Gonz says:

Also, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/Story?id=6358924&page=1 for the article on
“NASA Faces Public Relations Quandary: How to Hold Attention of Preoccupied Earthlings”

Rick Boozer says:

Guys, I’m a fan of SpaceVidCast, but I think there’s a little too much optimism vis-à-vis Ares I and Ares V. You seem sure that these vehicles are going to get developed. I don’t think so. A large selling point of going with “the stick” was to save money by utilizing existing shuttle technology, but the vehicle has been changed so much that there are few common parts between the original shuttle solid fuel booster and Ares I. They’ve even had to add weight in the form of anti-vibration mechanisms that would not need to be as heavy and robust on a liquid fueled booster. To counter the added weight they’ve now added another booster segment! All of this stuff is causing the project to go way over budget. They are even considering cutting crew capacity in the spacecraft to cut costs incurred by the added weight. They might as well have developed a new vehicle starting with a blank sheet of paper! This turkey is going to be tweaked into oblivion.

In regard to developing a new heavy-lift vehicle in the Saturn V class. The only reason why NASA was able to afford development of such a vehicle in the 60s was a virtually unlimited budget due to the Cold War. That’s not the case this time around.

As I have mentioned on Clark Lindsey’s blog, government agencies such as NASA work under a “negative feedback loop”. Successful projects that go under budget have any money that they don’t use taken out of their next budget. Where does that money go? Answer: To fund the projects that went over budget. Thus, success below budget gets punished and failure gets rewarded! We have a system that insures that an excess of money is spent. Not exactly in the best interest of the taxpayer is it?

What does the USA need to do with its space program? In the private sector success within a minimum budget is THE driving force or else a profit will not be realized. NASA should focus primarily on its exploratory goals and leave development of all of its vehicles to commercial sources ala the COTS model. NASA needs to get out of the vehicle design and building business and do what it does best; that is, developing new technologies that others can use to create the vehicles that NASA needs for the exciting exploration that they want to do.

Rick Boozer says:

When I said “ala COTS” I too was talking about NASA getting to the Moon, but by sponsoring private development of such a mission. I and many other people do not believe a super expensive heavy lift vehicle such as the Ares V is needed, assuming such techniques as in-orbit rendezvous and docking and/or an orbital fuel depot are used.

The people who share my opinion say that the goal should not be just to return to the Moon via an extremely costly “Apollo on steroids”, but to maximize the amount of traffic between the Earth and moon by making the trip cheaper. Apollo worked because it was just about getting to the moon and not keeping a sustained presence there. The expense of achieving the goals of Apollo was not even an afterthought. If Ares lunar flights cost as much (adjusted for inflation) as they did during the Apollo program, we won’t be able to afford becoming a true spacefaring nation. Instead of NASA sending just a few flights to the moon per X amount of dollars with Ares V, they could have a greater number of flights for the same or less money.

JJ Biggins says:

Many inventions were marvels for a decade or so. Consider the telephone, so grand now its sort of passay. When they went to the Moon it sure was a ruch, and then once they achieved that goal, the people can no longer have such joy in that goal because it was already achieved. The Space Shuttle was a huge rush, even the test flight on back of the 737 jet, then the launch some time later. Some say “when your bored with something, then things must be gooing alright”… in that there in some comfort or satisfactory mode. Say theres money to be made doing something in space and watch the horde grab it, like a miner for gold. Our lives are filled with so much to do, from food on the table to jobs. Space is still in our minds, but now is becoming complacent, or accepted as a part of life. What can the common man do with space? It takes a special kind of man on the shoulders of these common men to get there.

Gonz says:

So basically in the big picture space travel is in its awkward teenage years. It’s going to grow and people like the ones Ben mentioned are going to shape how it grows. Weather they beat NASA to the moon or not private space flight will eventually surpass them. Maybe that is where America will get a kick in the pants to spark a larger interest. It just takes patience?