I wonder what will happen to Constellation

wrote:
On Oct 16, 9:25 am, kT wrote:
wrote:

And you speak for everyone, right? I guess you just can't see the
fascism in your statement. Has it ever occurred to you to let 'no one'
make their own decisions in life? Have you figured out you're a fascist?

You don't even know the meaning of the word

But you can't explain it to us.

What's expensive about 14 high pressure closed cycle stages combusion
cryogenic engines that ALREADY EXIST, are FLIGHT READY, and have been
throughly vetted out by demonstration with more the 350 ****ING FLIGHTS?


They are not "FLIGHT READY".

Don't tell those Hubble repair mission astronauts.

Wouldn't want to get them worried.

It costs more that 200 million per
year to make them flight ready

As opposed to say, bringing back a 40 year old engine and then
completely redesigning it and retesting it? As opposed to say using an
existing engine or an existing launch vehicles? Somehow, I just can't
take you seriously, especially when you pull numbers out of your ass.

A whole paragraph charlie. An entire PARAGRAPH! Whenever you're ready.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Why do I get the feeling that "Constellation" should be renamed "Dead Duck"?

What reason was there to think otherwise in January 2004 or at any
time since? The "sand chart" budget and the timing of its milestones
incorporated so many unlikely assumptions about development timing and
cost that there was really no need for the current debunking of its
deepest assumption ("the general fiscal picture will remain rosy
enough to support something this discretionary").