[...] matched the natural frequency of the CHRA. Heard of the new space shuttle's resonance problem? Engineering, Budget Problems for NASA???s New Spacecraft | Universe Today Very interesting article. Same concept applies to turbochargers. Engineers spend YEARS studying [...]

Can we put in Mechanics? Because "Engineers and scientists" are always busy thinking about theoretical issues. I wouldnt trust the smartest scientist or engineer to fix my car… There has to be a good reason for that.

We had better rockets planned in the 1970s than this.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm

However the Orion seems like a solid idea for a man-rated craft.

This is not new, and not significantly different from resonant effects that had to be understood in the four segment shuttle boosters.

NASA should take on the role of facilitator to develop a commercial launch vehicle that achieves cost-effective access to space via purchasing launch service from 2 or more providers.
NASA must not design the launch vehicle and then ask for bids to manufacture the components.

There is only one method of achieving cost effective access to space and that is via an Air-Launch, Single-Rocket-Stage-to-Orbit system. Unfortunately, the C-17 commercial air cargo with its miniscule 24 ton payload capacity is about the only air cargo vehicle that is available for air launch operations. {There is only one AN-225 and the C-5 is a high maintenance military aircraft.}
NASA should have a competition for a very large commercial cargo aircraft (such as the Boeing Pelican) that could be utilized by multiple air-launch companies as well as the air cargo industry.
The most important things that NASA can do right now are to provide seed capital and provide low-risk missions (such as taking low-value commodities to the ISS. This would establish a vehicle flight reliability record without risking high-cost payloads or passengers).

In other words – put me in charge.

You would think that instead of coming up with something new, they could use the best ideas from over those 50 years (and some new ideas if they're brilliant) and make something "safe", efficient, and not any more complicated than it needs to be.

(The word safe is in quotation marks because I don't consider space travel to be safe in general.)

NASA is a strange exception because there are brilliant scientists and engineers there. NASA as a research organization is fantastic. NASA as a pioneer is hopelessly self-defeating.

Was there an agency planning exploration and settlement of the New World? Absolutely not. Government (Spain) got it started but profit motive carried the rest of the way.

We'd all be dead of the plague or inquisitions while NASA studied the potential impact of the Gulf Stream against wooden hulls or lived in perpetual denial of studies on infants born on the ocean.

In all seriousness, NASA must die. Become the division of space vehicles, issue licenses and get the f*ck out of the way.

You are doomed to failure.

Behold! The power of my death ray has no equal.

the Ares rockets have much more problems than just "vibrations" since they can't fly, as explained in this article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

Mitt Romney has accepted the same invitation from the Florida EDC to attend the same type of event on Monday that Giuliani made this statement of support for funding manned missions to Mars and the Moon at. If we push hard, we can expect a similar statement from Romney. Huckabee has not yet accepted, but it is a strong possibility. Especially since we will all contact Huckabee and tell him that he needs to.

http://www.actionforspace.com explains in detail the most effective way to exploit this situation to promote spaceflight in the debates and in the next president.

Romney is the next domino to fall in the chain reaction to get humans on their way to Mars and the Moon.

go to http://www.actionforspace.com and do your part!