Plotting A New Course for NASA

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision to
cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions, in
my opinion.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart



You know, it just dawned on me. Of the 13 launches of the Saturn V, 10 of
them occurred under Nixon's watch.




--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision to
cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions, in
my opinion.


Personally I'd argue Obama is a bit more culpable as I believe (I will admit
to not checking the timeline too closely) it would have been easier for
Obama to reverse the shuttle decision (or even to simply get a couple more
flights with some of the remaining tanks) than it would have been for Nixon
to reverse the Saturn V assembly line decision.

(Though I still think we should have flown Apollos 18 and 19 or Apollo 18
and Skylab B).


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:35:36 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

Personally I'd argue Obama is a bit more culpable as I believe (I will admit
to not checking the timeline too closely) it would have been easier for
Obama to reverse the shuttle decision (or even to simply get a couple more
flights with some of the remaining tanks)

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:35:36 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

Personally I'd argue Obama is a bit more culpable as I believe (I will
admit
to not checking the timeline too closely) it would have been easier for
Obama to reverse the shuttle decision (or even to simply get a couple more
flights with some of the remaining tanks)

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.


I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision
to cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions,
in my opinion.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart

I'll go along with that: they still should've at least flown the last three
Apollos and Skylab-B.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:



The fella who makes these asinine proposals is so politically and
technically naive it goes without saying.

It's also a question of assets vs. support. There's a grand total of
two
orbiters that can act as comm relays-not to mention the Deep Space
Nettwork
at Goldstone, Canberra, and Madrid. Two rovers max is what the network
can
support. And that's not counting the orbiters' primary mission of
orbital
photography of the surface-and that data also has to be sent back.-

so no biggie send a couple new orbiters as data relays with advanced
communication equiptement to increase bandwith availalble.


Sorry, but that's quite a biggie, which is why we don't have that
stuff already in place.


with rovers all over the planet some will be in darkness etc for any
number of reasons, so not all willl be talking at once.


Please read up on communications theory and study the infrastructure
available. Then get back to us.


and stating we cant because we dont have the capacity, is like
statuing we cant drive between new york and LA, if theres no road go
build one


Ok. How much more than the car does it cost to build the road?

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

All of which mean nothing to the Bobbert. He's stuck in his own fantasy
world, and nothing anyone says or does will drag him back into reality.

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision
to cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions,
in my opinion.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart

I'll go along with that: they still should've at least flown the last three
Apollos and Skylab-B.

That would have been a good trick with only two Saturn Vs leftover. ;-)






--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:
He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.

On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:





He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all.....