Comments on: Looking And Touching

By: Mike Puckett

Mike Puckett — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:29:54 +0000

I know Ed, that was just a bit of artistic liscense.

Last I heard, Old Man Hilton was almost cutting her out of the will so I doubt it’s the bimbo.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:39:23 +0000

If NASA (or someone else, and no one other than NASA can afford their prices) isn’t footing the bill, then those three companies won’t be doing it. Their shareholders would never allow it. They are not entrepreneurs.

By: Doug Gard

Doug Gard — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:16:50 +0000

I would put my money on LockMart, Orbital or ULA way before Elon or Jeff. Seems these big established commercial companies are getting the attention of the Augustine panel not SpaceX etc… Most likely a consortium of these and even perhaps smaller companies will be the first to put footprints down on the moon. One thing for sure NASA won’t be footing the bill. I can see the moon happening in 20 years. Mars is a whole different ball game. My guess a China lead multi national government/commercial consortium will be first to mars. By 2020 or sooner the US government will have collapsed from runaway government deficit spending. Perhaps some of our commercial companies will have moved enough assets abroad by then and will survive to carry on. China will have emerged as the new world superpower. China is going to eat our lunch financially and rise to power on top of our ashes on our very own soil.

By: Ed Minchau

Ed Minchau — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:07:23 +0000

If Polywell pans out, everything changes and Elon can put a Hilton on Mars.

Elon Musk wouldn’t be putting any Hiltons up anywhere. I’m thinking it would probably be Paris Hilton doing that.

By: Pat C

Pat C — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:59:32 +0000

Quote: “Dear God though – you mean someone else actually gave that guy a platform to spout from? Shame that.”

After poking around Examiner’s website, it appears to be a web version of the local/suburban-newspaper-type pub. Considering our present subject, this quote from their “Write for Us!” section is cute:

“Examiner.com has the world’s largest team of vetted and dedicated subject-matter writers, known as Examiners, who are credible, knowledgeable and passionate contributors from all walks of life. They are musicians, magazine writers, entrepreneurs, PhDs, college students, stay-at-home parents, seasoned journalists, retirees, etc.”

And this:

“Examiners create unique and original content to entertain, inform and inspire readers on thousands of subjects every day. Unlike most other online writing platforms, Examiner.com is not a blogging site; rather, our Examiners are local insiders and influencers who provide reliable intelligence and resources on local and category-specific topics.”

Would be very interesting to see their vetting process. Maybe I’ll throw my own CV in there…

By: red

red — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:07:53 +0000

“Without actual places to go, the market for commercial space flight would be limited to low Earth orbit and, perhaps, Earth approaching asteroids.”

One of the nice advantages of the Deep Space option(s) is that it can be broken down into small steps that can fit within politically reasonable budgets and schedules. Steps could include LEO, GEO, E-M Lagrangian points, Lunar orbit, E-S Lagrangian points, NEOs, and finally Mars orbit and moons or Venus orbit. NASA could hand over earlier steps to commercial space as it goes outward.

Also, I wouldn’t overlook the satellite servicing potential at Lagrangian points. Satellite servicing is one of the big selling points of those particular steps. Would Lagrangian point satellite servicing capability using at least some commercial services (as seems possible given the HSF options) translate into a cost-effective commercial capability to do satellite servicing in Earth orbit, where perhaps a constellation of satellites could use the same type of servicing?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:51:06 +0000

I have to wonder if Mark’s misunderstanding of the “flexible path” option is deliberate. If you look at, for example, page 29 of the final public meeting charts at:

http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

You see the lander being worked on and human lunar return in 2029. If you take the same budget and the same ISS assumptions (page 19), the current program gets you back to the moon in 2030. But “flexible path” also gives us missions to the NEO’s, lagrange points, habitat modules for long duration spaceflight, and all the things we need for a Phobos mission.

What’s not to like?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:39:22 +0000

I sometimes wonder if Rand regularly ‘rebuts’ Mark Wittington’s statements because as someone with poor communication skills Mark makes a useful strawman. That way legitimate challenges (for instance, asking for numbers that prove his contentions) to his arguments on cost can be ignored and buried with new posts that challenge Barrelfish like Mark.

Wonder no more. I don’t.

By: tom cuddihy

tom cuddihy — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:27:56 +0000

By: Mike Borgelt

Mike Borgelt — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:47:48 +0000

Regarding Polywell, it is easy to find the lead experimenter, Richard Nebel’s, statement about progress so far. He’s actually got a real day job he can go back to too so I suspect if he thought there was no hope he’d give up. So far he says they can’t see any show stoppers. He emphasized that this didn’t mean it would work but is happy with the progress so far. It’s far too soon to write this off.