Angry Astronauts Write Letter

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
They do not like the new space plans, they do not like them Obama-I-Am:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/
And yet another letter from the NASA Space Cowboys accusing the president
of confusing his mass with his ass, his angle with his dangle, and being a
no-good dirt farmer trying to fence in the high frontier:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...estuff/?p=4052
No word about how Big Chuck Bolden of the Lazy Star Ranch will deal with
this stampede by the old NASA longhorns, but it's going to take a mighty
big lasso to bring all these runaway doggies to heel.

To quote the ariticle....

"The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the
President's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is
likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than
we would hope."

Oh Bull****!

And welcome to the real world, the private sector, where market forces
tend to favor what's useful, and dump the waste overboard.
I guess these astronauts are determined that NASA keep the crap, and
even make it NASA"s primary goal and biggest expense...another
forty years of it.

And the request below points out all too clearly why the last 50 years has
been a rather huge waste of space faring time.



"NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical
U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday"
"Senators to NASA chief: Go somewhere specific'


Somewhere? As in ....anywhere, as long as its....somewhere!
Whether it makes sense or not? No, NASA needs to ....DO...
something specific. Solve some specific problem or need which
would benefit society and justify the effort. NOT just go ****ing
......SOMEWHERE.

It just makes me insane! It's not like there's any shortage of national
problems.

A goal that has no other purpose than itself defines waste
and will do more to turn the taxpayers against NASA
than anything else.


Jonathan


Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm

Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation

"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf





s











Pat

On Apr 15, 10:34*am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
I'm encouraged by the section on a "Heavy Lift Rocket" this:

* *Developing a Heavy Lift Rocket, with a Specific Decision in 2015,
* *to Expand Our Reach in Space: To demonstrate a concrete timetable
* *and commitment for expanding human exploration further, the
* *President is announcing that, in addition to investing in
* *transformative heavy-lift technologies, he will commit to making
* *a specific decision in 2015 on the development of a new heavy-lift
* *rocket architecture.

I'm not sure what's so encouraging about this. He's promising that at
the end of his second term -- which he may not actually have -- he'll
think about it. The Shuttle is still being retired at the end of this
year, and Constellation is still out of the running. So for at least
5 years, we won't even have plans for manned or heavy-lift vehicles,
and then it will be an indefinite period of time until the approved
design is actually built.

What am I missing here?

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:13:09 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Buzz is an attention whore; always has been, always will be.

...Maybe, but unlike most of today's attention whores, he at least
draws attention to a *good* cause. I'd take Buzz over Paris, Britney
or any of the other attention *whores* society tends to wank off at
the sight of these days.

OM

--

And we don't have to see a crotch shot when he gets out of a limo.

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

But FIRST we need low cost to orbit, and sadly low cost isnt possible
in nasas culture

On 4/15/2010 2:39 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

But I saw a news item later today that has Obama saying that in the
2030s we would have an *Apollo 10* mission to Mars. Orbit it, then
return safely to Earth. Yes, with real astronauts.

That would be Apollo 8.
If it was Apollo 10, we would drop a lander halfway to the surface then
return to orbit.
The orbit or flyby Mars with no landing concept goes back as far as the
Bush administration, so this is nothing Obama came up with on his own.


Gratuitous radiation exposure... and, of course, Apollo 10 was
somewhat wasteful;

Not if you wanted to see how the LM worked on a practice de-orbit and
re-orbit mission to check out both of its stages under actual lunar
conditions and see how easy it was to rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit
while dealing with things like MASCONs making odd shifts in the orbit of
both vehicles.

Pat

Damien Valentine wrote:
I'm not sure what's so encouraging about this. *He's promising that at
the end of his second term -- which he may not actually have -- he'll
think about it. *The Shuttle is still being retired at the end of this
year, and Constellation is still out of the running. *So for at least
5 years, we won't even have plans for manned or heavy-lift vehicles,
and then it will be an indefinite period of time until the approved
design is actually built.

What am I missing here?



I don't think you have missed a thing. You are spot on. Obama's
speech yesterday ... and his ' plan ' for NASA is just his usual
gobbledygook. Personally I'm outraged. Who the hell does Obama think
he is ? A trillion dollars for Govt. run health care over the next
ten years. Hey no big deal. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal
budget. $19 billion. But hey ... were going to have to scuttle the
Constelation program ... it had cost overruns. WTF ?

Obama is directing NASA to focus on a space taxi to the space
station. I thought that was what Ares 1 was ( or is capable of ).
Obama says a decision will be made on a new " heavy lift " rocket in
2015. I thought Ares 2 was the new " heavy lift " rocket. My God.
Ares 2 can put more cargo in low Earth orbit than a Saturn V could.
How much more " heavy lift " does one need ?

Look fine ... want to cancel the Moon missions, I'm okay with that.
But I'm in the opinion that however flawed the Ares systems are ...
well ... we needed these damn rockets ! I was of the opinon that Ares
2 was ' flexable ' enough ( such as the Saturn V was ) either for a
moon mission, a visit to an asteroid, a Mars mission, or placing heavy
cargo in Earth orbit. Christ almighty ... I hope Congress has some
members with brains enough to stop this Obama nonsense.


WHAT am I missing ???


Chris

On Apr 16, 10:48�am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

--

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

like bicycling across the US sure it could be done but commion sense
indicates its not practical.

besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

a bad day apollo 13......

On Apr 17, 5:55�am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:48?am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

Bull****.



besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

So it was impossible for Europe to discover and explore the New
World...

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

- Show quoted text -

well at least the crew had air to breathe and could fish for food and
werent getting a possible killer radiation risk on the way.

beyond which we need low cost to orbit, once thats accomplished
everything else gets easier

On Apr 16, 11:33*am, CCBlack wrote:
Damien Valentine wrote:
I'm not sure what's so encouraging about this. *He's promising that at
the end of his second term -- which he may not actually have -- he'll
think about it. *The Shuttle is still being retired at the end of this
year, and Constellation is still out of the running. *So for at least
5 years, we won't even have plans for manned or heavy-lift vehicles,
and then it will be an indefinite period of time until the approved
design is actually built.

What am I missing here?

I don't think you have missed a thing. *You are spot on. *Obama's
speech yesterday ... and his ' plan ' for NASA is just his usual
gobbledygook. *Personally I'm outraged. *Who the hell does Obama think
he is ? *A trillion dollars for Govt. run health care over the next
ten years. *Hey no big deal. *NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal
budget. $19 billion. *But hey ... were going to have to scuttle the
Constelation program ... it had cost overruns. *WTF ?

Obama is directing NASA to focus on a space taxi to the space
station. *I thought that was what Ares 1 was ( or is capable of ).
Obama says a decision will be made on a new " heavy lift " rocket in
2015. *I thought Ares 2 was the new " heavy lift " rocket. *My God.
Ares 2 can put more cargo in low Earth orbit than a Saturn V could.
How much more " heavy lift " does one need ?

Look fine ... want to cancel the Moon missions, I'm okay with that.
But I'm in the opinion that however flawed the Ares systems are ...
well ... we needed these damn rockets ! *I was of the opinon that Ares
2 was ' flexable ' enough ( such as the Saturn V was ) either for a
moon mission, a visit to an asteroid, a Mars mission, or placing heavy
cargo in Earth orbit. *Christ almighty ... I hope Congress has some
members with brains enough to stop this Obama nonsense.

WHAT am I missing ???

Fah. You want to talk you neighbors into independently funding Ares?
That would be a useful move.

This "Obama nonsense" lines up better with the thinking I've absorbed
from sci.space.* (including ideas from savants that have left the
group ... google Henry's Brown Bess) and the realities of funding a
technology program that doesn't have an immediate threat to counter.

And why do we need these damn rockets? There is reason to believe
modular fueling systems which could be launched on Delta IVH, Atlas
5+, or maybe Falcon 9 would be much more useful than a single heavy
lift design.
Strap a few Leonardo's to it, put a bubble-wrap shield layer, and dock
your crew launch/return vehicle to it.

/dps

On Apr 17, 6:15*am, " wrote:
On Apr 17, 5:55 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:



" wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:48?am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

Bull****.

A great rebuttal, there. I know, you've been over this many times
before, and I could track down the posts ....


besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

So it was impossible for Europe to discover and explore the New
World...

How many of those wooden tubs had cameras on board?

(And the loss rate of wooden tubs was pretty high even just sticking
to ordinary fishing along the European coast -- so maybe people were
used to the idea of losign 50 or 100 guys every voyage.)

well at least the crew had air to breathe and could fish for food and
werent getting a possible killer radiation risk on the way.

beyond which we need low cost to orbit, once thats accomplished
everything else gets easier.

I'd say Bob came up with a good point on this one.

/dps