NASA's long-running 'Cover Story' Comes to an End!

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Ramon F Herrera wrote:

:
:The question is not whether we explore or not - we always will.
:
:The question is when.
:
:What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
:anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
:disappear.
:

And the answer becomes 'never', because 'later' is always good
enough...

The key is to create a program which can fit within NASA's budget. Ares
broke the budget. A big HLV is always going to cost a lot to own and
operate because the flight rate is so pitifully low. The key is to enable
big missions with existing vehicles. We shouldn't have to keep throwing
away all of our current launch vehicle assets every time a new mission is
proposed. Saturn V was a dead end. Shuttle was a dead end. I believe Ares
I and Ares V would have been yet another dead end. It's time to stop going
down dead ends.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Ramon F Herrera wrote:


What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
disappear.

On the other hand, Alpha Centauri may ram Earth:
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcomi...de-remake.html

Pat

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
Scenario: Chris Columbus never persuaded Isabella to finance his trip.
Result from your reasoning: here we are, in the 21st. century and the
new continent remains to be discovered.

Or, here we are in the 21st. century sacrificing the Indians to Odin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ramon F Herrera wrote:


What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are
going anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate
or disappear.

On the other hand, Alpha Centauri may ram Earth:
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcomi...de-remake.html

Oh, good; I fondly remember the 1951 original, although it
certainly wasn't up to the level of, say, the original
"The Day The Earth Stood Still." But I'll be looking
forward to this remake.

Bob M.

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:34:44 -0800, "The Big DP"
wrote:

Brian....you know that Bob is incapable of a measured OR mature response.
Don't you?

...Dougie, where trolls like "jonathan" are concerned, such responses
are insufficient and actually have no effect. They're not here for
rational discourse, they're here to annoy, harass and otherwise troll.
Why many of you refuse to accept this and treat the pathetic maladroit
accordingly totally escapes me.

OM

Well Bobbie....just like with Bob H, or Brad or any of the other folks who
annoy me, I can choose to ignore them. It is SO amazingly easy to do that I
am surprised a person such as yourself hasn't tried it. I mean really
Bobbie, why bother? WTF is it so damn imperative that you threaten people
with death, wish ill will for them and just are plain abhorrent. Bob,
really, WHY do you insist on going least common denominator all the time?

All you succeed in doing is alienating the people you seem to think like the
idea of you going off on practically anyone with a point of view who is just
a little out of kilter with the rest of us. That and that ridicilous
vendetta you have with Keith Cowing. Frankly I could care less whatever it
was that he did. It is his website he can do what the hell he wants with it.
If he bans someone that is surely at his discretion and he doesn't have to
justify, explain or ever need a rational reason. Do you know why that is? I
bet you can guess.

And you going on an on how you won't stand for it and how dare they behave
that way...yadda yadda yadda makes you look like some 3 year old stamping
his feet because the big people won't listen to him and let him have his own
way. I've seen it with my own child from time to time and for a little kid
it can be annoying to deal with, but to watch an adult act in the same
manner not only is it irritating it is also embarrassing.

I don't know how you do it Bob. I really don't.

The key is to create a program which can fit within NASA's budget. �Ares
broke the budget. �A big HLV is always going to cost a lot to own and
operate because the flight rate is so pitifully low. �The key is to enable
big missions with existing vehicles. �We shouldn't have to keep throwing
away all of our current launch vehicle assets every time a new mission is
proposed. �Saturn V was a dead end. �Shuttle was a dead end. �I believe Ares
I and Ares V would have been yet another dead end. �It's time to stop going
down dead ends.

Jeff
--

Thats why NASA SHOULD of selected at the time of columbias loss using
delta and atlas heavies for launching, using 2 seperate existing
boosters would of meant a booster failure wouldnt ground US manned
space.

Of course NASA wanted to pay off existing shuttle contractors, and
ares was born.

NASA got what it deserved! Pick a bad design, lose that portion of
your agency

"The Big DP" wrote in message
...

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:34:44 -0800, "The Big DP"
wrote:

Brian....you know that Bob is incapable of a measured OR mature response.
Don't you?

...Dougie, where trolls like "jonathan" are concerned, such responses
are insufficient and actually have no effect. They're not here for
rational discourse, they're here to annoy, harass and otherwise troll.
Why many of you refuse to accept this and treat the pathetic maladroit
accordingly totally escapes me.

OM

Well Bobbie....just like with Bob H, or Brad or any of the other folks who
annoy me, I can choose to ignore them. It is SO amazingly easy to do that
I am surprised a person such as yourself hasn't tried it.


It only bugs me when OM doesn't respond. He's a very reliable
indicator of whether I hit a 'NASA' nerve or not. And that
statement isn't meant as reverse psychology either on OM, it's
true. He is a good barometer.


Jonathan

s

"Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
...

The question is not whether we explore or not - we always will.

The question is when.


When we get far lower cost to orbit I would think.
But just that as a goal won't cut it, since the
benefits are indirect, it's a much harder sell.
Lower cost to orbit needs to be within a larger
goal, one where the benefits are direct and easy
to see. Which is another reason why I go on and on
about Space Solar Power.




What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
disappear.

-Ramon

Dean wrote:
So what? A lot of military developed equipment has useful civilian
applications. I drive a HUMMER...and then there's GPS...

Don't forget the MRE's

And for what its worth, the Saturn boosters were not military in
origin.

Actually, they were somewhat military in origin; Saturn I was going to
be used for the Army's Project Horizon, a plan to build a military Moon
base: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm
....and the US Air Force started the F-1 engine project that ended up
being used on the Saturn V's first stage. They couldn't think of
anything to do with it, so NASA took over the program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_%28rocket_engine%29
Air force funding also played a role in the development of the RL-10 and
J-2 LOX/LH2 engines, which were intended to be used for _their_ Moon
base program, Project Lunex:
http://www.friends-partners.org/part...cles/lunex.htm

Pat

On Feb 5, 8:20*am, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
The question is not whether we explore or not - we always will.

The question is when.

What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
disappear.

-Ramon


The sooner the better. Especially for those who weren't around for
Apollo or were just too young.