeas in the US letting government try in a country that never had a national airline; so the opposition you have to giving private enterprise a leg up to take a peek and see if it can happen is puzzling (although I do like the third person references…Palinesque)

Anyone who thinks that the Chinese are going to have large basis on the moon either thinks that they just have so much money and no clue how to use it; or have a pretty cheap system for moving people around in space; and neither is accurate.

You’re comments are essentially, from a logical statement; illogical

SDorry for the absence. Been testing a new microgravity plane for a sovereign client. The country that is getting its registration painted on it as we speak in Goodyear Arizona is likely to use it mostly to test “parts” but they really want a national human spaceflight program…if they can afford it. They are “keeping up with the Jangs and Ho’s” RGO