NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

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, 11:35*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Oh, bobbert, bobbert. Still crying like Chicken Little. Your ignorance
of politics is legendary. Need you be reminded that the key members of
House and Senate Committees that deal with NASA all come from "Space
States", and they decide how much money NASA finally gets, NOT the
Administration. Again, you keep living in a fantasy world. Get out of
your basement and get into the real one for a change
your ignoring the elephants in the room......

the next election will likely see a big turn out of existing
congressional reps, they must know its coming given their approval
rate of 10% or less.

It's been that low for a long time and yet reelection rates are over
95%.



and the fiancial collapse of our country........

The sky is falling. *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!



those leaders of congress will likely be on the unemployment
line.......

You really are a buffoon. *Could you please educate yourself about
SOMETHING? **ANYTHING*????



incidently that was bob schieffers prediction on face the nation last
sunday.

Yeah, sure. *Go look at who's on the committees and then tell us which
ones you think will lose.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

He won't educate himself, Fred. He's stuck in his dream world and
that's that. Anything that conflicts with his fantasies he ignores, or
spins and twists to suit said fantasies.

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, 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.

On Dec 29, 11:03*am, bob haller wrote:
*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.

Liar on the former. No "vague plan"...Ever hear of SLS? I thought not.
SLS contracts are being issued, hardware such as J-2X is being tested,
the Orion's had a LAS (Launch Abort System) test, and so on. Come back
when you have more than mindless drivel.

On Dec 29, 2:08*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
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.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
pound" to "Russian passenger price".

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

fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.

currently nasa has no manned space capability

the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
would of liquified, besides it cost too much

the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
operational

the falcon if successful might make it affordable.

On Dec 29, 2:20*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:03*am, bob haller wrote:

*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.

Liar on the former. No "vague plan"...Ever hear of SLS? I thought not.
SLS contracts are being issued, hardware such as J-2X is being tested,
the Orion's had a LAS (Launch Abort System) test, and so on. Come back
when you have more than mindless drivel.

ares had hardware and a mock up flight test too.....

which led to zip nada nothing.

except congressional pork make work project thats going no where fast.

if dragon is successful nasa will look like a total waste