NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

in article , Alex
Terrell at wrote on 12/8/06 5:23 AM:


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.

As soon as these facts are true, then NASA would be motivated to use the
Delta IV. Why would they want to waist money that could be spent on the
frontier?

And this constant whining about no one gives us money has got to go. Sell
your product. Private enterprise (with some balls) will always beat
government.

George Evans

Rand Simberg wrote:

Much of my....

Rand,

If you would stop feeding the troll, there's a /slight/ chance it will
fade away.

--
Dave Michelson

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:28:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dave
Michelson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Much of my....

Rand,

If you would stop feeding the troll, there's a /slight/ chance it will
fade away.

I will stop feeding it, but don't hope that will make it go away. It
won't.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

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.

As soon as these facts are true, then NASA would be motivated to use the
Delta IV. Why would they want to waist money that could be spent on the
frontier?

Because their goal is not to spend money on the frontier. Their goal
is to spend money in the right Congressional districts, and provide
continued employment for their people in them.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:56 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 this constant whining about no one gives us money has got to go.

It's not "whining." It's stating of a fact to point out how
nonsensical your argument is.

Dave Michelson wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Much of my....

Rand,

If you would stop feeding the troll, there's a /slight/ chance it will
fade away.

--
Dave Michelson


Gee dave i did not know you could deny facts so easily.

so dave do you care to answer how you would manage launches with the
faa regulations, and do you agree the private sector require the safety
regulations waived for those companies to succeed?

Otherwise you are the troll, now put up or....

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

: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.

What an absurd and illogical argument.

I always find it funny when 'private enterprise' fans scream that
their problem is that they don't get all that big government funding.

They don't seem to understand what 'private enterprise' is...

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:05:35 -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:
:
: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.
:
:Other than the private sector's lack of track record.
:
:If you follow the thread back, he said that "no one does it better."

Correct.

:That implies that the private sector does it worse, ...

No, it just implies that the private sector is part of that class who
does not do it better than NASA.

:... and is a basis for
referring NASA, when in fact the private sector hasn't yet even made
:the attempt.

And thus does not 'do it better', since they don't 'do it' at all.

:There's in fact no reason to think they couldn't do it
:better than NASA, if funded, given that NASA is hardly perfect.

'If funded', they're no longer 'private enterprise'. They're just
another subsidized government contractor.

:I'm just pointing out the illogic of the basis of his preference.

And I'm just pointing out the illogic of yours (in several spots).

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:20:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
:Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
:in article , Rand Simberg at
wrote on 12/8/06 4:28 AM:
:
: 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.
:
:As Jorge just pointed out, the safety records are the same and NASA has done
:far more in human space exploration. Putting that in the mix, there is no
:comparison. NASA wins.
:
:Not against the private sector. Their safety record is not the same,
:because the private sector has none (other than Rutan's, in which case
:it's perfect so far). Your "argument" continues to make no sense.
:
:And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
:better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
:lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

So it's somehow 'ok' with you as long as everyone is killed coming
down?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:
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.

Been given money? By whom? Who do you expect is going to give money to
kick off the commercial space industry? The government? Rand, there is
no money because there is no money. That is it! No evil barrier to
entry, the market just isn't there yet.

You talk about absurd arguments but complain that no one gets money
like NASA gets money for space therefore no one but NASA has a track
record. Well, gee... Who's fault is that? NASA's?

Eric