Let's hope his counterparts are listening to this singular voice arising out of the darkness.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Others got it long ago. In 2004, many of the firms under contract to NASA to study the architecture question proposed exactly this approach, most notably t/Space. It was rejected by the Emperor when he ascended the throne. We've lost five years.
Indeed he does. What was striking was that his associate, Dr. Crawley, discarded the one scenario (polar lunar base) that makes prop depots worthwhile and human presence beyond LEO sustainable.
The idea of using orbital propellant depots has been around since 1928. But man, I was really stoked to see Jeff's presentation. It's one thing for some random blogger like myself to talk about depots. It's another thing when a respected CEO of a company, and a member of a presidentially appointed committee makes the case.
I have hope again. Now let's see if they can make a case compelling enough to get even Congress/the WH to buy into it.
Actually, Jeff wrote much of this in the testimony he gave to the Aldridge Committee back in 2004 also. That committee's key recommendation -- to decidedly transform the relationship of the agency to the private sector -- was rejected and ignored too.
Perhaps Charlie can rehire Craig Steidle and John Mankins...
Does anyone know how to submit additional 'data' to the 475 nm panel? One had to know that NASA would hog all of the time so that a minion wouldn't be able to address the committee.
All my fear is gone because they have seen to it that I am no longer on the program or with my employer - telling the truth has a very real price attached. Not telling the truth should have a similar price.
Jeff has been on the outside for so long and has never had legions kissing his ass, that is why he can tell the truth. Depots will work, NASA has done the research http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080032832_2008033521.pdf
If you need a pump to move fluid from tank to tank in zero gee, I can help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXDvxtozB8
Anon at 6:55 pm, as well as all of the NASA senior managers who secretly read this blog:
Telling the truth has been acceptable for the last 6 years when lives are at stake.
Telling the truth has not been acceptable ever when jobs were at stake.
Give somebody a blog to ask the hard questions of SSP and CxP (countering the party line), and we the troops and the mid-level officers will believe you're seriously listening to us. The only viceroy who has ever answered my question/dissent is the Old West Shire Reeve from Purdue. The rest can't stand the heat.
12 comments:
Others got it long ago. In 2004, many of the firms under contract to NASA to study the architecture question proposed exactly this approach, most notably t/Space. It was rejected by the Emperor when he ascended the throne. We've lost five years.
Indeed he does. What was striking was that his associate, Dr. Crawley, discarded the one scenario (polar lunar base) that makes prop depots worthwhile and human presence beyond LEO sustainable.
Ah well, one step forward, another back.
The idea of using orbital propellant depots has been around since 1928. But man, I was really stoked to see Jeff's presentation. It's one thing for some random blogger like myself to talk about depots. It's another thing when a respected CEO of a company, and a member of a presidentially appointed committee makes the case.
I have hope again. Now let's see if they can make a case compelling enough to get even Congress/the WH to buy into it.
~Jon
Count Jeff as one that has gotten it for a long time now.
Actually, Jeff wrote much of this in the testimony he gave to the Aldridge Committee back in 2004 also. That committee's key recommendation -- to decidedly transform the relationship of the agency to the private sector -- was rejected and ignored too.
Perhaps Charlie can rehire Craig Steidle and John Mankins...
Schafer proposed quite similar approach.
Does anyone know how to submit additional 'data' to the 475 nm panel? One had to know that NASA would hog all of the time so that a minion wouldn't be able to address the committee.
All my fear is gone because they have seen to it that I am no longer on the program or with my employer - telling the truth has a very real price attached. Not telling the truth should have a similar price.
Jeff has been on the outside for so long and has never had legions kissing his ass, that is why he can tell the truth. Depots will work, NASA has done the research
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080032832_2008033521.pdf
If you need a pump to move fluid from tank to tank in zero gee, I can help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXDvxtozB8
Steve
Anon at 6:55 pm, as well as all of the NASA senior managers who secretly read this blog:
Telling the truth has been acceptable for the last 6 years when lives are at stake.
Telling the truth has not been acceptable ever when jobs were at stake.
Give somebody a blog to ask the hard questions of SSP and CxP (countering the party line), and we the troops and the mid-level officers will believe you're seriously listening to us. The only viceroy who has ever answered my question/dissent is the Old West Shire Reeve from Purdue. The rest can't stand the heat.
"Does anyone know how to submit additional 'data' to the 475 nm panel?"
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/contact_us/contact-form.html
Mailing Address
Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee
NASA Headquarters
300 E St SW
Washington DC 20024-3210
"a member of a presidentially appointed committee makes the case."
Feynman and osheroff were ignored and they were
way more accomplished.
John K. Strickland, Jr. gets it too.
I hope Lori Garver and Mr. Obama are getting their information from him.
Post a Comment