Bye-bye Moon program, hello ISS to 2020
Pat Flannery
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010jan27,0,1252176.story
Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
hal...@aol.com
> >Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
> >Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
> >But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>
> How the hell does he expect us to get to ISS? Keep buying Soyuz
> flights?
>
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �OM
Fiscal responsiblity manned space should be shut down for now.
So how would YOU have felt about obama if that were the plan?
Me
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
> >Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
> >But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>
> How the hell does he expect us to get to ISS? Keep buying Soyuz
> flights?
>
Simple answer can be found if you would keep up on events.
NASA is going to buy rides from US commercial providers, meaning
Spacex and others. Proposals will start coming out of the woodworks
from Boeing, LM and others. Ares I wasn't going to be ready for 5
years or more, which is more than enough for the standard aerospace
contractors to have some ready or for Spacex to get things right.
Val Kraut
"> But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the things
that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's existance, other
that fixing toilets in weightlessness, Things like new miracle drugs, new
manufacturing techniques, advances in chemistry and physics, Hell, I'd even
settle for something like "A Determination of the Effect of Weightlessness
and Low Atmospheric Pressure on the Mating Rituals of the Sub-Sahara Central
East African Tse Tse Fly While in the Presence of Atmospheric Constituents
Associated with Mid-Sized Primates with Limited Toilet Priviledges".
hal...@aol.com
good luck ISS has just been a example of how NOT to run a program.
Science? Thats dead last after pork spending:(
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:1969a471-f01a-4ce6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I hope oyu're right, but I'm pessimestic that anything will be ready that
quickly.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:4b60d403$0$22538$607e...@cv.net...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html
Start here.
The problem with most science is "it's boring." That's why people don't
hear much about it.
Don't see ant Tse-Tse flies though.
>
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:pqqdnTmYPOH9Nf3W...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
OK, does everyone here now understand why trying
to repeat history is such a glaring mistake?
Because as time goes by, the 'landscape' changes.
It's like trying to apply the same solution to
two different problems. If the first 'solution' or goal
was CORRECT, the second one will always
...... BE WRONG!
And proportionally so!
So, predictably, the glowing success of Apollo
should immediately foreshadow a dismal failure
with "To the Moon and Mars".
Finally!
So now we can start talking about what NASA
should (could) become once the economy turns
around.
Which just might be the right amount of time for
Space Solar Power to become practical. As all the
trends like oil prices, climate change and lower
cost to orbit might be more ...aligned...by then.
Say, around the start of Obama's second term?
Plenty of time to change a lots of opinions.
Beats just talking about NASA and the latest
.....climate change data....merely talking about
the weather, like some old folks home.
Imagining the best possible future is the only way
to create a worthwhile goal.
Jonathan
s
Brian Thorn
Keep in mind, ISS isn't finished. It didn't get its full-fledged
laboratories until 2008 (Destiny was there earlier, but it was used
mostly for command and control) didn't complete its power grid to run
them at 100% until last spring, and didn't get a full crew of six that
provided time for significant scientific work until last summer. So it
shouldn't come as a surprise that major advances and miracle drugs
have not yet appeared.
Except that, maybe one has: a vaccine for salmonella.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/14/salmonella-vaccine.html
So if ISS has generated a vaccine for an illness that sickens millions
and kills thousands ever year, and did that before it was even fully
operational, then maybe it deserves more time and funding to do its
job.
But as Greg says, the ISS is a laboratory, and the vast majority of
laboratory work is mundane, seldom making headlines. Breakthroughs
come after years or decades of such work. ISS critics demand the
breakthroughs, but don't want to pay for the mundane work.
Brian
Pat Flannery
Answering the question: "How many Japanese astronauts does it take to
change a light bulb?":
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/burnt-bulbs-on/
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Start here.
>
> The problem with most science is "it's boring." That's why people don't
> hear much about it.
>
> Don't see ant Tse-Tse flies though.
And no follow-up on the Shuttle's groundbreaking work regarding the
effects of weightlessness on a inanimate carbon rod.
Pat
Derek Lyons
It's not so much that, but rather that if the science isn't exciting
the people don't think it's science. Decades of edutainment have done
that for us.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
> So how do we get there until one of them actually develops the
> capability to get folks up to ISS? Very tall ladders?
Soyuz.
Which is the same way all the other ISS astronauts from around the world
will be getting there and back once the Shuttle is retired.
So if anything happens that grounds Soyuz, the whole thing is screwed.
Pat
Jeff Findley
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:rba1m55io1jiogah7...@4ax.com...
> How the hell does he expect us to get to ISS? Keep buying Soyuz
> flights?
NASA screwed this up from the beginning. They never could afford *two* new
launch vehicles (and Ares I was a real dog from the beginning), Orion,
Altair (lunar lander), and everything else they wanted for a lunar program.
They gambled that the administration to cough up several billion dollars in
additional funding each year to support this program. They gambled wrong.
There is simply no good political reason to massively increase NASA's
funding.
Rumblings are that Orion isn't dead and that a shuttle derived launch
vehicle (similar to Direct's Jupiter) will still go forward. This would
enable "flexible path" options like visiting very low gravity asteroids,
launch and servicing of space telescopes, and the like.
In the distant future, it would enable dual launch lunar missions. Only
they'll be dual launch of the *same* vehicle, which will greatly reduce
fixed costs. NASA just can't afford *two* new launch vehicle programs with
all of the high fixed costs associated with that.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
hal...@aol.com
begining,
The bottom line cost??
jacob navia
> Val Kraut wrote:
>
>> Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the
>> things that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's
>> existance, other that fixing toilets in weightlessness,
And what do you have against toilets moron?
You do not piss?
Making toilets work, recycling urine, and many other things
belong to the developing of a human presence in space. You
can't go to Mars or to the moon if you haven't developed a
recycling technology and water purification system. The cost
of transporting tons of water to the moon or Mars is enormous.
Without those technologies no human space travel is possible.
Note that the station has been completed only recently, construction
delayed years because of the accidents of the space shuttle.
It is now that the scientific side of the station will START.
Obviously you do not want to acknowledge that.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:hjsj1m$kih$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Val Kraut wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the things
>>> that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's existance,
>>> other that fixing toilets in weightlessness,
>
>
The only thing wrong with correcting a mistatement is posting another.
The scientific side has been going on for years. Please see the URL I've
posted.
It is not just starting. Far from it.
Derek Lyons
>
>"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
>news:rba1m55io1jiogah7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010jan27,0,1252176.story
>>>Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
>>>But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>>
>> ...Best reasons I've heard for impeaching Obama, if not lynching him.
>> How the hell does he expect us to get to ISS? Keep buying Soyuz
>> flights?
>
>NASA screwed this up from the beginning. They never could afford *two* new
>launch vehicles (and Ares I was a real dog from the beginning), Orion,
>Altair (lunar lander), and everything else they wanted for a lunar program.
>They gambled that the administration to cough up several billion dollars in
>additional funding each year to support this program. They gambled wrong.
>There is simply no good political reason to massively increase NASA's
>funding.
Theu didn't gamble at all. They did exactly as they were directed to
by the Administration and Congress.
Pat Flannery
> Pat Flannery a �crit :
>> Val Kraut wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the
>>> things that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's
>>> existance, other that fixing toilets in weightlessness,
>
> And what do you have against toilets moron?
I didn't write the toilet part, that was Val Kraut.
Pat
Damien Valentine
> Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010...
> Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
> But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
Have we got any official confirmation for this? For all we know, the
"LA Times" just interviewed a couple of janitors and called them
"anonymous".
Incidentally, since at least half the people on this newsgroup hated
the Constellation program in the first place...shouldn't we consider
this a good thing?
Pat Flannery
> On Jan 27, 4:56 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>> Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010...
>> Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
>> But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>
> Have we got any official confirmation for this? For all we know, the
> "LA Times" just interviewed a couple of janitors and called them
> "anonymous".
The story was reported in several differnt places, so it sounds like a
administration leak to lessen the surprise when the program termination
comes.
>
> Incidentally, since at least half the people on this newsgroup hated
> the Constellation program in the first place...shouldn't we consider
> this a good thing?
It suits me fine, that's for sure.
Pat
hal...@aol.com
I too am happy, NASA just spent money with little return on investment
other than enriching some military contractors:( and piles of receipts:
(
Its time for private industry to take over
eatfastnoodle
It's on NY Times too, and NY Times said it came from an
administration official. And it will be officially released next
Monday. I don't think it's junk news since it's pretty standard for
new policies to be intentionally released to the news media if only to
gauge public and congressional reaction.
Derek Lyons
>Damien Valentine wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 4:56 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>> Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010...
>>> Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
>>> But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>>
>> Have we got any official confirmation for this? For all we know, the
>> "LA Times" just interviewed a couple of janitors and called them
>> "anonymous".
>
>The story was reported in several differnt places, so it sounds like a
>administration leak to lessen the surprise when the program termination
>comes.
Or it could be, as has happened before, they are just repeating what
the LA times said in order to escape being seen as having been
scooped. Today, when we can compare and contrast stories from
multiple sources, we have to carefully avoid the error of assuming
"that everyone is saying it, therefore it must be so".
Brian Thorn
<vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, since at least half the people on this newsgroup hated
>the Constellation program in the first place
The program, or NASA's implementation of it? I don't recall too many
here screaming bloody murder about going back to the moon and on to
Mars (although some wanted to go straight to Mars.) "1 1/2 Launch" met
great skepticism, and the slow death spiral as less cheap,
off-the-shelf tech was replaced by expensive all-new, incompatible
designs unleashed a cacophony of critisicm. But Constellation as a
whole? Not so much.
But I do think NASA screwed the pooch once too often with the Ares
debacle, and this might have been the last chance it was ever given.
Brian
Pat Flannery
> O Today, when we can compare and contrast stories from
> multiple sources, we have to carefully avoid the error of assuming
> "that everyone is saying it, therefore it must be so".
You're right, let's see what Fox News has to say:
"President betrays humanity's future by cancelling all space research
that doesn't further his idiotic global warming hidden agenda - America
will be completly communist by around noon next Tuesday."
Pat
hal...@aol.com
NASA COULD of had atlas and delta heavies carrying capsules by now.
But they got greedy wanted a new program and its probably their last
chance, they dont deserve another...
Pat Flannery
> But I do think NASA screwed the pooch once too often with the Ares
> debacle, and this might have been the last chance it was ever given.
Yeah, their whole post-Shuttle manned program initiatives have been one
long string of cancellations.
It would be fun to tally up how many billions of dollars have been
wasted that way over the past years.
Up to the moment, Constellation has cost $9.1 billion:
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1501ap_us_sci_nasa_future.html
Pat
Val Kraut
"> It would be fun to tally up how many billions of dollars have been
> wasted that way over the past years.
Air Force DSP IR Early warning replacement has to hold the record - First
launched in the 60s, replacement started as MSP in 1974, then became DSP II,
BSTS, FEWS, AWS, SBIRS and a few I forgot. . The first SBIRS GEO is slated
to launch in 2012.
Michael Gallagher
>I too am happy, NASA just spent money with little return on investment
>other than enriching some military contractors:( and piles of receipts:
>(
>
>Its time for private industry to take over
What "private industry"? In the first place, the "private companies"
will not be building rockets with their own capital or capital they
raise privately but with money from the administration, $6 billion
over three years or something like that, and still working with NASA.
The relationaship may change somehow, but the flow of money from what.
And where are these private astronaust
Second, if Boeing, ILA, or Lockmart get in on the act, guess what?
The same "private industry" who got the money before under contracts
will still get it. And who has to facilities and the simulators to
train private astronauts? Back to NASA again.
So .... what was your point again?
Michael Gallagher
>Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010jan27,0,1252176.story
>Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
>But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
I'm dissappointed by the end of the Moon program. How is it that 40
years after we landed the first time, it's anathema to going back!?
I'd hoped that the program could have been maintaned in some form,
perhaps with international partners. But I guess it's not to be. I'd
hoped Orion could still survive, mated to a new heavy lifter, but
there is no such luck. If anything, there is talk of "a re-vamp of
the Kennedy Space Center in Florida" (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/sc_nm/us_obama_budget_space ).
WHAT!? So the plan is to gut NASA's man program and hope that $6
Billion in grants to private companies will make up the gap in a
timely manner!? As a stockhlder in OSC, I'm all for private space
efforts, but this is ridiculous!
To be fair, Obama has had a difficult first term -- entering office
with a messianic image he couldn't have lived up to in good time and
faced with more challenges that any president since FDR (no wonder the
man has already gone gray). To his credit, he sought expert opinion
on what to do about the space program (even if all Augusting did was
made the fault line in the online debates public -- Obama could have
surfed sci.space.* and done the job in half the time <g>). But it's
hard not to beleive he's not using Augustine to cover his butt as he
destroys a part of our national heritage. Will a "revamped" LC39 be
able to support a heavy lifter? Or has that idea been forgotten?
Looks like. And word is the administration will fight any
congressional attempts to save Constellation. Why? He's got budget
problems, no question. But how is reaming a program that gets 0.5% of
the federal budget going to make a big difference? This is almost
gratuitous.
I voted against Obama in '08, but I didn't have anything against him.
Now, I do. I hope he loses in '12. And he's the first president I've
ever said that about.
Michael Gallagher
>NASA COULD of had atlas and delta heavies carrying capsules by now.
Only if the new capsules were ready by now.
Michael Gallagher
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
> ..... Rumblings are that Orion isn't dead and that a shuttle derived launch
>vehicle (similar to Direct's Jupiter) will still go forward ....
News reports so far today don't say anything about either one. I hope
you're right, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong.
Jeff Findley
"Michael Gallagher" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uc6em5pfsqtjoese9...@4ax.com...
From spaceref:
During the 5 year space ahead, NASA will spend $7.8 billion on a new
technology demonstration program that will look at advanced exploration
capabilities. It will also spend $3.1 billion on R&D that looks into
new propulsion systems and $3 billion on robotic precursors to scout
ahead of future human crews.
That's a lot of money to spend on advanced exploration capabilities.
It also said:
Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a preferred
Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.
One has to wonder though if "the private sector" could propose just such a
shuttle derived launch vehicle. ATK and other contractors would benefit
greatly from such a project. NASA would also benefit, indirectly, because
it could make use of its existing launch facilities, which could otherwise
remain dormant (large losses of jobs).
Jonathan
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:SdidnRNZF9UlT_zW...@earthlink.com...
Ya I hear it every day, and in the papers....Thank God for
the ISS science advances. Kinda odd how the former
Chief Scientist of the ISS is now out helping design
Space Solar Power satellites.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
Funny world isn't it?
s
BradGuth
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
You actually think Obama created any of this mess?
Was Obama in some kind of stealth trouble-maker mode before becoming
president?
~ BG
Michael Gallagher
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
>From spaceref:
>
> .... Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a preferred
> Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
> Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
> vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
> designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
> heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.
>
Can you post the link to that article? I couldn't find it.
>One has to wonder though if "the private sector" could propose just such a
>shuttle derived launch vehicle. ATK and other contractors would benefit
>greatly from such a project. NASA would also benefit, indirectly, because
>it could make use of its existing launch facilities, which could otherwise
>remain dormant (large losses of jobs).
>
I think it would be hysterical if they proposed an "Ares 1 Lite" with
a 4-segment first stage, cryogenic second stage, and a familiar
looking capusle. And got it to work! Vincication would be sweet.
:)
And yeah, you could use shuttle-derived, though you might get the same
lifting power with upgrades to the Atlas 5 or Delta 4.
Jeff Findley
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:58:35 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
> <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>From spaceref:
>>
>> .... Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a
>> preferred
>> Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
>> Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
>> vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
>> designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
>> heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.
>>
>
> Can you post the link to that article? I couldn't find it.
The Obama Space Vision for NASA: Massive Paradigm Shifts Ahead
Keith Cowing
Monday, February 1, 2010
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372
BradGuth
Objective science on behalf of ice coexisting in space? (I think not)
~ BG
Michael Gallagher
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372
>
Thanks.
Frank Robertson
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
In the TV miniseries, "Space," based on Jmaes Michener's novel of the
same name, JFK is plugged as the hero of space exploration, the space
visionary. But the astronauts do not first get to the Moon until the
Nixon administration. A Democrat senator is really angered by this
abomination: 'JFK sent us to the Moon and now there's Nixon taking all
the bows,' he says, paraphrased. (Scenes of Nixon greeting the
returning astronauts are showing on a TV they are watching.) An
associate tells him Americans will remember that JFK started us going
to the Moon. 'No,' the senator angrily responds. 'All people know is
what they see on that TV screen.'
Of course, if Obama isn't quite the visionary that JFK or Ronald
Reagan was.....wait, let me say something here you might not here much
about. In Andrew Chaikin's http://www.andrewchaikin.com/ book, "A
Passion for MARS," Chaikin points out that when President RR was being
briefed about the Space Station "Freedom" plan, Ronald asked, "What
does this have to with going to Mars?" Then Chaikin openly
acknowledges: 'The President was a space enthusiast!'
SO, as I said, if Obama is not quite the visionary that either JFK nor
RR were, Democrats will forgive him. It's the standard political
double-standard! Democrats are deft with the double standard AT LEAST
as much as Republicans are.
Space exploration is a long-term endeavor. Political cycles are short
(four years of less). But either SOME government(s) will get humans to
other worlds, or else private industry will. Given enough time. Do we
have enough time? Well, ask Jesus. But He always refuses to give us
the day or the hour!
-------------------------
Pat Flannery
>
> Of course, if Obama isn't quite the visionary that JFK or Ronald
> Reagan was.....wait, let me say something here you might not here much
> about. In Andrew Chaikin's http://www.andrewchaikin.com/ book, "A
> Passion for MARS," Chaikin points out that when President RR was being
> briefed about the Space Station "Freedom" plan, Ronald asked, "What
> does this have to with going to Mars?" Then Chaikin openly
> acknowledges: 'The President was a space enthusiast!'
Reagan just wanted something to upstage Mir.
Preferably something with guns, missiles, or lasers on it.
But the real space fan was Dan Quayle, who realized getting to Mars
would be pretty easy, as it shares Earth's orbit:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/526.html
Pat
f.barnes
> On Jan 27, 4:01 pm, OM <o...@sci.space.history> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010...
> > >Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
> > >But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.
>
> > How the hell does he expect us to get to ISS? Keep buying Soyuz
> > flights?
>
> NASA is going to buy rides from US commercial providers, meaning
> Spacex and others. Proposals will start coming out of the woodworks
> from Boeing, LM and others. Ares I wasn't going to be ready for 5
> years or more, which is more than enough for the standard aerospace
> contractors to have some ready or for Spacex to get things right.
I sort of agree with giving an assist to private space flight with
government contracts. It's similar to when the government gave an
assist to early aviation with mail contracts. And that worked out
well.
Frank Robertson
> Frank Robertson wrote:
>
> > Of course, if Obama isn't quite the visionary that JFK or Ronald
> > Reagan was.....wait, let me say something here you might not here much
> > Passion for MARS," Chaikin points out that when President RR was being
> > briefed about the Space Station "Freedom" plan, Ronald asked, "What
> > does this have to with going to Mars?" Then Chaikin openly
> > acknowledges: 'The President was a space enthusiast!'
>
> Reagan just wanted something to upstage Mir.
> Preferably something with guns, missiles, or lasers on it.
> But the real space fan was Dan Quayle, who realized getting to Mars
> would be pretty easy, as it shares Earth's orbit:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/526.html
>
> Pat
No, Reagan asked what the station had to do with Mars, He wanted Mars,
not the station. According to Chaikin. NASA told him the station was a
step on the way to Mars, just be patient.
Then came Gore, who said "It's time for Earth to join the Solar
System!"
Combine Gore-isms with Biden-isms and you have a thicker volume than
one with Bush-isms!
Pat Flannery
> Then came Gore, who said "It's time for Earth to join the Solar
> System!"
No, that was Quayle again.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/553.html
In fact, compare this page:
http://goldenink.com/humor/algore.html
And this page:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Dan_Quayle/
And you will see that many things that were said by Quayle have been
magically transposed to Al Gore, and unless you you check up on your
sources, or remember them when they were originally said, you will be
misled.
As is the intent.
Pat
Me
Wrong on all accounts
> What "private industry"? In the first place, the "private companies"
> will not be building rockets with their own capital or capital they
> raise privately
ULA and Space already have their boosters
>but with money from the administration, $6 billion
> over three years or something like that, and still working with NASA.
> The relationaship may change somehow, but the flow of money from what.
No, that money will be for services rendered and not development
> And where are these private astronaust
They will be new and ex astronauts. No need for them right now.
There is time to develop them.
> Second, if Boeing, ILA, or Lockmart get in on the act, guess what?
> The same "private industry" who got the money before under contracts
> will still get it.
Different and cheaper contract format
>And who has to facilities and the simulators to
> train private astronauts? Back to NASA again.
Incorrect, the companies supplying the capsules will have their own
trainers. NASA will no longer have spacecraft simulators. The rest
of NASA's facilities are not needed to train commercial astronauts.
The companies will have their own training syllabus.
NASA will still have to train its astronauts for ISS duties.
hal...@aol.com
Hopefully KSC being so historic and so close to the air force base
will get it maintained as a national historic monument:)
As to 39 A&B return one to the appearance of Apollo and stack a full
up saturn moon rocket model on one bad, leave the remaining pad in the
shuttle configuration stack a mock up or enterprise on this pad.
Build a glass structructure around both pads and give the public the
first opportunity to see them close up, along with the VAB.:)
Excellent tourist display:)
Frank Robertson
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 21:58:46 -0800 (PST), Frank Robertson
>
> <laisrevort...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Then came Gore, who said "It's time for Earth to join the Solar
> >System!"
>
> saying it before Quayl, but nobody's ever turned up a quote from Gore
> prior to the Clinton misadministration to this effect.
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
Thanks for apparently setting the record straight on who said "join
the solar system." A google search even has sites attributing it to
GWBush. I guess, depending on what side you're on, you can find ANY
quote qttributed to ANYBODY you want to! And you'll believe the ones
you want to!
So, the libs can take all Gore-isms and Biden-isms and Obamisms, and
attribute them all to Bush and Quayle! And what the heck, they might
as well say Sarah said them to! Ex.:
"It's time for Earth to join the solar system!"
- Sarah Palin
Source; Liberals of America dot org
Now it's in black and white! On the net! So it's an official rumor
that will never go away!
Thanks, also for the Michener's Space info.
Jorge R. Frank
> On Feb 9, 2:42 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>> Frank Robertson wrote:
>>
>> Reagan just wanted something to upstage Mir.
>
> not the station. According to Chaikin. NASA told him the station was a
> step on the way to Mars, just be patient.
Reagan also proposed SSF two years before Mir launched.
Jorge R. Frank
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:22:25 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>> Reagan also proposed SSF two years before Mir launched.
>
> Freedom or SS Fred by that time?
He proposed an unnamed "space station" in 1984. It was named Freedom in
1986 (*that* was a direct response to Mir, which means "Peace"). The
redesign that led to the "Fred" moniker was in 1990-91, during the first
Bush administration.
Pat Flannery
> He proposed an unnamed "space station" in 1984. It was named Freedom in
> 1986 (*that* was a direct response to Mir, which means "Peace")
Or "World"; the word doesn't translate directly into a equivalent
English one.
Pat
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> Frank Robertson wrote:
>
> > Of course, if Obama isn't quite the visionary that JFK or Ronald
> > Reagan was.....wait, let me say something here you might not here much
> > Passion for MARS," Chaikin points out that when President RR was being
> > briefed about the Space Station "Freedom" plan, Ronald asked, "What
> > does this have to with going to Mars?" Then Chaikin openly
> > acknowledges: 'The President was a space enthusiast!'
>
> Reagan just wanted something to upstage Mir.
> Preferably something with guns, missiles, or lasers on it.
> But the real space fan was Dan Quayle, who realized getting to Mars
> would be pretty easy, as it shares Earth's orbit:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/526.html
>
> Pat
Is that quote for real? Is so he got science from the movies.
Yikes.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Naw, all great minds think alike. Or in Sarah's
case it likely was an old speech writer was recycling
speech material after a night of too much booze
and weed. It does smack of the "I can see Russia
from were I live" comment.
What was McCain thinking? Perhaps 'it will be fun to
have a cute chick on the ticket' ?
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
>
> > Of course, if Obama isn't quite the visionary that JFK or Ronald
> > Reagan was.....wait, let me say something here you might not here much
> > Passion for MARS," Chaikin points out that when President RR was being
> > briefed about the Space Station "Freedom" plan, Ronald asked, "What
> > does this have to with going to Mars?" Then Chaikin openly
> > acknowledges: 'The President was a space enthusiast!'
>
> Reagan just wanted something to upstage Mir.
> Preferably something with guns, missiles, or lasers on it.
> But the real space fan was Dan Quayle, who realized getting to Mars
> would be pretty easy, as it shares Earth's orbit:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/526.html
>
> Pat
Is that quote for real? Is so he got science from the movies.
Yikes.
Pat Flannery
>
> The difference is that there WERE private aviation vehicles that could
> do the job.
>
> Where is the private 'astronaut delivery vehicle' that NASA can put
> private contract money against? Airmail didn't have to directly fund
> AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT.
But it did once the concept got up and running; the Spirit Of St. Louis
was based on a Ryan designed mailplane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_M-1
...and it wasn't the only aircraft designed to carry the US Mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_mailplanes_1920-1929
Pat
Pat Flannery
> And that's where it should have been cancelled. Of course, we've
> discussed all that already.
>
> And that's part of why the group is dead. Without something new going
> on that actually has a chance of succeeding, there's really nothing to
> do but flame idiots until they're toasty.
Paraphrasing Yogi Berra, space history is all behind us. ;-)
Pat
Craig Bingman
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's not so much that, but rather that if the science isn't exciting
>the people don't think it's science. Decades of edutainment have done
>that for us.
The Station Science page is poorly executed and yes, it completely fails to capture
the attention of fellow scientists from related fields, let alone the general public's
attention.
If you would like to see a good example of communicating science to the taxpaying public,
look here:
http://kb.psi-structuralgenomics.org/
and here:
When I look at the Station Science page, I would expect to be able to see a photograph
describing the experiment, an experimental result for completed missions, perhaps
a photograph of the experiment _in situ_ at ISS, and optimally, a brief video from
someone at NASA or the experimental group explaining why I should care about this
experiment.
If there is such a page describing station science, I'd love to be directed to it.
--
--
cbin...@panix.com
Craig Bingman
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>Except that, maybe one has: a vaccine for salmonella.
>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/14/salmonella-vaccine.html
Maybe, but it is unclear to me what part of the putative vaccine development
was actually made possible by the microgravity experiments.
Just because a group did work on (A) the effect of microgravity on bacterial
virulence and the same group is (B) doing work on a vaccine does not mean that
A led to B.
It is a bit of a stretch, based on what I know about the molecular mechanisms
of bacterial virulence, but I would love to be mistaken.
--
--
cbin...@panix.com
hal...@aol.com
> In article <n332m5934fuptk1c388k4vifav1cl7a...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Thorn �<bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Except that, maybe one has: a vaccine for salmonella.
> >http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/14/salmonella-vaccine.html
>
> Maybe, but it is unclear to me what part of the putative vaccine development
> was actually made possible by the microgravity experiments.
>
> Just because a group did work on (A) the effect of microgravity on bacterial
> virulence and the same group is (B) doing work on a vaccine does not mean that
> A led to B. �
>
> It is a bit of a stretch, based on what I know about the molecular mechanisms
> of bacterial virulence, but I would love to be mistaken.
> --
> --
Hey solar space power is a great wonderful idea:)
China can design build and launch it for a fraction of what it would
cost in the US. Elminates minimum wage OSHA and lots other costs like
social security.
So china can beam down the power and sell it to us.
While they are at it their coal to gasoline plants can sell us all the
gasoline we need too.
Why build ANYTHING IN OUR COUNTRY? while others can do it cheaper?
Heck just buy space access from china onboard their new space station.
While waiting for a berth on one of their many moon missions. We can
go as tourists.
Chinas profits can be reinvested in Mars and asteroid missions.
Wonder what china will charge to deflect a asteroid from hitting the
US?
giveitawhirl2008
> In article <4b612192.1288180...@news.supernews.com>,
The closest thing to the science page you're looking for is:
http://ryushin018.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/war_of_the_worlds.jpg