Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Clark
Dec 18, 2011, 9:18:37 AM12/18/11
to
On Dec 16, 3:46 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
> things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
> Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
> bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
> richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
> someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
> crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
> that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
> Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
> Flying."
I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
Here are some estimates for the SLS program:
Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs
So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:
The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html
Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:
OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/elon-musk-and-the-forgotten-word
My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:
1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Employees.html?c=y&page=4
Bob Clark
> ...
>
> When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
> things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
> Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
> bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
> richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
> someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
> crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
> that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
> Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
> Flying."
I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
Here are some estimates for the SLS program:
Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs
So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:
The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html
Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:
OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/elon-musk-and-the-forgotten-word
My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:
1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Employees.html?c=y&page=4
Bob Clark
Matt Wiser
Dec 18, 2011, 9:16:01 PM12/18/11
to
>
> My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
> reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
> dedication to that idea:
>
> 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
> Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
> By Andrew Chaikin
> "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
> Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
> did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
> qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
> necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
> engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
> end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
> do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...
> My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
> reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
> dedication to that idea:
>
> 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
> Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
> By Andrew Chaikin
> "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
> Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
> did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
> qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
> necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
> engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
> end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
>
> Bob Clark
Ariane's clearly serious, but not getting on the HSF bandwagon.
Clearly, Musk has big things in mind and has the dinero to see if they
work. But, at his most recent National Press Club event about HSF, he
admitted that a fully reusable Falcon may not work out, but he wants
to try anyway. If he pulls it off, he's changed the whole equation re:
launch vehicles. But if he doesn't, and there are very serious
technical obstacles to that, that's $500 mil of his own money out the
door with nothing to show for it (other than possiblity of a reusable
1st stage). I do wish him luck, and best of luck when it comes to HSF.
But he's not the Messiah when it comes to HSF, and he's not a god re:
spaceflight in general.
Matt Wiser
Dec 18, 2011, 9:43:24 PM12/18/11
to
On Dec 18, 6:18 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
> reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
> dedication to that idea:
>
> 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
> Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
> By Andrew Chaikin
> "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
> Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
> did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
> qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
> necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
> engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
> end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
> do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...
> My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
> reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
> dedication to that idea:
>
> 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
> Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
> By Andrew Chaikin
> "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
> Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
> did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
> qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
> necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
> engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
> end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
>
> Bob Clark
Bob, he's most often described as an amateur when HSF is being
discussed. Then his "retiring on Mars" nonsense (he won't, but his
grandkids probably will), and daring NASA to buy his stuff only back
when Augustine was holding its hearings rubbed a lot of people the
wrong way.
Robert Clark
Dec 20, 2011, 11:13:00 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 18, 9:18 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
Some great points were made in this article such as this:
<Quote>
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
</Quote>
And then there's this:
<Quote>
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
</Quote>
The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
here:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm
Links to hear the show live are here:
http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm
It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/
Bob Clark
> ...
>
> Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
> to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
> vehicles is privately financed:
>
> OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
> Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/el...
> Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
> to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
> vehicles is privately financed:
>
> OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
>
Some great points were made in this article such as this:
<Quote>
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
</Quote>
And then there's this:
<Quote>
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
</Quote>
The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
here:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm
Links to hear the show live are here:
http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm
It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/
Bob Clark
Matt Wiser
Dec 20, 2011, 1:16:25 PM12/20/11
to
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.
bob haller
Dec 20, 2011, 3:41:52 PM12/20/11
to
> Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> way out.
wouldnt get built because its not affordable
or a smaller commercial launch system thats affordable......
when your home in in foreclosure you might buy a used vehicle.......
but be unable to afford a spiffy new porsche with all the bells and
whistles/
Jeff Findley
Dec 20, 2011, 4:01:45 PM12/20/11
to
In article <5067fb16-7956-4d13-a0cd-593b905cd369
@h11g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
True, there are many shades of gray. This is not a black and white
issue. That said, I still think SLS is a huge waste of money.
Military transport via aircraft isn't 100% private or 100% military. I
have no idea what the mix is, because it depends on how you define the
rules. Outside of combat zones, it's not unusual to see commercial
aircraft being used to transport troops. Also, it's not unusual for the
military to buy slightly modified versions of commercial aircraft and
operate them. Neither of these examples are of military aircraft
developed, owned, and operated solely by the military.
SLS is an example of a purely NASA specific launch vehicle. It will be
developed, owned, and operated solely by NASA. At least NASA isn't
trying to sell SLS to the politicians like it did STS. The shuttle
failed to meet commercial and military launch needs. Both of those
external (to NASA) customers returned to expendable launch vehicles to
meet their requirements.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
@h11g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
issue. That said, I still think SLS is a huge waste of money.
Military transport via aircraft isn't 100% private or 100% military. I
have no idea what the mix is, because it depends on how you define the
rules. Outside of combat zones, it's not unusual to see commercial
aircraft being used to transport troops. Also, it's not unusual for the
military to buy slightly modified versions of commercial aircraft and
operate them. Neither of these examples are of military aircraft
developed, owned, and operated solely by the military.
SLS is an example of a purely NASA specific launch vehicle. It will be
developed, owned, and operated solely by NASA. At least NASA isn't
trying to sell SLS to the politicians like it did STS. The shuttle
failed to meet commercial and military launch needs. Both of those
external (to NASA) customers returned to expendable launch vehicles to
meet their requirements.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Alan Erskine
Dec 20, 2011, 6:16:36 PM12/20/11
to
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> way out.
Why?
>
> Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> way out.
Matt Wiser
Dec 20, 2011, 10:11:11 PM12/20/11
to
total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.
The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
not completely pure: Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
"Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
destinations, etc.
Alan Erskine
Dec 21, 2011, 1:54:36 AM12/21/11
to
On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
> total privatization of HSF.
Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
> Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
> total privatization of HSF.
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?
bob haller
Dec 21, 2011, 8:55:33 AM12/21/11
to
> Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
> _don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?
a republican debate
David Spain
Dec 21, 2011, 11:14:57 AM12/21/11
to
Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> way out.
Yes, there is a lot about Congress, doors and ass-kicking I intend to engage
>
> Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> way out.
in this year.
;-)
Dave
Matt Wiser
Dec 22, 2011, 2:33:22 PM12/22/11
to
bob haller
Dec 22, 2011, 3:50:29 PM12/22/11
to
lets rephrase the question:)
Recent links to anyone supporting MSF, espically presenditial
candidates......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 23, 2011, 9:39:38 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 23, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quote them and list them by name.
>
> Yeah, I thought not...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
i posted the link awhile ago. its probably still up........
claiming its not fact ignores the fact i posted the link quoting this
here.... it was neaR 100% NO MORE FUNDING FOR HSF
>
> Yeah, I thought not...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
i posted the link awhile ago. its probably still up........
claiming its not fact ignores the fact i posted the link quoting this
here.... it was neaR 100% NO MORE FUNDING FOR HSF
bob haller
Dec 23, 2011, 9:50:51 PM12/23/11
to
> Quote them and list them by name.
>
> Yeah, I thought not...
>
The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers
>
> Yeah, I thought not...
>
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].
Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their
hand.
The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate,” he said.
“What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
failure.”
bob haller
Dec 23, 2011, 9:52:11 PM12/23/11
to
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-presidential-candidates.html
quote of all candidates against HSF
quote of all candidates against HSF
Matt Wiser
Dec 24, 2011, 1:01:15 AM12/24/11
to
On Dec 23, 6:52 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-presidential-candid...
all got asked that question in a debate where it wasn't likely that
space would come up. And you do know that politicians can change
(wonder of wonders)....Candidate Obama back in '08 wanted to delay HSF
post-shuttle by up to 5 yrs to pay for "unspecified education
programs." Only when the issue came up in the Florida Primary did he
come out in favor of HSF. You may be assured that the GOP candidates,
when Florida comes around, will be much more in favor. I take it that
it didn't occur to you that they've been so busy campaigning, that
they don't have time yet to develop policy papers on many topics,
space being one of them? Thought so. If you want to win Florida,
Texas, Colorado (where Lockheed-Martin builds parts for Orion),
Alabama, California, and every other state with a NASA Center or
contractor involved in HSF, you'd best be in favor of it. Remember
that those folks vote. Want to win Florida in the General Election?
You need the I-4 Corridor, which is Tampa-Orland-Daytona. Lots of
aerospace and NASA people there.....but then in your dream world,
politics isn't relevant.
> http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-presidential-candid...
>
> quote of all candidates against HSF
Boobert (because that's what you really are), do you realize that they
> quote of all candidates against HSF
all got asked that question in a debate where it wasn't likely that
space would come up. And you do know that politicians can change
(wonder of wonders)....Candidate Obama back in '08 wanted to delay HSF
post-shuttle by up to 5 yrs to pay for "unspecified education
programs." Only when the issue came up in the Florida Primary did he
come out in favor of HSF. You may be assured that the GOP candidates,
when Florida comes around, will be much more in favor. I take it that
it didn't occur to you that they've been so busy campaigning, that
they don't have time yet to develop policy papers on many topics,
space being one of them? Thought so. If you want to win Florida,
Texas, Colorado (where Lockheed-Martin builds parts for Orion),
Alabama, California, and every other state with a NASA Center or
contractor involved in HSF, you'd best be in favor of it. Remember
that those folks vote. Want to win Florida in the General Election?
You need the I-4 Corridor, which is Tampa-Orland-Daytona. Lots of
aerospace and NASA people there.....but then in your dream world,
politics isn't relevant.
bob haller
Dec 24, 2011, 7:04:07 AM12/24/11
to
it fails to take into account the collapse of our country finances and
the most hated but absolutely necessary thing congress must do.......
cut entitlements, medicare social security etc.
do you believe HSF spending will survive while SS benefits get cut for
everyone??
please answer that specific question!!
Matt Wiser
Dec 24, 2011, 2:14:21 PM12/24/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are you so pessimistic, unless you really are a Luddite? Your
inability to understand political reality is incredible.
bob haller
Dec 24, 2011, 6:27:07 PM12/24/11
to
> Why are you so pessimistic, unless you really are a Luddite? Your
> inability to understand political reality is incredible
do note you IGNORED MY QUESTION:( try again.....
> inability to understand political reality is incredible
do you believe HSF spending will survive while SS benefits get cut for
everyone??
overal spending wouldnt be cut?
Matt Wiser
Dec 24, 2011, 9:11:09 PM12/24/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
> - Show quoted text -
world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it before: NO
BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.
bob haller
Dec 25, 2011, 1:53:06 PM12/25/11
to
you said it yourself, no bucks no buck rogers....
while our country must cut spending or go bankrupt you claim HSF will
survive, while quoting the no bucks no buck rogers line.
The only other possiblity is congressional inaction, followed by ultra
inflation where the american dollar becomes basically worthless. is
that you opinion?
in any case when everything becomes massivey expensive and our money
worthless even a sizable nasa budget will do little. perhaps security
and some limited building maintence at KSC and houston
untill the overspending is fixed there are no easy solutions:(
or do you see another way??????????
Alan Erskine
Dec 25, 2011, 6:41:26 PM12/25/11
to
On 25/12/2011 1:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
> world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
> There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
> rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
> relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
> world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
> or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
> forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
> pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
> for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it before: NO
> BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.
I think Bob's been really quite good lately. It can be said you are
>
> It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
> world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
> There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
> rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
> relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
> world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
> or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
> forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
> pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
> for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it before: NO
> BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.
also in a fantasy world of your own - it depends on perspective.
As for HSF being just for NASA, I doubt they will get anywhere with
SLS/Orion. I firmly believe that Dragon and Dreamchaser will be the
transport of choice until Stratolaunch (combined with Dreamchaser?) get
into gear. Then, costs _will_ be less than 10% of current LVs.
I agree that HSF will survive, but will not use NASA/government-specific
systems for much longer. NASA's budget might stay the same, but don't
forget they do research into all sorts of other things; aviation, space
and other areas.
Matt Wiser
Dec 26, 2011, 1:39:47 AM12/26/11
to
is the key here: SLS and Orion are for BEO. The other stuff you
mention is for LEO. Alan, in case you haven't heard, there's only ONE
Congresscritter pushing EELV and depot-based strategies for BEO, and
that's Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). As I've pointed out earlier, his
motives are not completely pure: several Commercial Space outfits have
facilities in SoCal, and either have facilities in his district, or
there's employees of those firms who do live there. (Hawthorne is part
of his district). Musk made a lot of enemies back in the Augustine
hearings by daring NASA to buy his stuff exclusively-and some of those
enemies are in Congress. And remember that the key Senators and
Congressmen who make the legislation for NASA are from "space states."
Either you convince them that EELV/depots are the way to go or you
don't. So far, nobody's convinced them. Good luck trying.
Matt Wiser
Dec 26, 2011, 1:40:10 AM12/26/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boobert, you're either in a fantasy world or are a Luddite, and/or
> - Show quoted text -
pessimist. No use for any of the above. You're clearly upset that
Congress isn't listening to you. Like I said, they'd give you a good
laugh, then kick you in the ass while on the way out the committee
room door.
Alan Erskine
Dec 26, 2011, 4:23:52 AM12/26/11
to
On 26/12/2011 5:39 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> Clearly, they do, and have done wonders in those fields. But, and this
> is the key here: SLS and Orion are for BEO. The other stuff you
> mention is for LEO.
Doesn't have to be just LEO - Dragon is designed for re-entry at Martian
>
> Clearly, they do, and have done wonders in those fields. But, and this
> is the key here: SLS and Orion are for BEO. The other stuff you
> mention is for LEO.
velocities, not just Lunar or LEO. My idea of a 55 tonne LV is right in
the range of Falcon Heavy - Lunar is easy.
bob haller
Dec 26, 2011, 7:15:21 AM12/26/11
to
> Boobert, you're either in a fantasy world or are a Luddite, and/or
> pessimist. No use for any of the above. You're clearly upset that
> Congress isn't listening to you. Like I said, they'd give you a good
> laugh, then kick you in the ass while on the way out the committee
> room door
elections.....
if overspending isnt fixed, we will see hyper inflation and no country
will loan us money. thats already started.
oh well when your government benies get cut, you were warned.
our country is driving a car wth gas pedal floored down a dead end
street.
the smash up is guaranteed, unless overspending is stopped.
with entitlements such a large part of the budget things like medicare
and SS will have to be cut too.
it will be hard to sell anything space as SS is cut.......
feel free to continue living in your dreamland fantasy that
everythings great and will continue as is..
but dont come complaining when things collapse
Matt Wiser
Dec 26, 2011, 8:46:58 PM12/26/11
to
that practically meant that "NASA should buy my products exclusively,"
or words to that effect. He made a lot of enemies as a result. Not to
mention that he's admitted that Space X only has 1% of the lobbying
power that Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, or ULA have. He
may get the cargo contract, but crew? I'd wager on Boeing and Orbital
Science.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 2:18:23 AM12/28/11
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ut9lf713pubqqqepk...@4ax.com...
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >> Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
> >> >> _don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?
> >>
> >> >almost 100% of all republican presenditial candidates, pledged during
> >> >a republican debate
> >>
> >> Quote them and list them by name.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I thought not...
> >>
> >
> >
> >The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers
> >in America: They don't see a federal role in funding human space
> >flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].
> >
> >Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
> >attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human space
> >flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
> >Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
> >Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
> >Santorum and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain - raised their
>
> >
> >> >> Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
> >> >> _don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?
> >>
> >> >almost 100% of all republican presenditial candidates, pledged during
> >> >a republican debate
> >>
> >> Quote them and list them by name.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I thought not...
> >>
> >
> >
> >The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers
> >in America: They don't see a federal role in funding human space
> >flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].
> >
> >Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
> >attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human space
> >flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
> >Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
> >Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
> >hand.
> >
>
> Note that they didn't say they wouldn't. Were they asked the question
> the way YOU insist on putting it and did they all raise their hands to
> indicate they would not fund it?
>
> No, of course not.
>
>
> >
> >The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
> >tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
> >former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
> >
> >
> >GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
> >absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate," he said.
> >"What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
> >failure."
> >
>
> Want to be that things will pretty much continue on at the current
>
> >
> >The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
> >tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
> >former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
> >
> >
> >GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
> >absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate," he said.
> >"What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
> >failure."
> >
>
> funding levels, give or take, regardless of who wins the White House?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
I'll take that bet.
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 2:19:51 AM12/28/11
to
news:igalf7ll96l2s027l...@4ax.com...
> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
> <snip sniveling>
life)?
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Boobert, you're either in a fantasy world or are a Luddite, and/or
> >> pessimist. No use for any of the above. You're clearly upset that
> >> Congress isn't listening to you. Like I said, they'd give you a good
> >> laugh, then kick you in the ass while on the way out the committee
> >> room door
> >
> >congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
> >elections.....
> >
>
> You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? Please explain just how
>
> >
> >> Boobert, you're either in a fantasy world or are a Luddite, and/or
> >> pessimist. No use for any of the above. You're clearly upset that
> >> Congress isn't listening to you. Like I said, they'd give you a good
> >> laugh, then kick you in the ass while on the way out the committee
> >> room door
> >
> >congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
> >elections.....
> >
>
> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
> >
> >if overspending isnt fixed, we will see hyper inflation and no country
> >will loan us money. thats already started.
> >
>
> The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!
> >
> >if overspending isnt fixed, we will see hyper inflation and no country
> >will loan us money. thats already started.
> >
>
>
> <snip sniveling>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Fred, want to bet the Bobbert is Chicken Little (or was in a previous
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
life)?
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 2:21:26 AM12/28/11
to
news:v9alf7loshna2cm2f...@4ax.com...
> do you?
> do you?
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 9:11 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
> >> world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
> >> There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
> >> rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
> >> relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
> >> world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
> >> or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
> >> forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
> >> pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
> >> for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it before: NO
> >> BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.-
> >>
> >
> >you said it yourself, no bucks no buck rogers....
> >
>
> Except that's not what he said. You really DON'T read worth a damn,
>
> >On Dec 24, 9:11 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
> >> world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
> >> There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
> >> rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
> >> relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
> >> world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
> >> or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
> >> forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
> >> pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
> >> for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it before: NO
> >> BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.-
> >>
> >
> >you said it yourself, no bucks no buck rogers....
> >
>
> do you?
>
> >
> >while our country must cut spending or go bankrupt you claim HSF will
> >survive, while quoting the no bucks no buck rogers line.
> >
>
> Except that's not what he said. You really DON'T read worth a damn,
> >
> >while our country must cut spending or go bankrupt you claim HSF will
> >survive, while quoting the no bucks no buck rogers line.
> >
>
> do you?
>
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Like Clueless Cobb over on rec.aviation.military, ain't he, Fred?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 6:50:19 AM12/28/11
to
> >congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
> >elections.....
>
> You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? Please explain just how
> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
the congressmen get groups to do their advertising for them.
> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
so as to avoid campagn funding law limits,
they do this by promising stuff to these groups..... basically their
votes are bought
you scratch my back i will scratch yours.
this is a major cause of our countries troubles today.
it causes gridlock, because no one can compromise, even when its in
everyones best interest.
now here again is the direct paste from the republican debate. please
explain in detail how any of these presidential candidates are
supportive of MSF at all?
=====================================================================
The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA
workers
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].
Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human
space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their
workers
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].
Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human
space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
hand.
The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate,” he said.
“What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 1:23:11 PM12/28/11
to
Oh, bobbert, bobbert. Still crying like Chicken Little. Your ignorance
of politics is legendary. Need you be reminded that the key members of
House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA all come from "Space
States", and they decide how much money NASA finally gets, NOT the
Administration. Again, you keep living in a fantasy world. Get out of
your basement and get into the real one for a change.
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 1:43:47 PM12/28/11
to
> Oh, bobbert, bobbert. Still crying like Chicken Little. Your ignorance
> of politics is legendary. Need you be reminded that the key members of
> House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA all come from "Space
> States", and they decide how much money NASA finally gets, NOT the
> Administration. Again, you keep living in a fantasy world. Get out of
> your basement and get into the real one for a change
the next election will likely see a big turn out of existing
congressional reps, they must know its coming given their approval
rate of 10% or less.
and the fiancial collapse of our country........
those leaders of congress will likely be on the unemployment
line.......
incidently that was bob schieffers prediction on face the nation last
sunday.
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 1:59:59 PM12/28/11
to
One other thing, boobert: there's a saying among space buffs (which
clearly, you're not): "The Meek can have the Earth. The Rest of us are
going to the Stars." My bags are packed. So where are you, hmm? Since
you're obviously a Luddite, troll, and a Chicken Little, it's obvious.
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 2:09:19 PM12/28/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
your not going anywhere unless your depending on russia, and they
> - Show quoted text -
arent having a good run right now....
and anything nasa will cost you more than you could earn in several
lifetimes just for launch cost per pound
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 2:36:37 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 2:31 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> our country's troubles today.
>
> You understand that what you describe above is illegal and that people
> would go to prison if they got caught doing that, right?
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And if they'd asked the question the other way, nobody would have
> raised their hands, either. Your understanding of politicians and
> human nature is equal to your understanding of current events and
> physics; i.e., damned near non-existent.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
of money. I have volunteered as campaign worker.
so whats your experience with campaigns for congress?
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
> >> >elections.....
>
> >> You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? Please explain just how
> >> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
> >the congressmen get groups to do their advertising for them.
>
> >so as to avoid campagn funding law limits,
>
> >they do this by promising stuff to these groups..... basically their
> >votes are bought
>
> >you scratch my back i will scratch yours.
>
> >this is a major cause of our countries troubles today.
>
> Yes, people with your sort of delusions are indeed a major cause of
>
> >> >congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
> >> >elections.....
>
> >> You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? Please explain just how
> >> "the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.
>
> >the congressmen get groups to do their advertising for them.
>
> >so as to avoid campagn funding law limits,
>
> >they do this by promising stuff to these groups..... basically their
> >votes are bought
>
> >you scratch my back i will scratch yours.
>
> >this is a major cause of our countries troubles today.
>
> our country's troubles today.
>
> You understand that what you describe above is illegal and that people
> would go to prison if they got caught doing that, right?
>
> And if they'd asked the question the other way, nobody would have
> raised their hands, either. Your understanding of politicians and
> human nature is equal to your understanding of current events and
> physics; i.e., damned near non-existent.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
most congressional polotical campaigns are all about raising boatloads
> - Show quoted text -
of money. I have volunteered as campaign worker.
so whats your experience with campaigns for congress?
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 3:11:23 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 2:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >and anything nasa will cost you more than you could earn in several
> >lifetimes just for launch cost per pound
>
> Bobbert, you innumerate twat!
> >lifetimes just for launch cost per pound
>
>
> The average American earns $1.6 million during their lifetime.
> Presumably "several lifetimes" equates to more than two. So your
> claim is that launch costs per pound prohibit launching a human being
> for $5 million or so.
>
> Launch costs are around $10k/pound. Let's use $15k/pound, just to be
> generous to you. If someone weighs less than 330 pounds or so, your
> statement is obviously false.
>
> Now assume a higher lifetime income (everyone isn't you, after all;
> someone with a professional degree will earn $4.4 million in their
> lifetime) and $10k/pound for launch costs. Your statement is even
> more false.
>
> The only conclusion is that you are an innumerate buffoon who couldn't
> figure his way out of a wet paper bag.
yeah delusional fred:(
Russia Hikes Price of Rocket Rides for U.S. Astronauts to $63 Million
Published March 14, 2011
| FoxNews.com
NASA, already committed to paying Russia millions of dollars to hitch
rides into space, had some expensive news to announce Monday: Russia
plan to start charging even more.
With the United States phasing out the shuttle program, the new way
for U.S. astronauts to get to the International Space Station will be
to catch a ride with the Russians, and NASA's existing contract for
that transport priced each rocket ride at just under $56 million.
Now, Russia is hiking the price for each rocket ride to nearly $63
million in 2014. The contract extension with the Russian Space Agency
totals $753 million, which covers trips for a dozen astronauts from
2014 through 2016.
Why such a price hike? NASA officials chalk it up to inflation.
NASA chief Charles Bolden says it's critical for U.S. companies to
take over this transportation job. The space shuttles used to do that
job are being retired this summer
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/14/russia-hikes-price-rocket-rides-astronauts-63-million/#ixzz1hrVKriJq
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 3:26:15 PM12/28/11
to
i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
ride.
in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
ride.
in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 3:51:53 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
> >ride.
>
> Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.
> >ride.
>
>
> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
> Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?
> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
>
> --
> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
> your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
> -- Mark Twain
would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?
each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 28, 2011, 4:46:58 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 3:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
> >> >ride.
>
> >> Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.
>
> >> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
> >> Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
> >> >ride.
>
> >> Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.
>
> >> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
> >> Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?
>
> >would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?
>
> >each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......
>
> I would prefer YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, you lying little twat. 'Price per
>
> >each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......
>
> pound to launch'.
>
> Explain to us how they sent the Shuttles up with the only payload
> being the crew again....
>
> --
> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
> your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
> -- Mark Twain- Hide quoted text -
> --
> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
> your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
>
> - Show quoted text -
compare the cost ofg falcon with any planned nasa launcher........ now
> - Show quoted text -
compare their price per pound
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 10:40:10 PM12/28/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not only are you one of the meek, but you're a lying twit. More "sky
> - Show quoted text -
is falling" BS. Come back when you have something else.
Matt Wiser
Dec 28, 2011, 10:39:38 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 11:35 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, bobbert, bobbert. Still crying like Chicken Little. Your ignorance
> >> of politics is legendary. Need you be reminded that the key members of
> >> House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA all come from "Space
> >> States", and they decide how much money NASA finally gets, NOT the
> >> Administration. Again, you keep living in a fantasy world. Get out of
> >> your basement and get into the real one for a change
> >your ignoring the elephants in the room......
>
> >the next election will likely see a big turn out of existing
> >congressional reps, they must know its coming given their approval
> >rate of 10% or less.
>
> It's been that low for a long time and yet reelection rates are over
> >> of politics is legendary. Need you be reminded that the key members of
> >> House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA all come from "Space
> >> States", and they decide how much money NASA finally gets, NOT the
> >> Administration. Again, you keep living in a fantasy world. Get out of
> >> your basement and get into the real one for a change
> >your ignoring the elephants in the room......
>
> >the next election will likely see a big turn out of existing
> >congressional reps, they must know its coming given their approval
> >rate of 10% or less.
>
> 95%.
>
>
>
> >and the fiancial collapse of our country........
>
> The sky is falling. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> >and the fiancial collapse of our country........
>
>
>
>
> >those leaders of congress will likely be on the unemployment
> >line.......
>
> You really are a buffoon. Could you please educate yourself about
>
>
> >those leaders of congress will likely be on the unemployment
> >line.......
>
> SOMETHING? *ANYTHING*????
>
>
>
> >incidently that was bob schieffers prediction on face the nation last
> >sunday.
>
> Yeah, sure. Go look at who's on the committees and then tell us which
>
>
> >incidently that was bob schieffers prediction on face the nation last
> >sunday.
>
> ones you think will lose.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
He won't educate himself, Fred. He's stuck in his dream world and
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
that's that. Anything that conflicts with his fantasies he ignores, or
spins and twists to suit said fantasies.
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 7:49:01 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 5:30 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 3:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
> >> >> >ride.
>
> >> >> Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.
>
> >> >> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
> >> >> Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?
>
> >> >would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?
>
> >> >each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......
>
> >> I would prefer YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, you lying little twat. 'Price per
> >> pound to launch'.
>
> >> Explain to us how they sent the Shuttles up with the only payload
> >> being the crew again....
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 3:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
> >> >> >ride.
>
> >> >> Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.
>
> >> >> >in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here
>
> >> >> Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?
>
> >> >would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?
>
> >> >each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......
>
> >> I would prefer YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, you lying little twat. 'Price per
> >> pound to launch'.
>
> >> Explain to us how they sent the Shuttles up with the only payload
> >> being the crew again....
>
> >compare the cost ofg falcon with any planned nasa launcher........ now
> >compare their price per pound
>
> Your claim wasn't "NASA is more expensive". Your claim was YOU CANNOT
> >compare their price per pound
>
> EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO PAY THE COST PER POUND
> LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.
>
> Dodge and wriggle all you like. It merely makes it OBVIOUS that
> you're a lying twat.
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
take a average american of 200 pounds and current launch cost per
> - Show quoted text -
pound times 20:(
current cost per pound is way too much for a human.
a easy way to think about this.......
with soyuz costs per person at what 63 million. how many people make
that much in a lifetime? and currently soyuz is the only commercially
available system
realize you cant compare price per pound for no living cargo with the
costs involved for humans
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 2:03:23 PM12/29/11
to
Your claim was YOU CANNOT EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.
fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
PAY THE COST PER POUND LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....
so again i am correct.
the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Dec 29, 2011, 2:20:43 PM12/29/11
to
SLS contracts are being issued, hardware such as J-2X is being tested,
the Orion's had a LAS (Launch Abort System) test, and so on. Come back
when you have more than mindless drivel.
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 2:21:58 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 2:08 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
> pound" to "Russian passenger price".
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates
fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates
currently nasa has no manned space capability
the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
would of liquified, besides it cost too much
the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
operational
the falcon if successful might make it affordable.
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 2:38:57 PM12/29/11
to
which led to zip nada nothing.
except congressional pork make work project thats going no where fast.
if dragon is successful nasa will look like a total waste
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 4:56:18 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 2:57 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 2:08 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Your claim was YOU CANNOT EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
> >> >PAY THE COST PER POUND LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.
>
> >> >fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
> >> >human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
> >> >costs....
>
> >> >so again i am correct.
>
> >> >the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
> >> >million each.
>
> >> In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
> >> caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
> >> pound" to "Russian passenger price".
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 2:08 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Your claim was YOU CANNOT EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
> >> >PAY THE COST PER POUND LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.
>
> >> >fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
> >> >human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
> >> >costs....
>
> >> >so again i am correct.
>
> >> >the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
> >> >million each.
>
> >> In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
> >> caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
> >> pound" to "Russian passenger price".
>
> >fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.
>
> >currently nasa has no manned space capability
>
> >the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
> >would of liquified, besides it cost too much
>
> >the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
> >operational
>
> >the falcon if successful might make it affordable.
>
> In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole about
>
> >currently nasa has no manned space capability
>
> >the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
> >would of liquified, besides it cost too much
>
> >the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
> >operational
>
> >the falcon if successful might make it affordable.
>
> "NASA cost per pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught
> on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to
> "Russian passenger price".
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> "Russian passenger price".
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
show me a nasa estimated cost per pound to loft a human.......
>
> - Show quoted text -
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 29, 2011, 6:03:02 PM12/29/11
to
> >show me a nasa estimated cost per pound to loft a human.......
>
> Cost per pound is cost per pound. Once more time. In other words,
>
> you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole about "NASA cost per
> pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught on it, and are
> now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to "Russian
> passenger price".
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cost per pound freight is far less than cost per pound human and in
> pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught on it, and are
> now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to "Russian
> passenger price".
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
any case provide a link to nasa estimated human costs to orbit.....
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Dec 29, 2011, 10:16:41 PM12/29/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
And guess what, twit? Congress slashed the Commercial crew funding by
> - Show quoted text -
45%, while SLS and Orion were fully funded. NASA's budget passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support. Or does that bit of information go in
one ear and out the other?
And I suggest you have a look at this-though with your mindset, it's
probably a wasted effort:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20111229/NEWS02/312290028/Will-presidential-race-end-shift-space-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Space%20News
It argues that there will be minimal changes in NASA and in space
policy overall, even if a GOP nominee wins the General Election. Why?
Simple: any changes to NASA's exploration plans will face the same
fight that Obama had in 2010-and had to yield on Orion, SLS, and so
on. There's an adage in D.C. you would be advised to consider: "The
Administration proposes, but The Congress disposes." As long as the
members of the key House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA
come from "Space States" the status quo will be maintained. And enough
with the Chicken Little bovine scatology-you sound like Ron Paul or
some other mindless twit who won't win the Presidency.
bob haller
Dec 30, 2011, 8:33:36 AM12/30/11
to
> It argues that there will be minimal changes in NASA and in space
> policy overall, even if a GOP nominee wins the General Election. Why?
> Simple: any changes to NASA's exploration plans will face the same
> fight that Obama had in 2010-and had to yield on Orion, SLS, and so
> on. There's an adage in D.C. you would be advised to consider: "The
> Administration proposes, but The Congress disposes." As long as the
> members of the key House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA
> come from "Space States" the status quo will be maintained. And enough
> with the Chicken Little bovine scatology-you sound like Ron Paul or
> some other mindless twit who won't win the Presidency
must be cut:(
and NASA, having provided little to be proud of no earth shattering
discoveries:( Just budget shattering ones:(
Matt Wiser
Dec 30, 2011, 8:53:59 PM12/30/11
to
flesh on the bone.
test
Jan 8, 2012, 6:21:48 PM1/8/12
to
On Dec 20 2011, 10:11 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:16 pm, Alan Erskine <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> > > Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> > > this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> > > face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> > > out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> > > way out.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
> total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
> want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
> neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
> Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
> to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
> Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
> lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
> would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.
>
> The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
> Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
> not completely pure: Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
> ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
> SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
> constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
> Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
> push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
> that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
> "Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
> Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
> 45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
> pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
> destinations, etc.
more wiser being an ass and spreading dis-information again.
Rohrabacher's district does not include Hawthrone. Actually, Boeing
who does SLS is in his district.
> On Dec 20, 3:16 pm, Alan Erskine <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> > > Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> > > this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> > > face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> > > out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> > > way out.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
> total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
> want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
> neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
> Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
> to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
> Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
> lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
> would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.
>
> The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
> Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
> not completely pure: Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
> ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
> SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
> constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
> Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
> push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
> that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
> "Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
> Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
> 45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
> pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
> destinations, etc.
more wiser being an ass and spreading dis-information again.
Rohrabacher's district does not include Hawthrone. Actually, Boeing
who does SLS is in his district.
bob haller
Jan 8, 2012, 6:46:58 PM1/8/12
to
>
> Chicken little again. Come back when you have something with more
> flesh on the bone
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Jan 9, 2012, 7:46:16 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 8, 11:29 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> brain.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
it appears the budget driven changes will exceed just the costs of
winding down 2 wars.
plus have you heard Iraq is destabilizing, and a civil war is coming.
Iran is becoming more important
sure we deposed saddam hussein, but for the people and the region our
meddling just made things worse.
although the military spending has been good for military suppliers,
heck even the body bag ones:( with so many deaths sales soared........
Message has been deleted
Hägar
Jan 14, 2012, 7:25:56 PM1/14/12
to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:10:25 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> I go by <remaining non-relevant idiocy snipped>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily I am insane. But I have lucid moments when I am
> only rock dumb-stupid."
> -- Fred J. McCall
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist
organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist
warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself
created.
We can only pray they drone you.
> I go by <remaining non-relevant idiocy snipped>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily I am insane. But I have lucid moments when I am
> only rock dumb-stupid."
> -- Fred J. McCall
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist
organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist
warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself
created.
We can only pray they drone you.
Robert Clark
Jan 20, 2012, 1:54:56 PM1/20/12
to
On Dec 10 2011, 8:24 pm, dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "SpaceX will attempt the first commercial link-up with the
> International Space Station (ISS) on Feb. 7, which could
> be a major milestone on the way to the low-Earth-orbit
> economy NASA is trying to create."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/12/...
The Feb. 7th flight has been postponed:
1st Private Rocket Launch to Space Station Delayed.
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 16 January 2012 Time: 01:51 PM ET
http://www.space.com/14251-launch-delay-spacex-dragon-spaceflight.html
The Russians and some members of NASA were uncertain about SpaceX's
ability to perform the linkup with the ISS successfully. For a $100
billion asset, that is an understandable concern.
A couple of suggestions. First hire away from the Russians some top
guys involved with the Progress cargo vehicle to the ISS and from the
Europeans some top guys involved with the ESA's Automated Transfer
Vehicle(ATV). For the billion dollar cargo supply contract SpaceX has
with NASA, it can afford to do that.
Secondly, prior to the ISS docking mission do some rendezvous
missions in space with the Dragon spacecraft. Ideally it would be with
a vehicle that it could actually dock with. The Progress M-13M cargo
vehicle for instance is scheduled to undock from the ISS in a few
days. According to the Wikipedia page the undocking is scheduled for
the 25th:
Progress M-13M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-13M
while on this NASA release it's listed as on the 23rd:
NASA ISS On-Orbit Status 19 January 2012.
Source: NASA HQ
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39635
The release of a small Russian satellite from the Progress and the de-
orbit burn for the Progress is scheduled to occur a day later. Could
the undocking or least the de-orbit burn be postponed for enough time
for SpaceX to launch the Dragon to be able link up with the Progress
vehicle?
In any case, the current plan is not for Dragon to perform the final
link-up with ISS under its own power and navigation capabilities but
just to get close enough for the robot arm to grapple it and pull it
to the station to dock with it. So for this, all the Dragon has to do
is demonstrate the ability to get close enough to some orbiting
satellite without colliding with it to within a similar distance is it
would be to the ISS. It might be able to do this several times with
different satellites to further demonstrate this capability.
Bob Clark
> "SpaceX will attempt the first commercial link-up with the
> International Space Station (ISS) on Feb. 7, which could
> be a major milestone on the way to the low-Earth-orbit
> economy NASA is trying to create."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/12/...
The Feb. 7th flight has been postponed:
1st Private Rocket Launch to Space Station Delayed.
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 16 January 2012 Time: 01:51 PM ET
http://www.space.com/14251-launch-delay-spacex-dragon-spaceflight.html
The Russians and some members of NASA were uncertain about SpaceX's
ability to perform the linkup with the ISS successfully. For a $100
billion asset, that is an understandable concern.
A couple of suggestions. First hire away from the Russians some top
guys involved with the Progress cargo vehicle to the ISS and from the
Europeans some top guys involved with the ESA's Automated Transfer
Vehicle(ATV). For the billion dollar cargo supply contract SpaceX has
with NASA, it can afford to do that.
Secondly, prior to the ISS docking mission do some rendezvous
missions in space with the Dragon spacecraft. Ideally it would be with
a vehicle that it could actually dock with. The Progress M-13M cargo
vehicle for instance is scheduled to undock from the ISS in a few
days. According to the Wikipedia page the undocking is scheduled for
the 25th:
Progress M-13M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-13M
while on this NASA release it's listed as on the 23rd:
NASA ISS On-Orbit Status 19 January 2012.
Source: NASA HQ
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39635
The release of a small Russian satellite from the Progress and the de-
orbit burn for the Progress is scheduled to occur a day later. Could
the undocking or least the de-orbit burn be postponed for enough time
for SpaceX to launch the Dragon to be able link up with the Progress
vehicle?
In any case, the current plan is not for Dragon to perform the final
link-up with ISS under its own power and navigation capabilities but
just to get close enough for the robot arm to grapple it and pull it
to the station to dock with it. So for this, all the Dragon has to do
is demonstrate the ability to get close enough to some orbiting
satellite without colliding with it to within a similar distance is it
would be to the ISS. It might be able to do this several times with
different satellites to further demonstrate this capability.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
May 4, 2012, 10:24:09 AM5/4/12
to
05/01/2012 11:18 PM Filed in: Space News | Commercial Space |
International Space Station
By WILLIAM HARWOOD
CBS News
"KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL--The long-awaited launch of a commercial
cargo ship bound for the International Space Station almost certainly
will be delayed from May 7 to at least May 10 and possibly longer,
sources said late Tuesday, to give company engineers additional time
to complete pre-flight tests and checkout..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/3f8a43db532f88e3f0ed6b8fe9876eeb-403.html
I really, really wish SpaceX had considered doing a "rendezvous" with,
for example, a Progress cargo vehicle before going directly to the
ISS. This would have allowed them to work out the kinks out of any
software and hardware beforehand, before risking, in some peoples
minds, a $100 billion asset in the ISS.
I'm aware that the docking mechanisms of the Dragon and Progress are
not compatible, but it wouldn't actually have to dock with Progress to
prove its capability. This is because the Dragon will not dock on its
own to the ISS but only come to within close proximity to the station
where it will be grappled by the robot arm to link with the station.
So it would suffice to just prove it could come within the specified
distance to the Progress, or other orbiting vehicle, and stay within
that specified distance without colliding with it. In fact it could do
this multiple times with different orbiting craft to give further
confidence in its capabilities.
Bob Clark
Snidely
May 4, 2012, 11:28:06 PM5/4/12
to
Robert Clark explained on 5/4/2012 :
I thought they weren't going to ISS until they had complete Milestone
2, where they demonstrate that command & control are working reasonably
well. They did combine flights, so that Milestone 3 (prox ops, etc)
can occur soon after Milestone 2, but it I'm remembering the plan
correctly, there is plenty of check-out before the opportunity to be
piped aboard.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
2, where they demonstrate that command & control are working reasonably
well. They did combine flights, so that Milestone 3 (prox ops, etc)
can occur soon after Milestone 2, but it I'm remembering the plan
correctly, there is plenty of check-out before the opportunity to be
piped aboard.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Robert Clark
May 10, 2012, 1:58:55 PM5/10/12
to
On May 4, 10:24 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
problem of private spacecraft docking with the ISS:
On Commercial Flights to the ISS and "space tugs".
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-commercial-flights-to-iss-and-space.html
Bob Clark
> ...
> I really, really wish SpaceX had considered doing a "rendezvous" with,
> for example, a Progress cargo vehicle before going directly to the
> ISS. This would have allowed them to work out the kinks out of any
> software and hardware beforehand, before risking, in some peoples
> minds, a $100 billion asset in the ISS.
> I'm aware that the docking mechanisms of the Dragon and Progress are
> not compatible, but it wouldn't actually have to dock with Progress to
> prove its capability. This is because the Dragon will not dock on its
> own to the ISS but only come to within close proximity to the station
> where it will be grappled by the robot arm to link with the station.
> So it would suffice to just prove it could come within the specified
> distance to the Progress, or other orbiting vehicle, and stay within
> that specified distance without colliding with it. In fact it could do
> this multiple times with different orbiting craft to give further
> confidence in its capabilities.
>
> Bob Clark
On this blog post I discuss a proposal of Robert Zubrin to solve the
> for example, a Progress cargo vehicle before going directly to the
> ISS. This would have allowed them to work out the kinks out of any
> software and hardware beforehand, before risking, in some peoples
> minds, a $100 billion asset in the ISS.
> I'm aware that the docking mechanisms of the Dragon and Progress are
> not compatible, but it wouldn't actually have to dock with Progress to
> prove its capability. This is because the Dragon will not dock on its
> own to the ISS but only come to within close proximity to the station
> where it will be grappled by the robot arm to link with the station.
> So it would suffice to just prove it could come within the specified
> distance to the Progress, or other orbiting vehicle, and stay within
> that specified distance without colliding with it. In fact it could do
> this multiple times with different orbiting craft to give further
> confidence in its capabilities.
>
> Bob Clark
problem of private spacecraft docking with the ISS:
On Commercial Flights to the ISS and "space tugs".
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-commercial-flights-to-iss-and-space.html
Bob Clark
0 new messages