A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 13, 06:09 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
David E. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is it!

Man up you wuss!
Ads
  #2  
Old April 9th 13, 09:04 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

Erm, well you know what they say, say its off the menu and suddenly you get
a reaction. However I suspect he has seen the balance sheet..

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
...
What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job!
Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space
tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the
big stuff is it!

Man up you wuss!



  #3  
Old April 9th 13, 02:05 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

In article ,
says...

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is it!

Man up you wuss!


It's not a problem with "manning up", it's a problem of funding.
Congress has *not* funded a manned return to the moon or an even more
ambitious manned mission to Mars. It's the NASA Administrator's job to
execute policy and spend money allocated. Right now, he's telling
everyone what NASA can, and can't, do with the budget they've got.

If you want this to change, I suggest you write your Congressman and
your Senator. It's Congress that decides how much money to allocate to
what project.

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
  #4  
Old April 9th 13, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

Besides you will only be sorry when Pepsi turn the moon into a big advert.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

What a schmuck.

I nearly went into Downfall video mode here.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2190850...#axzz2PsznG25r

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21908503/us-wont-be-returning-to-moon-nasa-chief-says#axzz2PsznG25r

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job!
Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space
tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the
big stuff is it!

Man up you wuss!


It's not a problem with "manning up", it's a problem of funding.
Congress has *not* funded a manned return to the moon or an even more
ambitious manned mission to Mars. It's the NASA Administrator's job to
execute policy and spend money allocated. Right now, he's telling
everyone what NASA can, and can't, do with the budget they've got.

If you want this to change, I suggest you write your Congressman and
your Senator. It's Congress that decides how much money to allocate to
what project.

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



  #5  
Old April 9th 13, 10:30 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work
  #7  
Old April 10th 13, 01:37 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

In article m,
says...

On 13-04-09 01:09, David E. Powell wrote:
What a schmuck.



I have not watched the video yet.

However, considering that a trip to the moon as very little in common
with a trip to Mars, I would say that not going to the moon may in fact
make sense if the goal of eventually goingt o Mars remains.

The ISS is in fact more important for a trip to mars than going to the
moon as it would be a model (and testbed for technologies) for the
expedition ship to and from mars.

Having said this, I could see tests being made of a trip to slingshot
around the moon and return to earth to test aerobraking to insert a ship
into orbit, and/or test the martian lander.

But landing on moon would not bring much as the moon as no atmosphere
(can't test parachutes) and can't test aerobraking.


Can't even test spacesuits. Specifically, Apollo (and shuttle, and US-
ISS) spacesuits all use water (for cooling. This works because it is
essentially vented to vacuum where it freezes and sublimates. This
won't work well, or at all, on Mars due to the thin atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...lation_Garment

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
  #8  
Old April 10th 13, 04:29 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...



a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work


This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. *Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.

You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. *Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? *After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.

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


musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%
  #9  
Old April 10th 13, 06:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

In article [email protected]
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...



a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work


This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. *Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.

You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. *Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? *After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.


musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%


But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? Hint: It's not just
because they're a "private company".

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
  #10  
Old April 10th 13, 08:24 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

On Apr 10, 1:50*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article [email protected]
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...







On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...


a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work


This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. *Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.


You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. *Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? *After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.


musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%


But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? *Hint: *It's not just
because they're a "private company".

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


they are new and cost centered........

but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
money can be used for other things
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Returning to the Moon with First Lunar Launch in a Decade ron News 0 June 19th 09 01:53 AM
New NASA Chief Announced [email protected] History 0 January 14th 09 08:47 PM
NASA rules.... David E. Powell Space Shuttle 155 June 26th 07 03:06 AM
New NASA Chief Changes Top Officers Andrew Space Shuttle 3 June 18th 05 04:37 PM
NASA chief historian vacancy Doug... History 1 August 1st 03 03:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.