thespacereview.com — Taking a vocal stance on NASA and exploration that is visionary yet fiscally responsible might play very well to a populace weary of issues that deal only with negatives, such as war and the economy. We really need a hero these days, and spaceflight is one of those few areas Americans can point to with ready, justifiable pride.
Jun 3, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJun 3, 2008
Personally, I think Obama will waste tons of money on "programs". But just to clarify, your definition of "showing leadership" means funding NASA?
pilot85Jun 3, 2008
take a look at the NASA budget since the end of the Apollo missions. So many of NASA's goals are long term that no one ever sees the point in extra funding. Also, this awesome tempurpedic topper on my mattress says it is indeed a worthwhile agency.
icetypeJun 3, 2008
Your comment is full of win.
prometheansparkJun 3, 2008
I don't believe a redirection of NASA from the current Ares 1/V to something more like DIRECT will resonate particularly well with voters because the issue is too complex and the savings (if any) are relatively modest. Ares 1 is a pretty lame rocket, but it's main purpose is to develop the J-2x and 5 seg SRB that will be used on the Ares V. Ares V itself is quite a respectable rocket.Hopefully SpaceX will be successful with their Falcon 1 launch this month, and successfully launch a Falcon 9 in the first year of the next administration. Between SpaceX and Bigelow aerospace, the US basically has an embryonic private space program. The COTS program was a bold move in support of this, and given a little good news from SpaceX the next president should propose increased use of these resources. That would probably resonate better with voters, not least because they'll be able to purchase flights on SpaceX rockets and stay in Bigelow stations. Whereas only Saudi princes can buy a ride on NASA rockets.I don't think modifying the RS-68 for an upper stage would be a good idea. If anything the J-2X is a little on the large side itself. A better option would be the RL-10 based RL-60 engine that is 3 times the size of the RL-10, and about 1/3 the J-2X or 1/15 the RS-68, and has considerable development done already. Such an engine could be used on the EELVs and future upgrades, such as the wide bodied centaur as well as exploration launch vehicles. If Ares V requires the full thrust of the J-2X, two or three RL-60s could be used. Considering that Saturn 1 used 6 RL-10 and Saturn V used 5 J-2s, that wouldn't be unprecedented. This would result in a production rate (and cost reduction) of the RL-60 of perhaps 10-20 per year as opposed to 4 per year for the J-2X. If we're going to build a factory for a new engine, we might as well pick an engine that will actually get used.
ceejaydkJun 3, 2008
What's wrong with beaming energy back to earth ?
smek2Jun 4, 2008
I didn't intend to downplay the landing on the moon. Just to point out, that spaceflight isn't just a NASAs achievement.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2008
Don't worry everyone. For those of you who thing that Obama will waive his magic wand when he gets elected and changed everything with a flick of the wrist, you're ignoring the fact that this country has been run by defense and aerospace lobbyists for decades. It's no coincidence that the government continually hands defense contractors a blank check with America's signature on it.<a class="user" href="http://xn--mgbewv2hc.xn----ymcae0df5a6fo.com