NASA should prioritize space colonization over puexploration

Again, I am strongly against the Ares 1. I preger a small VTOVL Delta
Clipper type of manned people shuttle which I believe would also be a
vehicle that would be very attractive to be purchased by private
industry.

The Ares V, however, is sorely needed since we have no heavy lift
capability. And it is partially reusable.

Would I like a totally reusable heavy lift VOTVL? Sure! But we need to
test the concept on a smaller scale first, IMO. Plus I think we can
have the Ares V online and functioning a lot sooner than any reusable
heavy lift vehicle.

Marcel F. Williams

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Marcel
> > Even NASA officials now realize that decommissioning the Saturn V was
> > a mistake. That's why they're working on the Ares V.
>
> That's cargo cultism. "We'll copy the appearance (on paper) and the
gods (of
> success) will surely return!"
>
> What made the saturn V great was not just capacity, it was
reliability and
> ground breaking concepts. By the end of its life it was also a
proven design
> based upon tested technology. The Aries V is based upon new SRBs,
two types
> of new engine, two new stage designs, and a new launcch and assembly
> facility. And on vague dreams of the past.
>
> And let's not forget, NASA had a good idea when it threw the saturn
V away.
> There is no good reason why space access has to be so expensive.
> Reusabuility is the future. The fact that NASA chose a version of
> reusability that allowed it to keep it's 20k workforce (and
political clout
> in washington) does not change that. The Aries V is a step
backwards, not
> forwards.
>
> And let us also not forget that it will depend on the Aries I in two
> important ways: If NASA fluffs the development of the shaft,
congress won't
> fork out the money for the second vehicle. And the shaft is so
dangerously