NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

On Dec 28, 1:59*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:50*am, bob haller wrote:





congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
elections.....

You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? *Please explain just how
"the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.

the congressmen get groups to do their advertising for them.

so as to avoid campagn funding law limits,

they do this by promising stuff to these groups..... basically their
votes are bought

you scratch my back i will scratch yours.

this is a major cause of our countries troubles today.

it causes gridlock, because no one can compromise, even when its in
everyones best interest.

now here again is the direct paste from the republican debate. please
explain in detail how any of these presidential candidates are
supportive of MSF at all?
================================================== ===================
The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA
workers
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].

Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human
space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their
hand.

The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate,” he said.
“What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
failure.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**------------------------

One other thing, boobert: there's a saying among space buffs (which
clearly, you're not): "The Meek can have the Earth. The Rest of us are
going to the Stars." My bags are packed. So where are you, hmm? Since
you're obviously a Luddite, troll, and a Chicken Little, it's obvious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

your not going anywhere unless your depending on russia, and they
arent having a good run right now....

and anything nasa will cost you more than you could earn in several
lifetimes just for launch cost per pound

On Dec 28, 11:09*am, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:59*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Dec 28, 3:50*am, bob haller wrote:

congress doesnt listen to anyone but the wealthy who pay for their re
elections.....

You really are an ignorant sod, aren't you? *Please explain just how
"the wealthy" do this, given campaign finance limits.

the congressmen get groups to do their advertising for them.

so as to avoid campagn funding law limits,

they do this by promising stuff to these groups..... basically their
votes are bought

you scratch my back i will scratch yours.

this is a major cause of our countries troubles today.

it causes gridlock, because no one can compromise, even when its in
everyones best interest.

now here again is the direct paste from the republican debate. please
explain in detail how any of these presidential candidates are
supportive of MSF at all?
================================================== ===================
The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA
workers
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].

Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human
space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their
hand.

The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate,” he said.
“What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
failure.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------

One other thing, boobert: there's a saying among space buffs (which
clearly, you're not): "The Meek can have the Earth. The Rest of us are
going to the Stars." My bags are packed. So where are you, hmm? Since
you're obviously a Luddite, troll, and a Chicken Little, it's obvious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

your not going anywhere unless your depending on russia, and they
arent having a good run right now....

and anything nasa will cost you more than you could earn in several
lifetimes just for launch cost per pound- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not only are you one of the meek, but you're a lying twit. More "sky
is falling" BS. Come back when you have something else.

On Dec 28, 2:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

and anything nasa will cost you more than you could earn in several
lifetimes just for launch cost per pound

Bobbert, you innumerate ****!

The average American earns $1.6 million during their lifetime.
Presumably "several lifetimes" equates to more than two. *So your
claim is that launch costs per pound prohibit launching a human being
for $5 million or so.

Launch costs are around $10k/pound. *Let's use $15k/pound, just to be
generous to you. *If someone weighs less than 330 pounds or so, your
statement is obviously false.

Now assume a higher lifetime income (everyone isn't you, after all;
someone with a professional degree will earn $4.4 million in their
lifetime) and $10k/pound for launch costs. *Your statement is even
more false.

The only conclusion is that you are an innumerate buffoon who couldn't
figure his way out of a wet paper bag.


yeah delusional fred


Russia Hikes Price of Rocket Rides for U.S. Astronauts to $63 Million

Published March 14, 2011
| FoxNews.com


NASA, already committed to paying Russia millions of dollars to hitch
rides into space, had some expensive news to announce Monday: Russia
plan to start charging even more.

With the United States phasing out the shuttle program, the new way
for U.S. astronauts to get to the International Space Station will be
to catch a ride with the Russians, and NASA's existing contract for
that transport priced each rocket ride at just under $56 million.

Now, Russia is hiking the price for each rocket ride to nearly $63
million in 2014. The contract extension with the Russian Space Agency
totals $753 million, which covers trips for a dozen astronauts from
2014 through 2016.

Why such a price hike? NASA officials chalk it up to inflation.

NASA chief Charles Bolden says it's critical for U.S. companies to
take over this transportation job. The space shuttles used to do that
job are being retired this summer



Read mo http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...#ixzz1hrVKriJq

i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
ride.

in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here

On Dec 28, 3:35*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
ride.

Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.

in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here

Still irrelevant to your original remarks. *Would you like to recant?

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
*your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Mark Twain

would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?

each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......

On Dec 28, 3:59*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
ride.

Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.

in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here

Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?

would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?

each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......

I would prefer YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, you lying little ****. *'Price per
pound to launch'.

Explain to us how they sent the Shuttles up with the only payload
being the crew again....

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
*your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Mark Twain- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

compare the cost ofg falcon with any planned nasa launcher........ now
compare their price per pound

On Dec 28, 5:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:59*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:35 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
i beleve private people flying on soyuz were paying 20 million per
ride.

Soyuz isn't NASA and isn't charging 'pound to orbit' prices.

in any case it multiple times anyones lifetime take home pay here

Still irrelevant to your original remarks. Would you like to recant?

would you prefer the last nasa manned launch price?

each shuttle about 1.5 billion divided by 7 astronauts......

I would prefer YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, you lying little ****. *'Price per
pound to launch'.

Explain to us how they sent the Shuttles up with the only payload
being the crew again....

compare the cost ofg falcon with any planned nasa launcher........ now
compare their price per pound

Your claim wasn't "NASA is more expensive". *Your claim was YOU CANNOT
EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO PAY THE COST PER POUND
LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

Dodge and wriggle all you like. *It merely makes it OBVIOUS that
you're a lying ****.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

take a average american of 200 pounds and current launch cost per
pound times 20

current cost per pound is way too much for a human.

a easy way to think about this.......

with soyuz costs per person at what 63 million. how many people make
that much in a lifetime? and currently soyuz is the only commercially
available system


realize you cant compare price per pound for no living cargo with the
costs involved for humans

Your claim was YOU CANNOT EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.