3 ms·

Charlie Bolden is one of the best, if not the best NASA administrator ever. You can't say enough good things about him. It's a great time for human space fligh

Charlie Bolden is one of the best, if not the best NASA administrator ever. You can't say enough good things about him. It's a great time for human space flight, it really seems like the dawn of a new era.

idlewords 12y ago
Seems like we've looped back to 1959 to me.
- eugeneionesco 12y ago
  I woudn't blame him for that, I think he does pretty good job with the ammount of money NASA gets these days. >NASA has set the stage for what promises to be the most ambitious and exciting chapter in the history of human space flight. This PR speak is what I don't like though.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I would be OK with that if it meant we were back on the moon in 2024.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  Could you go into more detail? As in, I'm not sure if you're replying about administration, contract awards, or tech; all of which would be interesting to read more on.
  - idlewords 12y ago
    I mean that we're about three years out from having the means to launch astronauts into low earth orbit, a capability we had in 1962.
    - marktangotango 12y ago
      .But the circumstances are entirely different, in 1959 it a national effort to save face after sputnik, to solely fly men in space and land on the moon, full stop. Thats jt dismantle the program, today Bolden was talking commercial enterprises n.nnabout flying people destinations in low earth orbit other than the international space station (ie Bigelow hotels). Thats the difference imo.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      That's only because we want to put people into low earth orbit with some sort of purpose besides just testing basic feasibility and Beating The Russians. If some magic scenario arose where the US had to put a person into low-earth orbit and bring him back alive or, say, the Earth would be destroyed, it could probably be done within a month. SpaceX can pretty much do it right now. Throwing together a quick "spam in a can" capsule could be done by other companies pretty quickly, and tossed atop an existing launcher. What takes so long is building something that can actually deliver people and cargo to an existing destination, do so safely (without breaking the destination or the people), transport people who aren't military test pilots, and not cost a noticeable percentage of GDP while doing it all.

idlewords 12y ago

Seems like we've looped back to 1959 to me.

eugeneionesco 12y ago
I woudn't blame him for that, I think he does pretty good job with the ammount of money NASA gets these days. >NASA has set the stage for what promises to be the most ambitious and exciting chapter in the history of human space flight. This PR speak is what I don't like though.
anigbrowl 12y ago
I would be OK with that if it meant we were back on the moon in 2024.
HCIdivision17 12y ago
Could you go into more detail? As in, I'm not sure if you're replying about administration, contract awards, or tech; all of which would be interesting to read more on.
- idlewords 12y ago
  I mean that we're about three years out from having the means to launch astronauts into low earth orbit, a capability we had in 1962.
  - marktangotango 12y ago
    .But the circumstances are entirely different, in 1959 it a national effort to save face after sputnik, to solely fly men in space and land on the moon, full stop. Thats jt dismantle the program, today Bolden was talking commercial enterprises n.nnabout flying people destinations in low earth orbit other than the international space station (ie Bigelow hotels). Thats the difference imo.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    That's only because we want to put people into low earth orbit with some sort of purpose besides just testing basic feasibility and Beating The Russians. If some magic scenario arose where the US had to put a person into low-earth orbit and bring him back alive or, say, the Earth would be destroyed, it could probably be done within a month. SpaceX can pretty much do it right now. Throwing together a quick "spam in a can" capsule could be done by other companies pretty quickly, and tossed atop an existing launcher. What takes so long is building something that can actually deliver people and cargo to an existing destination, do so safely (without breaking the destination or the people), transport people who aren't military test pilots, and not cost a noticeable percentage of GDP while doing it all.