In article ,
says...

"Hop" wrote in message ...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

?We need to get on with the task of building affordable launch systems
to meet our nation?s needs for access to low Earth orbit, instead of
promoting grandiose concepts which keep us vulnerable in the short and
medium terms. The most responsible course of action for the United
States is to dramatically accelerate the commercial crew systems
already under development.

What good is this going to do? The commercial firms are already well on
their way with delivering cargo to ISS and extra funding won't speed
this up.

And bsides all spacecraft are vulnerable. Soyuz has a good track record
and that it fails now is simply bad luck or bad oversight. There's a
good chance the Russians will fix it way before SpaceX or anyone else
can haul cargo or crew to ISS.

Which is why having multiple different types of spacecraft is a good
thing. I'd like to see both Orion and CST-100 flying to ISS. A failure
in one of them wouldn't "end US manned spaceflight".

SLS and MCPV aren't so bad since if the Chinese finally reveal their
Martian flyby plans you don't want to be in the position of not having
a large carrier rocket that could be used to beat them to the finish
line.

The Chinese aren't going to beat the US to Mars. They're nowhere near
ready for such a mission. They're still catching up to the 1970's
technologies that the US and Russia had with Apollo, Skylab, Soyuz, and
Salyut.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker