Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...nG=Search+News

What the **** is wrong with these people?

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.

On Feb 25, 4:51 pm, kT wrote:
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...commercial+lau...

What the **** is wrong with these people?

NASA isn't building anything. It is a proposal to lease land to a
commercial user.

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.


Made me cry from laughing so hard! Do you have some more joke
material you can post?
It did the same thing to the COTS reviewing team.

The proposal is crap and not viable. It doesn't do anything other
than say "make a rocket with the SSME's".
It doesn't say what the design is, how it will be built, and how it
will be launched. It makes no mention of a spacecraft to carry
logistics. It just hand waves everything and says "just give me the
money and I will make a rocket".
It assumes NASA is going to provide the contractors, when it is the
job of the proposer to make these agreements and cover their costs.
Especially, ULA, NASA has no contract mechanism with them regarding
launch operations. They aren't NASA's assets

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:51:31 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Feb 25, 4:51 pm, kT wrote:
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...commercial+lau...

What the **** is wrong with these people?

NASA isn't building anything. It is a proposal to lease land to a
commercial user.

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.


Made me cry from laughing so hard! Do you have some more joke
material you can post?

Please stop feeding the troll.

wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:51 pm, kT wrote:
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...commercial+lau...

What the **** is wrong with these people?

NASA isn't building anything. It is a proposal to lease land to a
commercial user.

Oh that's great, give a corporation unfettered access to a wildlife
preserve. Whoever proposed site 2 is out of their ****ing mind.

Site 1 certainly does have some possibilities for me, though, although
at this point I am mostly partial to SLC 34, SLC 37A and SLC 46.

The Air Force wants solar powered satellites, or haven't you heard?

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.


Made me cry from laughing so hard! Do you have some more joke
material you can post?
It did the same thing to the COTS reviewing team.

I fail to see what is so hard about a five meter rocket using an SSME as
primary propulsion. In fact, this rocket should be trivial to implement.

The proposal is crap and not viable. It doesn't do anything other
than say "make a rocket with the SSME's".

No, it says make an 'unmanned' rocket with an SSME, and carry the core
stage directly to orbit where it can be immediately utilized as space
based infrastructure for solar power satellites and space stations.

That's exactly what I am proposing. It's a trivial exercise.

It doesn't say what the design is, how it will be built, and how it
will be launched.

Sure it does. It clearly lays out the details, Pratt and Whitney
Rocketdyne will provide a single engine on the existing SSME service
contract, Boeing will provide the core stage on an existing Ares I upper
stage contract, Orbitec will design the rocket (Eric Rice has already
stated that he is interested in designing a rocket for the Air Force),
and Orion Propulsion will provide the attitude control system. Clear?

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

It makes no mention of a spacecraft to carry
logistics.

It clearly states that a nose cone aeroshield has the necessary geometry
and mass distribution for simple ballistic reentry with a water landing,
it has the necessary geometry for a shipping container for an SSME, and
a minimal attitude control system will suffice to enable it to perform
as a rendezvous test vehicle. The same attitude control system can
easily deorbit the vehicle.

The show stoppers, as always, remain mass and acceleration.

The entire idea is a trivial exercise in engineering.

It just hand waves everything and says "just give me the
money and I will make a rocket".

No, it says give Pratt and Whitney the money for an SSME, give Boeing
the money for a core stage, give Eric Rice at Orbitec the money to
design the rocket, and give Tim Pickens at Orion Propulsion the money to
design the attitude control systems. My cut is for me to continue my
work, and amounts to a grand total of 1 percent of the funded value.

It assumes NASA is going to provide the contractors, when it is the
job of the proposer to make these agreements and cover their costs.

Do these people want to keep their jobs after shuttle retirement or not?

Especially, ULA, NASA has no contract mechanism with them regarding
launch operations. They aren't NASA's assets

You forgot the period. That's a dead giveaway of your identity.

If NASA wants a rocket in record time, which can adequately provide jobs
for thousands of people after shuttle retirement, then they will have to
get involved. Now that this competition is over, I can proceed to
present my proposal to industry, or alternatively on the NASA side, to
the esteemed Mr. Wayne Hale. Site 1 may indeed come in handy for me.

I admit, ULA is problematic, but since I need the EELVs to service my
large orbital space port constructed out of my cryogenic core stages,
then I am unconcerned. There is something for everybody in this thing.

Boeing, on the other hand, may very well be interested in designing a
real rocket, now that they have indeed unloaded the Delta IV to ULA.

Clearly Elon Musk may be interested in just such a vehicle, after he
achieves a level of success with his own rockets, since my core stage
will require hydrocarbon boosters before second generation propulsion.

You can kick and scream all you want, Jim, but clearly I didn't write
this proposal to win COTS money, I wrote it to save the space program.

You should be able to relate to that, considering the Ares I status.

I will also be presenting this proposal to democratic presidential
candidates, since they will be determining the future of it after the
guaranteed demise of the VSE, ESAS and the Constellation architecture.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:51:31 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Feb 25, 4:51 pm, kT wrote:
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...commercial+lau...

What the **** is wrong with these people?
NASA isn't building anything. It is a proposal to lease land to a
commercial user.

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.

Made me cry from laughing so hard! Do you have some more joke
material you can post?

Please stop feeding the troll.

Oh, go **** yourself, fascist.

Don't you get enough of that on your fascist blog?

You can never have enough launch pads.

The more the merrier I say.

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"kT" wrote in message
...
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

Now NASA wants to build two more :

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&h...nG=Search+News

What the **** is wrong with these people?

Wouldn't that money be better invested in more rockets?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

Read it and weep.

Brian Gaff wrote:

You can never have enough launch pads.

The more the merrier I say.

And all those idle and abandoned air force pads out at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station aren't enough launch pads for you? I count dozens.

Site two is a perversion. Whoever thought that up should be fired.

Site one, however, makes sense to me, except that they won't need it
once they cancel the VSE, ESAS and Constellation. 39A and B suffice.

Pat Flannery wrote:

OM wrote:.

...He won't stop. Jim's convinced he's the be-all and end-all, and is
too full of himself to stop fighting with the known trolls.

Everybody is welcome on the usenet, Mosley, even violent ****s like you.

However, that doesn't give you the right to libel, slander and threaten.

It'll come back to haunt you, you can't make it go away, it's archived.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...adc64f2c8ee34e

You probably haven't read the exciting new COTS proposal yet:

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

It all seems so easy when Tom E. Terrific describes it.

Read it and weep.

If NASA can't build a rocket with an existing SSME, but Elon Musk can
build a rocket with a brand new engine developed in house, what does
that tell you about NASA? Now NASA can't even build a rocket - period.

They can't even resurrect a 30 year old engine from the Apollo era.

An SSME powered SSTO is a trivial exercise in rocket technology today.

This is 2008, if you haven't noticed, we've been flying the shuttle for
almost 30 years now. When are you idiots going to join the modern world?

All I see here is all hail 'Henry Spencer', a fascist Rand Simberg, a
violent and degenerate Robert Mosley III, and a hick from North Dakota.

Good riddance. China and India are going to pass you by in space
technology like the history that your proud and vain nation is.

Unless you get your **** together really fast, America is history.

You just haven't figured it out yet, being the dumb hicks that you are.

I have given you a roadmap to the future, you can follow it, or not.

You've wasted your future because you are a nation founded on violence.

Revolutionary war, Indian wars, slavery, women's suffrage, Civil war,
Vietnam war, and now the Iraq war, genocide, secret prisons, state
sanctioned torture, domestic surveillance, you get what you pay for :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that
link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of
power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in
some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of
similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime
itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.
Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common
themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a
suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the
objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and
disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
“spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals,
and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably
labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and
increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion
and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian
laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the
country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray
from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure
media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible
with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the
general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
“national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as
unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by
their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was
generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the
ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the
“godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite
was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion
or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin
to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty
harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were
strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and
literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often
merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against
political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or
“traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial
gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the
benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example,
by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus
under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to
a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a
free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are
just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

On Feb 26, 1:49 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:18 pm, kT wrote:



I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

I have no idea, I don't use FORTH much anymore myself, I just use it
as a model on how real software should work, and how to make real
software work right. My primary training is in applied mathematics,
engineering and physics. Chemistry and condensed matter physics is
just a necessary sideline for me. Rocket science is multi-
disciplinary.

FORTH is still around in a big way, though, Elizabeth Rather has
already incorporated all of the higher order aspects of object
oriented programming in her commercial version of her Windows Forth. I
think it's called SwiftForth. Right now I'm into C++ because that is
the software that Martin Schweiger's Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is
written in.