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!

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!

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

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

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

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

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%

On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


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!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


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!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

In article ,
says...

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


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!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

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