|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#251
March 14th 05, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#252
March 14th 05, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:49:05 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff : Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor : glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : : If USA owned the shuttles rather than just operating them do you : think : : : they should be barred from selling spare seats? : : : : The USA? Who is that? We do own the shuttle. The country not some : corp. : : : I'd been wondering if there was any point. If you are going to try : : arguing a point, at least have some clue of what you're wittering about. : : Go look up United Space Alliance. : : I figured it was something esoteric. Okay, if the USA owned the shuttle, : then what? Grounded indefinitely? : : Esoteric? This isn't "something esoteric". : : For someone who's been spouting that you'd like to see DOD develop the next : generation "space plane", you ought to know more about the existing shuttle : program and how it operates. : Eric ought to know more about almost everything. But he doesn't, and : continues to make an almost daily fool of himself on Usenet anyway. I'll stack my knowledge against yours any day, Randy-boy. Eric
|
|
#253
March 14th 05, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:49:05 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : If USA owned the shuttles rather than just operating them do you think : : they should be barred from selling spare seats? : : The USA? Who is that? We do own the shuttle. The country not some corp. : I'd been wondering if there was any point. If you are going to try : arguing a point, at least have some clue of what you're wittering about. : Go look up United Space Alliance. I figured it was something esoteric. Okay, if the USA owned the shuttle, then what? Grounded indefinitely? Esoteric? This isn't "something esoteric". For someone who's been spouting that you'd like to see DOD develop the next generation "space plane", you ought to know more about the existing shuttle program and how it operates. Eric ought to know more about almost everything. But he doesn't, and continues to make an almost daily fool of himself on Usenet anyway.
|
|
#254
March 15th 05, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#256
March 15th 05, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Answer the question about what the status would be if USA owned the shuttle. If USA owned and operated the shuttles, they should be able to sell seats, just as the Russians do. Furthermore, they should be able to sell more than seats. They should be able to sell entire launches and missions. Unfortunately, the shuttle costs so much to fly that no one in their right mind would want to do this. I know that USA isn't going to be able to keep the shuttle flying without public funds. You're right, but at that point, it's more about cost than anything else. Note that this is what doomed Mir. While the Russians were willing to keep sending Progress and Soyuz to Mir, the private money never materialized to make this a reality. So, we're back to the point of cost. Without CATS, it really doesn't matter much who owns what, since manned launches are too expensive anyway. Furthermore, NASA and DOD have had terrible records when it comes to creating launch vehicles that are cheaper to launch than their previous iterations. The solution? Don't let either one of them develop the next generation launch vehicle. Force them to buy flights on whatever commercial launch vehicles emerge. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
|
#257
March 15th 05, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JATO @jatobservatory.org" jatoNo-Canned-Ham wrote in message news  The Shuttle is not a money maker it never has been. While the shuttle is operated by "USA", you can believe neither company would dare even consider operating the shuttle as a purely commercial revenue generating venture. There is no market for it. I think everyone here knows that the shuttle is hideously expensive to operate. There already is cheap access to space. I wouldn't call existing ELV's cheap access to space. Yes they are cheaper than the shuttle, but that's not hard to do. NASA needs to rethink how they get men into space. It doesn't have to be in the same vehicle that is used to carry a payload. I agree with the above points. Unmanned rockets already do that very well and a lot cheaper than the shuttle. I do not agree with this. ELV's are still far too expensive. I think that any vehicle that you treat as ordinance will end up this way. It's just too hard to make such a vehicle both very inexpensive and very reliable when you throw the entire thing away each time. One point to make is that any failure of an ELV costs quite a bit of money. You end up loosing the payload, and the failure investigation is very difficult since you often can't even recover the launch vehicle to examine it. The investigation must rely mostly on telemetry and on (expensive) engineering analysis. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
|
#258
March 15th 05, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : I figured it was something esoteric. Okay, if the USA owned the shuttle, : : then what? Grounded indefinitely? : : : : Esoteric? This isn't "something esoteric". : : : : For someone who's been spouting that you'd like to see DOD develop the next : : generation "space plane", you ought to know more about the existing shuttle : : program and how it operates. : : : Eric ought to know more about almost everything. But he doesn't, and : : continues to make an almost daily fool of himself on Usenet anyway. : : I'll stack my knowledge against yours any day, Randy-boy. : You do, foolishly, almost every day. Your stack always come up pretty : short against almost everyone's, not just mine. laughing
|
|
#259
March 15th 05, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JATO @jatobservatory.org (jatoNo-Canned-Ham) wrote:
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:22:12 +0000 (UTC), : (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Anthony Frost ) wrote: : : In message : : (Eric Chomko) wrote: : : : Anthony Frost ) wrote: : : : : : If USA owned the shuttles rather than just operating them do you think : : : they should be barred from selling spare seats? : : : : The USA? Who is that? We do own the shuttle. The country not some corp. : : : I'd been wondering if there was any point. If you are going to try : : arguing a point, at least have some clue of what you're wittering about. : : Go look up United Space Alliance. : : I figured it was something esoteric. Okay, if the USA owned the shuttle, : then what? Grounded indefinitely? : : Face it, right now NASA is the big customer for space. And until another : one exists outside of the US Govt, your commercial industry won't go : anywhere. The point is that you need NASA to keep spaceflight going until : newer and cheaper access to space exists. Then the basis for a commercial : industry can actually take hold. If you disagree with this, then spell out : : NASA is not the big customer for space. The big customer for space are the : commercial companies that need communications spacecraft. People like : Echostar, DTV, Intelsat, Sirius, Astra, SES Americom, Inmarsat, B-Sky, etc. Are you going to tell me that their combined revenue exceeds $16.4 billion? Well, certainly manned spaceflight, NASA is the biggest customer. : I suggest you look at the manifests for the Atlas, Proton, Sea Launch , : Ariane and Delta rockets. The people who have the most bookings for those : rockets are the customers for space. Yes NASA and the DoD book launch : vehicles, but the real money that the launch vehicle manufacturer are after : come from the commercial sector. The NASA and DoD money pays the utility : bills. The Shuttle is not a money maker it never has been. While the : shuttle is operated by "USA", you can believe neither company would dare : even consider operating the shuttle as a purely commercial revenue : generating venture. There is no market for it. There already is cheap : access to space. NASA needs to rethink how they get men into space. It : doesn't have to be in the same vehicle that is used to carry a payload. : Unmanned rockets already do that very well and a lot cheaper than the : shuttle. So you think that we should use ELV for payload as well as humans just not within the same vechicle? That those two launches will be cheaper than a single launch of the shuttle? Have you done an analysis on this with like crew sizes and payload sizes side by side? I take it that operations support will be the same or do you think that mission ops could be made cheaper given your scenario? Eric : Just my 2 cents : -JATO : http://jatobservatory.org
|
|
#260
March 15th 05, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff Findley ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message : ... : : Answer the question about what the status would be if USA owned the : shuttle. : If USA owned and operated the shuttles, they should be able to sell seats, : just as the Russians do. True. : Furthermore, they should be able to sell more than seats. They should be : able to sell entire launches and missions. Unfortunately, the shuttle costs : so much to fly that no one in their right mind would want to do this. So, you think we can make a shuttle-sized vechicle that is cheaper than the shuttle? : I know that USA isn't going to be able to keep the shuttle flying without : public funds. : You're right, but at that point, it's more about cost than anything else. : Note that this is what doomed Mir. While the Russians were willing to keep : sending Progress and Soyuz to Mir, the private money never materialized to : make this a reality. Yes, I know. Instead we pushed forward with ISS and the private sector lost an oppurtunity. Perhaps that was the best call as Mir was very old by the time it was terminated. I'd like to see ISS go commercial someday. : So, we're back to the point of cost. Without CATS, it really doesn't matter : much who owns what, since manned launches are too expensive anyway. Well according to JATO we have CATS. I'm thinking he means in the area of small payload, like an EOS, which is unmanned. I take it you mean CATS as in manned as a replacement of the shuttle. We ALL want that! I'd even think that NASA and USA would want that. : Furthermore, NASA and DOD have had terrible records when it comes to : creating launch vehicles that are cheaper to launch than their previous : iterations. The solution? Don't let either one of them develop the next : generation launch vehicle. Force them to buy flights on whatever commercial : launch vehicles emerge. Then we wait. For how long? Do you think we'll automatically get cheaper access to space by forcing the DOD and NASA to the sidelines? I think you see the problem clearly but not the solution. Eric : Jeff : -- : Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NYT: Death Sentence for the Hubble? | Pat Flannery | History | 39 | February 20th 05 05:59 PM |
| Death Sentence for the Hubble? | Neil Gerace | History | 17 | February 15th 05 02:06 PM |
| Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
| UFO Activities from Biblical Times (Long Text) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | UK Astronomy | 3 | December 25th 03 10:41 PM |
| UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
Linear Mode
