<?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: Bipartisan House letter calls for &#8220;vision and timeline&#8221; for space exploration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration</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: Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477300</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moose]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress calls for vision and timeline for space exploration so that it can ignore and chronically under-fund it like the last one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congress calls for vision and timeline for space exploration so that it can ignore and chronically under-fund it like the last one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477234</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exactly, Hiram.  And very well put.  Giant sausages like SLS, concocted from dubious ingredients by incompetent congressional meatpackers, have no future.  Nor does any NASA human spaceflight plan that requires more than a single presidential administration to accomplish.  History amply demonstrates that long-term goal-setting and achievement are mainly the province of visionary and persistent individuals working in the private sector.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly, Hiram.  And very well put.  Giant sausages like SLS, concocted from dubious ingredients by incompetent congressional meatpackers, have no future.  Nor does any NASA human spaceflight plan that requires more than a single presidential administration to accomplish.  History amply demonstrates that long-term goal-setting and achievement are mainly the province of visionary and persistent individuals working in the private sector.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vulture4</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477164</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[vulture4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s clear they want money moved to SLS/Orion from somewhere else in NASA&#039;s budget. But where?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s clear they want money moved to SLS/Orion from somewhere else in NASA&#8217;s budget. But where?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hiram</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477135</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hiram]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The corollary to this is that, in the same way that commercial space decides on marketable space hardware that NASA can choose to buy (as opposed to building to detailed NASA spec), commercial space will also end up setting a vision and timeline for space that the U.S. government can chose to buy. So what we&#039;re looking at is not just commercial hardware, but commercial vision and timeline. Although commercialization of space vision and timeline doesn&#039;t particularly assert geopolitical superiority, it works for me. Fortunately, the commercial leaders are not space advocates who are wearing Starfleet uniforms and Spock ears, and they&#039;re also not the ones who are kissing the feet of constituents in their district, and changing the rules every government fiscal year. 

This is the real power of space commercialism. It&#039;s not just about cheaper hardware but, in the absence of any other leadership, is about producing vision that hardware is intended to serve.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The corollary to this is that, in the same way that commercial space decides on marketable space hardware that NASA can choose to buy (as opposed to building to detailed NASA spec), commercial space will also end up setting a vision and timeline for space that the U.S. government can chose to buy. So what we&#8217;re looking at is not just commercial hardware, but commercial vision and timeline. Although commercialization of space vision and timeline doesn&#8217;t particularly assert geopolitical superiority, it works for me. Fortunately, the commercial leaders are not space advocates who are wearing Starfleet uniforms and Spock ears, and they&#8217;re also not the ones who are kissing the feet of constituents in their district, and changing the rules every government fiscal year. </p>
<p>This is the real power of space commercialism. It&#8217;s not just about cheaper hardware but, in the absence of any other leadership, is about producing vision that hardware is intended to serve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477134</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The last 40 years of history serve to demonstrate very plainly that the U.S. government is not going to be the engine of humanity&#039;s advance into space.  The only rational justification for going into space is so that significant populations can follow the trailblazers and establish themselves off-planet.  But no significant political figure in either major political party - with the sale exception of Newt Gingrich - has ever done anything but heap scorn on this aspiration.  To nearly all of our political class, space is irrelevant, silly, the childish obsession of people who wear Starfleet uniforms and Spock ears.  To the remaining few, it is relevant only as a source of pork spending in their districts/states.  NASA has spent most of the last four decades doing little but wasting and dithering.  Under direction of the current and foreseeable U.S. political class, it will continue mostly wasting and dithering.  The only sustainable space efforts will come from visionary entrepreneurs in the private sector.  The most significant such current figure is obviously Elon Musk.  Five years from now, NASA and the U.S. Congress will still be porkmeistering in pointless circles.  Musk and SpaceX will be the major players setting the agenda for the only &quot;space program&quot; that will really still matter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The last 40 years of history serve to demonstrate very plainly that the U.S. government is not going to be the engine of humanity&#8217;s advance into space.  The only rational justification for going into space is so that significant populations can follow the trailblazers and establish themselves off-planet.  But no significant political figure in either major political party &#8211; with the sale exception of Newt Gingrich &#8211; has ever done anything but heap scorn on this aspiration.  To nearly all of our political class, space is irrelevant, silly, the childish obsession of people who wear Starfleet uniforms and Spock ears.  To the remaining few, it is relevant only as a source of pork spending in their districts/states.  NASA has spent most of the last four decades doing little but wasting and dithering.  Under direction of the current and foreseeable U.S. political class, it will continue mostly wasting and dithering.  The only sustainable space efforts will come from visionary entrepreneurs in the private sector.  The most significant such current figure is obviously Elon Musk.  Five years from now, NASA and the U.S. Congress will still be porkmeistering in pointless circles.  Musk and SpaceX will be the major players setting the agenda for the only &#8220;space program&#8221; that will really still matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adastramike</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477078</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[adastramike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I read through this short report and was not impressed. It basically regurgitated the 2010 space policy without actually doing what was requested: laying out specific goals, destinations and vision, and that means actual missions, whether a series of technology demonstrations or science-driven human spaceflght missions. A high schooler could have done better.

Their schedule was pretty much only near term, instead of planning missions in stepping stone fashion, that test key technologies and systems needed for human exploration of Mars. What about a plan for a habitation module, artificial gravity systems for the months long journey to Mars, life support systems in deep space, advanced propulsion systems to shorten the trip time, advanced entry systems to enter the Martian atmosphere at lowest mass possible, other entry methods to land more than just 2 tons, surface habitation systems, roving vehicles, and other key elements? Where&#039;s the plant phase development and testing of each system in an orderly manner so that we actually do achieve a crewed Mars landing inthe 2030s?

And don&#039;t point to this asteroid redirect mission. It&#039;s a stunt, a single mission at that, with little applicability to human Mars exploration, in my view. I haven&#039;t heard of a good explanation as to how this mission supports the goal to send humans to Mars, only statements that it does. That is, beyond being different target than the Moon, how is this a stepping stone? Yes, the SLS and Orion will be tested, but that&#039;s not enough for a serious humans to Mars plan. What utility is SEP to landing on or even orbiting humans around Mars? SEP might be good for cargo missions, but how will an SEP system, designed to move a small asteroid, be directly applicable to sending humans to Mars? SEP trajectories imply slow spirals, which increases travel time, the opposite of what&#039;s needed. We need to prove out systems for both long duration space travel and surface stays, not one-off stunts. And I don&#039;t see a plan to do that, from either current NASA leadership or the WH. So no, they haven&#039;t addressed the long term with a mission-driven strategy, even at the key technology level. That lack of a plan is not just pathetic, it is deliberate, in my view, on the part of our so called leaders. It&#039;s deliberate either because the leadership is incompetent on space exploration matters, and left the long term plan blank because they don&#039;t know what to do next, or they don&#039;t care.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read through this short report and was not impressed. It basically regurgitated the 2010 space policy without actually doing what was requested: laying out specific goals, destinations and vision, and that means actual missions, whether a series of technology demonstrations or science-driven human spaceflght missions. A high schooler could have done better.</p>
<p>Their schedule was pretty much only near term, instead of planning missions in stepping stone fashion, that test key technologies and systems needed for human exploration of Mars. What about a plan for a habitation module, artificial gravity systems for the months long journey to Mars, life support systems in deep space, advanced propulsion systems to shorten the trip time, advanced entry systems to enter the Martian atmosphere at lowest mass possible, other entry methods to land more than just 2 tons, surface habitation systems, roving vehicles, and other key elements? Where&#8217;s the plant phase development and testing of each system in an orderly manner so that we actually do achieve a crewed Mars landing inthe 2030s?</p>
<p>And don&#8217;t point to this asteroid redirect mission. It&#8217;s a stunt, a single mission at that, with little applicability to human Mars exploration, in my view. I haven&#8217;t heard of a good explanation as to how this mission supports the goal to send humans to Mars, only statements that it does. That is, beyond being different target than the Moon, how is this a stepping stone? Yes, the SLS and Orion will be tested, but that&#8217;s not enough for a serious humans to Mars plan. What utility is SEP to landing on or even orbiting humans around Mars? SEP might be good for cargo missions, but how will an SEP system, designed to move a small asteroid, be directly applicable to sending humans to Mars? SEP trajectories imply slow spirals, which increases travel time, the opposite of what&#8217;s needed. We need to prove out systems for both long duration space travel and surface stays, not one-off stunts. And I don&#8217;t see a plan to do that, from either current NASA leadership or the WH. So no, they haven&#8217;t addressed the long term with a mission-driven strategy, even at the key technology level. That lack of a plan is not just pathetic, it is deliberate, in my view, on the part of our so called leaders. It&#8217;s deliberate either because the leadership is incompetent on space exploration matters, and left the long term plan blank because they don&#8217;t know what to do next, or they don&#8217;t care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Shipley</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477062</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neil Shipley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477062</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes agreed.  The WH initiated a program based on technology development being exactly what was needed for the next steps out beyond leo since NASA have acknowledged that that cupboard is bare.  Congress shut it down and voted for the pork SLS and to continue funding MPCV.  What a joke!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes agreed.  The WH initiated a program based on technology development being exactly what was needed for the next steps out beyond leo since NASA have acknowledged that that cupboard is bare.  Congress shut it down and voted for the pork SLS and to continue funding MPCV.  What a joke!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coastal Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477049</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Coastal Ron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[amightywind said:

&quot;&lt;i&gt;Iâ€™m just glad there are people out there who see our lame space program for what it is.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

Space is a big place, so not having a consensus about where to go should not surprise you.

Space is also a very expensive place to operate in, so expecting our politicians to be spending lavishly on space should not surprise you either, especially when there isn&#039;t some sort of National Imperative creating a sense of urgency like the Cold War did (and no, Putin&#039;s escapades do not rise to the level of the Cold War).

So it should definitely not be a surprise when our politicians cannot figure what to do with the most expensive rocket the U.S. has built in generations.  And just because the SLS is a smaller version of the Ares V doesn&#039;t mean that going to the Moon is any less expensive or quicker than what the Constellation program was going to do (i.e. $100B and 20 years down the road).

Any exploration plan that does not focus on initial costs and sustainable costs is doomed to fail.  And the SLS and MPCV fail both of those tests.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>amightywind said:</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>Iâ€™m just glad there are people out there who see our lame space program for what it is.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>Space is a big place, so not having a consensus about where to go should not surprise you.</p>
<p>Space is also a very expensive place to operate in, so expecting our politicians to be spending lavishly on space should not surprise you either, especially when there isn&#8217;t some sort of National Imperative creating a sense of urgency like the Cold War did (and no, Putin&#8217;s escapades do not rise to the level of the Cold War).</p>
<p>So it should definitely not be a surprise when our politicians cannot figure what to do with the most expensive rocket the U.S. has built in generations.  And just because the SLS is a smaller version of the Ares V doesn&#8217;t mean that going to the Moon is any less expensive or quicker than what the Constellation program was going to do (i.e. $100B and 20 years down the road).</p>
<p>Any exploration plan that does not focus on initial costs and sustainable costs is doomed to fail.  And the SLS and MPCV fail both of those tests.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen C. Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477036</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen C. Smith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[August 2012 ... In response to a demand from Congress that the White House articulate a vision for the space program, NASA issued a report titled
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/686629main_Exploration_Goals_and_Destinations_Report_FINAL_August%202012.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;cite&gt;NASA Exploration Destinations, Goals, and International Collaboration&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.

Congress did nothing.

The White House did exactly what this letter asks.  Time for Congress to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their failure to act.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>August 2012 &#8230; In response to a demand from Congress that the White House articulate a vision for the space program, NASA issued a report titled<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/686629main_Exploration_Goals_and_Destinations_Report_FINAL_August%202012.pdf" rel="nofollow"><cite>NASA Exploration Destinations, Goals, and International Collaboration</cite></a>.</p>
<p>Congress did nothing.</p>
<p>The White House did exactly what this letter asks.  Time for Congress to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their failure to act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hiram</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/25/bipartisan-house-letter-calls-for-vision-and-timeline-for-space-exploration/#comment-477027</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hiram]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=6960#comment-477027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you read their letter, you are led to believe that their goal and expectation is firmly based on &quot;inspiration&quot;, which is one of the most ill-defined and overused rationales that anyone has ever come up with. It will be amusing to see how the success of this effort is assessed. &quot;OK, everyone who felt &#039;inspired&#039;, please smile and raise your hand!&quot; Considering that advocacy for human spaceflight is becoming like a religion, with meaning that transcends any solid rationale, it makes sense to look to for inspiration from it. 

The implicit goal of human spaceflight is colonization and settlement. That&#039;s a solid argument for human spaceflight, but one that Congress won&#039;t touch with a ten foot pole, and no administration has shown any passion for.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you read their letter, you are led to believe that their goal and expectation is firmly based on &#8220;inspiration&#8221;, which is one of the most ill-defined and overused rationales that anyone has ever come up with. It will be amusing to see how the success of this effort is assessed. &#8220;OK, everyone who felt &#8216;inspired&#8217;, please smile and raise your hand!&#8221; Considering that advocacy for human spaceflight is becoming like a religion, with meaning that transcends any solid rationale, it makes sense to look to for inspiration from it. </p>
<p>The implicit goal of human spaceflight is colonization and settlement. That&#8217;s a solid argument for human spaceflight, but one that Congress won&#8217;t touch with a ten foot pole, and no administration has shown any passion for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
