Comments on: New NASA Administrator Will Have His Hands Full

By: G Alston

G Alston — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:19:17 +0000

#18 — Making HUGE things in space at a comparitively reasonable price is something we can’t do.

Not when the focus of NASA is rockets = ammunition. Get reusable SSTO (e.g. DC/X) operable (3 day turnaround) and the equation changes.

SpaceX and the Dragon capsule at least represent a viable civilian effort, but reusability is the key.

#20 — How do you get the power from those orbital ‘power sats’ down to earth?

Microwave. Read up on it. We already know how to do this, and we know how to do this safely. That part was figured out in the 60’s and 70’s. What we don’t have is cheap access to space, otherwise we’d be doing it already.

***

Gen. Bolden — if you’re reading this, congratulations, and please look into getting us to space cheaply.

By: Paul -Indiana

Paul -Indiana — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:50:10 +0000

#18. How do you get the power from those orbital ‘power sats’ down to earth? I suppose you envision RF transmission. What is the path loss? What happens if someone gets into the power transmission beam? What happens if the control system goes out and the beam starts irradiating a nearby town? What happens when a rogue nation knocks out the satellite? What we need is terrestial-based power generation. Nuclear is as ‘green’ as it gets.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:32:27 +0000

As Simberg intimates, replacing a space transportation system and a space station with Earth-to-Moon retro-design systems isn’t going to create a space-faring civilization. The Constellation program is unsustainable. Here’s the most optimistic scenario for government-funded manned flight in the next 15 years: a handful of Moon landings and a skeletal attempt at a “Moon base,” and then a complete abandonment of the effort. No follow-on Mars program. That’s it. Oh, and by the way, no need to fret about the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians (and forget about the EU, that is to laugh) as they are not are going to have any greater success with a permanent Lunar presence.

The single best hope for humankind in space are the eventual maturation of systems like those being developed by SpaceX. This is not to say that SpaceX is some sort of saviour, but the concept of developing much less expensive, more reliable, and more routine launchers is what will allow humanity to enjoy a rennaissance in space. While SpaceX-type efforts are goping to take longer and cost more than these pioneers are claiming, the eventual cost difference as compared to comparable government efforts are staggering. For instance, once SpaceX has an operational Falcon 9 and a manned Dragon capsule, it will have spent less than a fourth of what a comparable NASA effort would cost.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:17:18 +0000

“”"”"”We need to start construction of solar power sats. Making big things in space is something we can do”"”"”"

Making HUGE things in space at a comparitively reasonable price is something we can’t do. Solar power sats would be huge.

By: mark

mark — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:03:11 +0000

As boring as LEO has been for human spaceflight the last 30 years, some of you are forgetting that there has been some truly exciting robotic exploration. Galileo, the Voyagers (okay so they were launched a little over 30 years ago), and the more recent gas giant and Martian missions.

By: John Calomiris

John Calomiris — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:31:19 +0000

The appoitment of Bolden has promise, unlike the other bums BO has appointed.We need relief,any kind`to offset the horrendous crap he is shoveling our way

By: Josh Reiter

Josh Reiter — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:06:42 +0000

“His biggest challenge will be to return the agency to its fifty and sixties pushing the envelope attitude away from the bureaucratic beast it became.”

Unfortunately, it was NASA’S big spending, “pushing the envelope” ways of the ’60s that got us precisely on the path we are today. Pining for some romantic ideal of the NASA of old is precisely the wrong way to approach becoming a space faring society in the future.

If anything NASA is already attempting to take on the mantra of the 50s-60s by giving us “Apollo on Steroids”. It is truly infuriating to see billions of dollars being wasted, basically doing what was already accomplished 40 years ago. Flags and footprints? *yawn*

The possibility of hundreds of people being in space at any one time? Too many flight manifests to keep track of? Hmmm, interesting.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:56:02 +0000

The most important aspect of this pick is Pres. Obama selected the best man for the job. I attended a speech Major General (Ret.) Bolden gave at USNA while I was there. Without any hesitation, I can state he transcends race. He is an impressive American! I wish him God Speed as he takes this challenging position. His biggest challenge will be to return the agency to its fifty and sixties pushing the envelope attitude away from the bureaucratic beast it became.

By: Rollory

Rollory — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:30:30 +0000

Even more important is to get the government out of the space travel business. NASA is not and will not be our pathway to the stars; they’ve proven that by spending the past 30 years diddling around in low earth orbit doing NOTHING of consequence. Take all the money that would have been spent on NASA budgets and set it aside as a promised reward to whatever private organizations successfully reach certain milestones, like a fully staffed permanent station (an actual industrial-strength station of real utility, not the flimsy excuse for junk that’s up there now), a lunar colony that pays for itself (solar power collection at least, while helium-3 isn’t useful yet), orbiting solar power satellite grids, asteroid mining trips, etc. Not one cent gets paid until the stuff gets accomplished and once it is done we all benefit from it. And in the meantime we’re not paying 50-year-old PhD bureaucrats to go on joyrides and do mock experiments for elementary school kids.

This current path is a dead end. It does not matter one whit who is in charge.

By: chris in Toronto

chris in Toronto — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:07:28 +0000

11. ked5: Great point about Hansen.