A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

[Robert Clark]

Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
lander missions:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
previously thought necessary.
The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.


Bob Clark

References.

1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle

[Wally W.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9399379/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-estimates-billion-return-moon/
NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_happy_meal_cost
Say $4

The trip to the moon would cost as much as 26 billion Happy Meals.

That's more than 3 Happy Meals for *everyone* in the world.

But Happy Meals create more spread than spin-offs.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message news:kocd981sdsnglpsiv...@4ax.com...

===============================================

http://www.lowpriceshopper.co.uk/cosmetics/products__keyword--lipstick+prices.html

 

Say the same as 8 happy meals.

Happy meals are easier to get off your shirt collar.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

[bob haller]

this idea is dead on arrival, SLS isnt ready, upper cyrogenic stages
havent been designed and built, and no lander is ready. beyond all
else no $$ is available, although with some luck they might make the
60th annversary...... SLS launch in 2017 is with a dummy upper stage!

and there should be some redundancy in the plan for rescue vehicles
etc.

it would be bad to kill a crew at this point........:( by rushing
something that truly doesnt matter, although it would be nice if one
of the original astronauts were still alive

[Marvin the Martian]

Not possible.

All our Project Paperclip Nazi scientist have died. Our current batch of
"diversity" engineers and scientist couldn't do with computers and modern
materials what our NAZI boys did with slide rules and adding machines
half a century ago. Funny as hell. A complete damnation of the American
public school system and our policy of "diversity" and dumbing everything
down so that politically protected groups don't look like the morons they
really are.

For example, Project Ares and the failed Constellation program.

[Dean]

I like how you think. Let's send them to Venus to help the Venusians mine helium.

[Snidely]

That no doubt also explains why SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have had
such a long string of failures.

(newsgroups trimmed; I didn't try to guess which on Marv reads)

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[bob haller]

We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
somewhere on the moon......

Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......

[G=EMC^2]

NASA has 2 SaturnV it never used. We could leave the heavy $25,000,000
and use depends. I would go even with a one way ticket. China has
250,000 in their space program. We could join them and build a base.
What's the SSI doing? TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

Armstrongs foot print would be worth to go back. We let GOP Mafia
take over the shuttles to go 200 miles up and we are getting the smell
of shit for that $$$$$ on the latest rover. We can go 240,000
miles,and get there in 3 days. That is better than going round,and
round for 42 years. If GOP Mafia did not scrap the great Saturn V we
would have a base on the moon,and be able to hold our heads up high.
China builds a moon base its a million times better than the Mars
rover,and the SSI TreBert

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/11/2012 10:54 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:05 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
>> anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
>> apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
>> remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
>> somewhere on the moon......
>>
>> Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
>> 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
>> and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
>
> Armstrongs foot print would be worth to go back.

A picture of that would divide the moon-landing hoax conspiracy
theorists, who would fragment into those who believe that the new
landing was real, but the picture is a fake, and those who believe that
the new landing is also a hoax. With any luck, the two groups would then
exterminate each other over accusations of betrayal.

Any chance we can drag the 9/11 twin-tower demolition conspiracy
theorists into it too?

Sylvia.

[Mahipal]

Now that's an insightful paragraph! Thank you Marvin.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Mahipal]

Before you or anyone gets to feel and converge to the wrong idea
(i.e., I meant the diametric opposite, for my lack of any Smiley)... I
agree that Humanity is greater than any politically corrected for
Diversity. Peace.

[Matt Wiser]

Sending toasters, bobbert-like your idea for flooding Mars with
mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,
none, and when hell freezes over. Next!
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

[bob haller]

On Nov 5, 1:16 am, "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sending toasters, bobbert-like your idea for flooding Mars with
> mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,

> none, and when hell freezes over. Next!"bob haller" <hall...@aol.com> wrote in message

>
> news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
> > anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
> > apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
> > remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
> > somewhere on the moon......
>
> > Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
> > 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
> > and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......

Matt theres a lot of advantages to sending more rovers. with some
orbital relay sats.

Get lots of info on the diverse surface, plus charge up college
students who would be given the job of controlling each rover. the
rovers would have some intelligence to avoid mjaor accidents.

the moon is close enough for real time control / driving.....

so whats up at your school? we drove our rover a mile today here are
some photos:) heres a picture of a rock we stooped at the science crew
is doing analysis. we may put the rock aside for later pick up, the
sample return lander leaves in a year.

such operations would do wonders to get kids interested in science

[Matt Wiser]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9nnd985vt6hupufcq...@4ax.com...

> I don't suppose we could send Bobbert and The Guthball on this trip?
> It would be much easier if we didn't have to provision for a return.
> Don't even need a lander. We could use lithobraking to arrive at the
> Moon's hollow interior...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
>
Seconded, Fred. Get both of them on the one-way trip.

[Robert Clark]

On Nov 4, 12:35 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:33:40 -0800 (PST), Robert Clark wrote:
> > Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> >lander missions:
>
> >SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.

> >http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...

>
> >  The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> >Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> >better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> >capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> >mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> >previously thought necessary.
> > The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> >required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> >NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> >3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> >able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> >the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> >  Bob Clark
>
> >References.
>
> >1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> >Early Lunar Access.
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> >2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9399379/ns/technology_and_science-space/t...

> NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_happy_meal_cost
> Say $4
>
> The trip to the moon would cost as much as 26 billion Happy Meals.
>
> That's more than 3 Happy Meals for *everyone* in the world.
>
> But Happy Meals create more spread than spin-offs.

The beauty of the Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal was that it was so
low cost, at the time estimated at only 1/10th the cost of Apollo, in
the range of $10 billion.
Now it could be done in an even lower cost fashion if using the
Falcon Heavy at an only $120 million cost per launch. It would likely
be less than 1/2 billion dollars, perhaps even less than 1/4 billion
at least for single missions.
The problem is NASA would not be likely to fund that since it would
undercut their own BEO missions. Then we are left with the SLS to
launch it. In that scenario it would only be a small additional cost
added to the cost of the SLS.


Bob Clark

[Matt Wiser]

"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:c91c791c-2035-4ee3...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?

[bob haller]

> In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
> Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
> at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
> Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
> built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?

they never needed enough to set up a assembly line. can you imgine the
cost per vehicle to build just 2 of the vehicles in your driveway?:(

build on assembly line with parts that fit more than one
vehicle.........

this would slash the cost per vehicle dramatically:)

and by sending some in harms way like the tycho crater area, some
failures wouldnt be program ending.

sending some failrly close by might permit one vehicle to help
another:)

[bob haller]

On Nov 7, 9:45 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
> >> Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
> >> at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
> >> Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
> >> built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
>
> >they never needed enough to set up a assembly line. can you imgine the
> >cost per vehicle to build just 2 of the vehicles in your driveway?:(
>

> We're never going to build millions of identical rovers.

>
>
>
> >build on assembly line with parts that fit more than one
> >vehicle.........
>

> That's two different things, you silly twat.

>
>
>
> >this would slash the cost per vehicle dramatically:)
>

> No, it wouldn't.

>
>
>
> >and by sending some in harms way like the tycho crater area, some
> >failures wouldnt be program ending.
>
> >sending some failrly close by might permit one vehicle to help
> >another:)
>

> Yeah, because they'll all be super-capable and hyper-intelligent, and
> it'll all be for free....
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

you dont need to build millions to save money on a cost per unit.
build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
was commonality of parts between models of rovers.

that would permit bigger parts order qanties

[Matt Wiser]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:l9cl98hp3cmc2pchv...@4ax.com...

> >you dont need to build millions to save money on a cost per unit.
> >
>

> No, but you need to build more than a few dozen.

>
> >
> >build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
> >was commonality of parts between models of rovers.
> >
>

> Well, no, it wouldn't, and lots of 'parts' are common, even with
> different rovers. It's how they're arranged that's different.

>
> >
> >that would permit bigger parts order qanties
> >
>

> But still not big enough to lower costs appreciably.
>
> This has all been explained to you several times. Either you're
> incredibly stupid or you just don't listen to what other people
> explain to you. Oh, wait, that's sort of the same thing....
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
>
Explaining things that are not in the fantasy world the Bobbert inhabits is
a waste of time. Not only is it impractical to build MER-class rovers on an
assembly line, there's getting time on launch schedules, a little thing such
as a launch window, range issues at the launch site, pad availbility, and so
on.

[David Spain]

I'm not here to defend Bob Haller, but I DO like the idea of
tele-controlled rovers on the moon.

I would be a great way to restart interest in Space amongst our youth.

SLS at $1B / launch.... And that's not considering any $$$ for a
destination. In this economy? Talk about dreaming...

We'll see how NASA fairs post fiscal cliff-hanger, but I'd be very
afraid, even with the Bill "The One True Path" Nelson still around...

Dave

[David Spain]

On 11/6/2012 12:10 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

>>> The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
>>> Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
>>> better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
>>> capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
>>> mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
>>> previously thought necessary.

It would be doable. The question is where's the political will for it?
And what would be the objective of a moon colony? This is a real,
been-there-done-that issue....

Dave

[bob haller]

nasa plan was earliest launch in 2021 so the 50th anniversary wouldnt
be possible

[Matt W]

Teleoperating rovers is something that NASA is seriously considering: the proof-of-concept could very well be a rover on the lunar farside that's operated from the L-2 outpost NASA is eying.

The problem with the bobbert is that to him, MER-class rovers are assembly-line products, when they're not. Both were literally hand-made at JPL. Not at, say, Northrop-Grumman's factory in Hawthorne or their other shop in El Segundo. We're a long way off from having assembly-line rovers for space purposes.

Then he ignores the issues such as booster availablity, range issues, slots on launch schedules, and so forth.

[Matt Wiser]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3dct98d5uf2soipu2...@4ax.com...

> Matt W <mattwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:21:46 PM UTC-8, David Spain wrote:
> >> I'm not here to defend Bob Haller, but I DO like the idea of
> >>
> >> tele-controlled rovers on the moon.
> >>
> >> I would be a great way to restart interest in Space amongst our youth.
> >>
> >> SLS at $1B / launch.... And that's not considering any $$$ for a
> >> destination. In this economy? Talk about dreaming...
> >>
> >> We'll see how NASA fairs post fiscal cliff-hanger, but I'd be very
> >> afraid, even with the Bill "The One True Path" Nelson still around...
> >>
> >

> >Teleoperating rovers is something that NASA is seriously considering:
> >the proof-of-concept could very well be a rover on the lunar farside
> >that's operated from the L-2 outpost NASA is eying.
> >
> >The problem with the bobbert is that to him, MER-class rovers are
> >assembly-line products, when they're not. Both were literally hand-made
> >at JPL. Not at, say, Northrop-Grumman's factory in Hawthorne or their
> >other shop in El Segundo. We're a long way off from having assembly-line
> >rovers for space purposes.
> >
> >Then he ignores the issues such as booster availablity, range issues,
> >slots on launch schedules, and so forth.
> >
>

> And then he tosses in teleoperation while ignoring small details like
> communications bandwidth and relay capacity.

>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
>

The bobbert would simply reply, "details, details, don't bother me with
details. I'm right and all of you are wrong."

His kind are all too common, unfortunately.

[Robert Clark]

On Nov 4, 11:33 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> lander missions:
>
> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...
>

>   The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> previously thought necessary.

>  The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
>   Bob Clark
>
> References.
>
> 1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> 2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle

Just saw this:

Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar
Base.
November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin
[QUOTE]NASA managers have since created an option for a return, listed
as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) mission via the Exploration Systems
Development Division (ESD) Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) document
(L2), allowing it to become a Design Reference Mission (DRM)
alternative, potentially at the expense of a NEA mission in the early
to mid 2020s.
While this option remains on the cards, source information acquired by
L2 this week revealed plans for a “game-changing” announcement as
early as December that a new commercial space company intends to send
commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020.
According to the information, the effort is led by a group of high
profile individuals from the aerospace industry and backed by some big
money and foreign investors. The company intends to use “existing or
soon to be existing launch vehicles, spacecraft, upper stages, and
technologies” to start their commercial manned lunar campaign.
The details point to the specific use of US vehicles, with a basic
architecture to utilize multiple launches to assemble spacecraft in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The details make direct reference to the
potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.
Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit,
staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial
astronauts to the surface for short stays.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/
[/QUOTE]

I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
that used a small two-man capsule:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

But it is unlikely in the commercial plan they mean the passengers are
to fly alone without one or more professional pilots. And also the
article mentions the commercial plan is to use on orbit assembly. But
by using the Falcon Heavy or the SLS you could launch the ELA
architecture with a single launch.

Still, using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy both at its maximum
payload to orbit of 25 mT we could launch the ELA architecture. Even
if the Delta IV Heavy is not man rated, we could use separate
launchers to take the astronauts to orbit and transfer them to the
Moon vehicle after it is assembled.

For the NASA proposal, the article mentions the Lunar Surface Sortie
(LSS) proposal. But this was still to use a 4 man capsule, which
likely means the large, heavy Orion. It also would involve a separate
lunar crew module, also at variance with the lightweight ELA
architecture.

This lunar lander of the LSS proposal would then likely be akin to the
large, expensive Altair lunar lander. So this proposal would be
similar to the Constellation program whose high expense caused it to
be cancelled. Better would be if NASA went [I]small[/I] following the
ELA architecture to use a single, small capsule that would carry the
astronauts all the way from LEO to the lunar surface and back again.
This would allow a NASA return to the Moon with a proportionally small
additional cost above that of the SLS itself, and in less than a
decade.

These commercial or NASA missions, if carried through, would allow a
return to the Moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions if
not of Apollo 11 itself.


Bob Clark

[bob haller]

> astronauts to the surface for short stays.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-prope...

> [/QUOTE]
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.

> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

If its a NASA mission the mission will cost a 100 times the private
cost.

I applaude a private effort, ideally one of the original astronauts if
any are healthy enough could go along at least at some point.

hopefully it wouldnt be a one shot wonder but instead a ongoing effort

[Robert Clark]

On Nov 17, 3:40 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ...

> astronauts to the surface for short stays.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-prope...

> [/QUOTE]
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.

> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

Just saw this article by legendary Apollo manager Chris Kraft
mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:

Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20,
2012 8:20pm
[Quote]
We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are
cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that
use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a
study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the
next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing
budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would
save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas. [/quote]
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a-threat-to-JSC-Texas-jobs-3498836.php


Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this NASA plan uses
existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It
must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that
uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV
Heavy.
Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots
could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will
eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?



Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Nov 20, 4:43 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>

>  Just saw this article by legendary Apollo manager Chris Kraft
> mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:
>
> Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
> By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20,
> 2012 8:20pm
> [Quote]
>     We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are
> cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that
> use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a
> study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the
> next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing
> budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would

> save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas. [/quote]http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a...

>
>  Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this NASA plan uses
> existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It
> must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that
> uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV
> Heavy.
>  Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots
> could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will
> eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?
>

This article by Amy Shira Teitel about the Chris Kraft piece
discusses and links to a NASA report showing propellant depots can
allow BEO missions without the SLS, saving billions:

EX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR URGES NASA TO KILL NEXT ROCKET SYSTEM.
Analysis by Amy Shira Teitel
Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to-kill-sls-120425.html

So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:

"Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars
missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots.
It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others
use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give
the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever
read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta
IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large
number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the
Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the
scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and
a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar
lander.
On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA)
architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the
Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

> Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM EThttp://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to...

>
> So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:
>
> "Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf
>
>  The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars
> missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots.
> It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others
> use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give
> the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever
> read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta
> IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
>  A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large
> number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the
> Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the
> scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and
> a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar
> lander.
>  On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA)
> architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the
> Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
>   Bob Clark

orion capsule first one scheduled to fly developed cracks in the
pressure vessel during testing

i dont see the need to land on the 50th anniversary theres no money
and the 60th anniversary would be fine....

why the 50th? and wheres the money????

[Robert Clark]

The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:

Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/


Bob Clark

> Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM EThttp://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to...

[bob haller]

On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.

> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...

I hope they are successful, and may well be if nasa keeps mostly out
of it...

nasas cost structure can kill anything......

[Robert Clark]

On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.

> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
>
>

Proposes using the unmanned test flights of the Falcon Heavy to test
low cost BEO missions to the lunar surface, near Earth asteroids, and
the Lagrange points:

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3:
Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html

Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.

> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
>
>   Bob Clark
>
>

"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to
the Moon this week:

How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )
http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html

They estimated development costs in the $7 to $8 billion dollar range,
less than 1/10 the cost of the Apollo or Constellation programs.
However, even these numbers may be over inflated. The origin of the
presented cost numbers were from NASA guys using NASA costing models.
However, SpaceX has shown by following a commercial approach
development costs can be cut by 1/5th to 1/10th that of NASA’s.

So what I think Golden Spike should do is bring SpaceX on board. With
the development costs reduced to this extent, then we would have the
really exciting possibility of the flight costs being brought down
perhaps to the $200 million range, especially if using the Falcon
Heavy launcher. This clearly would have a major impact on the prospect
of profitability.

The only problem might be is that Elon appears to have no interest in
the Moon, being focused on Mars as the ultimate goal. However the
profitability motive may sway him. There is also the fact that these
missions could serve to prove the capabilities of the Dragon even for
BEO missions. It could also serve to prove the value of the Falcon
Heavy for launching large payload at low cost, something Elon
definitely wants for getting Air Force contracts.

As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
regular basis.

We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.

Bob Clark

[G=EMC^2]

On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >   The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> > unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> > Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> > Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
>
> >   Bob Clark
>
> "Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to
> the Moon this week:
>

> How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic....

Its to late When Mafia took over NASA ,we got screwed with those
schuttles.There gone,and we are stuck back in 1963. This post makes me
a trouble maker,and I best not sit with m back to the door. TreBert

[Robert Clark]

On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...

>
> As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> regular basis.
>
> We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>

That is, discussed "here":

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html

Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >...
>
> > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > regular basis.
>
> > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>

Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
v1.1 + Dragon:

"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-flights.html

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

> "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
>   Bob Clark

A cheap rocket designis likely good news unless bad terrorist people
figure out how to build it to carry nuclear bombs, or other
nasties....

everything has both advantages and downsides

[Robert Clark]

> "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
>   Bob Clark

NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
far trip:

Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 19-Dect-2012
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-to-asteroid-to-meet-presidents-goal

Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:

Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats

Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
travel time.

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

On Dec 22, 9:44 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >...
>
> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > > > regular basis.
>
> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> >  Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
> >   Bob Clark
>
>  NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> far trip:
>
> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> Marcia S. Smith

> Posted: 19-Dect-2012http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-...

>
> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>

> Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats

>
> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
>  This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> travel time.
>
>   Bob Clark

why travel far? deep space? consumables? radiation dangers?

might be easier to robotically bring a asteroid to somewhere near
earth, but not too close where it could become a hazard......

excellent proof of concept for moving asteroids and comets that could
hit our earth///

of course a nearby asteroid mission wouldnt need the pork piggie
SLS......

[bob haller]

On Dec 22, 4:49 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

> >On Dec 22, 9:44 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >...
> >> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> >> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> >> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> >> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> >> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> >> > > > regular basis.
>
> >> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> >> >  Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> >> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> >> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> >> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>

> >>  NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
> >> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> >> far trip:
>
> >> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> >> Marcia S. Smith
> >> Posted: 19-Dect-2012http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-...
>
> >> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> >> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> >> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> >> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>
> >> Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
>
> >> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> >> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> >> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> >> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> >> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> >> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
> >>  This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> >> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> >> travel time.
>

> >why travel far? deep space? consumables? radiation dangers?
>

> Because that might be where the most interesting object to visit is.

>
>
>
> >might be easier to robotically bring a asteroid to somewhere near
> >earth, but not too close where it could become a hazard......
>

> Bobbert, you really are absolutely clueless when  it comes to
> assessing risk, aren't you?  I can't imagine anything more potentially
> dangerous than deliberately aiming a planet-killer at the planet we
> all happen to live on.  Sure, you don't INTEND to hit the Earth with
> it, but this is rather like letting someone shoot apples off your
> head.  If we're going to start moving these things about, I certainly
> don't want to leave it to a toaster.  I want people on hand for when
> it all goes wrong.

>
>
>
> >excellent proof of concept for moving asteroids and comets that could
> >hit our earth
>

> This is rather like saying that letting an unskilled knife thrower
> huck blades at you is excellent practice for surgery.

>
> >of course a nearby asteroid mission wouldnt need the pork piggie
> >SLS......
>

> Yeah, because we move them by magical wishes and don't have to carry
> something big enough to do the job out to where the asteroid is.
>
> SHEESH!

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

Laugh if you want, but there have been news reports that nasa is
considering robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
location, where falcon could reach....

so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....

a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
even if it hit the earth.

[bob haller]

> >Laugh if you want, but there have been news reports that nasa is
> >considering  robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
> >location, where falcon could reach....
>

> Cite?  I suspect this is another one of those cases where you've
> failed to understand simple English.

>
>
>
> >so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....
>

> How you going to move the asteroid and how you going to get your stuff
> to move it out there?

>
>
>
> >a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
> >even if it hit the earth.
>

> You REALLY have no clue about real risks, do you?
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

patience, a ion engine can be used.

[bob haller]

> >patience, a ion engine can be used.
>

> Well, no it can't because we don't have a suitable one.  There's also
> the small problem that if anything goes wrong and the thing is going
> to hit Earth you don't have enough thrust to do anything about it.
>
> Any more stupid ideas you'd like to propose?

>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
>  man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
>  all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>                                       --George Bernard Shaw

initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
danger even if it did get out of control.....

[bob haller]

> >initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> >danger even if it did get out of control.....
>

> So you're not actually talking about moving an asteroid at all, but
> rather sending someone out to pick up a pebble and put it in their
> pocket...

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

no a asteroid. say 300 feet diameter, they hit our planet often with
no bad effects

[bob haller]

> If you consider once every 6,000 years or so to be 'often' and a 1
> kilometer diameter crater to be 'no bad effects'.  Stick that crater
> in, say, the middle of New York City or Paris or London or Tokyo and
> figure out how many people you just killed.
>
> Bobbert, as usual you show yourself to be absolutely ignorant about,
> well, just about everything.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
>  truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
>                                -- Thomas Jefferson

small ones burn up on entry, larger ones 1/2 mile in diameter and
larger are the real problem.

fred knows nothing while coming off as a know everything person

[bob haller]

> >small ones burn up on entry, larger ones 1/2 mile in diameter and
> >larger are the real problem.
>

> Bobbert, a 100 meter rock is NOT a 'small one'.  We get one that big
> about every 6,000 years and impacting at typical velocities and a 45
> degree angle will make a 1 km diameter crater in sedimentary rock.
>
> Go look it up if you don't believe me.

>
>
>
> >fred knows nothing while coming off as a know everything person
>

> So you keep saying, usually after you've said something stupid and I
> point out the facts.  Since you can't rebut the facts, you try to pop
> smoke and think that no one will notice that you have screwed up yet
> again.
>
even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to
move it fast.....

[Wayne Throop]

: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its

: realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to move
: it fast.....

Wow. That's... an impressive display of uninformedness.

See, there's this thing called "gravity". Things approaching the earth
in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
faster. So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec. Even if it started
with zero velocity. That's 11 km/sec at minimum.

Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
you mentioned upthread is about a million tons. Which implies upwards
of 10 megatons equivalent at impact. At minimum. A city-buster.

A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
A boswash metropolitan area buster. Or maybe a tristate area buster.
Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.

[bob haller]

On Dec 24, 9:22 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

> Modern estimates put the Tunguska object as a 50-100 meter
> carbonaceous meteor.  Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> city buster.

>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
>  truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
>                                -- Thomas Jefferson

on a fist attempt a asteroid would be selected thats small enough it
couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......

[bob haller]

On Dec 26, 9:18 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 24, 9:22 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> >> >: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
> >> >: realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to move
> >> >: it fast.....
>
> >> >Wow.  That's... an impressive display of uninformedness.
>
> >> >See, there's this thing called "gravity".  Things approaching the earth
> >> >in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
> >> >faster.  So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
> >> >asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
> >> >with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec.  Even if it started
> >> >with zero velocity.  That's 11 km/sec at minimum.
>
> >> >Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
> >> >you mentioned upthread is about a million tons.  Which implies upwards
> >> >of 10 megatons equivalent at impact.  At minimum.  A city-buster.
>
> >> >A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
> >> >A boswash metropolitan area buster.  Or maybe a tristate area buster.
> >> >Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
> >> >and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.
>
> >> Modern estimates put the Tunguska object as a 50-100 meter
> >> carbonaceous meteor.  Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> >> city buster.
>

> >on a fist attempt a asteroid would be selected thats small enough it
> >couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......
>

> So you've said.  You then suggested 300 feet or so, claiming they were
> common.  Turns out that that is FAR too big and Earth impacts from
> object that large are far from common.  The problem is that moving
> something the size of your fist just doesn't prove anything.

>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
>  truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
>                                -- Thomas Jefferson

a size that proves it can be done and isnt a danger to the earth....

or move the asteroid to mars orbit or a very far earth orbit, that
cant endanger earth..

[bob haller]

> >a size that proves it can be done and isnt a danger to the earth....
>

> Which part of "too small to prove anything" is it that is confusing
> you?

>
>
>
> >or move the asteroid to mars orbit or a very far earth orbit, that
> >cant endanger earth..
>

> And the point of that is what, precisely, since you can't examine the
> asteroid or do anything with it if you park it clear out there?

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

just proving you can move it has much value if a one endangers the
earth in the future

[Wayne Throop]

: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: on a fist attempt a asteroid would be selected thats small enough it

: couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......

Ah. So things can only go wrong in initial, small trials.
Once you've got those out of the way, no further disasters can occur.
So for example, only the original Wright Flyer crashed, and none of
the modern commercial jets have ever gone down.

Yeesh.

You proposed the size, 100 meters. Even a 10 meter rock is something
like 10 kilotons (if it were to reach the surface).

Basically, your thinking (if that's what it is) is uncoordinated.

[Wayne Throop]

: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: a size that proves it can be done and isnt a danger to the earth....

A hundred meters is already too large. I rather doubt demonstrating
that we can propell a 10 meter rock implies that we can propell a
100 meter rock. And if you are only bringing in such small dribs and
drabs, you've shot your economies of scale.

I mean, jeez. Do you ever think before you post?

[bob haller]

On Dec 27, 1:09 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

I was not planning on moving more than some demos, and ony for
scientific studies, not commercial mining..

for me its more about preventing a global disaster, than mining for
profit

[Robert Clark]

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page
2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload
capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its
first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive
stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise
the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

On Dec 27, 10:03 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page

> 2: Orion + SEV design.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...

>
>  Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload
> capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its
> first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive
> stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise
> the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.
>
>   Bob Clark

Of course theres zero money for lander and everything else needed for
a manned moon mission.

[bob haller]

On Dec 27, 10:03 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page

> 2: Orion + SEV design.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...

>
>  Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload
> capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its
> first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive
> stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise
> the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.
>
>   Bob Clark

its first launch has a dummy 2nd stage, full operations suitable for a
moon mission at todays funding might be lucky by 2030.......

and the fiscal cliff is just making things worse

[bob haller]

heres more on the asteroid moving project, i think its a keeper since
it would help build info on moving killer asteroids in the future\

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23039-nasa-mulls-plan-to-drag-asteroid-into-moons-orbit.html

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yeesh, for a second, I was thinking "steampunks adapt original A11
platform."

[Jeff Findley]

In article <76a986b6-99bc-452e-94f5-b4835553f473
@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> heres more on the asteroid moving project, i think its a keeper since
> it would help build info on moving killer asteroids in the future\
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23039-nasa-mulls-plan-to-drag-asteroid-into-moons-orbit.html

Despite the use of "project" in the article, this is only a proposal. I
doubt NASA will bite and actually fund it, considering the price tag.

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

[bob haller]

On Jan 3, 1:19 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <76a986b6-99bc-452e-94f5-b4835553f473

> @b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > heres more on the asteroid moving project, i think its a keeper since
> > it would help build info on moving killer asteroids in the future\
>

> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23039-nasa-mulls-plan-to-drag-a...

>
> Despite the use of "project" in the article, this is only a proposal.  I
> doubt NASA will bite and actually fund it, considering the price tag.
>
> 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

NASA is looking for a reason to be. Espically since its loosing earth
to LEO transit. Falcon and others can handle that.

With ISS nearing its end of life a new pork piggie project is needed,
since mars is too far away, the moon is been there done that. And
deep space radiation will slow manned operations for a generation

[Jeff Findley]

In article <4a5e3249-a8a1-47bf-bb28-
f60772...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> NASA is looking for a reason to be. Espically since its loosing earth
> to LEO transit. Falcon and others can handle that.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

As much as I admire the progress SpaceX has made to date, this is not an
accurate statement. SpaceX has a very short track record and has not
yet flown a manned version of Dragon. Yes there are other commercial
crew programs running at other companies, but they've not flown yet.

> With ISS nearing its end of life a new pork piggie project is needed,
> since mars is too far away, the moon is been there done that.

Just because you saw an article about it in New Scientist does not mean
NASA is seriously considering funding this goofball idea.

Besides, NASA has their congressionally mandated pork project: SLS.
This proposal does nothing to support that project. In fact, it
diminishes its reason for existing. So politically, this one is DOA.
Congress wouldn't support it even if NASA did.

> And deep space radiation will slow manned operations for a generation

This one is more of your chicken-little b.s.

"Deep space" radiation has been studied to death. The "hab" of any deep
space mission will need a "radiation storm shelter" which will be
surrounded by nothing more than all the water they're carrying for the
mission used as shielding. Sorry Bob, but there is already an
engineering solution to this problem. Is there still some risk to the
crew? Yes, but the risk is acceptable by reasonable people.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote:

> initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> danger even if it did get out of control.....

Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". Even if the rock in question
was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit
Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball
sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any
further development of the concept.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[bob haller]

On Jan 8, 5:41 am, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote:
> > initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> > danger even if it did get out of control.....
>
> Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger".  Even if the rock in question
> was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit
> Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball
> sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any
> further development of the concept.
>
> --

> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com

> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of
concept, moving asteroids is very important.

and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause
dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer
risks...

obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall

[Robert Clark]

On Dec 27 2012, 10:03 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page

> 2: Orion + SEV design.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...

>
>  Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload
> capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its
> first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive
> stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise
> the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.
>
>   Bob Clark

A recent report suggests using the hydrogen tank of an upper stage
for the SLS as a space station:

Skylab II: A NASA 'Back to the Future' Concept to Open Up Space
Exploration
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Dec 21, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/skylab-ii-nasa-back-future-concept-open-space-170200842.html

Note there had been suggestions before of using the space shuttle
external tank(ET) as a space station:

The Space Island Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA

STS External Tank Station
www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm

The External Tank Torus.
A Technical Review by David Buth
http://freemars.org/studies/torus/ettoru2.html

Using the External Tank From the Space Shuttle as a Space Station ...
aeromaster.tripod.com/grp.htm

At an empty tank mass of 26.5 metric tons(mT) this would be well
within the
capability of the 70 mT SLS of getting this to LEO, as at least an
outer hull
of a space station. Note for this purpose we could remove the ET
bulkheads so
it would even weigh less than this.
And at the 130 mT payload capacity of the later SLS version, using
Centaur
style in-space stages we could even transport this to the Moon.


Bob Clark

[bob haller]

On Jan 8, 10:56 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

> >On Jan 8, 5:41 am, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote:
> >> > initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> >> > danger even if it did get out of control.....
>
> >> Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger".  Even if the rock in question
> >> was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit
> >> Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball
> >> sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any
> >> further development of the concept.
>

> >and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of
> >concept, moving asteroids is very important.
>

> Which part of "every asteroid is of different mass and composition, so
> 'proof of concept' with things that aren't what the concept is are
> useless" is it that keeps escaping your notice?

>
>
>
> >and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause
> >dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer
> >risks...
>
> >obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall
>

> Almost everything is news to you, Bobbert, and it's news over and over
> and over again, given your mayfly-like memory.  Perhaps you should go
> read up on just how little shielding is required to solve this
> 'problem'.

>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
>  truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
>                                -- Thomas Jefferson

Well with ZERO experience moving a asteroid all you have are theories:
( and the dimentia risk appeared to be news to nasa, they may have
known but never made it public knowledge earlier

[Wayne Throop]

: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause

: dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer
: risks...

Right. There are long-term dementia (I think dim-entia may be what
Bob has) as well as long-term cancer risks. This doesn't effect the
already known fact that long term exposure to cosmic rays is Not Good.
So it doesn't really change the risks being signed up for in any
significant way. The *risk* is the radiation. The *symptoms* may vary.

: and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of

: concept, moving asteroids is very important.

Gee, I was told that was proof that having moon and mars
colonies and lots of space habitats at various lagrange points
are very important. I guess it's important for whatever the
space-project-du-jour-that-can-even-vaguely-be-tied-to-asteroids
may be in the daily rant.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 8, 12:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 10:56 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 8, 5:41 am, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote:
> >> >> > initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> >> >> > danger even if it did get out of control.....
>
> >> >> Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". Even if the rock in question
> >> >> was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit
> >> >> Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball
> >> >> sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any
> >> >> further development of the concept.
>
> >> >and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of
> >> >concept, moving asteroids is very important.
>
> >> Which part of "every asteroid is of different mass and composition, so
> >> 'proof of concept' with things that aren't what the concept is are
> >> useless" is it that keeps escaping your notice?

That's a good point. So deflection by collisions is gambling. So,
putting orientable mirrors to deflect asteroids is the better,
hopefully, solution to build first.

> >> >and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause
> >> >dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer
> >> >risks...
>
> >> >obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall
>
> >> Almost everything is news to you, Bobbert, and it's news over and over
> >> and over again, given your mayfly-like memory. Perhaps you should go
> >> read up on just how little shielding is required to solve this
> >> 'problem'.

Sweet "mayfly-like memory" the phrase. May I steal it? Please...

> >Well with ZERO experience moving a asteroid all you have are theories:
>

> Orbital mechanics is fairly well understood (except by you).

I hate it when anyone uses "Theory" as a fvck-you word.

> >(  and the dimentia risk appeared to be news to nasa, they may have
> >known but never made it public knowledge earlier
>

> Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds
> with the reality everyone else gets.

Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the
ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O-
ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and
acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech.

> Again, go reread what I said to you above and DO IT.  Then come back
> and you may be able to say something sensible.

Weapons of mass distraction have an assignment to complete.

> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive
you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"

[Jeff Findley]

In article <1629bbcc-0ad8-447f-8431-cbf1eef341c9
@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mahip...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Jan 8, 12:01ï¿œpm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds
> > with the reality everyone else gets.
>
> Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the
> ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O-
> ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and
> acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech.

True, but Richard Feynman was an extremely smart guy. It's a bit shades
of Dr. Sheldon Cooper (a main character in The Big Bang Theory, a
current US TV Show), but as a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist,
Feynman understood *a lot* about how the world works. Mere "rocket
science" was not beyond his understanding. ;-)

[Mahipal]

On Jan 8, 1:16 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <1629bbcc-0ad8-447f-8431-cbf1eef341c9

> @d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...

>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds
> > > with the reality everyone else gets.
>
> > Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the
> > ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O-
> > ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and
> > acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech.
>
> True, but Richard Feynman was an extremely smart guy.  It's a bit shades
> of Dr. Sheldon Cooper (a main character in The Big Bang Theory, a
> current US TV Show), but as a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist,
> Feynman understood *a lot* about how the world works.  Mere "rocket
> science" was not beyond his understanding.  ;-)

Feynman did not conceive, I suspect, the existing known to engineers
problem of brittle rubber O-rings by himself. The engineers had to
have to advised him. Though Feynman made a great demonstration of it
to the whisky soaked Congress/Senate. Hiccups. Somewhere a "he he"
need apply? Must watch my back since I write myself into a frenzy on
Tuesdays.

My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
Boss's commands.

I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it. Fun
show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype,
and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my
kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize
_demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor
indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be
possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice
versa.

> 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

[Jeff Findley]

In article <a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563-
793f59...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, mahip...@gmail.com says...

>
> My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
> ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
> progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
> Boss's commands.

True.

When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain. By the
time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision,
they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed
decision.

Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves up
the management chain on the assumption that upper management either
won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details. It's always
refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand
the details.

I've also dealt with politics in the form of "the boss' pet project".
:-P

> I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it. Fun
> show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype,
> and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my
> kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize
> _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor
> indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be
> possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice
> versa.

I stuck a smiley face on the end of my original response, so it's all
good. ;-)

[Rick Jones]

In sci.space.history Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
> messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain. By the
> time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a
> decision, they often don't have all the facts to make a properly
> informed decision.

> Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves
> up the management chain on the assumption that upper management
> either won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details.
> It's always refreshing working in an environment where managers
> actually understand the details.

The last entry at http://www.badpets.net/Humor/LongLists/Shitlist.html
would seem applicable.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
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...

[Mahipal]

On Jan 8, 3:09 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563-
> 793f595ee...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...

>
>
>
> > My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
> > ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
> > progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
> > Boss's commands.
>
> True.
>
> When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
> messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain.  By the
> time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision,
> they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed
> decision.

There's an acknowledged "shoot the messenger" environment?

> Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves up
> the management chain on the assumption that upper management either
> won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details.  It's always
> refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand
> the details.

Via competent, or not, managers, a message manipulated is an evil in
disguise. I'm very simple that way... a fault I have to learn to hide.

> I've also dealt with politics in the form of "the boss' pet project".
> :-P
>
> > I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it. Fun
> > show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype,
> > and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my
> > kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize
> > _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor
> > indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be
> > possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice
> > versa.
>
> I stuck a smiley face on the end of my original response, so it's all
> good.    ;-)

I saw the smiley. I've resolved to neither use them nor read them. The
message should speak for itself. I'll deal with the ramifications.

> 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

The "s h i t" link Rick Jones provided was is really entertaining.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.2b562c659...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <1629bbcc-0ad8-447f-8431-cbf1eef341c9
>@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mahip...@gmail.com says...
>>

>> On Jan 8, 12:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds
>> > with the reality everyone else gets.
>>
>> Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the
>> ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O-
>> ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and
>> acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech.
>
>True, but Richard Feynman was an extremely smart guy. It's a bit shades
>of Dr. Sheldon Cooper (a main character in The Big Bang Theory, a
>current US TV Show), but as a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist,
>Feynman understood *a lot* about how the world works. Mere "rocket
>science" was not beyond his understanding. ;-)
>

BTW, I should note what got me hooked on The Big Bang Theory was the
whiteboards in the first episode I watched.

(The episode explained why the elevator is out of commission after a small
accident with rocket fuel).

But in the background on the whiteboards were references to A-Stoff and
C-Stoff and the like.

Sometimes it's fun just to see what geeky details are in the background
(like on the bookshelves.)


>Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

[Mahipal]

On Jan 8, 10:38 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 3:09 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> >> In article <a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563-
> >> 793f595ee...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> > My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
> >> > ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
> >> > progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
> >> > Boss's commands.
>
> >> True.
>
> >> When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
> >> messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain. By the
> >> time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision,
> >> they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed
> >> decision.
>
> >There's an acknowledged "shoot the messenger" environment?
>

> While that's not normally the case where I work, I ceased worrying
> about that a while back.  I'm at the point where there's very little
> that shooting me will accomplish other than convince me to go ahead
> and retire.  People know this and would rather not pull that
> trigger...

If they shot either you or me, our posts would not be.

> --
> "I'll learn to work the saxophone.
>  I'll play just what I feel.
>  Drink Scotch whisky all night long
>  And die behind the wheel."
>                   -- "Deacon Blues", Steely Dan

Such a superb song! Thanks Fred for bringing it up.

"I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be"

and I'm never going back to my old school...
especially not before they shoot us first...

"Well I did not think the girl
Could be so cruel
And I'm never going back
To my old school"

[Jeff Findley]

In article <6be7262d-600d-4790-a9fd-aedd094469c3
@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, mahip...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Jan 8, 3:09 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563-
> > 793f595ee...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
> > > ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
> > > progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
> > > Boss's commands.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
> > messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain.  By the
> > time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision,
> > they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed
> > decision.
>
> There's an acknowledged "shoot the messenger" environment?

Don't know for sure. But I've seen it elsewhere.

> > Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves
up
> > the management chain on the assumption that upper management either
> > won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details.  It's always
> > refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand
> > the details.
>
> Via competent, or not, managers, a message manipulated is an evil in
> disguise. I'm very simple that way... a fault I have to learn to hide.

Only if you want to move up into management (which I'll never do). Or,
the boss you directly report to doesn't like you to be open and brutally
honest about everything. I'm happy my current boss doesn't mind I don't
have any "filters" on what I tell him. I'm an engineer, not a manger,
dammit...

> > I've also dealt with politics in the form of "the boss' pet
project".
> > :-P

I forgot to add that the "1.5 launch architecture" was the biggest bit
of "pet project" b.s. I've seen come out of NASA in a long time. Ares
I, in particular, was hideous. There was *no* reason not to use EELV's
to launch Orion, other than Ares I was *the* "pet project" of Griffin.
Nothing like pissing away billions on a failed design that obviously
sucked rocks from the very beginning, just because "the boss" thought it
was a good idea. :-P

> > > I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it.
Fun
> > > show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype,
> > > and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my
> > > kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize
> > > _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor
> > > indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be
> > > possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice
> > > versa.
> >
> > I stuck a smiley face on the end of my original response, so it's all
> > good.    ;-)
>
> I saw the smiley. I've resolved to neither use them nor read them. The
> message should speak for itself. I'll deal with the ramifications.

Fair enough.

[bob haller]

On Jan 8, 10:08 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Findley"  wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2b562c659...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <1629bbcc-0ad8-447f-8431-cbf1eef341c9

> >@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...

>
> >> On Jan 8, 12:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds
> >> > with the reality everyone else gets.
>
> >> Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the
> >> ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O-
> >> ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and
> >> acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech.
>
> >True, but Richard Feynman was an extremely smart guy.  It's a bit shades
> >of Dr. Sheldon Cooper (a main character in The Big Bang Theory, a
> >current US TV Show), but as a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist,
> >Feynman understood *a lot* about how the world works.  Mere "rocket
> >science" was not beyond his understanding.  ;-)
>
> BTW, I should note what got me hooked on The Big Bang Theory was the
> whiteboards in the first episode I watched.
>
> (The episode explained why the elevator is out of commission after a small
> accident with rocket fuel).
>
> But in the background on the whiteboards were references to A-Stoff and
> C-Stoff and the like.
>
> Sometimes it's fun just to see what geeky details are in the background
> (like on the bookshelves.)
>
> >Jeff
>
> --
> Greg D. Moore                  http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
> CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

theres a show thats ending is a page of small text. we have a 17 year
old who pauses the tivo to read it, every episode has different message

[Mahipal]

On Jan 9, 8:54 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <6be7262d-600d-4790-a9fd-aedd094469c3
> @u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...

>
> > On Jan 8, 3:09 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > > In article <a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563-
> > > 793f595ee...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, mahipal7...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or
> > > > ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it
> > > > progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The
> > > > Boss's commands.
>
> > > True.
>
> > > When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how
> > > messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain.  By the
> > > time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision,
> > > they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed
> > > decision.
>
> > There's an acknowledged "shoot the messenger" environment?
>
> Don't know for sure.  But I've seen it elsewhere.

The "shoot the messenger" environment surely exists, but nobody's
about to, or brave enough to, acknowledge it. Every minute when the
Mass Media refuses to address many taboo topics, another messenger
slowly dies.

> > > Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves
> up
> > > the management chain on the assumption that upper management either
> > > won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details.  It's always
> > > refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand
> > > the details.
>
> > Via competent, or not, managers, a message manipulated is an evil in
> > disguise. I'm very simple that way... a fault I have to learn to hide.
>
> Only if you want to move up into management (which I'll never do).  Or,
> the boss you directly report to doesn't like you to be open and brutally
> honest about everything.  I'm happy my current boss doesn't mind I don't
> have any "filters" on what I tell him.  I'm an engineer, not a manger,
> dammit...

I too am a (Mechanical) Engineer by education. Worked on GN&C systems
for LEO satellites until the industry down-sized by monthly mergers,
early 1990s. I opted out of aerospace and ended up in ground based
imaging for Open Road Technology. Then I got old, due to the aging
thing. Like many in my age group, we got walked out, by management,
the corporate doors after many years of service. Still wonder when we
became suddenly incompetent at the jobs we were recognized for by
awards.

Yet no messenger is allowed to state age discrimination happens.

Actually, so, my personal USA career path has conspired to leave me
presently between jobs. Sitting here, surfing, awaiting my background
check to be cashed... err... clear. They say my skills are acceptable,
but apparently my background information is sourced from everyone on
Earth but just not me. It's like Han Solo, after being tortured, "...
they didn't even ask me a question?!"

> > > I've also dealt with politics in the form of "the boss' pet
> project".
> > > :-P
>
> I forgot to add that the "1.5 launch architecture" was the biggest bit
> of "pet project" b.s. I've seen come out of NASA in a long time.  Ares
> I, in particular, was hideous.  There was *no* reason not to use EELV's
> to launch Orion, other than Ares I was *the* "pet project" of Griffin.
> Nothing like pissing away billions on a failed design that obviously
> sucked rocks from the very beginning, just because "the boss" thought it
> was a good idea.  :-P

Sounds like the actual hidden reality behind all the fluffy right
stuff.

> > > > I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it.
> Fun
> > > > show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype,
> > > > and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my
> > > > kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize
> > > > _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor
> > > > indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be
> > > > possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice
> > > > versa.
>
> > > I stuck a smiley face on the end of my original response, so it's all
> > > good.    ;-)
>
> > I saw the smiley. I've resolved to neither use them nor read them. The
> > message should speak for itself.  I'll deal with the ramifications.
>
> Fair enough.

Over the years of Usenet interaction, and plain writing, I learned
that smileys were a crutch for poor penmanship, especially, for me
personally. Also, mostly a lot of abusive posters tend to use them to
mask their insults and bigotry. If you want to be funny or sad, rude
or suave, just do it, don't hang a silly smiley as if readers are
meaning challenged. Well, that's from my experience and is no advice
to others on how to construct their writings. Author knows best, in
the end.

> 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

[G=EMC^2]

GOP Mafia NASA stole so much money that it saw to it that going back
to the moon is impossible. China will copy the great Saturn V. Their
to smart to copy the shuttles. They won't copy those $25,000,000
TOILETS. They use depends at ten cents. They have a self heating
wok,and chop sticks with barbs. They are best of humankind for deep
space. They are light,and have heavy lid eyes.. TreBert