#21
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581- , says... Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon. I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle. While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation. Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating a dead horse. *Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. *But I think it more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for decades. *Again, this is the reality of US space politics. I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill, battle ahead of them. *Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed. 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 The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for everything will have to be gutted. If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our country collapses. Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in pittsburgh for mass transit......... Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea??? Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something else???? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581- , says... Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Mar 6, 2:06*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote: On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581- , says... Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon. I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle. While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation. Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating a dead horse. *Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. *But I think it more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for decades. *Again, this is the reality of US space politics. I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill, battle ahead of them. *Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed. 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 The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for everything will have to be gutted. If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our country collapses. Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in pittsburgh for mass transit......... Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea??? Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something else???? Just because the Bobbert thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean that NASA and Congress do. Or does that little tidbit escape you. You're just upset that NASA is going in a direction that YOU disagree with, and it's not putting money into Elon Musk's bank account in the process. If you don't like it, write your Congress-critter and Senator and get them to push your pet Commercial-only route. In case you haven't noticed, Bobbert, other than Rohrabacher, there's ZERO support on the Hill-and even less in NASA for that route.. Or did that fact go in one ear and out the other? you DONT GET IT Congress and government no longer cares about being efficent or really doing anything...... other than enriching politically connected people... thats why congress is a joke today, their attitude is undermining the future of our country |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"bob haller" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 2:06 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote: On Mar 6, 1:39 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581- , says... Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and switch to commercial launches only. This is a desire I share, but it is politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon. I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle. While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation. Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating a dead horse. Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. But I think it more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for decades. Again, this is the reality of US space politics. I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill, battle ahead of them. Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed. 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 The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for everything will have to be gutted. If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our country collapses. Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in pittsburgh for mass transit......... Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea??? Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something else???? Just because the Bobbert thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean that NASA and Congress do. Or does that little tidbit escape you. You're just upset that NASA is going in a direction that YOU disagree with, and it's not putting money into Elon Musk's bank account in the process. If you don't like it, write your Congress-critter and Senator and get them to push your pet Commercial-only route. In case you haven't noticed, Bobbert, other than Rohrabacher, there's ZERO support on the Hill-and even less in NASA for that route. Or did that fact go in one ear and out the other? you DONT GET IT Congress and government no longer cares about being efficent or really doing anything...... other than enriching politically connected people... thats why congress is a joke today, their attitude is undermining the future of our country You don't get it, do you? What YOU want NASA to do is not politically feasible. When there's a grand total of ONE congressman-and no senators-pushing the commercial-only route, that should tell you enough about such a plan's chances on The Hill. Like I said once befo if you took your idea to the Hill, they'd laugh you out of the committee room-and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. And then watch the money go to KSC, Marshall, Michoud, Stennis, etc. for SLS work. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? Would a politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the detriment of others? Politics, plain and simple. 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 Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit. There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a facility in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits in Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion (Lockheed-Martin's Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing SLS work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at Michoud. Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Mar 7, 12:39*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? *Would a politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the detriment of others? Politics, plain and simple. 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 Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit. There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a facility in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits in Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion (Lockheed-Martin's Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing SLS work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at Michoud. Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local." Congress shouldnt rule by pork. Its killing america these days. If it were a individual it would force them into bankruptcy Guess what? Its doing the same thing to our country Business buying congressional votes, leads to no compromises, which leads to congressional gridlock, and ultimately killing of our country. I believe its also creating the divide, a small number of super rich only getting richer, and the vast majority working very hard getting no where but broke. This group has survived by getting government handouts which can no longer be afforded. Look at history, things like this tend to cause revolutines We need some sanity in congress, all they are are bought and sold. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... bob haller wrote: Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... That makes no sense. How does having a way too expensive competitor prevent cheaper providers from entering the market? While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford Irrelevant. Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn Fred, he won't answer the question. All Bobbert wants is for NASA to spend its money the way HE wants. Anything else is heresy. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... Matt Wiser wrote: The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. And Slim is on vacation. -- "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point, somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me.... I am the law." -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer How true. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"bob haller" wrote in message ... On Mar 7, 12:39 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote: "Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? Would a politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the detriment of others? Politics, plain and simple. 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 Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit. There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a facility in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits in Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion (Lockheed-Martin's Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing SLS work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at Michoud. Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local." Congress shouldnt rule by pork. Its killing america these days. If it were a individual it would force them into bankruptcy Guess what? Its doing the same thing to our country Business buying congressional votes, leads to no compromises, which leads to congressional gridlock, and ultimately killing of our country. I believe its also creating the divide, a small number of super rich only getting richer, and the vast majority working very hard getting no where but broke. This group has survived by getting government handouts which can no longer be afforded. Look at history, things like this tend to cause revolutines We need some sanity in congress, all they are are bought and sold. All politics is local, bobbert. Take it or leave it. And there's more politics in favor of SLS and Orion than there is for Space X and the Dragon/Falcon 9-9 Heavy combo. One, repeat, ONE congresscritter pushing the latter, while there's numerous Senators and Congressmen pushing the former. Or does that escape your fantasy world? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Now the military's space plane is back.. | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 3 | June 29th 12 05:50 AM |
Looking back in space | N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) | Astronomy Misc | 39 | February 21st 06 01:38 PM |
US Space News is back | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 3 | November 7th 05 06:27 PM |
US Space News is back | Das Editor | Policy | 2 | November 7th 05 06:08 PM |
US Space News is back | [email protected] | Space Station | 1 | November 6th 05 05:28 PM |