Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Well, they must be doing something right...
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Alan Erskine
Feb 4, 2012, 4:50:09 AM2/4/12
to
Courtesy Ron Baalke sci.space.news
Feb. 3, 2012
Joshua Buck
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
jb...@nasa.gov
Nicole Cloutier-Lemasters
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
Nicole-c...@nasa.gov
RELEASE: 12-041
NASA RECEIVES SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF ASTRONAUT APPLICATIONS
HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
number of applications ever received by the agency. After a thorough
selection process, which includes interviews and medical
examinations, nine to 15 people will be selected to become part of
the 21st astronaut class.
"This is a great time to join the NASA family," NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden said. "Our newest astronauts could launch aboard the
first commercial rockets to the space station the next generation of
scientists and engineers who will help us reach higher and create an
American economy that is built to last."
The Astronaut Selection Office staff will review the applications to
identify those meeting the minimum requirements. Next, an expanded
team, comprised mostly of active astronauts, will review those
applications to determine which ones are highly qualified. Those
individuals will be invited to Johnson Space Center for in-person
interviews and medical evaluations.
"We will be looking for people who really stand out," said Peggy
Whitson, chief of the Astronaut Office at NASA's Johnson Space Center
and chair of the Astronaut Selection Board. "Our team not only will
be looking at their academic background and professional
accomplishments but also at other elements of their personality and
character traits -- what types of hobbies they have or unique life
experiences. We want and need a mix of individuals and skills for
this next phase of human exploration."
NASA expects to announce a final selection of astronaut candidates in
the spring of 2013.
The selected astronaut candidates will have two years of initial
training. Subjects will include space station systems, Russian
language and spacewalking skills training. Those who complete the
training will be assigned technical duties within the Astronaut
Office at Johnson and, ultimately, missions.
Typically, the agency receives between 2,500 and 3,500 applicants for
astronaut vacancy announcements. The highest response occurred in
1978 with 8,000 applicants.
For more information about NASA astronauts, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/flynasa.html
-end-
Feb. 3, 2012
Joshua Buck
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
jb...@nasa.gov
Nicole Cloutier-Lemasters
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
Nicole-c...@nasa.gov
RELEASE: 12-041
NASA RECEIVES SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF ASTRONAUT APPLICATIONS
HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
number of applications ever received by the agency. After a thorough
selection process, which includes interviews and medical
examinations, nine to 15 people will be selected to become part of
the 21st astronaut class.
"This is a great time to join the NASA family," NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden said. "Our newest astronauts could launch aboard the
first commercial rockets to the space station the next generation of
scientists and engineers who will help us reach higher and create an
American economy that is built to last."
The Astronaut Selection Office staff will review the applications to
identify those meeting the minimum requirements. Next, an expanded
team, comprised mostly of active astronauts, will review those
applications to determine which ones are highly qualified. Those
individuals will be invited to Johnson Space Center for in-person
interviews and medical evaluations.
"We will be looking for people who really stand out," said Peggy
Whitson, chief of the Astronaut Office at NASA's Johnson Space Center
and chair of the Astronaut Selection Board. "Our team not only will
be looking at their academic background and professional
accomplishments but also at other elements of their personality and
character traits -- what types of hobbies they have or unique life
experiences. We want and need a mix of individuals and skills for
this next phase of human exploration."
NASA expects to announce a final selection of astronaut candidates in
the spring of 2013.
The selected astronaut candidates will have two years of initial
training. Subjects will include space station systems, Russian
language and spacewalking skills training. Those who complete the
training will be assigned technical duties within the Astronaut
Office at Johnson and, ultimately, missions.
Typically, the agency receives between 2,500 and 3,500 applicants for
astronaut vacancy announcements. The highest response occurred in
1978 with 8,000 applicants.
For more information about NASA astronauts, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/flynasa.html
-end-
Sylvia Else
Feb 4, 2012, 7:30:22 AM2/4/12
to
On 4/02/2012 8:50 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
> HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
> astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
> number of applications ever received by the agency.
Perhaps people feel that it'll be reasonably safe now that the shuttle
> HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
> astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
> number of applications ever received by the agency.
has been grounded.
Sylvia.
bob haller
Feb 4, 2012, 9:21:04 AM2/4/12
to
more importandly why do we need more astronauts, with the end of the
shuttle, and no clear replacement beyond private operators.
do we really need more astronauts.
if private operations replace hauling people to LEO, and constellation
really flies, which i seriously doubt.....
and constellation has at most 2 flights a year how many astronauts are
really needed? to support constellation and the american part of ISS
Catherine Jefferson
Feb 4, 2012, 10:24:10 AM2/4/12
to
deal-killer for most people who want to be astronauts. Getting into
space -- actually doing the job -- is the draw. Until the SpaceX manned
spaceflight craft is available (2020, maybe?), there won't be much
chance of getting into space except perhaps by hitchhiking on Russian
spacecraft, which are notoriously unsafe. :/
If I were looking for a job as an astronaut, I'd study engineering and
then go to work for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or another private
spaceflight firm.
--
Catherine Jefferson <tw8...@ergosphere.net>
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
Alan Erskine
Feb 4, 2012, 12:38:23 PM2/4/12
to
get your information?
Invid Fan
Feb 4, 2012, 1:27:42 PM2/4/12
to
In article <9p4mmu...@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
Or a combination of people being out of work and possible upcoming
military downsizing.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
military downsizing.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Invid Fan
Feb 4, 2012, 1:21:06 PM2/4/12
to
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Feb 4, 2012, 5:18:16 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 1:50 am, Alan Erskine <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Courtesy Ron Baalke sci.space.news
>
> Feb. 3, 2012
>
> Joshua Buck
> Headquarters, Washington
> 202-358-1100
> jb...@nasa.gov
>
> Nicole Cloutier-Lemasters
> Johnson Space Center, Houston
> 281-483-5111
> Nicole-cloutie...@nasa.gov
> Courtesy Ron Baalke sci.space.news
>
> Feb. 3, 2012
>
> Joshua Buck
> Headquarters, Washington
> 202-358-1100
> jb...@nasa.gov
>
> Nicole Cloutier-Lemasters
> Johnson Space Center, Houston
> 281-483-5111
risks IF the big boys get some thing that flies for them but most
industrial age jobs (of the past) had risks beyond ink printer
poisoning.
Who knows these folks maybe right, we'll see in the future
if we as individuals make it there................................Trig
David Spain
Feb 4, 2012, 7:21:49 PM2/4/12
to Invid Fan
Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <9p4mmu...@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/02/2012 8:50 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
>>
>>> HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
>>> astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
>>> number of applications ever received by the agency.
>> Perhaps people feel that it'll be reasonably safe now that the shuttle
>> has been grounded.
>>
> Or a combination of people being out of work and possible upcoming
> military downsizing.
>
It won't be just the military that gets downsized....
> In article <9p4mmu...@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/02/2012 8:50 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
>>
>>> HOUSTON -- More than 6,300 individuals applied to become a NASA
>>> astronaut between Nov. 15, 2011 and Jan. 27, the second highest
>>> number of applications ever received by the agency.
>> Perhaps people feel that it'll be reasonably safe now that the shuttle
>> has been grounded.
>>
> Or a combination of people being out of work and possible upcoming
> military downsizing.
>
... [in the not too distant future] ...
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have just entered the most exclusive process known to mankind.
The process by which we choose the next class of NASA Astronaut.
I'm here to inform this small group of you gathered here in Houston that you
have just entered the next phase of our selection process.
Look at the person to your left.
Now look to the person on your right.
Three of you won't be making it to the next round.
...
;-)
Dave
Val Kraut
Feb 4, 2012, 11:01:49 PM2/4/12
to
> Look at the person to your left.
> Now look to the person on your right.
>
> Three of you won't be making it to the next round.
>
of you will fly.
Alan Erskine
Feb 5, 2012, 1:10:01 AM2/5/12
to
Val Kraut
Feb 5, 2012, 1:52:19 AM2/5/12
to
"> They'll fly, but I doubt it'll be on a NASA spacecraft.
commercial spacecraft, what conditions will be put on using NASA personnel;
and just how much the private conttractors will go to utilize NASA personnel
instead of their own test pilots or crew. Has to be some interesting
liabilities buried in this. Like NASA pilot error looses a craft or
contractor rules result in NASA crew injury/death. Might also be some obtuse
reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
with a commercial firm.
Alan Erskine
Feb 5, 2012, 2:31:28 AM2/5/12
to
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 11:16:40 AM2/6/12
to
Alan Erskine wrote:
> Might also be some
>> obtuse
>> reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
>> with a commercial firm.
>>
>>
>
> Just like a military pilot.
No need for an 'obtuse reason'. The scenario is straightforward. As declining
> Might also be some
>> obtuse
>> reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
>> with a commercial firm.
>>
>>
>
> Just like a military pilot.
budgets force NASA back into a NACA style role, it will contract out its
astronaut training as a service to the private contractors who cannot afford
the facilities to do so.
That's if the 'taxi-style' approach is adopted, rather than the 'rental-car'
approach.
I think the budget trend will resolve which of these approaches finally wins.
And as long as the public thinks, thanks to the 'opinion leaders', that a moon
colony is 'lunacy' I think I can guess which way it will go.
BTW I happen to agree on the moon colony idea. It's just that what I'd prefer,
a habitable solar excursion vehicle along the lines of Nautilus-X would get
the same reception by this crowd.
I'm done with government run space 'programs'.
Dave
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 11:21:46 AM2/6/12
to
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> If I were looking for a job as an astronaut, I'd study engineering and
> then go to work for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or another private
> spaceflight firm.
Bingo!
> If I were looking for a job as an astronaut, I'd study engineering and
> then go to work for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or another private
> spaceflight firm.
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 11:22:56 AM2/6/12
to
And it'd help pay for that Eng. degree. to boot!
Dave
Message has been deleted
Rick Jones
Feb 6, 2012, 1:14:28 PM2/6/12
to
David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> It won't be just the military that gets downsized....
> ... [in the not too distant future] ...
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> You have just entered the most exclusive process known to mankind.
> The process by which we choose the next class of NASA Astronaut.
> I'm here to inform this small group of you gathered here in Houston that you
> have just entered the next phase of our selection process.
> Look at the person to your left.
> Now look to the person on your right.
> Three of you won't be making it to the next round.
> ...
> ;-)
Sure, but does Zed the NASA HR guy then administer an eye test using
> It won't be just the military that gets downsized....
> ... [in the not too distant future] ...
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> You have just entered the most exclusive process known to mankind.
> The process by which we choose the next class of NASA Astronaut.
> I'm here to inform this small group of you gathered here in Houston that you
> have just entered the next phase of our selection process.
> Look at the person to your left.
> Now look to the person on your right.
> Three of you won't be making it to the next round.
> ...
> ;-)
the flashy thing?-)
rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Jeff Findley
Feb 6, 2012, 5:55:12 PM2/6/12
to
In article <yP2dnSuRcotxYbLS...@giganews.com>, nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...
training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
destination is for the "taxi" .
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
127.0.0.1 says...
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
> > Might also be some
> >> obtuse
> >> reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
> >> with a commercial firm.
> >
> > Just like a military pilot.
>
> No need for an 'obtuse reason'. The scenario is straightforward. As declining
> budgets force NASA back into a NACA style role, it will contract out its
> astronaut training as a service to the private contractors who cannot afford
> the facilities to do so.
I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
> Alan Erskine wrote:
> > Might also be some
> >> obtuse
> >> reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
> >> with a commercial firm.
> >
> > Just like a military pilot.
>
> No need for an 'obtuse reason'. The scenario is straightforward. As declining
> budgets force NASA back into a NACA style role, it will contract out its
> astronaut training as a service to the private contractors who cannot afford
> the facilities to do so.
training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
destination is for the "taxi" .
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
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 11:25:30 PM2/6/12
to
Jeff Findley wrote:
> I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
> training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
> real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
> destination is for the "taxi" .
Jeff you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
> training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
> real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
> destination is for the "taxi" .
Think not what NASA wants to do with ISS, but what Bigelow might want to do
with its inflatable habitats.
As a private venture, it seems perfectly natural it might seek out NASA's help
to help train its work crews. Or to ask to use of the big water tank for
training its future space worker crews. And it seems only natural that NASA
would be willing to help, for a fee.
Think SpaceX wanting to train its own class of pilot-astronauts for manned
Dragon capsules. It's not a stretch to imagine SpaceX loaning a couple of
Dragons to NASA and paying a fee to NASA to train its crews.
Dave
Jeff Findley
Feb 7, 2012, 8:28:02 AM2/7/12
to
In article <EJ-dnZe9LLMiOq3S...@giganews.com>, nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...
Yes, I misread that.
I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want to
start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what training
they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do themselves.
127.0.0.1 says...
I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want to
start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what training
they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do themselves.
bob haller
Feb 7, 2012, 12:40:56 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <EJ-dnZe9LLMiOq3SnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@giganews.com>, nospam@
> - tinker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?
> In article <EJ-dnZe9LLMiOq3SnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@giganews.com>, nospam@
>
> - Show quoted text -
WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?
Jeff Findley
Feb 7, 2012, 1:10:17 PM2/7/12
to
In article <211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
e4a755...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
e4a755...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want
> > to start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what
> > training they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do
> > themselves.
>
> On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want
> > to start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what
> > training they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do
> > themselves.
>
> WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?
Cite?
bob haller
Feb 8, 2012, 3:37:05 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 7, 1:10 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
> e4a755c2b...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
> e4a755c2b...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want
> > > to start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what
> > > training they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do
> > > themselves.
>
> > WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?
>
> Cite?
>
> 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
just look at nasas costs in comparison to space X..............
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want
> > > to start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what
> > > training they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do
> > > themselves.
>
> > WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?
>
> Cite?
>
> 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
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 8, 2012, 6:42:55 AM2/8/12
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:dd40153a-4d3c-402c...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:dd40153a-4d3c-402c...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Alan Erskine
Feb 8, 2012, 8:06:59 AM2/8/12
to
On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
> Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
>
>
Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
>
> Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
>
>
budgets and considerably more people?
On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.
Jeff Findley
Feb 8, 2012, 8:23:58 AM2/8/12
to
In article <dd40153a-4d3c-402c-a0d7-
504f16...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
For the Falcons and Dragons, others have already done this. SpaceX's
costs are far lower than what NASA could achieve. So, you seem to have
your costs completely ass-backwards, unless you can support your
assertion.
504f16...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
costs are far lower than what NASA could achieve. So, you seem to have
your costs completely ass-backwards, unless you can support your
assertion.
Jeff Findley
Feb 8, 2012, 8:39:32 AM2/8/12
to
In article <TruYq.2933$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>,
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
The results of that changing political dynamic can be seen in the graph
of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!
Sorry everyone, but we beat the Godless Communists to the moon, the
Soviet Union is no more, the Berlin wall fell and Germany is once again
a single country. Face it everyone, the Cold War is long over, and
manned spaceflight just doesn't have the political support it once have.
The glory days of seemingly endless funding are gone and are NOT coming
back. Unfortunately, NASA has failed numerous times to come up with
manned space programs which accept that fact. Instead, they seem
determined to pick the most expensive path forward possible, hoping that
cost overruns and schedule delays will be covered by some mythical
increasing budget.
Sorry guys, but NASA's budget is doing well if it's not cut. Meaningful
budget increases just aren't going to happen.
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!
Sorry everyone, but we beat the Godless Communists to the moon, the
Soviet Union is no more, the Berlin wall fell and Germany is once again
a single country. Face it everyone, the Cold War is long over, and
manned spaceflight just doesn't have the political support it once have.
The glory days of seemingly endless funding are gone and are NOT coming
back. Unfortunately, NASA has failed numerous times to come up with
manned space programs which accept that fact. Instead, they seem
determined to pick the most expensive path forward possible, hoping that
cost overruns and schedule delays will be covered by some mythical
increasing budget.
Sorry guys, but NASA's budget is doing well if it's not cut. Meaningful
budget increases just aren't going to happen.
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
Feb 8, 2012, 11:08:09 AM2/8/12
to
In article <mcu4j7hkenqpu95j9...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> suggest merely shows the addition of social programs to the budget
> coming out of The Great Society.
That and increases in spending to pay for wars. Vietnam was no small
cost to the federal government when NASA had its budget squeezed. In
more recent times, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have loomed far more
important (in dollars spent) than NASA's budget.
The percentage of the total federal budget shows us how important NASA
is to the politicians when compared to other (growing) areas of the
budget such as social programs and defense. Clearly, NASA has grown
smaller in importance when compared with social programs and fighting
wars overseas.
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <TruYq.2933$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>,
> >alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
> >>
> >> On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
> >
> >>
> >> Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
> >> budgets and considerably more people?
> >>
> >> On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
> >> Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
> >> since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.
> >
> >The results of that changing political dynamic can be seen in the graph
> >of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
> >yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
> >
> >Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
> >is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
> >When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
> >was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!
> >
>
> Actually, no. Look at the 'constant dollars' column. What you
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <TruYq.2933$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>,
> >alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
> >>
> >> On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
> >
> >>
> >> Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
> >> budgets and considerably more people?
> >>
> >> On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
> >> Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
> >> since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.
> >
> >The results of that changing political dynamic can be seen in the graph
> >of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
> >yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
> >
> >Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
> >is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
> >When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
> >was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!
> >
>
> suggest merely shows the addition of social programs to the budget
> coming out of The Great Society.
That and increases in spending to pay for wars. Vietnam was no small
cost to the federal government when NASA had its budget squeezed. In
more recent times, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have loomed far more
important (in dollars spent) than NASA's budget.
The percentage of the total federal budget shows us how important NASA
is to the politicians when compared to other (growing) areas of the
budget such as social programs and defense. Clearly, NASA has grown
smaller in importance when compared with social programs and fighting
wars overseas.
Rick Jones
Feb 8, 2012, 6:15:10 PM2/8/12
to
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
Jacques Le Bouere. :)
> Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
Dr J R Stockton
Feb 8, 2012, 5:17:33 PM2/8/12
to
In sci.space.policy message <MPG.299af0e88...@news.eternal-
september.org>, Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:28:02, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> posted:
>
>I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want to
>start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what training
>they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do themselves.
If they have any sense at all, they'll buy at least enough training from
NASA to make sure that the companies know all that NASA trainers know.
The companies will also need to know what NASA passengers will already
know before they get company training.
NASA needs (or at least wants) to keep its training facilities, which
were enough for several shuttle crews per year and now only need to
part-train a few Soyuz passengers annually (both in addition to nearly
half of ISS crews), in the hope of regaining, eventually, a USG/NASA
manned launch capability. They should be happy to hire them out for
whatever money they can get - it will be a buyer's market.
AIUI, the Pool is already hired out for non-space work.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
september.org>, Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:28:02, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> posted:
>
>I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want to
>start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what training
>they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do themselves.
NASA to make sure that the companies know all that NASA trainers know.
The companies will also need to know what NASA passengers will already
know before they get company training.
NASA needs (or at least wants) to keep its training facilities, which
were enough for several shuttle crews per year and now only need to
part-train a few Soyuz passengers annually (both in addition to nearly
half of ISS crews), in the hope of regaining, eventually, a USG/NASA
manned launch capability. They should be happy to hire them out for
whatever money they can get - it will be a buyer's market.
AIUI, the Pool is already hired out for non-space work.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
bob haller
Feb 8, 2012, 8:00:30 PM2/8/12
to
> NASA needs (or at least wants) to keep its training facilities, which
> were enough for several shuttle crews per year and now only need to
> part-train a few Soyuz passengers annually (both in addition to nearly
> half of ISS crews), in the hope of regaining, eventually, a USG/NASA
> manned launch capability. They should be happy to hire them out for
> whatever money they can get - it will be a buyer's market.
>
> AIUI, the Pool is already hired out for non-space work.
>
Dr J R Stockton
Feb 9, 2012, 3:31:09 PM2/9/12
to
In sci.space.policy message <MeOdnaDRkLNdwq_SnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.
com>, Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:42:55, "Greg (Strider) Moore" <mooregr@ignoreth
isgreenms.com> posted:
>
>Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
>
Using a currently-available system, SpaceX has launched and safely
recovered a cheese-rated orbital vehicle. A suited man, with couch,
would have enjoyed the ride.
The USAF has launched two X-37 and safely recovered one (the second
seems to like it up there); I believe a suited man could have ridden in
the payload bay instead of what was there and been recovered after maybe
2 orbits.
But what can NASA do with its currently-available systems? Redstone,
Atlas, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle are history - only the Shuttle can fly
again, and for that it now needs a 747.
SpaceX is not now as good as, in the past, NASA was (though it is
cheaper); but NASA now is not as effective, by a greater margin, than
NASA used to be.
Rhetorical Queries - how many NASA staff, of what pay grades, with what
overheads, etc., does NASA have working on financing Commercial Crew,
and for how long will that have eventually run? And how much will
dealing with them cost the companies in salaries, overheads, etc.? In
each case, include lawyers and their costs.
Non-rhetorical question - how do those costs compare with the sums to be
disbursed?
com>, Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:42:55, "Greg (Strider) Moore" <mooregr@ignoreth
isgreenms.com> posted:
>
>Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?
>
recovered a cheese-rated orbital vehicle. A suited man, with couch,
would have enjoyed the ride.
The USAF has launched two X-37 and safely recovered one (the second
seems to like it up there); I believe a suited man could have ridden in
the payload bay instead of what was there and been recovered after maybe
2 orbits.
But what can NASA do with its currently-available systems? Redstone,
Atlas, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle are history - only the Shuttle can fly
again, and for that it now needs a 747.
SpaceX is not now as good as, in the past, NASA was (though it is
cheaper); but NASA now is not as effective, by a greater margin, than
NASA used to be.
Rhetorical Queries - how many NASA staff, of what pay grades, with what
overheads, etc., does NASA have working on financing Commercial Crew,
and for how long will that have eventually run? And how much will
dealing with them cost the companies in salaries, overheads, etc.? In
each case, include lawyers and their costs.
Non-rhetorical question - how do those costs compare with the sums to be
disbursed?
Robert Love
Feb 9, 2012, 10:31:42 PM2/9/12
to
On 2012-02-07 04:25:30 +0000, David Spain said:
> As a private venture, it seems perfectly natural it might seek out
> NASA's help to help train its work crews. Or to ask to use of the big
> water tank for training its future space worker crews. And it seems
> only natural that NASA would be willing to help, for a fee.
No, what NASA is renting out the "big water tank" for is training oil
> As a private venture, it seems perfectly natural it might seek out
> NASA's help to help train its work crews. Or to ask to use of the big
> water tank for training its future space worker crews. And it seems
> only natural that NASA would be willing to help, for a fee.
rig crews who have to take survival training. Yes, NASA and it's
contractor are getting a fee but it ain't for space, at least today.
David Spain
Feb 10, 2012, 11:40:20 AM2/10/12
to
We can always hope that will change. But it also seems only natural that oil
or natural gas riggers would hire NASA to help with their underwater work as well.
I have no problem with this. I think it is a "good thing".
Dave
bob haller
Feb 10, 2012, 11:57:57 AM2/10/12
to
general public a chance to go in the tank that trained the apollo
astronauts.
that might be a money maker
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Feb 10, 2012, 3:56:40 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 2:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because introspective navel gazing is EVER so much more important to
> Bobbert than actually doing things.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -
since fred is locked in a institution he fails to realize our economy
is about 1/3rd tourism......
> Bobbert than actually doing things.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nope theres big bucks in tourism..... just look at disney
> - Show quoted text -
since fred is locked in a institution he fails to realize our economy
is about 1/3rd tourism......
Message has been deleted
0 new messages