Selling off KSC facilities

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5714317.story

They shouldnt sell anything and continue to maintain it till nasas
future is decided.

Although using much of KSC for a space amusement park, perhaps disney
space with mag lev high speed train to disney world might bring the
tourists....

Charge BIG bucks to spend a night in the beachouse departing
astronauts used before their flight

Picture some shuttle and apollo simulator rides Use 39A & 39B as
attractions stack a fake shuttle on one pad, and a fake saturn 5 full
up on the other pad. Minimize maintence by enclosing them in glass
like a modern skyscraper, many of which are mostly glass

Fire off some model rockets, drive robotic vehicles in buildings made
to appear like the moon or mars surface. Then send some robot rovers
to the moon and charge people to drive them from KSC. Perhaps use a
couple of the no longer need firing rooms for crawler control.

KSC could again become a lucrative destination

On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5714317.story

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

On Jan 3, 6:50*pm, David Spain wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...er-sale-201301...

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

SLS is a total waste and evidently nasa isnt planning on any uses for
39 A & 39 B or any of the infrastructure its planning on leasing or
selling

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 6:50 pm, David Spain wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...er-sale-201301...

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

SLS is a total waste and evidently nasa isnt planning on any uses for
39 A & 39 B or any of the infrastructure its planning on leasing or
selling

Tell that to Congress, dolt. The last thing Kay Bailey Hutchinson did before
leaving the Senate was insert language into a bill that mandates SLS
progress, and that the administration live up to the 2010 NASA Authorization
Act that mandated NASA develop its own heavy-lift vehicle. Or does that
little detail get in the way of your fantasy world, twit?

On Jan 4, 1:13*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...
On Jan 3, 6:50 pm, David Spain wrote:

On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...er-sale-201301....

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

SLS is a total waste and evidently nasa isnt planning on any uses for
39 A & 39 B or any of the infrastructure its planning on leasing or
selling

Tell that to Congress, dolt. The last thing Kay Bailey Hutchinson did before
leaving the Senate was insert language into a bill that mandates SLS
progress, and that the administration live up to the 2010 NASA Authorization
Act that mandated NASA develop its own heavy-lift vehicle. Or does that
little detail get in the way of your fantasy world, twit?


Obviously you didnt read the article all of these facilties are for
sale or lease.

congress is totally corupt and non functional

In article 980b962a-720e-4645-9130-
, says...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5714317.story

They shouldnt sell anything and continue to maintain it till nasas
future is decided.

Why?

Although using much of KSC for a space amusement park, perhaps disney
space with mag lev high speed train to disney world might bring the
tourists....

Charge BIG bucks to spend a night in the beachouse departing
astronauts used before their flight

You have no idea what it costs to maintain the infrastructure being
talked about, do you?

You're never going to cover costs with this sort of scheme. What
millionaire would want to do this when they could spend the same money
to actually go into space on Soyuz or (in the future) Spaceship Two?

Picture some shuttle and apollo simulator rides Use 39A & 39B as
attractions stack a fake shuttle on one pad, and a fake saturn 5 full
up on the other pad. Minimize maintence by enclosing them in glass
like a modern skyscraper, many of which are mostly glass

Fire off some model rockets, drive robotic vehicles in buildings made
to appear like the moon or mars surface. Then send some robot rovers
to the moon and charge people to drive them from KSC. Perhaps use a
couple of the no longer need firing rooms for crawler control.

KSC could again become a lucrative destination

B.S. All of this old infrastructure is hideously expensive to maintain.
Tourist visits aren't going to come close to covering the costs. If it
could, the company running KSC would be putting in a bid for just such a
project. I'm betting they won't do any such thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 1/4/2013 1:13 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 6:50 pm, David Spain wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...er-sale-201301...

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

SLS is a total waste and evidently nasa isnt planning on any uses for
39 A & 39 B or any of the infrastructure its planning on leasing or
selling

Tell that to Congress, dolt. The last thing Kay Bailey Hutchinson did before
leaving the Senate was insert language into a bill that mandates SLS
progress, and that the administration live up to the 2010 NASA Authorization
Act that mandated NASA develop its own heavy-lift vehicle. Or does that
little detail get in the way of your fantasy world, twit?



Well I suppose you could *technically* make progress on SLS while
selling off the launch pads to launch it. Anything in that language that
actually requires NASA to launch SLS once its built?

Don't laugh, stranger things have happened in govt. contracts....

Dave

On Jan 4, 12:25*pm, David Spain wrote:
On 1/4/2013 1:13 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:







"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 6:50 pm, David Spain wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...er-sale-201301....

And if NASA sells off KSC just exactly *where* are they going to launch
SLS from?

Right hand meet left hand....

Dave

SLS is a total waste and evidently nasa isnt planning on any uses for
39 A & 39 B or any of the infrastructure its planning on leasing or
selling

Tell that to Congress, dolt. The last thing Kay Bailey Hutchinson did before
leaving the Senate was insert language into a bill that mandates SLS
progress, and that the administration live up to the 2010 NASA Authorization
Act that mandated NASA develop its own heavy-lift vehicle. Or does that
little detail get in the way of your fantasy world, twit?

Well I suppose you could *technically* make progress on SLS while
selling off the launch pads to launch it. Anything in that language that
actually requires NASA to launch SLS once its built?

Don't laugh, stranger things have happened in govt. contracts....

Dave

yep then lease the pads back at large profit.......

the rich get richer.

my point is idiotic to sell off any KSC facillities that might be
needed in the future, till the future has been planned.

I suggested years ago turning 39A&B into exhibits and was laughed at
since people here said pads would be needed for the next generation
launcher

On Jan 5, 1:36*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

I suggested years ago turning 39A&B into exhibits and was laughed at
since people here said pads would be needed for the next generation
launcher

No, you were laughed at because it's yet another remarkably stupid
idea from The Bobbert.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

apparently 39 A & B are no longer needed for anything. making my
(stupid )idea possible.

or would you prefer they be demolished?

On Jan 5, 4:29*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:36*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

I suggested years ago turning 39A&B into exhibits and was laughed at
since people here said pads would be needed for the next generation
launcher

No, you were laughed at because it's yet another remarkably stupid
idea from The Bobbert.

apparently 39 A & B are no longer needed for anything. making my
(stupid )idea possible.

Anything is 'possible', Bobbert. *Possibility does not equate with
'good idea'.



or would you prefer they be demolished?

Those aren't the only two choices.

Your only real interest in space appears to be to turn everything into
a museum that can't pay its own way.

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

Apparently nasa is willing to sell them off they must have little or
no future value But could be a real winner for tourism