Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to SLS

On 10/25/2011 06:11 PM, Snidely wrote:
Dr J R scribbled something like ...

In sci.space.policy -
september.org, Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:16:31, Jeff Findley
posted:

Historically, manned spaceflight has always enjoyed bipartisan support,
at least at current funding levels.

Not entirely. It didn't in Soviet Russia, and does not in China. But
perhaps you do not consider foreigners to be human.


Or perhaps they don't often have seats on the US Senate's space policy
committees.

Or perhaps they are off-topic on a thread about NASA, and Jeff expects
people to understand that context before going off half-cocked with
snarky insinuations about Jeff's attitude on foreigners.

In article id,
says...

In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:16:31, Jeff Findley
posted:
Historically, manned spaceflight has always enjoyed bipartisan
support,
at least at current funding levels.

Not entirely. It didn't in Soviet Russia, and does not in China. But
perhaps you do not consider foreigners to be human.

When I say bipartisan support, I am referring to the US political system
which is dominated by two parties (Democrats and Republicans).

Historically, even the locations of many NASA centers were heavily
politically motivated. KSC makes sense from an orbital mechanics and
launch safety perspective. But, why would JSC be located so far away in
Houston Texas if not for politics?

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:26:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

Historically, even the locations of many NASA centers were heavily
politically motivated. KSC makes sense from an orbital mechanics and
launch safety perspective. But, why would JSC be located so far away in
Houston Texas if not for politics?

Because Rice University donated the land. Money talks.

Brian

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:26:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

Historically, even the locations of many NASA centers were heavily
politically motivated. KSC makes sense from an orbital mechanics and
launch safety perspective. But, why would JSC be located so far away in
Houston Texas if not for politics?

Because Rice University donated the land. Money talks.

Umm, there's more to it than JUST that. Including a certain VP who later
became POTUS.



Brian



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

In article id, Dr J
R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:16:31, Jeff Findley
posted:

Historically, manned spaceflight has always enjoyed bipartisan support,
at least at current funding levels.

Not entirely. It didn't in Soviet Russia, and does not in China. But
perhaps you do not consider foreigners to be human.

Come now. I'm sure if those nations have viable second parties they'd
also support their domestic space programs...

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:26:47 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

Historically, even the locations of many NASA centers were heavily
politically motivated. KSC makes sense from an orbital mechanics and
launch safety perspective. But, why would JSC be located so far away in
Houston Texas if not for politics?

Because Rice University donated the land. Money talks.

Umm, there's more to it than JUST that. Including a certain VP who later
became POTUS.

Lots of reasons. Lots of politics (though surprisingly not as much LBJ
as you imply) but valid other concerns as well: year-round good
weather for training (no months of gray overcast winter skies,
please), access to seaports, and nearby major educational, military,
and industrial facilties. The Gulf Coast was probably NASA's preferred
location, as the east coast gets into nasty seasonal weather north of
the Carolinas and there wasn't much south of them (Florida was still
very backwoods in those pre-Disney days, there was nothing significant
anywhere near the Cape), and the west coast was logistically
difficult, requiring transit through the Panama Canal. So New Orleans
and Houston, maybe Corpus Christi were the strongest candidates. When
Rice offered the land, that cinched the deal for Houston.

Brian

On 10/26/2011 11:26 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:26:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

Historically, even the locations of many NASA centers were heavily
politically motivated. KSC makes sense from an orbital mechanics and
launch safety perspective. But, why would JSC be located so far away in
Houston Texas if not for politics?

Because Rice University donated the land. Money talks.

Umm, there's more to it than JUST that. Including a certain VP who later
became POTUS.

LBJ had relatively little to do with it; the big movers and shakers were
House members Albert Thomas and Olin Teague, and businessman George
Brown. Dethloff wrote a good history on this.