Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 29 Jul 2015 20:36:49 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at g6ypk With all the hype about new vehicles, I cannot understand why NASA has not been given the go-ahead to build a magnetic launch ramp. The fuel savings alone will save many millions of dollars in first stage weight. A blind man riding a galloping newt could see that is the way to go.Perhaps I am just mad, I don't know, for that is not for me to judge; but if I were to have the internal clout, then I would be disgussing this avenue for heavy lift vehicles. Mon 18 Oct 2010 20:11:41 GMT+1 delmn8ed 5. At 3:32pm on 01 Oct 2010, gaetano marano it seems that NASA, White House, US Senate and House want to (finally) adopt MY idea of shuttle-derived FAST-SLV that I've proposed in May 12, 2006 (4.5 years ago!) in this article:.[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator].Congratulations you must be very proud. Some commentators have said that the bill passed recently is flawed, how does that reflect on your space ship. Sat 09 Oct 2010 12:29:15 GMT+1 Yossarian #8 Granten said: "There really isn't anything that a human can do there that a machine can't with far greater efficiency at a far lower cost."------------------------------------You never read the articles about the rovers stuck in damp sand, the ones unable to function because of the dust blown onto their solar panels, the experiment that involved tipping soil into an oven that got blocked up, the repeated camera problems on the Russian Venus probes...... all situations where a human hand would have solved the problem in seconds. So much money has been wasted in the past because of silly little problems that we can't fix because it's beyond the capability of a probe. Thu 07 Oct 2010 12:41:04 GMT+1 The_Oncoming_Storm It's good that NASA is staying in the manned spaceflight game and is proposing to develop private access to space which is in the long term the only way to bring down launch costs. I'm still a bit skeptical about a new rocket being shuttle derived, there have been several such proposal since the 1970's and none of them have materialised. It's quite telling that America has developed six different man rated launch vehicles in the same time that the Russians have just kept on building and updating Sergei Korolev's Semyorka which 53 years ago last Monday put Sputnik into orbit! Wed 06 Oct 2010 11:15:00 GMT+1 andrewme If we need to go back to the moon for strategic reasons all we need do is update the saturn specs and test it.1 to 2 years?Long haul travel could be revolutionised by low orbit flights.Colonies on Mars? Well trying to find enough water food and resources for the world is going to need some ingenuity( not through recycling or buying a bike) and terra forming might be an answer.I can think of few people I know who I would like to volunteer :) Wed 06 Oct 2010 09:18:26 GMT+1 Scott0962 When Kennedy committed the U.S. to putting a man on the moon he didn't specify the technology we would use to get there, he set a goal and left it to the scientists and engineers to determine what was needed to achieve it. What this "mandate" does is specify the technology to be developed within a fixed budget and leaves it to NASA to figure out what can be done with it. That's not a mandate, its a budget for a bureaucracy with the primary goal being not the manned exploration of space but rather spending money in as many Congressional districts as possible.Its sad to think that the vision of America's leaders which once reached to the moon now doesn't extend much further than their own shoelaces. Tue 05 Oct 2010 17:37:34 GMT+1 knowles2 The Boeing an Lockead martin needs to go where the Sun do not shine, other companies are more than ready to build an test systems an take on a large part of the risk associated with there development projects. As to the rest, it seem congress is trying get everything it wants but not giving Nasa the funding it really needs to do it. TheyCallMeTheWonderer Of cause by 2016 we will have a new president an new ideas or with a new pay masters who will undoubtedly has his or her own vision for Nasa an everything will be change again. Mon 04 Oct 2010 19:50:24 GMT+1 Robert Lucien Oops! I don't quite know what happened there. - Well yes I do, I left it twenty minutes between finishing my post and sending it, then was in a rush and hit the send button and... I admit it I'm a klutz, you can see why they don't let scientists do much practical engineering! :) Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:16:44 GMT+1 jr4412 marcos anthony toledo #9.hear, hear.unfortunately, none of the fanboyz will pay the least bit attention. Sat 02 Oct 2010 14:33:12 GMT+1 Robert Lucien Same old debate round and round it goes. From a technical point of view the thing we really need is a deep space mission engine. This is totally different to anything we have now, 0.5 or 1 gee's thrust for maybe 10 to 20 tons of payload for at least 1 to 2 hours. A deep space engine will not only make manned missions to Mars and beyond much more practical, but it will also make far more ambitious /. ~robot missions possible as well. for manned missions it will also reduce complexity and costs plus increase safety on several fronts because travel times will simply be much faster. Less than a month transit to Mars or a year to Jupiter or five to Pluto (rough estimates).The only technology that is realistically practical at present for this kind of engine is nuclear, so maybe the answer is to give nuclear space technology research a much higher priority. Sat 02 Oct 2010 09:28:26 GMT+1 Martin C I agree that this is exciting news and I agree with the idea of leaving LEO taxi services to the private sector. I also agree with Stephen Ashworth's view that more clarity is needed on the end mission(s)Space desperately needs to re-capture the public's imagination.For all its technological achievements, the ISS will never do this and neither will new LEO "space taxis". I was sad at the cancelation of Constellation,but thinking about it now, I'm not even sure a return to the moon would really have achieved this either. I think the priotities for space should focus on the goal of finding life elsewhere, surely one of the most fundamental questions of all and certain to capture the public's imagination. To that end, the goals and priorities for funding should be:1- maximum focus on probes to Mars that can detect life2- human landing on Mars which would answer this question for definite3- priority for other probes to target the sub surface ocean on Europa4- Investment in technologies to study exo planetsI think this would give focus and re-capture public imagination Sat 02 Oct 2010 08:45:21 GMT+1 kevin You get more for your money if you build space probes and space telescopes.Man space flight is good to watch but very dangerous.If nasa ever sends humans to mars,i hope they have multiple space craft with a waiting empty craft in orbit around the planet as a life boat.After Apollo 13,if things go wrong you can`t just turn round.All of this can be practiced around the moon but the americans are not going back.If china goes to the moon they might build the first hotel there.I hope americans if they do go to the moon following the chinese,i hope they carry plastic and not paper because the moon might be a red moon. Fri 01 Oct 2010 23:36:56 GMT+1 marcos anthony toledo the problem with the orion capsule is that it's only the apollo capsule on steroids. you think after 40 years nasa would have come up more advanced. this is like fighting ww2 with metalize versions of ww1 biplanes. america's failure to abandone the dead end techology of rockets and move on to somsthing better has reduce it's maned space program to a pathic dog and poney show it has become. Fri 01 Oct 2010 18:28:30 GMT+1 Granten It really doesn't sound like it's that much of a step forward. They're still talking about sending humans to Mars when it has already been done for far less cost by robots. There really isn't anything that a human can do there that a machine can't with far greater efficiency at a far lower cost. Fri 01 Oct 2010 18:00:27 GMT+1 Treefrog As with the takeup and use of all new technology: first the scientists go there and determine empirically what can be done, then varied commercial/industrial interests find a way to make it useful to us and profitable to them and so invest. I see no reason to doubt that the utilisation of space will continue in the same vein.The 'cost per usage' will drop until more and more ventures become affordable and viable, the cost per cubic metre of pressurised volume will drop thus making more and larger projects viable. Sooner or later this will include in-orbit facility and structure construction centred on a workshop/factory module rather than launching everything ready-assembled from the bottom of Earth's gravity well. NASA's crew-launch-plus-cargo-launch-and-join-up-in-space is the first step in this direction. At this point a totally reuseable transport system with a short turnaround time - such as Skylon - will prove its cost-effectiveness for transport of workers, supplies, and components. Single shot launch vehicles are all very well for single shot projects, but any long term usage will require transport costs to become a smaller and smaller fraction of the total cost. Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:01:59 GMT+1 BluesBerry As Congress debates NASA’s uncertain future, political leaders maintain that the United States MUST make space exploration a national priority. Why?Is it a fear that American Policy will eventually, inevitably destroy the Planet Earth so the elite must have a comfortable way to exit?Is it fear that American inaction will allow Russia, China, India, and a score of other space-venturing countries to surpass American intelligence? (The Dulles, Virginia-based GeoEye, Inc. earlier this year picked Lockheed Martin to build the high-resolution GeoEye 2 satellite - users ranging from US national security to civilian buyers around the globe. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency recently gave GeoEye a 10-year, $3.8B contract to provide imagery to the US Government for intelligence-gathering, military planning and natural disaster response.)Please, don’t try to tell me it’s about saving 4,000 jobs in Florida:Senator Bill Nelson lobbied for approval of a Senate bill that he said would preserve about 4,000 Florida jobs connected with the space program and keep the United States involved with the International Space Station at least through 2020.In any case, Congress passed the new guidelines for space exploration that NASA needs to follow over the coming decades. The most important conclusion of the bill is that NASA needs to comply with US President Barack Obama’s space exploration plan released earlier this year. The space program has changed from reaching the Moon by 2020; it now wants to reach a near-Earth object (NEO) by 2025 and send a manned mission to Mars by the late 2030s. As NASA approaches the end of its nearly-30-year-long Shuttle Program, it is now left with a total of three flight to be conducted. Two were already planned, Discovery in November and Endeavor in February 2011, and another one, by shuttle Atlantis, was approved by the new bill. NASA is clearly an agency in transition. The decisions that are made will govern American spaceflight for the next 25 to 30 years.So where is the program going?Where is the money going to come from?Why is it such a top priority? Fri 01 Oct 2010 16:35:51 GMT+1 gaetano marano it seems that NASA, White House, US Senate and House want to (finally) adopt MY idea of shuttle-derived FAST-SLV that I've proposed in May 12, 2006 (4.5 years ago!) in this posted in/from 2006 in many hundreds comments on several space and science forums and blogs!!!.ok, ok... I know that STILL many (including 100% of the Press that "should" always say THE TRUTH...) call this concept "Direct" despite the Direct-LOBBY "invented" it FOUR months LATER as explained in this, all these concepts (MY 2006's FAST-SLV, the FOUR months LATER "Direct 1.0", the 2009's "Direct 3.0" and the 2009's new NASA SDHLV) are TOO OLD now and need some FRESH REDESIGN... Fri 01 Oct 2010 14:32:05 GMT+1 TheyCallMeTheWonderer This is brilliant news! Although I always agreed with Obama's vision of private space, I was crushed at the cancellation on Constellation. This was to be my generation's Apollo. Now it seems we are to get private sector space travel AND deep space exploration. The best of both worlds. "The basic elements of this space launch system must be ready by 31 December, 2016."Well we all know what happens to timescales on this kind of large scale engineering projects, but we can probably expect to see astronauts flying their shiny new space ship by 2020.At last! Progress on the horizon for mankind!All we need now is for ESA to step up their game and develop the crewed ATV variant. Fri 01 Oct 2010 08:19:14 GMT+1 weezer316 Much more effort really needs to be put into developing a new means of propulsion, or even getting a mecahnism to bend the laws of physics for travel. We can throw billions or even trillions at rockets and shuttles but it wont make the blindest bit of difference in the vastness of space.I personally would rather see the money spent on getting a mission to alpha centuari and also to europa rather than a manned mission to mars or even commercially affordable space flights. That would really capture our imaginations rather than a one small step for man re-run. One we get to these places then we can figure out how to get humans there Thu 30 Sep 2010 20:52:44 GMT+1 Simonm While Columbus, whose trip was an expression of big power rivalry, was initially funded by Government (Isabella). Ultimately it was private enterprise that took on the exploration and expansion of Europe throughout the world. A good metaphor for what is increasingly happening in space. Thu 30 Sep 2010 18:34:56 GMT+1 Stephen Ashworth This looks like a good compromise that we can all live with. The explorers get their big new rocket and Orion capsule. But the most significant comment of yours is that it "cements a new philosophy in human spaceflight". No longer is government the only entity that can transport space travellers.Commitment to the ISS over the next decade is also important. It maintains the seed from which the orbital infrastructure for a broad-based low Earth orbit passenger spaceflight industry can develop.Once we start seeing commercial passenger flights to orbit, then this will surely boost the case for spaceplanes such as Skylon. Ultimately, if we are going to achieve anything much in space, the Skylon model of transport to low Earth orbit must come to fruition -- as Alan Bond once said: book on Monday and launch on Friday.One question, though. It is a little hard to understand the commitment to build a Saturn 5-class rocket without a precise mission for it. The Saturn 5 was sized precisely to Apollo, as were its manufacturing and launch schedules. So a little more detail on what is supposed to be carried by this rocket would be useful.StephenOxford Thu 30 Sep 2010 17:44:48 GMT+1