Losers from Obama's proposed 2011 budget

On Feb 2, 8:21*am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:muigm5tt3t3b071d5m3ftm3sn2nusd03sh@4ax .com...

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:We've heard the Administration's proposed budget, but that does not mean
:that Congress and the Senate have to roll over and accept it. *I suspect
:that there will be some sort of compromise to help retain jobs in the
:districts which are hit hardest by the loss of the shuttle program.
:

In other words, instead of a space program we'll get a jobs program.
All the intellectual talent will be let go and the union folks will be
retained to spend money to no purpose.

I certainly wouldn't like to see a shuttle derived launch vehicle for this
very reason, but I think it's entirely possible that the Congress and the
Senate will want their NASA jobs program to continue in their districts.

:I expect Congress and the Senate to fight to keep Orion (perhaps not with
:exactly the same specs it would have needed to fly on Ares I and perform
a
:lunar mission) as well as possibly something like an Ares V Lite or
DIRECT's
:Jupiter. *Something with SRB's,
:

I'm against it. *People on solids should automatically be recognized
as a bad idea.

Also agreed, but I'm talking about politics. *I don't know how or why, but
ATK seems to be a powerful political force, when compared to the relative
size of the government contracts it gets.

:One
:trick which could be used would be to compromise by calling them both
:"commercial", perhaps even letting the contractors take over the bulk of
the
:development work.
:

Uh, don't contractors already do that? *They just do it under NASA
direction.

So how would this be different?

It wouldn't be much different, especially if a "commercial" shuttle derived
launch vehicle is being launched from NASA facilities at KSC.

I hope that the Administration gets its way, but I'm not sure how much
political capitol, if any, they would be willing to spend on this effort.
Space, after all, just isn't *that* important. *It's not *that* many
billions of dollars in the federal budget. *This is why I suspect some sort
of compromise will happen and NASA will get to keep some of its government
design bureau pork in the form of Orion and perhaps a shuttle derived HLV to
launch it.

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

Which is very likely, meaning Michoud, Marshall, and KSC won't lose
that many jobs-remember that this is an election year, and that will
be important. Even the Augustine Commission reccommended a government
vehicle as a hedge against failure to deliver by commercial providers,
and that is something Congress may very well insist on. And frankly,
until these commercial providers put meat on the table as regards to
their promises, count me as as a skeptic.

"Graystar" wrote in message
.. .

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
"Graystar" wrote in message

Limiting followups


Yes, we know that. Cut foreign aid.

Do you actually know how little that would save?

A dollar here, a dollar there. So cut the welfare program entitlements
and the elected official salaries.
They should not be making 6 figure incomes.

Again, any idea how little this would save? And quite honestly, I want to
attract the best and brightest to fill these jobs. That means competitive
wages.



Remove the illegals bankrupting all the hospitals. Stop the banks from
being mismanaged by the Government.

I see you believe these lies. Any evidence? I thought not.

Um Yeah. I do have evidence. My people are in the medical front lines.
Have you not been watching the news?

Yes I have. I've also been doing reading. Illegals are hardly bankrupting
hospitals.

And Banks are not being mismanaged by the government.


As for banks being mismanaged by the government, in case you hadn't
noticed, it was the LACK of regulations that got us into this mess.

Nope. Lack of investigation and law enforcement due to complicity and
political retribution fears.
In effect, someone shackled the watchdogs and bought them off with
stimulus steaks or marginalized them to ineffectiveness.

What watch dogs? What laws prevented CDS? None. Bank deregulation has
been going on for over a decade now.

We could use a good Elliot Ness about now.

You mean a government employee? Will you make up your mind. Is the
government the cause or the cure?



Umm, the banks themselves? Seriously, who was offering zero down-payment
loands, interest only loans etc.

By Government Mandate.

Umm, no, that's a lie. Show a single government mandate that forced
banks to give out such loans.
Banks did it because stockholders demanded ever larger dividends and
everyone "knew" that housing prices could only go up!



Who was then bundling these and selling them as Credit Default Swaps with
no accountability or regulations covering them.

GSE Federally controlled enterprises headed by corrupted politicians never
held to account.

You're obviously off in la-la land. Enjoy the view. When you come back to
reality, let me know.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Feb 2, 1:13*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
We should all go out to the Ares 1 pad and howl all night to warn other
canceled spacecraft programs of its approach to Stovokor.
It is time for opera.
"Dyna-Soar...and...Blue Gemini!
Brother warriors...in the night!
Dyna-Soar...and...Blue Gemini!
Neither spacecraft...would get a flight!..."

You know, I like this idea better than any other that's been proposed
so far.

I am, as usual, a bit confused. If we're not going to the Moon or
Mars, and focusing on satellite and probe work instead, then why
bother with a manned space program at all? You don't need to continue
the Orion, or design a man-rated Dragon, or even keep the ISS
functional, if all you're going to do is launch another Pathfinder or
Hubble.

On Feb 2, 10:46*am, "Graystar" wrote:
Just a few:
*Free space to experiment with new ideas
that would be "green" on Earth after they are proven and debugged,
and without Earth Firster or other "activist" interferences.

There are plenty of activists who will object to any experiments you
want to run on the Moon. Heck, people objected to the Pioneer probes
because they had naked people on them.

*Mineral ore Resources laying on the surface = money

Turns out there's not a lot of profitable minerals on the Moon. The
best you can hope for is titanium, which currently goes for about $20
a pound. Aluminum, magnesium, silicon etc. are worth even less.

*Larger scale Low gravity experiments to improve all kinds of industrial
processes

Which could be done in orbit with expanded space stations.

*Biofarm experiments

You mean sustainable agriculture? How would that be easier to
experiment with on the Moon?

*Alternate fuels

You can pick up helium-3 on the Moon, if you're willing to strip-mine
a couple million tons of regolith. But unless you've got the right
kind of fusion reactor to put the helium-3 in, it's not going to do
you much good.

*Experiments with making seals more effective against lunar dust that would
improve Earth side seals.

Earth dust and Moon dust are not the same. Why should the lessons
from one carry over to the other?

Does the project to can Constellation raise the odds that the Shuttle
might be funded for a few more years ?


Politicians would see this as a compromise to keep NASA jobs in florida
and New Orleans.

Florida employees could use the stand down time (while waiting for new
ETs/SRBs) to perform heavy maintenance on orbiters, and the Michoud
follks would obviously be busy starting production for ETs.

If the plans would be for no more than 2 flights per year, NASA could
probably scale back the fixed costs/infrastructure needed for those 2
flights only, and if they do some of the upgrades during heavy
maintenance, they could further reduce maintenance costs for shuttles.
Nothing revolutionary, but it would keep jobs in politically sensitive
areas and keep the USA in space.

"Graystar" wrote in message
.. .

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

******
Space solar has some serious problem right now.
I hear they are working on the multilayer solar cells to make them
profitable to reproduce en masse,


Check out this attempt at a commercially financed
Space Solar Power company. Especially look at the
corporate science advisors. Looks like a serious effort
and they think it can be practical now.

Space Energy Inc technical advisors
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc sales presentation.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

Home page
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm




but that's only part of the problem.
There is a thought.

Keep in mind as far as I can tell SPS has only
recieved some $25million total research over
the years...nothing. And some people now think
that the power should be collected by concentrating
mirrors in space which directly powers lasers.
The lasers would transmit the power only in space
to the transmitters, which would convert it to
microwaves and beam it down as normally
imagined. The advantages are huge, in that
it wouldn't require those multi-mile size solar
cell collectors, and the recievers could be in
geo stationary orbit, which the transmitters
in low orbit.

A dedicated Apollo like research program might
come up all kinds of advances, any one of which
could make it practical.


..USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Damien Valentine wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:13 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
We should all go out to the Ares 1 pad and howl all night to warn other
canceled spacecraft programs of its approach to Stovokor.
It is time for opera.
"Dyna-Soar...and...Blue Gemini!
Brother warriors...in the night!
Dyna-Soar...and...Blue Gemini!
Neither spacecraft...would get a flight!..."

You know, I like this idea better than any other that's been proposed
so far.

I am, as usual, a bit confused. If we're not going to the Moon or
Mars, and focusing on satellite and probe work instead, then why
bother with a manned space program at all? You don't need to continue
the Orion, or design a man-rated Dragon, or even keep the ISS
functional, if all you're going to do is launch another Pathfinder or
Hubble.

The problem with the ISS is that no country wants to be first to jump
ship on the thing, although in these economic times they probably all
wish (except Russia, who gets money from other countries for its ISS
services)that they had never gotten involved in it in the first place.
As far as future US manned spaceflight goes, as Bluto said: "Was it over
when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" ;-)

Pat

"Damien Valentine" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 10:46 am, "Graystar" wrote:
Just a few:
*Free space to experiment with new ideas
that would be "green" on Earth after they are proven and debugged,
and without Earth Firster or other "activist" interferences.

There are plenty of activists who will object to any experiments you
want to run on the Moon. Heck, people objected to the Pioneer probes
because they had naked people on them.

*Mineral ore Resources laying on the surface = money

Turns out there's not a lot of profitable minerals on the Moon. The
best you can hope for is titanium, which currently goes for about $20
a pound. Aluminum, magnesium, silicon etc. are worth even less.

***
Yeah, but if you can refine it there, plus with a green campaign?... and the
energy to drive the plant from nuclear & solar?
those issues can be overcome fairly fast.
Besides, Cars stuff made from Moon Metal? Sounds like a marketers delight.
***

*Larger scale Low gravity experiments to improve all kinds of industrial
processes

Which could be done in orbit with expanded space stations.

***
Only some of that can.
In situ processing and dealing with the problems of lunar regolith over time
cannot be done well in expanded stations.
Why? Because some problems take time to make themselves known... so that we
can solve them.
***

*Biofarm experiments

You mean sustainable agriculture? How would that be easier to
experiment with on the Moon?

***
Room for one. Terrorism and political variability for 2 and 3.
We can no longer assume long term political stability.
Lunar research would be harder to reach out and touch for those seeking on
the short term to do so.
Naturally there are a boatload of assumptions there too, on both sides of
that.
***

*Alternate fuels

You can pick up helium-3 on the Moon, if you're willing to strip-mine
a couple million tons of regolith. But unless you've got the right
kind of fusion reactor to put the helium-3 in, it's not going to do
you much good.

***
Patience Patience.
***

*Experiments with making seals more effective against lunar dust that
would
improve Earth side seals.

Earth dust and Moon dust are not the same. Why should the lessons
from one carry over to the other?

***
Nope. They are not the same.
But to assume they would not contribute to Earth solutions "just because" is
no argument.
***

***
Thanks for the lively discussion. I'm out for now.
Nice conversing with you.
I've some radiation detectors to build & stuff so... when I come back, if I
do get back,
I'll put more specific detail into the post questions to make it easier.
Don't wait up. Not that you would.... grin
It will just happen when it happens or someone else will do it for me.

Anyway, best fortunes to all you working on the problems.
Most of us are fans, some are contributors, and all want the programs
success in spite of the naysayers.
Best wishes.

Graystar



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
Damien Valentine wrote:
*Biofarm experiments

You mean sustainable agriculture? How would that be easier to
experiment with on the Moon?

Safer to grow Triffids on Moon, although lower gravity will make range
of poisonous quills greater.

Pat

LOL! I think we already have those here now. Pod People.

Have a good time Pat. So long and Thanks for all the fish.
=])
Graystar


http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Jonathan" wrote in message

"Graystar" wrote in message
.. .

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

******
Space solar has some serious problem right now.
I hear they are working on the multilayer solar cells to make them
profitable to reproduce en masse,


Check out this attempt at a commercially financed
Space Solar Power company. Especially look at the
corporate science advisors. Looks like a serious effort
and they think it can be practical now.

Space Energy Inc technical advisors
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc sales presentation.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

Home page
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm




but that's only part of the problem.
There is a thought.

Keep in mind as far as I can tell SPS has only
recieved some $25million total research over
the years...nothing. And some people now think
that the power should be collected by concentrating
mirrors in space which directly powers lasers.
The lasers would transmit the power only in space
to the transmitters, which would convert it to
microwaves and beam it down as normally
imagined. The advantages are huge, in that
it wouldn't require those multi-mile size solar
cell collectors, and the recievers could be in
geo stationary orbit, which the transmitters
in low orbit.

A dedicated Apollo like research program might
come up all kinds of advances, any one of which
could make it practical.


.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Mucho Thanks!
I'll check it out.

That's one of the things I thought would be good for 1st lunar Lab... a
rectenna and a powersat.
Test it there before Earth to keep it safe that's what I meant about the
alternative "fuels" point. In this case microwaves.

Gotta go for now.
Thanks again!
Graystar



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!