There is no concrete plan. It's pretty @!$%#ed up actually, and I can't seem to fathom why we still spend money on LEO. Waste of time.

Ahhh. Mr Bentley here seems to know everything there is to know about LEO, eh? And also how to live and work in microgravity for very long time? Its not like a trip to the moon. We're not talking about a few days or even weeks at a time, here. If you want to go anywhere interesting, we're talking in terms of years. LEO, while not glamorous, is still essential to learning what we have to account for, and what we have to do protect ourselves. I, too, want to get out there as soon as possible, but I ain't stupid enough to think we already know it all.

And personally, I'm glad to see that NASA is getting out of the taxi business. They weren't all that good at it and were too expensive lol.

It isn't even microgravity Mr. Brisaber, its free-fall. The earth's gravity is nearly the same in orbit ( anywhere between 2% to 8% less depending on orbit. Normally manned missions on the shuttle fell between 2 and 4%), thus making orbits possible to begin with. I do know quite a bit about this subject Brisaber, and it has nothing to do with learning what we have to account for. The Earth's magnetic field still protects LEO from the majority of cosmic radiation, the only thing we're learning there is that we don't have any kind of cohesive plan for human space exploration.

They've just turned the taxi service to a third party, were they will still foot the contract costs.

Physiologically the results are very close to the same thing. Can't ever really escape gravity, especially this close to a mass as large as earth. But you get a very good idea of how the body responds to micro-gravity over time. I'm not a real expert like you apparently are (or at least think you are), but I know we don't know squat about how real long-term exposure affects the body and mind. And to me it makes sense to learn about it close to home, rather than learn the hard way by sending people out there with no clue as to what to expect.

I do agree with you on one thing though: any true space exploration is going to need a long term vision and strategy to get us out of LEO, and that has been lacking ever since we made it to the moon. I don't blame NASA though. I blame a myopic political system that can't see past the next election. But baby steps are better than none, and this is certainly a step in right direction.

I guess I'm just not as cynical as you. You think we will never leave LEO. I believe we will. Maybe not soon, but inevitably we will. And maybe not as a cohesive long term strategy, but in incremental steps nonetheless.

Bentley, I agree with you that the current "flexible path" approach to manned deep space exploration (cis-lunar -> NEO -> Mars moon -> Mars, maybe with a lunar mission in there, all by the 2030's) doesn't have a very concrete feel to it given our recent history with Constellation (CxP)...

But I am optimistic that the current mission timeline is closer to a worst case scenario as NASA claims, or at least much more realistic than under CxP. Even though we may be repeating some of the mistakes made under CxP (thanks Conrgress!), SLS (aka, the Senate Launch System) is actually a much more practical approach than the Ares I / Ares V duo ever was for deep space, and will benefit greatly from most of the hardware already developed under CxP (i.e., the J-2X, the 5-seg booster, the mobile launch pad built for Ares-1x, Orion, etc.) and from existing hardware such as the shuttle main engines and the RL-10B (for the block I configuration).

Is it THE BEST possible approach? No.

Will it send Americans back into deep space for the first time since Apollo? I think so... assuming Congress and/or whomever is President doesn't cancel it...

I do NOT however share your view that LEO is a "waste of time"... fuel depots and the capability for greater on-orbit activity (that means LEO) as well as nuclear and ion-electric propulsion, and a variety of life support solutions related to zero-gravity and radiation (most of which are being researched in LEO) are all necessary advances that need to be made before humans can truly embark upon the final frontier.

(...Also yes LEO, such as aboard the ISS, is in fact a microgravityenvironment. Also, members of the ISS are exposed to significantly higher levels of radiation from solar flares, cosmic rays, etc. The Earth only provides partial protection at that orbital altitude.)

Zero gravity doesn't even exist, there's no way for something to have mass and not be subjected to the force of gravity. For the sake of argument we can call it microgravity if you want, but truly it's just counteracting gravity with another force—much the same way a parabolic flight from an airplane can lead to a state of weightlessness.

An exposure to slightly higher levels of radiation doesn't equal radiation exposures that happen outside of the Earth's magnetic field; they're still relatively protected.

LEO as I see it is a waste of time for human endeavors, anything that could be accomplished by humans there is also accomplishable by robots. So as far as human involvement in LEO, I just don't see the benefit per dollar spent—dollars that could be spent elsewhere on research here on earth.

So as far as human involvement in LEO, I just don't see the benefit per dollar spent—dollars that could be spent elsewhere on research here on earth.

So you just don't see benefit to space exploration in general, or is your issue really just with LEO?

Are you familiar with the concept of delta-v budget? The more delta-v required to go from point A to point B, the harder, more expensive, and less efficient it is to move any amount of mass.

Traveling from Earth's surface to LEO is typically the largest delta-v requirement of any space mission. By operating, constructing, rendezvousing, staging missions in LEO you are removing that much delta-v from the final mission's requirements and adding much more range. Especially with the idea of refueling depots, it gives you a lot more delta-v to navigate deep space, given known propulsion tech.

If you don't see the value of on-orbit/LEO operations to deep space exploration, then I have to say it is just your knowledge of the subject that is lacking. I am sorry to be blunt...

For an example of what I mean, please read about the differences between "Direct Ascent", which is one of the earlier methods proposed for traveling to the moon, VS. "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" which was how we actually ended up getting there. Required reading, lol!

Yes, my issue is really with ferrying humans to LEO for no other reason then going to LEO. The dollars I'm referring to could be better spent on developing technology to usher in a new age of deep space exploration.

Traveling from Earth's surface to LEO is typically the largest delta-v requirement of any space mission. By operating, constructing, rendezvousing, staging missions in LEO you are removing that much delta-v from the final mission's requirements and adding much more range.

When have we done this in the last, oh, 40 or 50 years? You're talking about advances that need to be made just as much as I am. Further, solely staging things in LEO from earth still requires you expend energy getting the materials there. So I don't get your point.

If you don't see the value of on-orbit/LEO operations to deep space exploration, then I have to say it is just your knowledge of the subject that is lacking. I am sorry to be blunt...

I haven't seen it occur yet for human space exploration, have you?

What we have seen, and is the entire shuttles legacy, is a very expensive space taxi to LEO. We didn't set up any logistical strategies to use LEO as a staging point for any manned exploration.

These proposed commerical ventures are to ferry humans into LEO, for the sake of going to LEO.

When have we done this [operating, constructing, rendezvousing, staging missions in LEO] in the last, oh, 40 or 50 years? You're talking about advances that need to be made just as much as I am.

No exotic tech required here. ISS is itself an example... Think of how incredibly large a rocket would have been needed to be to get the ISS into orbit in one shot! It would have been virtually possible and extremely cost prohibitive. Multiple smaller launches make it possible to contruct such a structure in-orbit. The ISS is a spacecraft. It doesn't leave LEO, but other large spacecraft intended for deep space would be constructed the same way, in LEO.

Further, solely staging things in LEO from earth still requires you expend energy getting the materials there. So I don't get your point.

It require less energy. The "rocket equation" explains this. The more mass you are sending to orbit, the more fuel you need, and the fuel requirement increases exponentially, because additional fuel is needed to overcome the fuels own mass and lowered momentum due to the additional fuel itself! It becomes completely self defeating after a certain point (there is a "sweet spot" for lift somewhere in the 50-70mt range if I recall correctly). The second reason is that if a spacecraft is already in orbit and fully fueled, the spacecraft is then free to travel on a full tank, so to speak, without having to "empty the tank" getting from Earth to orbit.

It would be like if you work 10 miles from home, but the only gas station is 100 miles away! You are spending most of your fuel before you ever get to any destination. We can build a gas station so to speak, in LEO, and assemble larger more capable spacecraft then we could ever launch from Earth's surface in one shot.

What we have seen, and is the entire shuttles legacy, is a very expensive space taxi to LEO. We didn't set up any logistical strategies to use LEO as a staging point for any manned exploration.

That's why the Shuttle has been cancelled. Comes down to dollars and cents. The Shuttle, while a capable vehicle for construction of a space station, was very expensive and fell far short of it's reusability goals. The Shuttle combined with construction of the ISS left little room for other initiatives in NASA's manned spaceflight budget. With ISS in maintenance mode, and Shuttle retired, NASA now has room in their budget (and a good strategy in place) to move beyond earth orbit.

I haven't seen it occur yet for human space exploration, have you?

Well, considering the only time humans have left earth orbit was during Apollo, it's kind of a pointless question, don't you think?

Apollo utilized a lunar orbit rendezvous, but earth orbit rendezvous was considered and was certainly a valid option. Earth orbit rendezvous does however happen on a very regular basis at the ISS. It was the method that Constellation would have used on lunar missions had the program not been cancelled, and let's be clear, once humans start to venture back out into deep space, Earth orbit is where we will begin.

No exotic tech required here. ISS is itself an example... Think of how incredibly large a rocket would have been needed to be to get the ISS into orbit in one shot! It would have been virtually possible and extremely cost prohibitive. Multiple smaller launches make it possible to contruct such a structure in-orbit. The ISS is a spacecraft. It doesn't leave LEO, but other large spacecraft intended for deep space would be constructed the same way, in LEO

And the ISS ran a collaboration of nations over 100 billion, and required a shuttle program that should have been scrapped to the tune of over 200 billion. Constructing spacecraft in LEO does not effectively equal cost savings.

It require less energy. The "rocket equation" explains this. The more mass you are sending to orbit, the more fuel you need, and the fuel requirement increases exponentially, because additional fuel is needed to overcome the fuels own mass and lowered momentum due to the additional fuel itself! It becomes completely self defeating after a certain point (there is a "sweet spot" for lift somewhere in the 50-70mt range if I recall correctly). The second reason is that if a spacecraft is already in orbit and fully fueled, the spacecraft is then free to travel on a full tank, so to speak, without having to "empty the tank" getting from Earth to orbit.

Think for a minute the logistics and infrastructure that would be required to do this. Not to mention that most rocket boosters and fuel tanks are normally jettisoned during ascent. To do this effectively you still need to haul this stuff up into LEO, and haul more fuel to fuel the fueling station. You still have to pay for this, even if you piece mill it like the ISS, it's still going to cost a pretty penny and doesn't make it anymore economically viable. Have we done anything like this? No. Do we plan on doing anything like this, no.

That's why the Shuttle has been cancelled. Comes down to dollars and cents. The Shuttle, while a capable vehicle for construction of a space station, was very expensive and fell far short of it's reusability goals. The Shuttle combined with construction of the ISS left little room for other initiatives in NASA's manned spaceflight budget. With ISS in maintenance mode, and Shuttle retired, NASA now has room in their budget (and a good strategy in place) to move beyond earth orbit.

The shuttle was a prime example for cost overruns, initially it was supposed to cost 15 million a launch, and have several launches per year. I equate some of my fears for the commercial initiates to this, as I believe it will turn out to cost a lot more than projected.

They don't have any strategy to move beyond LEO, they still fund the commercial efforts and most aspects of the proposed programs to get to mars/moon have been scrapped. About the only thing on budget and on time is the Orion, which may get demoted as the new escape system for the ISS. There has been no marked increase in wiggle room in their budjet for human space exploration.

I haven't seen it occur yet for human space exploration, have you?

Well, considering the only time humans have left earth orbit was during Apollo, it's kind of a pointless question, don't you think?

Obviously it was a redundant question to illustrate a point. There is no plan for human exploration beyond LEO at this time. There are no such plans as you suggest exploring deep space, therefore, why are we wasting more money on LEO—let the ISS die as plan and get back to work drawing up ways to cheapen space flight.

NASA must have convinced these companies there would be a future in low earth orbit for some time to come though; which actually marks the commercialization of LEO as a sort of death kneel to real exploration.

I think you've got it backwards Bentley. These companies are probably looking to create a future in LEO. Companies like these and others will need to continue to grow their particular industry in order to keep getting paid. So, folks like SpaceX could feasibly work with folks like Bigelow and they could sell their services to Universities and governments and rich thrill seekers, just to name a few.

The fact that you continue to belittle LEO as a waste of time really only proves that you have no vision for how to use LEO. And I hope you don't take that as an insult. I'm just trying to make the point that if you sound like you think having human beings in LEO is useless. And maybe it is for the kinds of things you are thinking about. As for pure exploration maybe having human beings in LEO is useless. But there is, and there should always be, more to space than pure exploration.

The thrill seekers and rich folks who dream of space hotels certainly see a use for LEO. There is still plenty of science that can be done in LEO. And there's plenty of other perfectly good reasons to put human beings into low Earth orbit.

Now, having said that, we should keep in mind that the commercialization of LEO really is NOT any kind of "death kneel" to real exploration. If anything this commercialization of LEO will be the spark that ignites the flame that lights the fuse of an explosion (figuratively speaking) of space exploration. Think about it.. The ISS is winding down over the next decade. The Chinese will be building a new space station. There has been talk of the Russians separating their segment and keeping it in orbit when we crash our segment into the South Pacific. But the big picture, for those of us who watch these things, is relatively clear. "Real exploration" is just getting started. George W. Bush and President Obama have both made it clear that moving beyond LEO is the path. The next president will undoubtedly continue that trend, whether it's 4 more years of Obama or Romney time, or even further down the road we may change paths again and build GengrichLab on the moon. The point is EVERYONE who is thinking about space is thinking of ways to move beyond LEO. And the commercial sector that springs up to take over LEO at this point seriously stands to benefit from that.

NASA already allows the use of the ISS to universities, research firms, students, even children to suggest experiments to be carried out in its research modules. Some of the vaccination work they're doing is really promising.

But, I only have to look at commercial airlines that have a hard time struggling with bankruptcy as it is to see why true commercialization of LEO won't work. Sure initially rich thrill seekers might jump all over this, but they're finite. After they get their rocks off, what's to keep them coming back? Further, beyond what the ISS has already done, what further experimentation might require firms and universities to seen researchers into free fall? I have a hard time visualizing a great need for LEO.

Bentley - rarely have I seen such a major decision in American space policy, that was so widely applauded as the "right approach". These three companies provide various and redundant capability, are safer and more robust than the Shuttle was on her own, and at a fraction of the cost! CCiCap represents an ideal blend of government incentives with free market ingenuity.

The commercialization of LEO will free up NASA resources to be invested into manned deep space exploration in earnest for the first time since Apollo.

With Shuttle eating up so much of NASA's resources during the Constellation (CxP) program, and a congress that at the time was completely unwilling to properly fund it, CxP never really had a chance, and it was known at the time. SLS is not perfect by any means, but it has a lot going for it, and some pretty steady wind at its back, which CxP never did.

That maybe so they can accelerate their program. They are the closes to getting it done.

SpaceX has a complete launch system. Both other options are just the crew capsule. BTW I love the Dragon Launch escape or about system design. It can be reused and doesn't have to be thrown away with each launch like the tractor system used with Apollo and Orion.

I am also glad the Liberty rocket did NOT get funding. It was nothing but the Ares I rocket with a new name. The Ares I has already gotten billions of tax payer dollars.

This is also good news for other companies like Bigelow Aerospace. Once there are rockets to deliver crew into space their inflatable space stations will become another viable American industry ready to launch.

That will be really impressive when there are serious space habitats in orbit!

I don't understand how you think launches to LEO are a viable American industry. There is no return on investment going to LEO unless it involves government procurement/services contracts. Moneys still coming from NASA, and what a waste.

@ William Bentley

Um...were you the guy heckling the Wright Bros.?

LOL

...there's nothing to do in LEO? Really? So we've figured it all out and we don't need to do anything up there now is what you're saying?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok...

Explain to me a viable reason for humans to "explore" low earth orbit fella?

Not explore, but utilize.

Assuming space technology advances, LEO infrastructure will become necessary to handle more frequent trips. If we could refuel and resupply, or even construct, spacecraft without having to enter (and after that, escape) Earth's atmosphere, a huge chunk of expenses and engineering difficulties could be dispensed with and operations in space would become easier and cheaper.

It's illogical to assume building something in space would do anything other than increase the price. Considering if we plan to do all this while staying in LEO, you still need to send the raw materials from the Earth to Orbit; not mentioning the fact that we will need to lift humans or robotic workers to assemble these materials/modules. Refueling seems a bit counterproductive too, considering most of the launched spacecraft drop their rockets off into the atmosphere and carry only a small fuel reserve for thrusters for orbital corrections.

Anything that could be done in low earth orbit is far more suitable for robots and machines. It's logistically easier than for humans. We've been to LEO countless times, it is still shielded by the Earth's magnetic field and gravity is only 4-6% lower than on earth for christs sake; it's become our safe haven.

We need real exploration and better lifters to begin with. How about giving these billions to someone who can work on developing a way to get off Earth minus the rockets and fuels weight?

That's not a bad idea either! If you'd rather invest money in new technologies, that's cool. Me, I'm happy we're doing anything in space. Maybe it will prove a complete waste of time to build LEO infrastructure. Or maybe there will a significant technological advantage to investing in LEO technologies, and something I mentioned, or something someone else comes up with, will become feasible. I simply see no reason for your pessimism.

I'm pessimistic because I'm worried that NASA has promised these companies a "long future" for LEO services. Otherwise I just can't imagine them picking this up. There is also a real shortage of funds for anything research based in the space industry that doesn't rely on strapping something to a rocket, igniting it, and hoping for the best.

Other lifters get passing looks, there's no money for mock ups.

I work for a different contract company for the government (satellite communications based), and have seen how everything's peachy at first, then the red tape starts to bleed in.

Okay, I guess that's a concern, but it seems like way less of a problem than a stagnant NASA program that keeps getting its funding cut because it can't even build a working spacecraft anymore.

What sort of tech investments are you hoping to see?

While the space elevator comes to most people's minds as an alternative, I don't know how I feel about that one; too many variables and a real doubt that carbon nanotubes will ever reach the required tensile strengths. I'd like to see something like a launch loop, or my own idea's to further develop water breathing procedures used in the medical field to remove oxygen pockets from the lungs of humans and fill up a space craft with water. You can then subject them to much higher g forces without killing them, opening up a whole slew of alternative launch vehicles.
Doesn't really matter what it is exactly, they just need to increase research funding. Something that's impossible if we continue to pursue LEO.

@ William Bentley

Your combative posts came across at first as though you were a troll, but it seems that's not so much the case.

Anyway. If we have infrastructure in orbit capable of fabrication on a level that it only needs raw materials and perhaps some WIP stuff...that's not nearly as costly to service as making it on the ground and shooting it into LEO!

Think of how much infrastructure has to be put in place inside of launch vehicles to keep the delicate payload intact. Imagine how much less of that apparatus would need to be put in if all you were sending up were billets of aluminum and some foam-packed electronics?

Not only would you be able to send up more in each shot, but you could probably simplify the launch vehicles themselves so that less attention is paid to protecting delicate contents from the rattle and jarring of egress and instead focus on a means of robotics carting the cargo off of the craft and onto the space-factory-floor.

Plus, raw materials can come from all sorts of places, finished goods can only come from Earth. If we ever get around to space-mining, a long-term endeavor would be to ship space resources to said space-factory and fabricate for use in space and back on Earth.

I'd like to see something like a launch loop, or my own idea's to further develop water breathing procedures used in the medical field to remove oxygen pockets from the lungs of humans and fill up a space craft with water

Interesting idea, but to be a skeptic here as well, while the water would effectively spread the forces out in a manner to spare a human the massive G's, water is also a fantastic carrier of vibration and cannot itself be compressed, so you might effectively be able to subject a human to much greater G's, you might liquify their soft tissues from simple resonance like fishing with dynamite

"Your combative posts came across at first as though you were a troll, but it seems that's not so much the case."

Sometime I find that if you draw out the people that post those kind of comments, they actually have something useful to say. Usually not, but I like to start with the assumption that everyone who posts on a topic has at least passing knowledge and interest in it.

On that note, tell me Will, are G-forces the primary obstacle to getting living cargo off-planet? I know a few things about actual survival IN space, but it seems obvious to me that the transition out of and back into the atmosphere is the most stressful and complicated issue of space travel, and I don't know too much about that (other than a broken heat panel will incinerate your whole damn shuttle).

Wasn't really meant to be combative—just angry at the situation and how everyone else I know sees the commercialization of space as the bee's knees. I became interested in science because of space exploration, I don't want to see it die out, but I do not believe this is a proper step.

Everyone has their reasoning I guess to like or dislike something, sorry if I offended.

G forces are one the primary obstacles if you want to build smaller Kinect energy launchers that accelerate relatively quickly. The launch loop is around a 2g to 3g launcher, so it's smooth, but to do that requires it to be over a 1000 miles long—thus costly in material. Less material used to build something, the lower the overall cost.

So you're looking at escaping Earth's atmosphere without rocket propulsion?

So you're annoyed by the sponsoring of a "tried and tested" space flight model, because you think it will draw attention away from other viable methods that just need investment and testing?

Because due to several laws of physics, rockets can only take us so far; tried and tested at over 700 million a launch for a shuttle and now about 10,000 dollars per pound lifted into orbit isn't cheap.

Breaking away from the expense of rockets and the cost of fuel would have a twofold effect. First you don't waste money on rocket fuel and parts, two; you don't have to account for the rockets weight and fuel when trying to accelerate to escape velocity.

Not to mention it would most likely be safer then strapping a bunch of people to controlled explosions.

So yes I am annoyed by the fact we use 50 year old technology to put objects in orbit around the Earth; new viable methods do require investment and research if we ever want to get serious about this space stuff.

"Explain to me a viable reason for humans to "explore" low earth orbit fella?"

You seem to be confusing 'exploration' with 'research.' Exploration is but a subset of research. There's still plenty of research to be done in LEO, and increasing commercial opportunities as well. And the NASA charter does explicitly require:

"(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."

Besides, if you're as hot as many seem to be to go to Mars and 'explore,' you need to realize that (barring perhaps nuclear pulse) you aren't going to have a single-stage-to-Mars spaceship with foreseeable technology. You will have to put at least two things,, and more probably several things together in LEO to have a spacecraft capable of going there. Orbital assembly of deep space ships is one of the things that 'boring' LEO is for. This is why Robert Heinlein described it as 'halfway to anywhere.'

Otherwise it's rather like trying to hike straight from your room in town to the summit of Mt. Everest without establishing a base camp, or even understanding that you need a base camp...

Why is it a problem to 'commercialize' your access to LEO (for going deeper into space, or for any purpose...the launchers don't care what the payload is, and the Universe doesn't belong to NASA)? No one thinks twice about using existing commercial transportation, to the extent they can, to support expeditions of any kind on Earth.

Don't construe this to be either/or. It isn't.

@ William Bentley

I understand your concern about the commercialization, but if you take the private sector out of the business of simply creating spacecraft and put them in the business of both creating and launching craft for profit...suddenly newer and more effective means of getting tonnage in orbit becomes a big incentive.

(since we're on the subject of alternate launch methods)

I think the launch loop and space elevators are both unlikely. The loop because of the cost of real estate to cover 1,000 miles with a single dedicated machine and the elevator because of the liability of a 10,000 mile tether playing crack the whip with the Earth, dangling precariously over everyone's heads like the Sword of Damocles.

I think that the private sector will eventually try its hand at alternatives like linear-accelerated SCRAM-jet launchers to throw dead tonnage into orbit with much smaller rockets as well as dust off/cannibalize the numerous half-finished programs that NASA wasn't able to get around to like the X-33.

Bringing the cost down for tonnage into orbit is pivotal for operating long-term in space until we can get our resources from elsewhere or grow/make what we need in on location.

As long as we keep the profit-driver of launching as cheaply as possible per Kg, the more likely the private sector will want to get away from the costly rockets of the Cold War so that they can pocket the extra dough.

Frank, I don't believe there is that much research to be done in LEO that require human operators to be present; In post #2.3 I articulated some of my concerns about profiting in LEO.

Mars would of course require several launch vehicles. At a minimum you would probably require one in LEO around mars, another habitat module on the ground, and the one sent from earth with the crew on board. I don't think you'd require anything in LEO around earth that would require humans to be on board.

There's just no money in it for the companies to commercial space travel unless NASA has promised them a very lucrative future in manned LEO operations—which I'm of course against.

"Because due to several laws of physics, rockets can only take us so far; tried and tested at over 700 million a launch for a shuttle and now about 10,000 dollars per pound lifted into orbit isn't cheap."

Had you specified chemical rockets, there might be some agreement here. Exhaust velocity is what matters, and there are physical limits there. With various forms of electric (ion, plasma [including the specific form known as VASIMR]) and nuclear-thermal, the limits are very different.

And in any case, under known physics, rockets are the only way to change velocity in vacuum, other than the rare case of gravitational 'slighshots.' (And even those either give or rob a planet of an infinitesimal amount of its orbital velocity. Newton's Third Law will not be denied.) The only difference is how you throw mass off your ship to go somewhere else.

Oh, and the cost of fuel is not what makes spaceflight expensive. If that were all that mattered, it would cost about as much to put something in orbit, as to fly it across the Pacific. Orbital spaceflight is not yet at the commercial airline state where other operating costs are so low, that fuel costs do predominate.

"Not to mention it would most likely be safer then strapping a bunch of people to controlled explosions."

Somehow you've managed to confuse the continuous combustion of a chemical fuel with explosions (which is more nearly what happens in a piston engine car, BTW). That's no more true than with jet engines...which burn essentially the same form of kerosene as Falcon 9 and a number of other rockets, Yet we happily board jet aircraft with serious amounts of the same stuff in fuselage and wings. The maximum fuel load of a Boeing 747 is about 392,000 pounds. A fraction of that is enough to kill you, if out of control.

But most of us (unless there's a fear of any flying involved) don't have a problem getting aboard such things. In either case, worry about good engineering, not about the energy of the fuel. You are, after all, trying to do something that requires expending serious energy.

Even anti-gravity wouldn't be for free...

"There's just no money in it for the companies to commercial space travel unless NASA has promised them a very lucrative future in manned LEO operations—which I'm of course against."

And yet Bigelow Aerospace is already in talks with customers (not all of whom are domestic) for their inflatable space stations, and has agreements with Boeing and SpaceX to provide transportation...

Commercial Crew was never intended from the beginning to have NASA as its only customer. These companies would not be in it, if they didn't see opportunities beyond them that you don't.

Maybe Frank and as you said Seriously, I'm expecting too much too quickly; not to mention, I'm practically vexed when I read about the history of space exploration since the Apollo missions.

I'm pretty familiar with Ion engines, but I've never heard of the VASIMR? I'm also fairly sure that a true vacuum doesn't exist. I understand costs of fuel aren't major expenditures; it's more the weight of the fuel and rockets that are a hindrance. Yes, as far as chemical rockets go, you can only add fuel up to a point until it becomes useless to add more; since you're limiting yourself with weight.

I'll continue to not believe that commercialization will be the panacea we need, but hopefully I'm wrong.

700 million a launch for a shuttle and now about 10,000 dollars per pound lifted into orbit isn't cheap.

SpaceX proposes to lift cargo at a cost of $1,000 USD per pound with Falcon Heavy, which is VERY cheap. If it holds true, that is a game changer.

Regarding advanced non-chemical-rocket space launch methods... Nuclear (e.g., NERVA) and ion-electric (VASIMR) are possible next steps in deep space propulsion (and/or fuel depots and on-orbit assembly of spacecraft). Nuclear pulse propulsion is a further step still (a method with interstellar potential). All of these methods are feasible given existing tech. These would not replace but compliment traditional rocket propulsion

Also, space elevators, projectile launchers, and other more exotic concepts will likely remain non-starters for the foreseeable future... especially for manned spaceflight. Actually projectile will NEVER be a practical method for manned space launch from Earth at least due to the incredibly high G's that would be required to achieve orbit.

While SpaceX is working for NASA under a different sort of contractual agreement than the previous crop of launch companies, it remains to be seen whether NASA, and thus the taxpayers, will be saving any money on space flight. It is difficult to find out from NASA exactly how much money it has spent on the new crop of so-called commercial launch companies, including straight-out subsidies.

This is from Linda Billings, a space policy analyst at George Washington University. She goes on to point out that NASA has always worked with private companies to build NASA vehicles since the Saturn V.

So when you suggest Space X will be able to follow through on a cost savings of 9/10ths, I'm a bit skeptical. Further, if that is there operational cost, it neglects charges for overhead and research that NASA will have to pick up in its procurement contract; then there comes a need for sizeable profits.

Sure most quick acceleration kinetic energy launchers are stopped by the G-force they produce; we could easily devise ways to circumvent them if we tried. Further space elevators and launch loops are large constructs to prevent excessive G's and provide smooth acceleration. Are they the answer, no, but they are nice thought experiments to get people thinking about other ways to go about this—which is something we need.

Linda Billings is apparently a college professor with a blog... not exactly a referenceable source. Not that I take issue with her quote, it just doesn't make much of a point.

Yes, obviously NASA doesn't build rockets, they never never have. Private contractors (like Boeing, Lockheed, PWR, Rockwell, ATK, ULA, etc., etc.) have always done the work, with input from NASA and the federal gov't.

The main difference now is the procurement model. NASA doesn't dictate design under the COTS/CCDev model, they merely request and select from proposals, provide incentives tied to milestones, and finite contracts for service. The free market competes for those contracts. Competition drives down costs and spurs ingenuity and productivity. Capitalism 101.

To not immediately kill a man on an Earth based kinetic launcher, you would need and uninterrupted track "several hundreds of kilometers long" where orbital speeds of over 17,000 mph would need to be reached relatively close to the surface of the Earth, which is not even close to possible... for one the craft would completely burn up in Earth atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver#On_Earth

Nor is space elevator feasible. Science fiction. Forget about it, not happening. Single-stage-to-orbit will become cheap and easy, before either of those concepts gets anywhere near realistic, thus eliminating the need for these novel ideas to begin with!

I don't know if you fully understand the COTS model the government uses; they still decide form, fit and function (or design) and then go through their own elaborate test to ensure specifications(which is the way our COTS stuff works)—which cost NASA money to do without even signing service contracts.

The free market won't compete for these contracts once established, as I believe they aren't lowest bidder (for some obvious reasons); therefore NASA will go with whichever one they choose. It isn't always the cheapest one.

I'm not advocating either of those as the solution to manned space flight problem; I'm merely suggesting that spending money on research for alternative ways to get off earth would be much more effective than spending money so a couple of firms can build another LEO taxi. Preventing high G's from killing a man is possible, so you could use smaller rails to obtain escape velocity.

@ magnis

Ummm?

are u kidding me, thats a space ship. i see a mini shuttle & two capsules, but no space ships.

What is your definition of a "space ship"?

stop wasting money on small attributes and go functional and bigger.

LOL, that's the goal, NASA is letting the private sector take over the goal of providing LEO-launches (Low Earth Orbit) so that the agency can focus on bigger picture deep space exploration.

Does anyone at nasa make a check off list of what a space ship should do or are they just to smart to actual think about those attributes.

Why yes, yes they do, and I bet it is a lot more expansive than yours...LOL

Ive drawn and design far better space ships then these guys and it would probably be far less then what nasa spends.

Are you an aerospace engineer or a comic book artist, or just an amateur graphic designer? There's a big big difference, LOL.

But I bet your fanfic graphic novel of Babyon5 is really nifty ^_^

Magnis, understand simple physics. If you can only get about 2% of the total weight of a rocket into LEO (Low Earth Orbit). So if a rocket weighs 100,000 lbs you might only get 2,000 lbs into orbit. This is why the shuttles were sitting on top of very large boosters but it could barely reach LEO and couldn't carry too much payload. It had to carry the wings, landing gear and primary engines all the way to orbit and back every time.

This is why the small capsules are the best options. The rockets drop the parts they don't need anymore in order to deliver as much payload to orbit as possible.

Yes, the capsules aren't sexy but they are efficient and it all about weight when trying to get into space and return safely. It isn't science fiction.

We won't see "space ships" until the capability to build them in orbit comes around. Until then, this technology is proven and effective at getting stuff off this rock we call home. The space shuttle should be proof enough that something that looks like a "space ship" is not necessarily the most cost effective.

LOL, that's the goal, NASA is letting the private sector take over the goal of providing LEO-launches (Low Earth Orbit) so that the agency can focus on bigger picture deep space exploration.

Do you know what is really funny about this? NASA will forever be tied to LEO, whether the private or public sector is doing it.

Who do you think is going to foot the bill and profit for these companies?

We won't see "space ships" until the capability to build them in orbit comes around. Until then, this technology is proven and effective at getting stuff off this rock we call home. The space shuttle should be proof enough that something that looks like a "space ship" is not necessarily the most cost effective.

Building things in orbit sounds like an interesting idea, before you think on it too hard and realize that the logistics of first lifting the raw material into space(might as well just assembled it on the earth), the supplies for the crew/robots to assemble, the crew/robots themselves, the crew who will use it after it's built, etc. etc. It would cost billions more to build something in orbit.

The space age is effectively dead, until someone can convince the powers that be that there is a real economic or political reason for human exploration.

"The space age is effectively dead, until someone can convince the powers that be that there is a real economic or political reason for human exploration."

There's never been a real economic reason to go to space, but they've done it anyway. I see no reason why they'd stop now. Better use of our tax money than the DoHS.

"could you guys like come up with something that actually resembles a space ship and not a mini coup toy."

See now, here's the problem with that: there's no such thing as a space "ship". That word, and the images it conjures, are from science fiction, in which space craft are treated like naval vessels. It's important to realize that actual space craft are NOTHING like naval vessels. That's why our actual, real, viable craft look puny and wasteful with massive engines to get a dinky little pod into orbit, while fictional space ships are titanic behemoths that are build like cruise liners.

Which isn't to say it will always be like that, but for now it's quite a disappointing disconnect between fantasy and reality, I know.

That's precisely what we learned with the ISS - how to build things in space. Also, how to get materials up there. It would take a ridiculously big rocket to get something like the ISS into space, and it would've needed to be bulked up significantly, making it even heavier and harder to get up there. We learned a lot about how to build things up there.

Now that it's up, we are learning how to live for extended times in space. Maybe you watch too many sci-fi movies, think we can blast off from one planet and be at another in a few hours, but that's not real life. Real life travel to other planets, asteroids, etc. will take months/years to get there, in a very harsh environment.

Brisaber, why do you think the ISS ran a cool 100 billion dollars? Because even piece milled the cost to launce something into to space was roughly 10,000 dollar a pound. No matter into how many small rockets they broke it up into the cost is the same.

I agree with SF accountant, with one proviso, if we concentrated on a moon base/exploitation of materials available. we could build/develop/ launch from there!! ANYONE who doesn't see that it's the place to base our near future's exploration/exploitation is just not thinking clearly...:) Believe me, China's think tank AIN'T stupid!!

I'm no accountant, lol, but I do know launch costs scale up with size and mass, and it isn't a linear relationship. I also know that you need to be able to build and/or repair things in space if you plan on being there for a while. I loved the idea of a lunar base - one the few things I agreed with Bush about. It would make sense to me to have a base there to launch from. Too bad he never funded it, lol. Too busy chasing phantoms in the deserts, I guess. But assuming that lunar base would be the way to go, you still have to know how to build things and how to live and work in low-gravity environments.

Like I said in my first post - I'm as impatient as anyone else to get moving and get out of the neighborhood. The quicker we can get NASA out of being the taxi service, the better in my opinion. And competition will help bring the costs down, or at least keep them better controlled.

@ William Bentley

I think you're thinking too near-term. There's business to be done in space, just not yet...NASA is injecting demand in order to shorten the timeline for the private sector to expand operations in the area. Think of how the interstate highways increased the demand for builders to create giant suburbs as soon as people could rapidly commute from longer distances than before. Heck, think of how towns started cropping up in the Midwest and Great Plains after the completion of the transcontinental railroad...would we have even had the Coal and Rust Belt were it not for the fledgling US government running rails through Appalachia?

Also, per your concern about the cost of launching raw materials vs. finished goods see my reply to your other mention of it above (#4.13)

In short, I contend that if all we are launching are raw materials, far less care needs to go into getting them into orbit. After all, billets of aluminum and foam-packed electronics don't need to be specially secured against sudden g-forces and the raw metals don't mind being rattled. Most spacecraft today, be it manned or unmanned are designed to mitigate as many of the forces on the contents as possible. But if we can fabricate stuff in orbit rather than on Earth, we could treat shipments less like shipping Ferraris over the interstate and more like girders on flatbeds

"..would you guys like come up with something that actually resembles a space ship and not a mini coup toy."

Then you need to define 'spaceship.' These are 'ships' they'll operate in space.

If you mean something that operates only in space (like the Apollo Lunar Module), Google: Nautilus-X.

It's nothing for which there's currently a commitment, but it is the result of kind of thinking you seem to mean. And you'll need vehicles like those of Commercial Crew to service them.

Also Google: ULA-Innovation-March-2010.pdf (unfortunately, I can't post entire URLs here)

@ Frank Glover

Wow, I had no idea about the Nautilus X (hyperlinked for everyone's ease).

I doubt the price tag is realistic ($3.7 billion), but that is still really amazing and very ambitious.

I would have much rather let AIG falter to pay for such developments ^_^ but then again, they paid us back with interest, so maybe we could have a go at Nautilus once Bigelow makes use of those old NASA patents for inflatable habitat modules.

Alain Deflandre

Not sure when it was you woke up, but Boeing has been working on the CST-100 for some time now, it has even done test landings. So perhaps you need to check to see if in fact maybe it was you who was in the Coma.

Private enterprise is much better at watching the bottom line than government. At least most of the time. Because they have to make a profit. Look at SpaceX - they launch for a fraction of what it costs NASA to do it.

Pretty common in government programs - they are very good at initiating and fostering technology, but pretty bad at actually running a business. Only time will tell if all these companies are able to do it for less, but so far it looks very promising.

AlterEagle1, not sure you have a clear picture of what has happened.

Tax payers shelled out about $10+ billion to NASA for the Constellation (Apollo Ver 2.0) program with not much to show for it and it was hopeless behind schedule. NASA got a fixed bid contract from SpaceX to develop a cargo delivery system to the ISS once the shuttle retired. NASA gave them about $400 million to help them develop the technology and SpaceX kicked in the test of the money. They also did the same with another company called Orbital.

In the end SpaceX for about $1 billion, developed 4 new rocket engines, 2 rockets, a space capsule and launched a few test flights. Something NASA couldn't do with $10+ billion.

Who cares how much a company pays their engineers or janitors. It doesn't matter. Especially when a private company might get 1000% more production out of their engineers who don't have to deal with massive NASA red tape any time they want to change something for the better.

And exactly what are you comparing Boeing's outsourcing of some jobs to? Having tax payers pay the Russians for rides to the ISS?

Of course if you're only interested in the American tax payer's tax dollars going to creating corporate welfare jobs for employing as many aerospace workers as possible with out actually making rockets that go into space then call your congress person to support the SLS rocket program. Which is just the Constellation program revived from the Space State congress people. Again they are wasting 10's of billions of dollars on a massive rocket that is too expensive to fly but will create jobs in the "space states" so the congress people there can get reelected.

Of course the SLS project is a cost plus contract. The contractors have no incentives to finish on budget or on time. Because all of their costs are covered by you and me via tax dollars and they are guaranteed a percentage for profit. So if they fall behind schedule and go over budget they make even more money. The new commercial model is a fixed price contract. So if SpaceX goes over budget then they pay the overages directly out of their pocket and the tax payer doesn't. But the congress people in the traditional "space states" don't like this because billions are no longer going into their states at the expenses of tax dollars from other states.

"And then of course companies like Boeing have outsourced or sold off many of their jobs in another effort to "save money"."

They've already worked out the contract, so the money has already been "saved". The government has already determined how much money they're giving these companies. And it's less than they were spending before. Beyond that, what do you care?

PhillyJimi has it right...:)--S--

"Someone please explain to me how turning this over to businesses who pay their engineers 2 to 3 times what the government does..."

Where, exactly, did you get that idea?

Umm - you think this is somethng ust getting started? Really? Where have you had your head buried the past few years. All these private enterprise launch companies have been working on these for years through a NASA support program to develop commercial launch systems. Only reason it is being announced now is that these companies have managed to meet the required benchmarks and now are moving into the second phase, which is to get working systems in place for human transport. This actually had been planned (and publicized) for quite a long time now.

But no one thought to tell [0.o]

We're sorry!

LOLOL Seriously!!!

You didn't answer the rhetorical question I presented, gentlemen...I am fully aware of what they were doing previous and I am aware of the millions given to prop up CCDev...But that does not answer the question...Where did the rest of the money go (or didn't go) and why all of a sudden is it Obama's top priority now? Why wasn't it three years ago?

Obama wasted time and $$$ on the formation of his 'blue ribbon' panel to supply himwith findings that allowed him the legitimacy to do what he was going to do anyway: To cancel the Constellation program (Ares I and V) only to build Ares V anyway but give it a new nifty name called SLS.

Ares V was not even on the drawing board yet because they were busy building Ares I (aka Liberty). Essentially what they did was cancel Ares I, shifted that priority to private enterprise and are NOW designing and building Ares V (aka SLS) but on a streamlined budget (aka shoestring budget)...The only thing they did was waste time and precious $$$ by doing this these past three years...

Convince me otherwise.

:-/

[0.o]

You didn't answer the rhetorical question I presented...

The custom is NOT to give an answer to a rhetorical question. That is the definition of a rhetorical question. ^_^

Where did the rest of the money go (or didn't go) and why all of a sudden is it Obama's top priority now?

It's been Obama's priority since the budget commission showed that Constellation was ridiculously underfunded from its outset and was not going to meet ANY of its required milestones nor deadlines. Obama killed the program and re-allocated what was committed but not yet spent on Constellation and pushed it over to CCDEV and Commercial Space as well as pay for a handful of astronaut trips to the ISS via Soyuz and give a funding boost to SpaceX et al in getting into the action.

The only reason why Obama is touting this stuff right now is because it is a resounding success. SpaceX docked with ISS and looks to be ahead of schedule for crew-transport, Bigelow is chomping at the bit for a sizable heavy-lifter to put up a space hotel or 3, the other contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, Sierra Nevada, etc. are nearly ready with their vehicles/launchers. Obama is simply riding the wave.

It didn't suddenly become his top priority because these things cannot happen that fast. Obama put money into a different direction from Bush, and we are fortunately seeing a fantastic payoff for the investment. So Obama is bragging about it.

Obama wasted time and $$$ on the formation of his 'blue ribbon' panel to supply himwith findings that allowed him the legitimacy to do what he was going to do anyway: To cancel the Constellation program (Ares I and V) only to build Ares V anyway but give it a new nifty name called SLS

Show me sources supporting your conspiracy. Constellation was DOA from inception. There was quite a bit of fallout from the outset of Bush's still-born project and milestones were already being revised and costs raised exponentially before Obama was even elected.

The SLS is garbage. There aren't any missions for it (yet) and Congress has already exclaimed that it will not be used for private ventures. It's a boondoggle that is being rammed home because Congressional ninnies would end their support of perfectly viable programs if they aren't granted their pork on this POS.

Hopefully SLS doesn't turn out to just be a money-pit, but that's pretty much all it is right now without any real missions standing behind justifying this massive venture.

The only thing they did was waste time and precious $$$ by doing this these past three years...

I won't disagree with you there. But remember, as long as NASA has to be the lapdog of every presidential administration and the red-headed step-child of congress, begging for scraps, it will forever be forced into budgetary nightmares and half-finished projects as it gets whipped and jerked into doing work for the bidding of corrupt politicians and not actual exploration.

Not sure how you're adding thing up here? Wouldn't you like to see NASA contract with an American company for services they need rather then paying the Russians for a ride into space? Companies need to make a profit in order to survive.

NASA's constellation program cost $10+ billion for R&D and was cancelled with no flight ready hardware working. BTW it was all based on existing shuttle technology NASA and the Apollo designs nothing new or cutting edge. So the option of keeping "something great like the space program" was a colossal waste of tax payer money when you compare it to the success of SpaceX. NASA provided seed money and some of their expertise for companies like SpaceX that was about $400 million not $10,000 million like Constellation. For that $400 million America has a rocket that can actually fly and a space capsule that can support humans with more development and money. But even in the end if it cost $1 billion it will be a bargain compared a traditional NASA cost plus built rocket.

Not sure exactly what you mean by NASA giving away their technology? In the end by helping American business' NASA can cut the cost of delivering an Astronaut to the ISS to about $20 million from the $60 million the Russians are charging us. We also help American companies employee Americans who also pay taxes and the companies pay taxes on the profits they make. Healthy profitable companies employee more Americans. If NASA can save launch cost money it gives them more money to direct into other new projects. If the companies don't make any money they go out of business and people lose their jobs. Not seeing the downside here, unless you're from Russia.

btorched: I was so excited when I heard about LANDING ON MARS on Monday-I never thought I'd live to see the day-I love this country!!! And well done NASA!! Ya'll are AWESOME!

"Why can't our govt keep something great like the space program, it is in ALL of our intrest to keep going up a learning more as A NATION not as means to create more company profit."

Talk about overcharging the consumer; have you seen the cost overruns at NASA? And they STILL lost two space craft. I can't imagine why anybody's worried about being overcharged as a consumer when they're having their money wasted as a taxpayer.

And I can't really imagine any better use for NASA's technology than making profit for our people and our corporations. What else would we do with it? Use it to build more rockets to do more research that never leaves the government's databanks? It was our money that built NASA, why should we and our companies get the technology and research produced?

Hey, Americans have no one but themselves to blame for the pay discrepancy between scientists and sports stars. If people didn't entertain themselves by watching other people bounce a ball across a field or whatever, there'd be no money in it and they'd be paid sane salaries. Meanwhile, the things built/discovered by scientists we demand on the cheap or give little interest to. That has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, Bush, or any government, that's us, the American people.

Sad and all too true...but we mustn't lose sight of the value that comes from training scientists and engineers, shame on every university and politician that pulls money from research programs and the training in STEM disciplines to placate to the NCAA.

Blech. It was so annoying to find this article headlining the Technology section while the title stories on the home page are Olympics and celebrity news. There's no question that our society has its priorities messed up, but we still have to do the best we can.

"society" always has its priorities messed up.

Celebrity worship has existed probably since the dawn of civilization

Education and studying/recording history has only existed for a short time and has brought us a lot more.

We need to tar and feather every politician that chooses to funnel money away from the noble pursuits of education...that is where society always starts to crumble.

FYI, Lockheed is ripping us off on the F22, if we were smart, we would have gone with Northrop's offering, the YF23

...It's the only damn plane that's gonna help us beat those Commie Russians! 0.o

...but I don't make the decisions in Congress and I don't get bribes of nearly the same level as they do

...oops! Did I just type that?

To be a true space faring race, we need to get the @!$%# out of LEO to begin with.

That's the only thing you've said that I agree with... THAT's why we need to leave the L.E.O. @!$%# to the commerdial companies!!! N.A,S.A. needs to concentrate on DEEP SPACE!!! get your head out of your A**

Okay, if you buy that @!$%#. Enjoy.

First of all, there are young people reading these comments so try to show some decorum. Secondly, William Bentley, you say to be a true space faring nation we need to get out of LEO...

Hmmmm... let's think about that, shall we....

Pretend you have a boat and you want to be a sea-faring man. What would you do? set sail and never look back? That's what it sounds like you keep saying. You need a safe harbor. You need it!

To be a true space-faring people we NEED LEO. We need to utilize LEO and leverage the advantages that exist there. The same goes with LeGrangian points and the Moon.

If it were up to you, William Bentley, we'd be launching from the surface of the Earth on a direct trip to all destinations. And frankly that would doom a good many missions.

Okay well let's use your analogy. We build up a nice harbor to which we can go out to sea. We line it with boat after boat, all ready to set sail. Then one day a captain asks when he'll be able to take his boat out and the harbor master tells him in a bit we just need to add a few more light houses so you can find your way back. Eventually, no one ever leaves the harbor; there are just too many unknowns, and man reverts back to land.

So no, we don't need to keep furnishing missions to LEO. We need to invest the money here, researching techniques to drive down the cost of true space exploration. Then we need to apply that research and leave the safety of our world. Eventually the government will tire of funding human exploration unless we show a return on the dollars spent.

I for one would gladly volunteer for a deep space mission, even if it were a one way suicide trip.

""Ensign, assume standard orbit, whooooa, what the hells all this garbage here?? what the hell is wrong with this planet, didn't they ever get out of LEO?? you'd think they'd of at least built a damned moon base or something by now instead of tossing all this damned garbage out here...and what the hell is that? a space station? in lower orbit??? who the hell's bright idea was that???.....navigation, give us a roll, security?? prepare for short range phasor bursts, we gotta clear us a damned parking orbit""......

MOB, I disagree....if radiation shields are our problem, let loose us engineers....nasa has been tugged by the chain by our elected officials too damned long....and here we go again.....oh, and by the way, real space ships don't bounce.....anything else is just play and showboating....GIVE US SCIENCE OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!....LEO is for geosynch satellites, it is time to build a deep space data network for TODAY, it is time to build a moon base, manned by real geologists that can find real, useful, mine-able deposits, TODAY, tomorrow when the chinese do it and claim all the LI,he3 and h2o deposits will be too late, IT IS ALSO TIME TO BEGIN AN L5 STATION TODAY, here is an analogy...cowboys and indians....we americans got our bows and arrows,ruled the continent for 6k years, what is that big stick them cowboys got...before it goes boom, let's decide we ain't gonna be the indians in that game...or more to the point, the romans of 300ad, the spanish of 1800, or even the pa whiskey rebels of 1791. So mob and those that think LEO is it, IT AINT"....I for one plan to move on, with or without you'ns.....what we all need to do is to tell both obama and romney they are functional science idiots and to keep their paws off the space program....we do it by telling our elected congress peoples in like harsh words, start like this..."now look here, you like your cushy job??, see that bright silver ball in the sky??, well guess what we are gonna do to save the world economy in what's left of the plasticene man era......"....there is an alternative, the plasticene man era almost immediately fades away and another era begins, one where something reminiscent of cuniform runes, only with about 4,000 characters for written communication...let's face it, that era has been statistically on the cusp for almost a thousand years now, after all, roughly one in five of us is already chinese, and that ratio is thinning fast, and not in our favor.....phuck leo study mars and capitalize on what's close at hand like luna and deep sea, for china, perhaps need is the mother of invention, I see raw materials, perhaps they see real estate...you tell me.

p.s...if you can't handle it, stay on .edu and let the .com and .orgs run this world.

Ray, you're one crazy dude.... But I like the way you're crazy!!! Your First paragraph was VERY amusing!! gotta agree with ya once again!!!!:)--S--

Your beef is with Congress, not NASA. The SLS was a demand on the part of politicians, not NASA to have. SLS is just a mashup of Ares I-garbage that Red State knuckleheads were whining about losing their pork with the euthanizing of Constellation.

I was hoping that Franklin Chiang-Diaz's Ad Astra VSMIR plasma engine was far enough along to get some serious consideration

I love me some VASIMR, but unless we are crazy enough to launch a nuclear reactor the size of the kind in a ICBM-submarine, we aren't going anywhere fast through deep space (or the moon)...unless you happen to know of a good place to find uranium off-world and the means of building the reactor in orbit.

We really do have a lot more options and avenues of innovation for advancing manned space travel than anyone at NASA can see , let alone actualize.

There are lots of avenues, and the engineers and scientists at NASA see them, but their hands are tied. Unless/until we give NASA the same degree of political autonomy as DARPA, we will continue to spin our wheels and leave a wake of half-finished projects with each passing POTUS and their respective Congressional pissing-contests

It boggles my mind that people can look at the SpaceX launch and complain about spaceflight starting to leave the public sphere. Decades of mismanagement, waste, and congressional grandstanding (not to mention shattered space craft) have turned what should be a scientific revolution into a sideshow.

How far could we be today if we kept NASA doing nothing but experimental research and exploration milestones and then handing off the technologies to private companies do what they wished and bid for the milestone targets?

@ SF accountant

It would be nice. But at least with all of our insane spending on defense-tech, we will get a lot of the technology (eventually) to put serious hardware in orbit for a better price.

/looks at the US Navy's work on rail gun technology

//looks at the USAF's work on SCRAM jets

///yup

The technology is coming along, it's just going to come from the warhawks this time around...and it may take longer because the patents will be kept under lock-and-key for "national security interests"

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.