NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

in article , Rand Simberg at
h wrote on 12/7/06 5:41 PM:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:36:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

And yet NASA is determined to develop its own launch vehicles (at taxpayers'
expense) despite the existence of Atlas V and Delta IV. Everyone knows
that
NASA would be the only users of Ares I/V.

As long as NASA quits trying to make money by offering commercial launches,
what's wrong with them developing their own launchers. Vehicles to reach
the
moon and Mars are not commodities. Gasoline is.

Access to Low Earth Orbit for payloads up to 20 tons is not a commodity, but
it is almost "off-the-shelf".

If NASA were to buy 24 of these flights per year, they would be a commodity,
probably at below $70 million per shot. So all NASA's launch requirements,
for
a significant moon program, at $1.5 billion per year.

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last time a
private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
upper stage.

You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
hundred? Why?

Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub. NASA is
the epitome of caution, EOS.

George Evans

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:36:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA
will probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last
time a private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And
even with taking payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want
NASA to control the upper stage.

You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
hundred? Why?

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:39:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last time a
private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
upper stage.

You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
hundred? Why?

Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub.

What an absurd and illogical argument.

Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
the Russians do it better.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:48:19 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:36:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA
will probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last
time a private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And
even with taking payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want
NASA to control the upper stage.

You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
hundred? Why?

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.

The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.

George Evans wrote:
in article , Alex Terrell
at wrote on 12/7/06 1:20 AM:

George Evans wrote:

in article , Jeff Findley at
wrote on 12/5/06 9:50 AM:

snip

And yet NASA is determined to develop its own launch vehicles (at taxpayers'
expense) despite the existence of Atlas V and Delta IV. Everyone knows that
NASA would be the only users of Ares I/V.

As long as NASA quits trying to make money by offering commercial launches,
what's wrong with them developing their own launchers. Vehicles to reach the
moon and Mars are not commodities. Gasoline is.

Access to Low Earth Orbit for payloads up to 20 tons is not a commodity, but
it is almost "off-the-shelf".

If NASA were to buy 24 of these flights per year, they would be a commodity,
probably at below $70 million per shot. So all NASA's launch requirements, for
a significant moon program, at $1.5 billion per year.

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
probably outsource is putting cargo up.

Many options ...

NASA now plans a moon base. That will need a crew rotation twice (or
better still) once per year. So of the 24 flights I mentioned, 18 are
fuel stages, 4-5 are cargo or lunar landers and 1-2 are crew. (Crew
flights are really expensive - need eight 20-24 ton launches instead of
4 for the cargo).

OTOH, when is the last time a
private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
upper stage.

As Rand will tell you ad infinitum, no one's paid any one else to do it
yet.

But if we had a multipurpose Delta IV launcher going up 24 times per
year, or a Stick going up once per year, I would feel much more
comfortable on the 48th launch of the Delta than on the 2nd launch of
the Stick.

One of the reasons why Soyuz is so reliable is because its been up so
many times.

And even then, if my booster explodes, I'd prefer the survival odds on
a liquid fueled rather than a solid fueled.

And even then, the current NASA approach will cost about $7 billion per
year (I forget the exact analysis). An extra $5 billion for no
quantifiable benefit.

Rand Simberg wrote:"What an absurd and illogical argument.Nobody's been
given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,the Russians do it
better."


Yes rand we understand you have other motivations more than just the
success of a space program ie your own company is in the private space
business and offers a potential substitute product or service to nasa.
But you have also been an employee in the industry prior to starting
your own business, and so therefore you have been the beneficiary of
nasa/government by working for their contractors. Now technology and
information that has been developed by nasa that you are about to
utilize in performing your business, making you another beneficiary of
the governments spending or the us tax payers investments into our
space program or government. Now rand you stated earlier government
employees walked on the moon, but you my friend have had a career that
is the recipient of government based contracts, so you should act a
little more grateful otherwise your hypocrisy is the only absurdity
here.

tom

On 8 Dec 2006 06:21:27 -0800, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:"What an absurd and illogical argument.Nobody's been
given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,the Russians do it
better."


Yes rand we understand you have other motivations more than just the
success of a space program ie your own company is in the private space
business and offers a potential substitute product or service to nasa.

Much of my income over the past few years has come from NASA, you
moron.

Rand Simberg wrote:" Much of my income over the past few years has come
from NASA, you moron."

Than quit acting like a hypocrite, and rand insults do not make you
look any better, just demonstrate your lack of vocabulary.

And once againg rand we understand you have other motivations than just
the success of a space program ie your own company is in the private
space business and offers a potential substitute product or service.
But you have also been an employee in the industry prior to starting
your own business, and so therefore you have been the beneficiary of
nasa/government by working for their contractors. Now technology and
information that has been developed by nasa that you are about to
utilize in performing your business, making you another beneficiary of
the governments spending or the us tax payers investments into our
space program or government. Now rand you stated earlier government
employees walked on the moon, but you my friend have had a career that
is the recipient of government contracts, so you should act a little
more grateful otherwise your hypocrisy is the only absurdity here.

tom

On 8 Dec 2006 06:40:23 -0800, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:" Much of my income over the past few years has come
from NASA, you moron."

Than quit acting like a hypocrite

I'm not acting like a hypocrite. But you are acting like a spamming
moron.

Rand Simberg wrote:"I'm not acting like a hypocrite. But you are
acting like a spamming moron."

Denial, wow rand that is some serious denial...

Your anti nasa marketing is closer to spamming than my posts, but im
sure you will ague that as well..

You my friend have now admitted to having a career that is the
recipient of government contracts, so you should act a little more
grateful otherwise your hypocrisy is the only absurdity here.

tom