Return to The Moon bloggage

[no_way]

reports on Rocketforge from second day are very interesting. <br />It seems that NASA is actually seriously considering getting a wider industry base than the Usual Suspects involved in VSE.<br />witness prize proposals for various things like orbital propellant storage/transfer, lunar landers etc etc. I just wish the pace of getting things moving wouldnt be so sluggish. I mean why not officially announce the prizes and prize purses right now, and also general info on for what performance given prize will be awarded, work out the exact restrictions and rules later.<br />Interested parties could get to work, seeking funding and assembling teams right away.

 

[crix]

That's a neat new (to me) site to follow.<br /><br />I'm pretty happy with the rate at which the VSE is moving. I would have loved to have read the 60 day report last week but it makes sense to me that the military and more pure-science oriented groups want to have their say on it... at least that was my interpretation for its delay. I forgot the RTTM conference was happening this weekend so once again I'm psyched to hear that so many people are thinking and talking about how to make this plan a reality. <br /><br />Chris Shank from NASA HQ reportedly said at the RTTM conference that NASA is assuming "2 lunar flights/year and a base at the south pole by 2020." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Sounds good to me!<br /><br />And Caterpiller is at the talks?! How cool is that!<br />

 

[gofer]

Apologies for a bit irritated post in advance…<br /><br />I'm unhappy with the pace. It's been months since Griffin took office and so far there has been exactly zero official, confirmed substance from NASA about the VSE. Besides a slew of science mission cancellations that hints at things, like “screw O<br />Keefe/Steidle” plans rhetoric, admin purges, hazy speeches and conferences (aka rumors) from NASA, blogs, and yet more rumors from the "confidential sources" at NASAWATCH (thanks for that at least) <br /><br />And that's with all the talk about "acceleration". What gives? Why in the &*$* do I find out about their new wanted launchers from a private website??? Or their new overweight CEV RFP from a blog? Why do I need an oracle do decipher their intentions when I and millions of others are paying them for sustenance with our taxes?!<br /><br />For a moment, I thought all this guesswork and interpreting was a thing of the past? Why on Earth do we find out things about what NASA plans (like the 2 HLV rockets which I personally disagree with, the remaining ISS flights, the budget, etc...) from bloggers and independent journalists, not from NASA? Is it in a state of confusion itself? Is it in a mess? What is the long term plan, where is the roadmap (I know they threw it away, but some sort of plan), what are they going to launch to the Moon on their huge rockets, have they started on the payloads, what will they do when there, for how much money, will the private companies services their new infrastructure, cost breakdowns, etc…? <br /><br />I, personally, demand accountability as a taxpayer at least, and secondly, as a space exploration fanatic. And early. And from NASA itself, not from blogs, although I appreciate them for information.<br /> <br />

 

[gofer]

Yeah, yeah, I've read the Planetary Society reports and other olden papers by the new NASA admin (the FLO, etc...), and other things in no way affiliated with NASA, no way that's the way a public office documentation is ought to be run in terms of accountability and expressing intentions. It's not supposed to be a monarchy anyway, so it shouldn't be decisive what one man (even very clever and educated as Dr. Griffin) had thought at one point prior. What do they (NASA decision makers) think now? And I want to read it on their own website, darn it!

 

[kdavis007]

Neat site!!!