NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs

NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs :

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/

NSF retards agree wholeheartedly!

American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM!

Jesus von Braun said so.

Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs :

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/


NSF retards agree wholeheartedly!

American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM!

Jesus von Braun said so.

Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could
use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as
disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room.

Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them.

Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to
recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly?

The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed later,
but doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than
later on alternative engines for the HLV.

What HLV would that be, the one that will never be built?

Economics can dictate that the
better option is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them
appears in future, then new ones can be built.

I have no ****ing idea what you are trying to say in that paragraph.

It sounds like the rambling doublespeak of a cowardly NASA fool -

Sylvia.

OM wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:38:28 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could
use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as
disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room.

...Sylvia, Tommy Lee Elfritz is a self-confessed Neo-Nazi racist
troll. Do us a favor and put him in your killfile, please? Your karma
will be all the better for it.

Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA is another mother****ing American
retard who thinks Ares I is a rocket worthy of American ****ing retards.

Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA is another mother****ing American
retard who thinks throwing away reusable SSMEs is just a heckava job,
worthy of America's mother****ing retardedness. Heckava job, Mosley.

Just a heckava job.

Thanks!

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA, American Coward wrote:

Quoting Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA, American Coward :

Organization : Tommy Lee and Hitler, sittin' in a tree...

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:10:17 -0500, kT wrote:

I have no ****ing idea what you are trying to say in that paragraph.

Of course not. That's because *you* are the ****ing retard around
here, Tommy.

Ares I, Mosley, Ares I.

Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward wrote:

Quoting Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward :

Organization : How's Nana, Tommy? Did she bring anything home this
time that won't wash off?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:10:17 -0500, kT wrote:

So what are you, brave, or cowardly?

As if you've any right to ask such a question.

The United States Constitution gives me that right, Mosley.

You are a coward.

David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else writes:

The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed later, but
doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than later on
alternative engines for the HLV. Economics can dictate that the better option
is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them appears in future, then
new ones can be built.

Up to a point. A lot of old technology is lost when the tooling for it is
destroyed.

This happens because someone is on the hook to pay for storing (and in some
cases maintaining) the tooling. Once the tooling is gone, it's often easier to
start over from scratch.

I'm not taking a position on whether or not to 'use up' the SSMEs, only
pointing out that it's not necessarily easy to restart manufacture an old
technology.

I'm just pointing out the complete idiocy of tossing perfectly good
SSMEs with dozens of flights left on them, AFTER they have been
delivered all the way to orbit, where resources exist (the ISS) which
makes their recovery almost trivial. Furthermore, if these same SSMEs
are used on reusable test flights of new generation rockets, then those
designs can proceed at the greatest possible pace, since even if you
prang one or two of them, it's no big deal.

We have at our disposal right now, the greatest and most sophisticated
suite of space assets and infrastructure ever conceived by mankind, and
NASA is just taking the easy cowards way out, because George Bush and
Michael Griffin, demonstrated cowards and failures, told them to do so.

If you think I'm going to sit around on my ass and not say anything
about this, while simultaneously writing a Commercial Crew Development
paper, then think again. I tried that with COTS two years ago, and now
I'm sitting here almost two years later, and ARES I is still living, and
they've seriously RUN OFF THE RAILS AGAIN with Dennis Wingo's crappy
Shuttle C, Not Shuttle C, sidemount, call it whatever you want : ****.

Dennis Wingo and Paul Spudis have seriously retarded our space program.

Way to go, assholes. U Ra.

Dave

Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else writes:

The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed
later, but
doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than
later on
alternative engines for the HLV. Economics can dictate that the
better option
is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them appears in
future, then
new ones can be built.

Up to a point. A lot of old technology is lost when the tooling for
it is
destroyed.

This happens because someone is on the hook to pay for storing (and
in some
cases maintaining) the tooling. Once the tooling is gone, it's often
easier to
start over from scratch.

I'm not taking a position on whether or not to 'use up' the SSMEs, only
pointing out that it's not necessarily easy to restart manufacture an
old
technology.

I'm just pointing out the complete idiocy of tossing perfectly good
SSMEs with dozens of flights left on them, AFTER they have been
delivered all the way to orbit, where resources exist (the ISS) which
makes their recovery almost trivial.

How do you use the ISS to get an orbiting SSME back down to Earth?

I wrote it up in a COTS proposal, you know that, right?

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/COTS.pdf

You DESIGN for engine removal, first off, and then you develop the tools
to do it, and then you execute the process with space suited astronauts,
which simultaneously greatly advances the state of the art of orbital
disassembly. Then you put the SSME into a DESIGNED nosecone aeroshield,
which also happens to be a downmass reentry flight unit, and then you
reenter the nose heavy aerodynamically stable nose cone aeroshield into
the shallow water of the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Bahama Bank exactly
the way that the Boeing Corporation has already clearly demonstrated,
recovering it with a salvage ship and return it to its point of origin.

After those techniques are vetted, you move on to fully detachable
engine modules if that appears effective, or fully reenterable cores.
Fully reusable cores defeats the purpose of on orbit assembly though,
which is required if we are ever to reduce launch costs by the orders of
magnitude required if we are going to return to the moon or go to Mars.

The ONLY thing that needs to come back to Earth are the engines, and if
you develop an engine that is vacuum startable and space rated, then it
isn't even required to bring them back. We don't have dual rated vacuum
and ground startable engines yet, all we have are a dozen or so SSMEs.

Proposing to throw those engines away is a folly only deserved by NASA
and the idiotic American citizens and retarded senators that support it.

Go for it, Sylvia. I suspect I'm going to be laughing my ass off in a
day or two at the Augustine Committee options and the retards that came
up with them, the same retards that bent over backwards praising Ares I.

Bemjuk, or whatever the **** his name is. This is a guy that prefaced
every single ****ing statement he made with gratuitous self promotion.

Sally Ride and the Dilbert Cartoon guy were equally incompetent.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs :

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/


NSF retards agree wholeheartedly!

American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM!

Jesus von Braun said so.

Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that
could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock
as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room.

Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them.

Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to
recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly?

That's much more easily said than done. Recovering them is easy
enough if they're attached to a vehicle that returns. Otherwise
you're talking about parachuting them into the sea or onto land. The
latter is a big ask if they're not to be damaged. Into the sea would
mean they'd need floatation devices - which better not deploy in flight.

Boeing already parachuted an SSME into water, recovered and refired it
in association with the original EELV program, I guess you missed that.

From low altitude. No mention of heat shield requirements from near
orbital speed, nor whether the SSME could withstand reentry loading.

What is preventing you from trying it, besides outright cowardice?

The heat shield requirements are trivial, and the aeroshield is supposed
to take the loads. Every SSME required a complete seal and bearing
rebuild anyways. What I would do is hang the SSME on the ISS truss and
issue a challenge to private industry and newspace to solve the problem.

I guarantee the problem will get solved in short order, at a cost that
beats NASA's ability to innovate by several orders of magnitude.

Tell me more about Ares I, Sylvia, I need a good laugh.

Sylvia.

On Aug 11, 5:45*pm, kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs :

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...-project-makin...

NSF retards agree wholeheartedly!

American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM!

Jesus von Braun said so.

Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that
could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock
as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room..

Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them.

Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to
recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly?

That's much more easily said than done. Recovering them is easy
enough if they're attached to a vehicle that returns. Otherwise
you're talking about parachuting them into the sea or onto land. The
latter is a big ask if they're not to be damaged. Into the sea would
mean they'd need floatation devices - which better not deploy in flight.

Boeing already parachuted an SSME into water, recovered and refired it
in association with the original EELV program, I guess you missed that..

*From low altitude. No mention of heat shield requirements from near
orbital speed, nor whether the SSME could withstand reentry loading.

What is preventing you from trying it, besides outright cowardice?

The heat shield requirements are trivial, and the aeroshield is supposed
to take the loads. Every SSME required a complete seal and bearing
rebuild anyways. What I would do is hang the SSME on the ISS truss and
issue a challenge to private industry and newspace to solve the problem.

I guarantee the problem will get solved in short order, at a cost that
beats NASA's ability to innovate by several orders of magnitude.

Tell me more about Ares I, Sylvia, I need a good laugh.

Sylvia.

Sylvia is just a female version of a brown-nosed clown. He's doing
pretty much exactly what she's paid to do.

~ BG