Plotting A New Course for NASA

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.

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.....

On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:
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.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?

On Nov 29, 9:35*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:





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.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher

On Nov 30, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:35*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:

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......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape *one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd have to have a different NASA chief back then-like Admiral
Steadle, who was considered for the job. But no, Dubya went for Mike
Griffin, and so..

On Nov 30, 6:52*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape *one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher

Yeah, we could just strap guys in lounge chairs to the nose of the
thing....

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

Isn't that what the Bobbert is going by?

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:52:34 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Yeah, we could just strap guys in lounge chairs to the nose of my
thing...and let me ream their tiny little buttcracks.

Perv, go to Penn State?

In article 77afbd3e-fed7-46a4-98e6-
, says...

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.....

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?



Yes. The Chinese booster. However, who knows what their standards are.


--
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.