Progress ISS launch fails!

In sci.space.history message 1216e020-97f3-4ac7-909e-98c9cbe45246@p37g2
000prp.googlegroups.com, Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:46:58, Mike DiCenso
posted:

There's
nothing any of the COTS participants have that can even remotely
compete with a Shuttle orbiter's capabilities.


Falcon 9 can orbit more payload mass than STS could, per G$ cost.

STS could land only on runways; Dragon can come down on over half of the
Earth's surface, if it really wants to, with more to be added. And Elon
Musk thinks it could land on Mars, where there as yet no runways (and
too little atmosphere) for STS.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Aug 30, 9:27*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

probably because we no longer have much of a manufacturing base. china
has taken our manufacturing jobs.

Sorry, but as on everything else you spout on, you're full of ****e on
this as well. *The US still has the largest manufacturing base on the
planet. *In billions of dollars:

Country 1990 * *1995 * *2000 * *2005 * *2006 * *2007 * *2008
USA * * 1,041 * 1,289 * 1,543 * 1,624 * 1,712 * 1,756 * 1,831
China * 145 * * 300 * * 484 * * 734* * *891* * *1,106* *1,399**
Japan * 810 * * 1,219 * 1,034 * 979 * * 927 * * 923 * * 1,045
Germany 438 * * 517 * * 392 * * 571 * * 608 * * 711 * * 767
Italy * 240 * * 226 * * 206 * * 295 * * 302 * * 345 * * 381
UK * * *206 * * 218 * * 226 * * 264 * * 295 * * 323 * * 323
France *200 * * 233 * * 190 * * 255 * * 255 * * 287 * * 306
Russia *120 * * 64 * * *45 * * *124 * * 157 * * 206 * * 256
Brazil *120 * * 125 * * 96 * * *137 * * 163 * * 201 * * 237
Korea * 66 * * *131 * * 136 * * 211 * * 234 * * 260 * * 231
Spain * 112 * * 104 * * 98 * * *160 * * 170 * * 196 * * 222
Mexico *62 * * *67 * * *133 * * 154 * * 175 * * 182 * * 197
Canada *92 * * *100 * * 129 * * 168 * * 182 * * 197 * * 195
India * 51 * * *61 * * *69 * * *122 * * 141 * * 177 * * 188

sounds nice but look at how much manufacturing has been lost over the
last 20 years..........

Take your shoes off. *The value of manufacturing has gone UP every
year, not down.



in any case in this down cycle jobs havent grown. and home prices are
still falling

Which has **** all to do with the original claim, which is false.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

take just a few industries.......

US produces very few ICs, feds are unhappy since having others
fabricate ICs leaves them vulnerable.

a IC fab plant closed in phoenix, family worked there, their last job
was packing up the equiptement which was shipped to china......

US now longer produces power generators, with power plants controlled
on line they are vulnerable to foreigners ordering them to overspeed
and self destruct, order time 6 months minimum.

I sell and service roll laminators for a living, nearly all are
manufactured in places like china. one claims to be built in the USA,
but its most from chinese parts.

if obama hadnt saved GM china would of bought it, and moved production
to china. all the US would of had left were a few large parts
warehouses for spare parts.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:02:56 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

If NASA wanted so desperately to kill COTS, they'd have gone long ago
with USA's proposal to fly the Space Shuttle commercially.

I never understood how this would have helped. Creating U.S.A. was an
attempt at commercializing at least some of the shuttle program.

No, it was more or less just centralizing contracts. Still NASA ran
the show. Commercial Shuttle would have been NASA no longer running
the show.

Brian

On 8/30/2011 3:57 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:02:56 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

If NASA wanted so desperately to kill COTS, they'd have gone long ago
with USA's proposal to fly the Space Shuttle commercially.

I never understood how this would have helped. Creating U.S.A. was an
attempt at commercializing at least some of the shuttle program.

No, it was more or less just centralizing contracts. Still NASA ran
the show. Commercial Shuttle would have been NASA no longer running
the show.

Whether that would have been a good or bad idea is a very open question.
The privatizing of Shuttle support under Reagan left a mish-mash of
privatized streamlining of economics to make a profit, and piles of NASA
bureaucracy and paperwork.
Whatever you did probably wouldn't have saved enough money to turn the
bad economics of the whole program around... and besides, you might have
ended up with a madman trying to exterminate humanity with mutated
orchid spores, and replacing them with perfect human specimens.
Captain Kirk had to deal with **** like that... twice. ;-)

Pat

On Aug 29, 2:02*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1216e020-97f3-4ac7-909e-98c9cbe45246
@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 25, 12:17*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/25/2011 1:06 AM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

This might help though with NASA supporting SpaceX with manned Dragon
missions. ISS hanging off Soyuz for all manned flights is not a state of
affairs one would wish for.

I don't think NASA likes Dragon, as it is a threat to their way of dong
things, and they probably wish it would just go away... so that business
as usual with ULA could go on as before.
NASA sort of got dragged, kicking and screaming, into COTS, to show they
wanted to privatize space services.

If NASA wanted so desperately to kill COTS, they'd have gone long ago
with USA's proposal to fly the Space Shuttle commercially.

I never understood how this would have helped. *Creating U.S.A. was an
attempt at commercializing at least some of the shuttle program. *It
certainly didn't help costs much.

What Brian said. It was a kinda, sorta step in that direction, but was
mostly just streamlining of existing contracts under a centralized
contract. Which did save some money, but it was not commerical. Boeing
did make a proposal to use Columbia for a commericalized Shuttle
effort, since it was too heavy to carry out most ISS assembly and
ressupply mission, it was relegated to the handful non-ISS missions,
and then possible semi-retirement in flyable storage. This is where
the whole concept of reintroducing of a large cryogenic stage on
Shuttle came from in the late 1990's via fueling the stage in-flight
from ET leftovers to get around the post-Challenger safety issues,
since Columbia would have been expected to fly commerical satellite
missions as well as the occasional NASA missions.


There's
nothing any of the COTS participants have that can even remotely
compete with a Shuttle orbiter's capabilities.

Luckily, they don't have too in order to supply ISS with cargo or even
to eventually provide crew transport for ISS. *ISS provides orbital far
beyond those needed for simple cargo and crew transport.

As we have been reminded of recently however, a single STS orbiter can
do the mission of several Progess, Soyuz, or COTS in one mission, and
the 15 tons of downlift mass is not something anyone, not even COTS
can even get near for a very long time.
-Mike

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Sorry, but as on everything else you spout on, you're full of ****e on
this as well. The US still has the largest manufacturing base on the
planet. In billions of dollars:

Not by now.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af2219cc-7...44feabdc0.html

Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008
USA 1,041 1,289 1,543 1,624 1,712 1,756 1,831
China 145 300 484 734* 891* 1,106* 1,399**

The overtaking trend is pretty clear.

Besides, where did you get the figures?

On Sep 1, 4:07*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sorry, but as on everything else you spout on, you're full of ****e on
this as well. *The US still has the largest manufacturing base on the
planet. *In billions of dollars:

Not by now.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af2219cc-7...4feabdc0..html

Country * *1990 * *1995 * *2000 * *2005 * *2006 * *2007 * *2008
USA * * * * * * * *1,041 * 1,289 * 1,543 * 1,624 * 1,712 * 1,756 * 1,831
China * * * * * * *145 * * 300 * * 484 * * 734* * *891* * *1,106* *1,399**

The overtaking trend is pretty clear.

Besides, where did you get the figures?

china supassed the US sometime ago it made the news at the time.......

fred must wear brite red colored glasses, for him everything is
rosey.........

but thats not reality

On Sep 1, 11:24*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:07*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sorry, but as on everything else you spout on, you're full of ****e on
this as well. *The US still has the largest manufacturing base on the
planet. *In billions of dollars:

Not by now.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af2219cc-7...44feabdc0.html

Country * *1990 * *1995 * *2000 * *2005 * *2006 * *2007 * *2008
USA * * * * * * * *1,041 * 1,289 * 1,543 * 1,624 * 1,712 * 1,756 * 1,831
China * * * * * * *145 * * 300 * * 484 * * 734* * *891* * *1,106* *1,399**

The overtaking trend is pretty clear.

Besides, where did you get the figures?

china supassed the US sometime ago it made the news at the time.......

Because we went into a recession, not because they 'stole our
manufacturing', as you keep claiming.



fred must wear brite red colored glasses, for him everything is
rosey.........

but thats not reality

bobbert must have his head up his ass, for him everything is
****tey........

but thats not reality

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

its common knowledge lack of manufacturing is hurting economic
recovery...

manufacturing used to pay well, the workers then bought other things.

today china is ahead of US in manufacturing...........

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Sorry, but as on everything else you spout on, you're full of ****e on
this as well. The US still has the largest manufacturing base on the
planet. In billions of dollars:

Not by now.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af2219cc-7...44feabdc0.html

Unreadable.

Still works for me.

Shortcut better? http://tinyurl.com/ft-us-manuf


Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008
USA 1,041 1,289 1,543 1,624 1,712 1,756 1,831
China 145 300 484 734* 891* 1,106* 1,399**

The overtaking trend is pretty clear.

But the claim wasn't that the US share of total world industrial
capacity was declining. The claim (which you 'cleverly' snipped) was
"we no longer have much of a manufacturing base. china has taken our
manufacturing jobs."

*Your* claim was "US still has the largest manufacturing base".

The other claim is idiotic and not worth bothering with.

Besides, where did you get the figures?

Readily found. Try, for example,

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/...tries-in-2007/

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...tatistics.html

References are good. But it's still not clear (and I have had a quick
look at those two) how the figures are calculated. E.g. is a ton of
steel valued at what it would fetch in the US, or locally?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

But it probably won't stay that way when the US economy recovers.
China is 'ahead', but they're having a problem moving product.

The combination of cheap labour, cheap resources, and a massive
(potential) domestic market means that China *will* wipe the
floor [0]. Their only problem at the moment is quality - but
they're working on it. Remember when "made in Japan" was a
jokey reference to something being well below par? In time,
brandnames like Sony became a by-word for quality: yet now,
even the Japanese get their PC motherboards from Taiwan.

What comes to mind here is the request "I want the world's
best gearbox". The response is another question:

"How many do you want?"

If it's "a hundred" - go to the UK, which dominates the highest
levels of automobile racing [1]. If it's "ten thousand", perhaps
you're better off with the Germans. If it's "one million",
talk to the Japanese. If it's "one hundred million", talk to
the Chinese.


[0] It was IMO a similar (but not identical) combination that
put the US where it is today.

[1] I don't know about *now*, but a few years ago at least
half of the cars on an Indycar starting grid were built in
England, and shipped home between races. And for the *global*
sport, i.e. Formula One, you'll find that 'Mercedes' (supposedly
German) and 'Renault' (supposedly French) are based in
Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire respectively.