NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

[David E. Powell]

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r

<http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r>

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is it!

Man up you wuss!

[Brian Gaff]

Erm, well you know what they say, say its off the menu and suddenly you get
a reaction. However I suspect he has seen the balance sheet..

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f1de12c2-c8a5-4a65...@googlegroups.com...

[Jeff Findley]

In article <f1de12c2-c8a5-4a65...@googlegroups.com>,
David_Po...@msn.com says...

It's not a problem with "manning up", it's a problem of funding.
Congress has *not* funded a manned return to the moon or an even more
ambitious manned mission to Mars. It's the NASA Administrator's job to
execute policy and spend money allocated. Right now, he's telling
everyone what NASA can, and can't, do with the budget they've got.

If you want this to change, I suggest you write your Congressman and
your Senator. It's Congress that decides how much money to allocate to
what project.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

[Brian Gaff]

Besides you will only be sorry when Pepsi turn the moon into a big advert.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bcddc2cb...@news.eternal-september.org...

[bob haller]

a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-09 01:09, David E. Powell wrote:
> What a schmuck.


I have not watched the video yet.

However, considering that a trip to the moon as very little in common
with a trip to Mars, I would say that not going to the moon may in fact
make sense if the goal of eventually goingt o Mars remains.

The ISS is in fact more important for a trip to mars than going to the
moon as it would be a model (and testbed for technologies) for the
expedition ship to and from mars.

Having said this, I could see tests being made of a trip to slingshot
around the moon and return to earth to test aerobraking to insert a ship
into orbit, and/or test the martian lander.

But landing on moon would not bring much as the moon as no atmosphere
(can't test parachutes) and can't test aerobraking.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
b6aaf1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
> work

This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.

You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <5164ade2$0$1268$c3e8da3$fdf4...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...

Can't even test spacesuits. Specifically, Apollo (and shuttle, and US-
ISS) spacesuits all use water (for cooling. This works because it is
essentially vented to vacuum where it freezes and sublimates. This
won't work well, or at all, on Mars due to the thin atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment

[bob haller]

On Apr 10, 8:27 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
> b6aaf13a1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

[Jeff Findley]

In article <e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> On Apr 10, 8:27ï¿œam, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
> > b6aaf13a1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
> > > work
> >
> > This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.

> > I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. ï¿œNote that on the

> > SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
> > assertion isn't even true for SLS.
> >
> > You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government

> > programs are cheaper than others. ï¿œSpecifically, why is SLS so darn
> > expensive? ï¿œAfter all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"

> > hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.
>

> musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? Hint: It's not just
because they're a "private company".

[bob haller]

On Apr 10, 1:50 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
> 16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:27 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
> > > b6aaf13a1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
> > > > a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
> > > > work
>
> > > This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.

> > > I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like.  Note that on the

> > > SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
> > > assertion isn't even true for SLS.
>
> > > You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government

> > > programs are cheaper than others.  Specifically, why is SLS so darn
> > > expensive?  After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"

> > > hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.
>
> > musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%
>
> But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower?  Hint:  It's not just
> because they're a "private company".
>
> Jeff
> --
> "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

they are new and cost centered........

but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
money can be used for other things

[Jeff Findley]

In article <55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> On Apr 10, 1:50ï¿œpm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
> > 16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> >
> > > On Apr 10, 8:27ï¿œam, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
> > > > b6aaf13a1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> >
> > > > > a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
> > > > > work
> >
> > > > This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.

> > > > I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. ï¿œNote that on the

> > > > SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
> > > > assertion isn't even true for SLS.
> >
> > > > You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government

> > > > programs are cheaper than others. ï¿œSpecifically, why is SLS so darn
> > > > expensive? ï¿œAfter all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"

> > > > hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.
> >
> > > musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%
> >

> > But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? ï¿œHint: ï¿œIt's not just

> > because they're a "private company".
>

> they are new and cost centered........

Again with the oversimplifications. Why is being "new" a good thing?
What does being "new" bring to the table?

The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
(miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?

> but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
> money can be used for other things

Maths fail you, don't they?

[bob haller]

On Apr 10, 4:42 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
> @w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:50 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > In article <e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
> > > 16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>

> > > > On Apr 10, 8:27 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
> > > > > b6aaf13a1...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
> > > > > > a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
> > > > > > work
>
> > > > > This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.

> > > > > I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like.  Note that on the

> > > > > SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
> > > > > assertion isn't even true for SLS.
>
> > > > > You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government

> > > > > programs are cheaper than others.  Specifically, why is SLS so darn
> > > > > expensive?  After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"

> > > > > hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.
>
> > > > musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%
>

> > > But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower?  Hint:  It's not just

> > > because they're a "private company".
>
> > they are new and cost centered........
>
> Again with the oversimplifications.  Why is being "new" a good thing?
> What does being "new" bring to the table?
>
> The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
> access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
> (miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?
>
> > but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
> > money can be used for other things
>
> Maths fail you, don't they?
>
> Jeff
> --
> "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

new doesnt allow the bloat of a mature program.

if a musk heavy lifter costs just 10% of SLS then if musk builds it
the 90% saved can and should be used for exploring

[Jeff Findley]

In article <cdaa265c-8b34-48e0-84f6-a522c49dd049
@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> On Apr 10, 4:42ï¿œpm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
> > @w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

> > > On Apr 10, 1:50ï¿œpm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com>

wrote:
> > > > In article <e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
> > > > 16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

> > > > > musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%
> >

> > > > But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? ï¿œHint: ï¿œIt's not just

> > > > because they're a "private company".
> >
> > > they are new and cost centered........
> >

> > Again with the oversimplifications. ï¿œWhy is being "new" a good thing?

> > What does being "new" bring to the table?
> >
> > The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
> > access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
> > (miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?
> >
> > > but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
> > > money can be used for other things
> >
> > Maths fail you, don't they?
>

> new doesnt allow the bloat of a mature program.

Well run programs, even if mature, don't have "bloat". Me thinks you're
missing the point.

> if a musk heavy lifter costs just 10% of SLS then if musk builds it
> the 90% saved can and should be used for exploring

Doubtful. Money "saved" can't be applied to another program without the
approval of Congress. More likely, the "savings" wouldn't go to NASA in
the first place. You're a bit clueless how this politics thing works,
aren't you?

[Me]

On Apr 9, 1:09 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is it!

Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

[andre]

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

Source of this claim??

[Jeff Findley]

In article <asom13...@mid.individual.net>, inv...@invalid.pe1pqx.eu
says...

Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

[andre]

Jeff Findley heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

> In article <asom13...@mid.individual.net>, inv...@invalid.pe1pqx.eu
> says...
>>
>> Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
>>> On Apr 9, 1:09ï¿œam, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job!
>>>> Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space
>>>> tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the
>>>> big stuff is it!
>>
>>
>>> Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
>>> Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
>>> NASA.
>>
>> Source of this claim??

> Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

> Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
> put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
> when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
> succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
> certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
> at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

> But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
> Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
> Space Race provided.

> Jeff

So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
(I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

[bob haller]

>
> So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
> (I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

yes both were, for skylab it was cobbled together on a budget, but
worked well. However there was another space ready skylab that never
launched it was cut apart for the NASM in DC. They didnt launch it to
save the money for launching it and the follow up crews and their
launchers.

the money was re directed to the shuttle.

the big problem is over promise and knowlingly underfund:(

Just look at the JWST......

[Jeff Findley]

In article <asqsvu...@mid.individual.net>, inv...@invalid.pe1pqx.eu
says...

>
> Jeff Findley heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

> > Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once
they
> > put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
> > when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
> > succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
> > certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
> > at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.
>
> > But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
> > Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
> > Space Race provided.
>

> So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
> (I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

Skylab was done on a shoestring budget using hardware mostly leftover
from Apollo/Saturn. There were Saturn IB vehicles leftover from early
Apollo testing (I believe in favor of flying Apollo hardware on early
"all up" tests of Saturn V). Later, a couple of flight worthy Saturn
V's were leftover from canceled lunar landing flights.

Heck, even the airlock door on Skylab was a Gemini door, which looked a
bit funny, but was flight proven hardware.

The space shuttle program was actually 1/3 of an ambitious space
transportation system consisting of the shuttle, an orbital maneuvering
vehicle, and a space station. Note that in the 70's, only the space
shuttle was funded, plus it was the version which minimized development
costs with some sacrifice of reusability.

So I'd say yes, the funding level during the shuttle era was lower than
NASA had originally hoped.

[Me]

On Apr 12, 7:23 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <asom13Fmf8...@mid.individual.net>, inva...@invalid.pe1pqx.eu

> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

> > > On Apr 9, 1:09 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > >> NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private
> > >> stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with
> > >> Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is
> > >> it!
>
> > > Wrong, that is not NASA's job.  NASA's main job was to beat the
> > > Soviets.  Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
> > > NASA.
>
> > Source of this claim??
>
> Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.
>
> Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
> put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
> when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
> succeed, so the cost cutting started.  The space race with the Soviets
> certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last.  Spending
> at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.
>
> But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
> Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
> Space Race provided.
>
> Jeff

It is very true.

[John Taylor]

On 4/10/2013 8:37 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

> Can't even test spacesuits. Specifically, Apollo (and shuttle, and US-
> ISS) spacesuits all use water (for cooling. This works because it is
> essentially vented to vacuum where it freezes and sublimates. This
> won't work well, or at all, on Mars due to the thin atmosphere.

Water vented to a vacuum will boil, not freeze.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <ks8q3b$pm2$1...@dont-email.me>, joh...@no.spam says...

Nope. Look here for "ice" and "sublimates".

Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment