Yeah!

Looks a little like an adjusted version of the Constellation program.

They mention using liquid fuel engines, but the two outboard rockets looks just like SRBs to me, which was the problem with the last design of the heavy lift Ares.

I suspect that as politicians change in Washington, so will this program, so who knows what the final version will be and when.

Going to an asteroid for a manned mission just doesn't make sense to me. This is one accomplishment that is easier done with robotic probes, including sample returns.

I just don't see the value added to send humans. I would rather see the resources put towards Mars or at the least a lunar base.

I also do not see the value in a Mars flyby. If you are going to expend all that time and energy to get there you might as well make it count on the first manned shot. Then again, it is hard to say when the details of such a mission are so sketchy.

For those that did not see this, this is the Ares 1x flight in October 2009 taken from my front yard. It was the only flight before Obama cancelled the project. I suspect that the new deep space explorer is heavily based on the Ares.

From the article, "The lift capacity will be evolvable to 130 metric tons -- more than 286,000 pounds, or 143 tons -- enough to lift 75 SUVs. "

We already have enough space junk up there, what are we going to do with 75 SUVs in LEO?

<...lift capacity will be...enough to lift 75 SUVs...>

Is that really an environmantally acceptable method of disposal?

I think you raise a good question!

Has anyone done the math? Just what are the carbon credits for putting these into LEO? How does that compare to the carbon credits for 75 SUVs over their service life on the road?

Will they all have On-Star?

Actually AH, it looks a lot like DIRECT 3.0/Jupiter-246 upgraded with a 5 stack SRB set and J-2X engines which were on the intended upgrade path anyway. You know, the one that NASA said would never work and crapped all over it? Yeah that one.

Pretty close.

Here's a guest column written for Space News that is highly critical of the Space Launch System. Good info.

http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110decision-time-america-future-space.html

It asks '... Congress to completely eliminate the monstrously lethal Senate Launch System earmark before it destroys NASA and our entire government human space exploration program...'

No need. In one year the political wind will change direction completely.

Then in another one to two years after that the political winds will violently shift again.

Unfortunately, there is no direction for NASA (it's all political rhetoric) and I wonder if I will ever see a focused determination for US space exploration in my lifetime.

It strikes me, as another aimless trashing around of the NASA upper echelon. After they got too many things cancelled on them. Heavy lifting? Beatiful. What for? Manned Mars exploration? That is phantasy food for the easily deluded. For 0,1% of such grandstanding generation2 rovers can be sent, and needed not be retrieved. Any such does not need the shiny new "heavy lifters", but present, improved, bundled lifters. Cost considerations for NASA and normal folks is like day and night.

Innovation comes strictly from the outside. Example: Burt Rutan and White Knight and Spaceship One, as different concepts and radical cost savings. As far as I know, the same id for the ion engines so successfully employed now.

What a huge waste of money. We should let China and Russia do all the heavy lifting then steal all the relevant technology. Much cheaper to do it that way.

Nice thought. Glad you are not my neighbor. I guess I'm a sucker. You know, using intellectual resources to solve problems is so yesterday.

The heavy lifting is for the ISS, which is by far the most audacious and potentially useful NASA/Global project ever undertaken. The experience gained and development of technologies are immensely important to the future of mankind. Spaceship One is very cool, but why don't you ask Burt about the technological implications of the ISS versus his ship. It's the school bus and the school.

PFR should wake up and smell the coffee. Theft of technology, not to mention what we give away by our stupidity is what China is all about. Better to spend the money on black Ops type stuff for when we have to fight them in the next war.

What I obiect to is an entirely new, single, expensive program at the detriment of many smaller sophisticated payload ones. We went down that road before with the space shuttle. I am not talking out of turn, when pointing out, that freight need be lifted by relatively inexpensive solid brutes at high g and higher failure rate. People need the low g, low weight, high reliability vehicle. Like the europaen Hermes. And so on.

With these, the risks and cost overruns are spread. And the talent pool in general, and at NASA is preserved. I want to see the expertise(s), engines reused, including the further development of the one mentioned in previous comment.

The brouhaha reminds me of the Vanguard vs. Redstone debate. Those geniuses wanted to spend plenty of money on iust another rocket. Why? Because!! They even wanted to develop a new transport plane instead a perfectly good modified 747. Why? Because!! Because, it is other people's money, let's spend it with abandon, needed or not.

And yes, innovation comes from outside NASA. Do you remember the times, until fairly recently, when any competition was squelched with the help of congress? And yes, manned space exploration out to Mars NASA style is nothing but expensive boondogle, hence a pipedream. Cheaper, quicker, higher risk is a different ballgame.

It behooves us to learn from history, unless we are hellbent repeating it.