Plotting A New Course for NASA

In article ef1d3438-60a2-4bc7-8693-09502186c549
@o11g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 27, 11:17*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
mars probes ending?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av028/111124future/

It's like several of us have been telling you, Bobbert. *Kill manned
space and the rest of space takes an even bigger cut....

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

No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. Simple as that. Then again, that's kinda
going over the Bobbert's head. But then again, what do you expect from
a clown who believes that MER-class rovers can be built on an assembly-
line basis when both flight articles (and the spare at JPL used as a
test bed) were literally hand-made?

How does this prevent them from being made on an assembly line if
someone chooses to fund a large enough buy to make it worthwhile? The
first Volkswagen was hand-made too you know.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ef1d3438-60a2-4bc7-8693-09502186c549
@o11g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 27, 11:17 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
mars probes ending?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av028/111124future/

It's like several of us have been telling you, Bobbert. Kill manned
space and the rest of space takes an even bigger cut....

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

No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. Simple as that. Then again, that's kinda
going over the Bobbert's head. But then again, what do you expect from
a clown who believes that MER-class rovers can be built on an assembly-
line basis when both flight articles (and the spare at JPL used as a
test bed) were literally hand-made?

How does this prevent them from being made on an assembly line if
someone chooses to fund a large enough buy to make it worthwhile? The
first Volkswagen was hand-made too you know.


The fella who makes these asinine proposals is so politically and
technically naive it goes without saying.

It's also a question of assets vs. support. There's a grand total of two
orbiters that can act as comm relays-not to mention the Deep Space Nettwork
at Goldstone, Canberra, and Madrid. Two rovers max is what the network can
support. And that's not counting the orbiters' primary mission of orbital
photography of the surface-and that data also has to be sent back.

How does this prevent them from being made on an assembly line if
someone chooses to fund a large enough buy to make it worthwhile? *The
first Volkswagen was hand-made too you know.

Do try to keep up. *Bobbert has been insisting that said production
line ALREADY EXISTS so it's 'no additional cost' to make a bunch more
to the same design.

no they were produced over 10 years ago.

since the design is so great i suggested setting up a assembly line to
produce 25 to 50 or more and blanket mars. use basically the same
design. land vehicles in pairs so if one got stuck its companion might
be able to help. send them to more challenging and scientifically
intersting areas, realizing some will not survive but the majority
will

have college students do the controlling to help keep down costs, with
nasa experts to help in times of trouble

The fella who makes these asinine proposals is so politically and
technically naive it goes without saying.

It's also a question of assets vs. support. There's a grand total of two
orbiters that can act as comm relays-not to mention the Deep Space Nettwork
at Goldstone, Canberra, and Madrid. Two rovers max is what the network can
support. And that's not counting the orbiters' primary mission of orbital
photography of the surface-and that data also has to be sent back.-
so no biggie send a couple new orbiters as data relays with advanced
communication equiptement to increase bandwith availalble.

with rovers all over the planet some will be in darkness etc for any
number of reasons, so not all willl be talking at once.

and stating we cant because we dont have the capacity, is like
statuing we cant drive between new york and LA, if theres no road go
build one

Matt Wiser wrote:
Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.

I call myth on that one.

That's not my understanding. The funding of the build-out pipeline of Saturn
Vs was capped in the 60's *before* Nixon was elected. Enough vehicles were
built to go up to an Apollo 20 mission IIRC and that was all that was ever
funded (Jorge?). The Nixon admin had nothing to do with that. It's not even
clear the Nixon admin had any say in whether to stop at Apollo 17 and use the
surplus hardware to do Skylab or if that was an internal decision of NASA's.

Now it is possible that there may have been a bill introduced in Congress to
extend funding to build more Saturn Vs that the Nixon administration could
have desired to be quashed for budgetary reasons (we're in the era of wage &
price controls at this point in history).

Who can clarify?

Dave

On Nov 28, 7:37*am, David Spain wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.

I call myth on that one.

That's not my understanding. The funding of the build-out pipeline of Saturn
Vs was capped in the 60's *before* Nixon was elected. Enough vehicles were
built to go up to an Apollo 20 mission IIRC and that was all that was ever
funded (Jorge?). The Nixon admin had nothing to do with that. It's not even
clear the Nixon admin had any say in whether to stop at Apollo 17 and use the
surplus hardware to do Skylab or if that was an internal decision of NASA's.

Now it is possible that there may have been a bill introduced in Congress to
extend funding to build more Saturn Vs that the Nixon administration could
have desired to be quashed for budgetary reasons (we're in the era of wage &
price controls at this point in history).

Who can clarify?

Dave

It was the Nixon Administration that killed the last three Apollos and
made the Skylab decision with the hardware existing at the time.

On 11/28/2011 09:37 AM, David Spain wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.

I call myth on that one.

That's not my understanding. The funding of the build-out pipeline of
Saturn Vs was capped in the 60's *before* Nixon was elected. Enough
vehicles were built to go up to an Apollo 20 mission IIRC and that was
all that was ever funded (Jorge?). The Nixon admin had nothing to do
with that. It's not even clear the Nixon admin had any say in whether to
stop at Apollo 17 and use the surplus hardware to do Skylab or if that
was an internal decision of NASA's.

Now it is possible that there may have been a bill introduced in
Congress to extend funding to build more Saturn Vs that the Nixon
administration could have desired to be quashed for budgetary reasons
(we're in the era of wage & price controls at this point in history).

Who can clarify?

The Google Groups archive should have a complete set of my old posts on
this issue. But to recap:

1) The Saturn V production line was capped at 15 rockets (enough for
Apollo 4, 6, and 8-20) in June 1968 during the LBJ administration. NASA
moved to terminate production contracts for the F-1, J-2, and H-1 in
August 1968.

2) NASA internally made the switch from wet-lab to dry-lab for Skylab in
July 1969, though at the time there was still some hope Nixon might
reverse the previous administration's decision and restart Saturn V
production. When that fell through, SA-513 was re-purposed for Skylab,
effectively canceling Apollo 20 in January 1970.

3) A Congressional budget rescission for FY71 in September 1970 resulted
in cancellation of two more Apollo missions. NASA chose to cancel 15 and
19 and renumber the remaining J-missions (16-18) to 15-17.

On Nov 28, 4:28*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/28/2011 09:37 AM, David Spain wrote:





Matt Wiser wrote:
Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.

I call myth on that one.

That's not my understanding. The funding of the build-out pipeline of
Saturn Vs was capped in the 60's *before* Nixon was elected. Enough
vehicles were built to go up to an Apollo 20 mission IIRC and that was
all that was ever funded (Jorge?). The Nixon admin had nothing to do
with that. It's not even clear the Nixon admin had any say in whether to
stop at Apollo 17 and use the surplus hardware to do Skylab or if that
was an internal decision of NASA's.

Now it is possible that there may have been a bill introduced in
Congress to extend funding to build more Saturn Vs that the Nixon
administration could have desired to be quashed for budgetary reasons
(we're in the era of wage & price controls at this point in history).

Who can clarify?

The Google Groups archive should have a complete set of my old posts on
this issue. But to recap:

1) The Saturn V production line was capped at 15 rockets (enough for
Apollo 4, 6, and 8-20) in June 1968 during the LBJ administration. NASA
moved to terminate production contracts for the F-1, J-2, and H-1 in
August 1968.

2) NASA internally made the switch from wet-lab to dry-lab for Skylab in
July 1969, though at the time there was still some hope Nixon might
reverse the previous administration's decision and restart Saturn V
production. When that fell through, SA-513 was re-purposed for Skylab,
effectively canceling Apollo 20 in January 1970.

3) A Congressional budget rescission for FY71 in September 1970 resulted
in cancellation of two more Apollo missions. NASA chose to cancel 15 and
19 and renumber the remaining J-missions (16-18) to 15-17.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit

His incompetence as president cost so many lives in vietnam......

he deserves not darts but flaming arrows

On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision
to cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions,
in my opinion.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart