NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

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

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

Man up you wuss!

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

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
...
What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

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

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

Man up you wuss!

In article ,
says...

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

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

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

Man up you wuss!

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

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

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

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

Brian

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


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

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

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

Man up you wuss!

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

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

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

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

In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...

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

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

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

Jeff
--
"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

In article m,
says...

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


I have not watched the video yet.

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...lation_Garment

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

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...



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

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

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

Jeff
--
"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

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

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

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...



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

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

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

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

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

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

On Apr 10, 1:50*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...







On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...

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

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

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

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

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

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

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

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