Baseless Smear Article: "Opinion: Despite Boozer’s claims NewSpace needs NASA"

Article by Jason Rhian here at Spaceflight Insider: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-newspace-needs-nasa-know/

First inaccuracy:
"Despite Boozer’s claims, NewSpace needs NASA"
Fact:
I never said NewSpace doesn't need NASA and have never believed that.

Another whopper:
"... would be wise to tamp down the “defund NASA” rhetoric"
????
Where did he get the nutty idea that I want to defund NASA?  I have made it plain numerous times over the years that what I and most other anti-SLS advocates really want is for NASA to not be milked by pork-barrel politicians.  Defunding of NASA is the last thing I want.

"The refrain employed by Boozer that NASA didn’t “want” SLS – bears little resemblance with what these officials have stated repeatedly."
OK, I did say NASA didn't want SLS.  It is Rihan's long standing claim that this is not so which is patently false. An article by me with links embedded in its text that lead to documents backing up my assertion can be found here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2532/1

Rhian states, "NASA should serve as a pathfinder, with commercial companies taking over operations that NASA has left behind."
A true statement, but not in the way he means.  As I have always stated, NASA indeed should be the pathfinder developing new cutting edge technologies with the commercial companies doing the stuff that has been tried-and-true for so long that it is beneath what NASA should be doing.  The trouble is that SLS is NOT new cutting edge tech and it costs more than it should, as explained in the article by me to which I supplied the link above.

There are many other misrepresentations in Rhian's piece that I do not have time to address.  It is starting to really bother me because this B.S. article now comes up on the first page of results from search engines when they are queried about my name.

Newly released book - The Plundering of NASA: an Exposé

It is time that American citizens take steps to stop the Congressional pork grab that is sapping the vitality from our space program.  Some politicians are using money in NASA's budget for purposes that don't advance the agency's mission.  If, like me, you want to see America doing exciting human space missions into the inner Solar System then get this book.  It is available from book distributors and bookstores and is available as a paperback or kindle ebook.  For more information about the book or to order now, go here:
http://www.amazon.com/Plundering-NASA-Expos%C3%A9-R-D-Boozer/dp/1300939060/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380896655&sr=1-1&keywords=the+plundering+of+nasa







Better alternatives to SLS for deep space exploration

At the end of a lecture and presentation that I gave for Starfest 2012 at Bays Mountain Planetarium, I was asked for sources of information concerning practical deep space exploration options that make more budgetary and implementational sense than options that would involve either of the two proposed versions of the SLS launcher. 

The first of these recommended written works is an industry study from United Launch Alliance that predates SLS which was titled A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture.  In fact, the study was produced while NASA’s Constellation Moon mission project was still alive.  This study is still very valid because the huge Shuttle-derived Ares V launcher was Constellation’s functional equivalent of SLS.  Thus, to read the study as something that is currently relevant, just mentally substitute SLS wherever Ares V is mentioned.

Next I would suggest NASA’s own groundbreaking study known as Propellant Depot Requirements Status Report.  This study was released before SLS was formally named and the designs of both models of SLS were yet to be finalized, though it was already known that the final model of SLS (now known as Block II) would be Shuttle-derived and have an orbital payload capacity in excess of 100 metric tons.  The points made in this study are still very relevant if the reader just considers all references to a SDV HLLV as being SLS Block II.

A group of scientists and engineers at Georgia Tech produced the latest paper, which does a direct comparison of using existing commercial launchers for deep space exploration versus using either model or both models of SLS (Block I and Block II) for that purpose.   This paper, called Evolved Human Space Exploration Architecture Using Commercial Launch/Propellant Depots starkly reveals both the economic and functional disadvantages of SLS.   Anyone who peruses either this study or the earlier NASA study will plainly see what a threat to American spacefaring supremacy that SLS constitutes.   In fact, it closes with the conclusion that going the alternate route that does not include SLS “provides experienced and focused workforce to improve safety, operational learning for reduced costs and higher launch reliability, reduce launch costs …”

Many thanks to Clark Lindsey of New Space Watch, for making the last paper available to the public via the internet.
 

Commercial Spaceflight Will Keep the U.S. Competitive

Yahoo! News has published another spaceflight related article written by me.

United States Will Beat China in New Space Race

I have been a human spaceflight enthusiast since childhood, over 50 years. For America to prosper in the future she must be a leader in, not just space exploration, but space exploitation. However, there are some politicians who are putting that future in peril in order to insure that pork flows to their constituents. If you are as concerned about this issue as much as I am, click the following link to read an article I have written on the subject.

Senators Crippling NASA - Associated content from Yahoo!