NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

in article , Eric Chomko
at wrote on 12/8/06 10:28 AM:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 8 Dec 2006 10:18:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

snip

Been given money? By whom?

By everyone, you moron.

We'll start with you, imbecile. How much have you given to private
spaceflight?

And now my keyboard.

George Evans

George Evans wrote:
in article ,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation at
wrote on 12/8/06 7:25 AM:

George Evans wrote:

in article , Rand Simberg at
h wrote on 12/8/06 4:28 AM:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:39:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

snip

Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub.

What an absurd and illogical argument.

Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact, the
Russians do it better.

As Jorge just pointed out, the safety records are the same and NASA has done
far more in human space exploration. Putting that in the mix, there is no
comparison. NASA wins.

So george how do you rank on the caution scale? You see posting stuff, and
not taking responsibility for your own words is somewhat belligerent, but that
is if you choose not to answer.

I don't understand your responsibility point. Is it that I don't append long
quotes with long footnotes, like you do?

But I will answer your question. I am generally in awe of NASA's commitment
to launch criterion. I have never known another organization that is so
self-controlled. I think Thursday night I would have gone for it since the
cloud deck was hovering around 500 feet.

I also think I detected some irritation in NTD's voice which I accounted
frustration over the scrub. And I noticed the guys in the STA going to
heroic efforts to find a "hole in the clouds".

500 feet is obviously not a result of calculations. It's obviously an
estimate. It may be based on a calculation, in which case I would be
interested in the statistical analysis.

George Evans


George Evans

Here is some information on the performance requirements for manned
private launches, and how the safety analysis is depended upon a wind
weighted system for launch safety, commit criteria, and rules governing
the flight path.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPA...y-25/i6743.htm
Flight Safety Analysis
"The performance requirements for a flight safety system and a wind-
weighting system are both located in subpart C. However, the
methodologies for meeting the performance requirements are different
for each system. Appendices A, B, and I contain the methodologies for a
flight safety system and Appendices B, C, and I contain the
methodologies for a wind-weighting system. All of the following
performance requirements adopt current range practices, as identified
through FAA consultation with range safety personnel. Below is a
description of each of the analyses that together constitute a flight
safety analysis. The results of a flight safety analysis using a flight
safety system or a wind-weighting safety system are then used to
establish rules governing when it is safe to launch, which are referred
to as flight commit criteria. A flight safety analysis using a flight
safety system also establishes rules governing the termination of
flight.

A trajectory analysis establishes, for any time after lift-off, the
limits of a launch vehicle's normal flight, as defined by the nominal
trajectory and potential three-sigma trajectory dispersions about the
nominal trajectory. The trajectory analysis must also establish a fuel
exhaustion trajectory and a straight up trajectory. A fuel exhaustion
trajectory produces instantaneous impact points with the greatest range
for any given time-after-liftoff for any stage that has the potential
to impact the Earth and does not burn to propellant depletion before a
programmed thrust termination. For example, a stage that fails to
terminate at its programmed thrust termination point will continue
flight until burnout if the stage contains residual fuel. A straight-up
trajectory projects the results that would occur if a launch vehicle
malfunctioned and flew in a vertical or near vertical direction above
the launch point."


tom

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:49:06 GMT, George Evans
wrote:

in article , Fred J. McCall at
wrote on 12/8/06 8:58 AM:

snip

I always find it funny when 'private enterprise' fans scream that
their problem is that they don't get all that big government funding.

They don't seem to understand what 'private enterprise' is...

This is a very good point. Just to take one (probably silly) example, Bill
Gates in sitting on a pile of fake money about three times the size of
NASA's total annual budget. He might want the chance to make some of that
money real. I can see the pitch. Gatespace, mankind's Gatesway to the stars.


The fact that the poster says they haven't gotten the money doesn't mean
that the poster necessarily expects that money to come from government
sources.

As for Bill Gates, someone -- Henry Spencer, I think -- noted that he is
not interested in funding space launches. Paul Allen, now, might well be
interested in doing that. And in fact Allen has provided substantial funding
to Scaled Composites for the Spaceship One effort.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:02:20 GMT, in a place far, far away,
Christopher P. Winter made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:49:06 GMT, George Evans
wrote:

in article , Fred J. McCall at
wrote on 12/8/06 8:58 AM:

snip

I always find it funny when 'private enterprise' fans scream that
their problem is that they don't get all that big government funding.

This seems like a non sequitur, since no one has been "screaming," or
even saying, anything of the sort, at least in this thread.

I guess you find your own delusions, funny, Fred.

They don't seem to understand what 'private enterprise' is...

This is a very good point. Just to take one (probably silly) example, Bill
Gates in sitting on a pile of fake money about three times the size of
NASA's total annual budget. He might want the chance to make some of that
money real. I can see the pitch. Gatespace, mankind's Gatesway to the stars.


The fact that the poster says they haven't gotten the money doesn't mean
that the poster necessarily expects that money to come from government
sources.

In fact, I made no such assumption, and had no such expectation. In
facct, I wasn't even complaining about the lack of money. I was
simply stating it as fact, and one relevant to the nonsensical claim
that NASA does anything better than private enterprise, other than
getting money.

Rand Simberg wrote:"In fact, I made no such assumption, and had no such
expectation. In facct, I wasn't even complaining about the lack of
money. I was simply stating it as fact, and one relevant to the
nonsensical claim that NASA does anything better than private
enterprise, other than getting money"


Actually rand your above statement is an opinion, from you a person who
has a bias, ie you cannot offer up subjective opinions and state they
are fact without citation.

tom

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:02:20 GMT, in a place far, far away,
Christopher P. Winter made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:49:06 GMT, George Evans
wrote:

in article , Fred J. McCall at
wrote on 12/8/06 8:58 AM:

snip

I always find it funny when 'private enterprise' fans scream that
their problem is that they don't get all that big government funding.

This seems like a non sequitur, since no one has been "screaming," or
even saying, anything of the sort, at least in this thread.

I guess you find your own delusions, funny, Fred.

They don't seem to understand what 'private enterprise' is...

This is a very good point. Just to take one (probably silly) example, Bill
Gates in sitting on a pile of fake money about three times the size of
NASA's total annual budget. He might want the chance to make some of that
money real. I can see the pitch. Gatespace, mankind's Gatesway to the stars.


The fact that the poster says they haven't gotten the money doesn't mean
that the poster necessarily expects that money to come from government
sources.

In fact, I made no such assumption, and had no such expectation. In
facct, I wasn't even complaining about the lack of money. I was
simply stating it as fact, and one relevant to the nonsensical claim
that NASA does anything better than private enterprise, other than
getting money.

You see rand you might want to check out NASA's technology transfer
program before you state how NASA spends money, as the private sector
is a direct beneficiary of NASA funding through the technology transfer
program.


http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/sttr2006/p...rds/press.html
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program
2006 SBIR/STTR Phase 1 Press Release

NASA SELECTS 287 SMALL BUSINESS RESEARCH AND TECH PROJECTS
NASA has selected 260 proposals for negotiation of phase 1 contract
awards in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, and 27
proposals for negotiation of phase 1 contract awards in the Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program.

The selected SBIR projects have a total value of approximately $25
million. The selected STTR projects have a total value of approximately
$3 million. The SBIR contracts will be awarded to 206 small high
technology firms in 32 states. The STTR contracts will be awarded to 25
small high technology firms in 14 states.

The programs are competitive, three-phase award systems that provide
qualified small businesses with opportunities to propose innovative
ideas that meet specific research and development needs of the federal
government. Business program participants include women-owned and
disadvantaged firms. The STTR program requires collaboration of
research institutions in the resulting contracts.

Phase 1 is a feasibility study to evaluate the scientific and technical
merit of an idea. The SBIR awards may last up to six months while STTR
awards may last up to one year. Both programs award Phase 1 contracts
up to $100,000. Phase 2 expands on the results on the development of
Phase 1. Phase 2 Awards are for up to two years in amounts up to
$600,000. Phase 3 is for the commercialization of the results of phase
2 and requires the use of private sector or non-SBIR federal funding.

Participating contractors submitted 1,709 Phase 1 SBIR proposals and
201 Phase 1 STTR proposals. The criteria used to select the winning
proposals included technical merit and feasibility; experience,
qualifications and facilities; effectiveness of the work plan; and,
commercial potential and feasibility.
For information about NASA's SBIR and STTR programs, and a complete
list of selected companies, visit: http://sbir.nasa.gov"


tom

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:31:43 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

He's nuts. Don't feed the troll.

....Many of us have tried this with George. He refuses to listen to
strong urgings to quit responding to the trolls(*). It's strongly
suspected that he's ignoring us just to be a troll himself, which is
why I'm about one more obteuse, retarded, trollish post of his from
tossing him into Killfile Hell, where he can slobber the flaccid knobs
of Chumpko and the rest of the trolls for all eternity.

I think I know what my New Year's Resolution is, kids - I'm going to
start posting a weekly "Strongly Urged Killfile List", to which we
should direct all newbies *and* idiots who respond to the trolls to...


(*) Kinda like you are with Chumpko, natch.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:31:43 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

He's nuts. Don't feed the troll.

...Many of us have tried this with George. He refuses to listen to
strong urgings to quit responding to the trolls(*). It's strongly
suspected that he's ignoring us just to be a troll himself, which is
why I'm about one more obteuse, retarded, trollish post of his from
tossing him into Killfile Hell, where he can slobber the flaccid knobs
of Chumpko and the rest of the trolls for all eternity.

I think I know what my New Year's Resolution is, kids - I'm going to
start posting a weekly "Strongly Urged Killfile List", to which we
should direct all newbies *and* idiots who respond to the trolls to...


(*) Kinda like you are with Chumpko, natch.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Put yourself on the list as well om, as all of you who have called me a
troll have not contributed as many factual citations as i have to this
thread or even these boards, but somehow you think that illogically
tainting the messenger taints the message, as i do read all of the
information from any of the posters here and make my own choice about
the information, so read at your own free will...
tom

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:47:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

When are his good moments? I must have missed them.

....I don't see how. You respond to every one of his trollings!

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

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:55:59 -0600, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:47:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

When are his good moments? I must have missed them.

...I don't see how.

Easy. He has none.

You respond to every one of his trollings!

No, I don't. I'd have no time for anything else if I did.