Defending Ares/DIRECT

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:21:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

Sorry, but I'd rather not waste my tax money pretending that we have a
useful space program.

On Nov 19, 7:44 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:21:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

Sorry, but I'd rather not waste my tax money pretending that we have a
useful space program.

Rand:

I think it is an unfortunate fact of life that you have to either
settle for NASA doing something like this or have NASA give up on
manned spaceflight, which would you rather have?
Consider that fairly soon, Bigelow will have their habitats up there.
Then they will put one in a lunar cycler orbit. Then somebody will
decide to make a re-usable lunar lander from said cycler.
However, if NASA gives up on manned spaceflight, I think private
entities will too. If the need to refuel ISS goes, so does any market
for refueling it. We may not like the political hand we've been dealt
but thats what we have. Time to make lemonade outta lemons.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:38:53 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On Nov 19, 7:44 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:21:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

Sorry, but I'd rather not waste my tax money pretending that we have a
useful space program.

Rand:

I think it is an unfortunate fact of life that you have to either
settle for NASA doing something like this or have NASA give up on
manned spaceflight, which would you rather have?

If those are the only choices (I don't believe they are), then the
latter, given the history of the past half century.

Consider that fairly soon, Bigelow will have their habitats up there.
Then they will put one in a lunar cycler orbit. Then somebody will
decide to make a re-usable lunar lander from said cycler.
However, if NASA gives up on manned spaceflight, I think private
entities will too.

There is no rational reason to believe this.

On Nov 19, 10:25 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:38:53 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



On Nov 19, 7:44 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:21:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

Sorry, but I'd rather not waste my tax money pretending that we have a
useful space program.

Rand:

I think it is an unfortunate fact of life that you have to either
settle for NASA doing something like this or have NASA give up on
manned spaceflight, which would you rather have?

If those are the only choices (I don't believe they are), then the
latter, given the history of the past half century.

Consider that fairly soon, Bigelow will have their habitats up there.
Then they will put one in a lunar cycler orbit. Then somebody will
decide to make a re-usable lunar lander from said cycler.
However, if NASA gives up on manned spaceflight, I think private
entities will too.

There is no rational reason to believe this.

Businessmen are not entirely rational, sometimes we go on gut feelings
and if one thinks that even NASA with its huge resources cannot do it
then..................
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, re-fueling ISS and sending
crews to it could be a major component of commercial spaceflight. If
NASA drops manned spaceflight, then there will be no reason to do
this.
I agree that NASA ending manned flights would not entirely be the end
of commercial efforts but it would deal commercial manned flights a
major blow.
I believe (my own opinion) that there is very little chance of getting
a non-shuttle derived system funded. Getting something like this
funded is like what they say about making sausage or legislation, you
really don't want to see it. Which would be worse, no manned NASA
program or a less than optimal one like DIRECT. Most politics, a lot
of business and now unfortunately space stuff means holding your nose
while you support it.
I wonder if I am older or just more cynical than you. I watched the
moon shots in the late 60s and early 70s. I even went to Cocoa to
watch Apollo 11 take off (I was 13) and it was a tiny sliver on the
horizon but when the sound arrived everything shook. I gathered as
many coke bottles as I could to replace the tubes in our old B&W TV to
try to watch the moon landing. When my own kids ask why we cannot go
to the moon anymore I just shake my head in frustration. My kids like
to go cave exploring with me and I tell them they will be able to
explore lava tubes on the moon but knowing that might not even happen
makes me wild with frustration. However, being in business, I long
ago lost the idealism when I found how federal funding really works.
I am not a religious man but I am PRAYING for the success of SpaceX
and Bigelow.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:58:03 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Consider that fairly soon, Bigelow will have their habitats up there.
Then they will put one in a lunar cycler orbit. Then somebody will
decide to make a re-usable lunar lander from said cycler.
However, if NASA gives up on manned spaceflight, I think private
entities will too.

There is no rational reason to believe this.

Businessmen are not entirely rational, sometimes we go on gut feelings
and if one thinks that even NASA with its huge resources cannot do it
then

Yes, "one" might think that, but certainly not all.
...................
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, re-fueling ISS and sending
crews to it could be a major component of commercial spaceflight. If
NASA drops manned spaceflight, then there will be no reason to do
this.

People going to Bigelow facilities won't care.

I agree that NASA ending manned flights would not entirely be the end
of commercial efforts but it would deal commercial manned flights a
major blow.

Not really. In some ways, it will be a huge improvement, because
we'll no longer have an ongoing existence proof of how expensive and
dangerous manned spaceflight must be.

wrote in message
...
This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

Buying flights on EELV's would still be feeding US aerospace contractors.
It's not like anyone is proposing flying Orion on top of a foreign launch
vehicle. Wasting money developing Ares I and Ares V is just that, wasting
money. I'm hoping that once we elect/appoint a new administration that this
whole shuttle derived launch vehicle debacle will be put to a complete,
merciful, death.

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

On 20 Nov, 00:21, wrote:
This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

That's not a defence. That's just saying its a crap concept but that's
because the USA has a crap system for managing spaceflight.

It's like saying my car is crap, but it what I was given, and no one
gave me something better. There - I've just defended my car. Not.

On Nov 20, 6:07 pm, Alex Terrell wrote:
On 20 Nov, 00:21, wrote:

This is even easier than defending Orion. Critics say that these
plans are simply to benefit ATK and other current shuttle
contractors. Welcome to the real world. That is the way life works
in federal funding of mega projects. Any shuttle replacement that did
NOT use these contractors would have no chance of funding so you
should live with it and get the best you can under that condition.

That's not a defence. That's just saying its a crap concept but that's
because the USA has a crap system for managing spaceflight.

It's like saying my car is crap, but it what I was given, and no one
gave me something better. There - I've just defended my car. Not.

OK, if you have almost no money and you have a crap car, then its a
pretty good car.
NASA has not "proved" that space flight is expensive and dangerous,
that seems to be your impression based on a misunderstanding of NASA's
job.

writes:

I believe (my own opinion) that there is very little chance of getting
a non-shuttle derived system funded. Getting something like this
funded is like what they say about making sausage or legislation, you
really don't want to see it. Which would be worse, no manned NASA
program or a less than optimal one like DIRECT. Most politics, a lot
of business and now unfortunately space stuff means holding your nose
while you support it.

Step one: we must do something.
Step two: this is something.
Step three: ...


I'd have hoped for stronger reasoning behind attempting to
build two new large launch vehicles, is all.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------