Losers from Obama's proposed 2011 budget

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

" Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.


The Wizards of Stupidity put the ISS in the wrong orbital plane.

"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...

" Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the
ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.


The Wizards of Stupidity put the ISS in the wrong orbital plane.

Other than the fact that w/o the political decision to include the Russians
there would be no ISS most likely.

And since we needed the Russians we needed the orbital plane it's in.






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

Val Kraut wrote:



The Wizards of Stupidity put the ISS in the wrong orbital plane.

It had to be in a orbit that both the Russians and US could reach with a
Soyuz or Shuttle.
The Shuttle suffers a payload penalty just getting into a orbit that's
far north enough to reach the ISS; that was so severe in the case of the
Columbia that it was never going to be used for missions to the ISS.

Pat

On Feb 3, 5:18�am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:

�The Wizards of Stupidity put the ISS in the wrong orbital plane.

It had to be in a orbit that both the Russians and US could reach with a
Soyuz or Shuttle.
The Shuttle suffers a payload penalty just getting into a orbit that's
far north enough to reach the ISS; that was so severe in the case of the
Columbia that it was never going to be used for missions to the ISS.

Pat

Station suffered from NASA management. Plan something wonderful large
complex that cant be affordable, in the hopes more money becomes
available............

Then study it to death, spend billions, begin construction, then watch
it collapse.

station was specifically designed to extend shuttles life.

Constellation moon mars is again in the collapse phase after spending
8 billion? maybe more?

wonder what nasas fall back position is?

extend shuttle??

I can already hear congress fearing all those JOBS going away.

Extend the shuttle till a commercial launcher is availble. just 2
flights a year.

We must keep man in manned space


WHILE REALLY KEEP THE PORK FLOWING!!! PLEASE!!! so many jobs depend on
it............

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...
:
: " Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the
: ISS,
: assemble them there, goto the moon,
: return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
: The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
: throwing in my 2 cents.
:
:
: The Wizards of Stupidity put the ISS in the wrong orbital plane.
:
:Other than the fact that w/o the political decision to include the
Russians
:there would be no ISS most likely.
:
:And since we needed the Russians we needed the orbital plane it's in.
:

"Desperately needed the Russians"? REALLY?

Umm, who are you quoting? No one I can see said "desperately". Nice
strawman.




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

On Feb 2, 6:43*pm, "Graystar" wrote:
Yeah, but if you can refine it there, plus with a green campaign?... and the
energy to drive the plant from nuclear & solar?

I'm quoting you the prices for the pure ingots, not for the raw ore.

Besides, Cars stuff made from Moon Metal? *Sounds like a marketers delight.

Before you sell the car made from lunar metals, you have to sell the
lunar metals. Manufacturers and engineers are bottom-line-oriented
people. If titanium and aluminum can be had cheaper on Earth, from
pre-existing mines in Africa or wherever, they're not going to pay for
start-up costs in an airless desert 240,000 miles away.

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.

I agree that processing the Moon's regolith could be done better on
the Moon. That's a given. But you're putting the cart before the
horse: why would we need to process lunar regolith?

Room for one. Terrorism and political variability for 2 and 3.

I wasn't aware organic farms were a major terrorist target. When did
this happen?

Patience Patience.

I agree. When there's the possibility that we can actually use
helium-3, then let's talk about mining it on the Moon. In the
meantime, we'll need some other rationale for lunar colonies.

But to assume they would not contribute to Earth solutions "just because" is
no argument.

But you're the one making the claim. I don't have to prove that Moon
dust *isn't* useful: you have to prove that Moon dust *is* useful.
And in large enough quantities that we have to found a permanently
manned base to get enough, instead of just launching a rover with an
Earth-return capsule.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:And since we needed the Russians we needed the orbital plane it's in.
:

"Desperately needed the Russians"? REALLY?

We inked the agreement with them just before their economy went right
down the crapper.
Then it was too late to back out of the deal, so a lot of the stuff they
were supposed to pay for that would make the ISS affordable got funded
by us instead.
James Oberg has a book out on this mess, called "Star-Crossed Orbits".

Pat

Fred J. McCall wrote:

WHY DID WE NEED THE RUSSIANS AT THAT POINT IN TIME????? WHY WERE THEY
WORTH ALL THE EXTRA MONEY THEY'VE COST?????

Considering that it is the russians who will allow the ISS to operate
once it is assembled, considering that it is the russians who have the
technology to send automated cargo ships to ISS on a regular basis, I
don't think that the USA is in any position today to criticise the
decision to partner with the russians.

Yes, the russians were late, needed the USA to subsidize them (by buying
Zarya and whatnot), but in the end, they are still here and have bailed
the USA out during the post Columbia shuttle groundings, and will now
bail the USA out when all USA manned space capabilities are ended.

And remember that had Zvezda been on time, it is quite likely that the
USA modules such as Destiny would have then been late.

In the end, even if the russians had been on time, the time for
"assembly complete" wouldn't have been that different.


History may show that the Russians will have been more reliable for ISS
than the americans. Remains to be seen if Progress, ATV and HTV can
sustain 6 crewmembers in the long term. The shuttle was a major
contributor to the supply of the ISS, especially water.


Without the russians, the same amount of money would likely have been
spent on ISS, but after Columbia, they could have decided to throw in
the towel and de-orbit the incomplete station and write off all that
investment before it was useful. The post-shuttle continuity offered by
the russians allows the USA and partners to use the station once it is
completed and thus not waste all that money with fancy fireworks over
the pacific.

Deorbiting ISS now would be like spending money to build a new house and
deciding to burn it down before you move in.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which we should have expected going in, regardless of what was or was
not cratering. Why was it too late to 'back out' if they couldn't
meet their end of the agreement?

We were trying to be all kissie-kissie gay-boy friends with them right
after the Cold War, even though they had already sapped and impurified
all of our precious bodily fluids with their damned fluoridated water plot.
I'll bet the water on the ISS is fluoridated also...at least in _our_
section of the station!

Pat