<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: At hearing, some argue Mars flyby mission can provide direction for NASA human spaceflight program</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Boozer</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475888</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Boozer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;â€œHeavy-Lift will still be needed!â€&lt;/i&gt;

I didnâ€™t say it wouldnâ€™t.  Maybe for Mars.

&lt;i&gt;â€œAny future manned Moon program will require it!â€&lt;/i&gt;

Nope.  Not according to studies from NASA itself, industry and academia.

Even if such a large heavy-lift rocket were required, one with more payload capacity than SLS block 2 will probably be available sometime around the middle of the next decade.  Sooner and cheaper.

&lt;i&gt;â€œThe Commercial Spacers all appear to have NO interest in getting astronauts back to the Moon, and most are quite phobic to the idea.â€&lt;/i&gt;

B.S., ever heard of Golden Spike?  They or others will be customers for SpaceXâ€™s lunar hardware.  Did you just totally ignore what I told you about SpaceXâ€™s plans for trying out this hardware with actual flights to the Moon?

&lt;i&gt;â€œThe Moon will need to be included in the interplanetary trek equation, sooner or laterâ€”â€“and much better sooner!â€&lt;/i&gt;

On that point we agree.  Be it wonâ€™t be done in a way you like.
This is the real problem, Chris.  You SLS huggers donâ€™t care how long your pet rocket gets worked on -- as long as you see it being worked on you can convince yourself that it is actually going to be of use.  As I said, it appears that you all would rather the U.S. not go anywhere beyond LEO if you canâ€™t have your precious SLS.  You care more for it than you do your countryâ€™s future in space.  I think we might see one or two flights of the low end block 1 SLS around the time private space really gets started toward the Moon.  But once those lunar flights start, thatâ€™s the beginning of the end for SLS.

History will be the judge in the long run.  I am not going to discuss this any further with you. I thought maybe with the changes happening now that you might become a bit more flexible, but it is impossible to talk someone out of their religion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>â€œHeavy-Lift will still be needed!â€</i></p>
<p>I didnâ€™t say it wouldnâ€™t.  Maybe for Mars.</p>
<p><i>â€œAny future manned Moon program will require it!â€</i></p>
<p>Nope.  Not according to studies from NASA itself, industry and academia.</p>
<p>Even if such a large heavy-lift rocket were required, one with more payload capacity than SLS block 2 will probably be available sometime around the middle of the next decade.  Sooner and cheaper.</p>
<p><i>â€œThe Commercial Spacers all appear to have NO interest in getting astronauts back to the Moon, and most are quite phobic to the idea.â€</i></p>
<p>B.S., ever heard of Golden Spike?  They or others will be customers for SpaceXâ€™s lunar hardware.  Did you just totally ignore what I told you about SpaceXâ€™s plans for trying out this hardware with actual flights to the Moon?</p>
<p><i>â€œThe Moon will need to be included in the interplanetary trek equation, sooner or laterâ€”â€“and much better sooner!â€</i></p>
<p>On that point we agree.  Be it wonâ€™t be done in a way you like.<br />
This is the real problem, Chris.  You SLS huggers donâ€™t care how long your pet rocket gets worked on &#8212; as long as you see it being worked on you can convince yourself that it is actually going to be of use.  As I said, it appears that you all would rather the U.S. not go anywhere beyond LEO if you canâ€™t have your precious SLS.  You care more for it than you do your countryâ€™s future in space.  I think we might see one or two flights of the low end block 1 SLS around the time private space really gets started toward the Moon.  But once those lunar flights start, thatâ€™s the beginning of the end for SLS.</p>
<p>History will be the judge in the long run.  I am not going to discuss this any further with you. I thought maybe with the changes happening now that you might become a bit more flexible, but it is impossible to talk someone out of their religion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475878</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[josh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[constellation was supposed to enable a lunar return by 2020. so 2025 would have been a failure already. stop being so defeatist, chris...lol
constellation was a hyperexpensive, unsustainable and technically unsound architecture, that&#039;s why it failed. i&#039;m very skeptical that any amount of money could have made it work (that&#039;s not really the point though, the funding would have been sufficient if nasa had gone with a more commercial approach). nasa and old space simply can&#039;t do these things anymore.
spacex on the other hand will go to mars. you can watch.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>constellation was supposed to enable a lunar return by 2020. so 2025 would have been a failure already. stop being so defeatist, chris&#8230;lol<br />
constellation was a hyperexpensive, unsustainable and technically unsound architecture, that&#8217;s why it failed. i&#8217;m very skeptical that any amount of money could have made it work (that&#8217;s not really the point though, the funding would have been sufficient if nasa had gone with a more commercial approach). nasa and old space simply can&#8217;t do these things anymore.<br />
spacex on the other hand will go to mars. you can watch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Castro</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475856</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Castro]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475856</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Josh,...... He says: &quot;Ares 5 would have flown in 2030, and even that was a big maybe.&quot; 

 That&#039;s a crock of guano!! Ares 5 totally could&#039;ve made a year 2020 deadline, IF IT HAD BEEN FUNDED in a timely &amp; correct manner. Since the Altair lander &amp; the earth departure stage were the prime cargo components, for which it was being designed for, I see NO reason why both Altair &amp; the EDS couldn&#039;t have in turn, made a hypothetically revised deadline of 2025, to carry out an actual manned mission-------presumably a low lunar orbit test flight, like Apollo 10.      

The Commercial Spacers sure relish the defeatist talk, when it comes to what timescale Project Constellation could&#039;ve been brought on line! What about how freaking long it&#039;s taking them just to launch a single manned capsule into mere LEO?! What about their snail-pace work at developing a module with a life-support machine that could withstand a 500-day trek to Mars &amp; back------AND a re-entry heat sheild apparatus, to survive the mega-high speed planetfall to Earth?! Oh yeah, ha ha ha, Constellation would not have been built until the 2030&#039;s, BUT Inspiration Mars either 2018 OR 2021 looks to be a sure-done conclusion, certain of deadline-meeting success!?!?!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Josh,&#8230;&#8230; He says: &#8220;Ares 5 would have flown in 2030, and even that was a big maybe.&#8221; </p>
<p> That&#8217;s a crock of guano!! Ares 5 totally could&#8217;ve made a year 2020 deadline, IF IT HAD BEEN FUNDED in a timely &amp; correct manner. Since the Altair lander &amp; the earth departure stage were the prime cargo components, for which it was being designed for, I see NO reason why both Altair &amp; the EDS couldn&#8217;t have in turn, made a hypothetically revised deadline of 2025, to carry out an actual manned mission&#8212;&#8212;-presumably a low lunar orbit test flight, like Apollo 10.      </p>
<p>The Commercial Spacers sure relish the defeatist talk, when it comes to what timescale Project Constellation could&#8217;ve been brought on line! What about how freaking long it&#8217;s taking them just to launch a single manned capsule into mere LEO?! What about their snail-pace work at developing a module with a life-support machine that could withstand a 500-day trek to Mars &amp; back&#8212;&#8212;AND a re-entry heat sheild apparatus, to survive the mega-high speed planetfall to Earth?! Oh yeah, ha ha ha, Constellation would not have been built until the 2030&#8217;s, BUT Inspiration Mars either 2018 OR 2021 looks to be a sure-done conclusion, certain of deadline-meeting success!?!?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Castro</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475855</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Castro]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475855</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Rick Boozer,......Heavy-Lift will still be needed! Any future manned Moon program will require it! Even if the mission elements need two or even three separate launches, for some in-orbit assembly/docking, a Heavy Lift rocket, like the Ares 5 is the smartest way to do it! 
                                                      
 The Commercial Spacers all appear to have NO interest in getting astronauts back to the Moon, and most are quite phobic to the idea. Their ambitions in space go NO higher than the ISS, or to another new ISS-type facility. Naturally, they have NO need for Heavy Lift, in their mode of thinking. Sure, they harbor larger-than-life ideas of human Mars travel, but they&#039;re quite content with the thought that this audacious goal can be figured out by their entrepreneurial can-do spirit, PLUS the sum of the technologies developed on the ISS in LEO. But they&#039;re very wrong! The Moon will need to be included in the interplanetary trek equation, sooner or later-----and much better sooner!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rick Boozer,&#8230;&#8230;Heavy-Lift will still be needed! Any future manned Moon program will require it! Even if the mission elements need two or even three separate launches, for some in-orbit assembly/docking, a Heavy Lift rocket, like the Ares 5 is the smartest way to do it! </p>
<p> The Commercial Spacers all appear to have NO interest in getting astronauts back to the Moon, and most are quite phobic to the idea. Their ambitions in space go NO higher than the ISS, or to another new ISS-type facility. Naturally, they have NO need for Heavy Lift, in their mode of thinking. Sure, they harbor larger-than-life ideas of human Mars travel, but they&#8217;re quite content with the thought that this audacious goal can be figured out by their entrepreneurial can-do spirit, PLUS the sum of the technologies developed on the ISS in LEO. But they&#8217;re very wrong! The Moon will need to be included in the interplanetary trek equation, sooner or later&#8212;&#8211;and much better sooner!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475813</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[josh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:49:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[constellation was a pipe dream and a total failure, get over it chris. you&#039;re not entitled to your own facts. and to compare the brilliance of apollo to the managerial nightmare and technological clusterf*ck that was constellation...get real.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>constellation was a pipe dream and a total failure, get over it chris. you&#8217;re not entitled to your own facts. and to compare the brilliance of apollo to the managerial nightmare and technological clusterf*ck that was constellation&#8230;get real.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475812</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[josh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ares v in 2020...good one. ares v would have flown in 2030, and even that was a big maybe.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ares v in 2020&#8230;good one. ares v would have flown in 2030, and even that was a big maybe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475811</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[josh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[actually building a manned spacecraft is proving to be too hard of a task for lockmart, even after 10 billion spent. they&#039;re the hobbyist (getting billions from the taxpayers for failing again and again and again), spacex are the professionals, they&#039;re the ones getting results, simple. all the rest is bullshit.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually building a manned spacecraft is proving to be too hard of a task for lockmart, even after 10 billion spent. they&#8217;re the hobbyist (getting billions from the taxpayers for failing again and again and again), spacex are the professionals, they&#8217;re the ones getting results, simple. all the rest is bullshit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Boozer</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475803</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Boozer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;it serves to make the Lunar Return SEEM like a pipe-dream.&quot;
Lunar return with Ares V or SLS being a pipe dream is not the same as saying lunar return is a pipe dream and in fact may occur relatively soon. You are still ignoring the point I made earlier.  You really don&#039;t want the U.S. to return to the Moon if it doesn&#039;t involve a launch vehicle developed in the way that both Ares V and SLS were proposed to be developed. Anything that isn&#039;t SLS that would accomplish that goal would be a let down to you instead of your being proud that your country has returned. Pretty petty.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;it serves to make the Lunar Return SEEM like a pipe-dream.&#8221;<br />
Lunar return with Ares V or SLS being a pipe dream is not the same as saying lunar return is a pipe dream and in fact may occur relatively soon. You are still ignoring the point I made earlier.  You really don&#8217;t want the U.S. to return to the Moon if it doesn&#8217;t involve a launch vehicle developed in the way that both Ares V and SLS were proposed to be developed. Anything that isn&#8217;t SLS that would accomplish that goal would be a let down to you instead of your being proud that your country has returned. Pretty petty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Castro</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475798</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Castro]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Michael Kent;......&quot;Ares 5 wouldn&#039;t actually fly until 2028,...The EDS &amp; Altair wouldn&#039;t be ready until 2035.&quot; 

Wholesale fiction-----a deliberate revisal of future projections, so that you could SEEM to have a viable argument!! Look, Constellation&#039;s sole technical/technological problem was that it was NOT adequately funded. If the Project had been funded in a timely manner, its flight elements certainly could&#039;ve been built-----within the 2010&#039;s! If any unexpected delays came up, it would&#039;ve been nothing as off the wall, as you Commercial Space proponents suggest. 
                                         Project Apollo was put together within a ten year period, and included diverse mission elements as well: the multi-stage heavy-lift rocket; the main crew vehicle, which served as lunar transport &amp; orbiter; the lunar landing module. All this flimsily-based talk about Constellation taking till 2028 or 2035 to accomplish, merely visualizes what you space cowboys want to forsee: it serves to make the Lunar Return SEEM like a pipe-dream. 
                                                                         If JKF &amp; LBJ had similarly failed to implement Apollo, just like GWB did with Constellation, then indeed it would&#039;ve resulted in a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophesy, just the same. Apollo 7 would NOT have flown until 1978, and Apollo 11, or an equivalent flight, would NOT have made the premiere Moon  landing until 1985!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Michael Kent;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;Ares 5 wouldn&#8217;t actually fly until 2028,&#8230;The EDS &amp; Altair wouldn&#8217;t be ready until 2035.&#8221; </p>
<p>Wholesale fiction&#8212;&#8211;a deliberate revisal of future projections, so that you could SEEM to have a viable argument!! Look, Constellation&#8217;s sole technical/technological problem was that it was NOT adequately funded. If the Project had been funded in a timely manner, its flight elements certainly could&#8217;ve been built&#8212;&#8211;within the 2010&#8217;s! If any unexpected delays came up, it would&#8217;ve been nothing as off the wall, as you Commercial Space proponents suggest.<br />
                                         Project Apollo was put together within a ten year period, and included diverse mission elements as well: the multi-stage heavy-lift rocket; the main crew vehicle, which served as lunar transport &amp; orbiter; the lunar landing module. All this flimsily-based talk about Constellation taking till 2028 or 2035 to accomplish, merely visualizes what you space cowboys want to forsee: it serves to make the Lunar Return SEEM like a pipe-dream.<br />
                                                                         If JKF &amp; LBJ had similarly failed to implement Apollo, just like GWB did with Constellation, then indeed it would&#8217;ve resulted in a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophesy, just the same. Apollo 7 would NOT have flown until 1978, and Apollo 11, or an equivalent flight, would NOT have made the premiere Moon  landing until 1985!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Shipley</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/28/at-hearing-some-argue-mars-flyby-mission-can-provide-direction-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program/#comment-475793</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neil Shipley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:09:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6900#comment-475793</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yep Vlad has it right.  I&#039;ve posted on both sites that Jason Rhian apparently &#039;moderates&#039; and have had posts deleted but if I question the status quo in the slightest they&#039;re never published.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep Vlad has it right.  I&#8217;ve posted on both sites that Jason Rhian apparently &#8216;moderates&#8217; and have had posts deleted but if I question the status quo in the slightest they&#8217;re never published.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
