A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 20th 10, 01:38 PM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

On Apr 19, 10:24�pm, Buster Norris wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:





On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:35:04 +0000, Buster Norris wrote:


Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:12:18 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:


On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:59:18 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:29:10 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
Guess what the cost is per trip per astronaut? $51,000,000.00
(each).
Part of the problem is that NASA and NASA's contractors started to
treat the program as a cash cow to be milked for all it is worth.


Bull****.


I'm sure you've expressed yourself to the full extent of your ability.


He shoulda called you what you are - a retard.


The entire NASA budget is less than one-fifth of one percent!


Generally speaking, people who use the word "retard" like you did hear it
often.


I've been calling retards like you retards for years!

So I heard me say it often, RETARD.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ok we understand your describing yourself...... how sad
  #32  
Old April 20th 10, 09:17 PM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_926_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

Buster Norris wrote:
" wrote:

You seem like a retard. Are you a retard or a Democrat-in-training?

There is no cost-per-year, retard. The cost isbased per shuttle
mission, retard.


You may want to read up on how the government actually works. Yes, there is
a cost per year. Federal budgets are appropriated on a yearly basis.


The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high and at
this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more realistic number.


Do the math, you stupid ****.

so using russia still saves big bucks.


You're a liar. Are you a liar or a Democrat-in-training?


And you can't do the math. Try again. Even if we assume your number for a
shuttle flight, having 6 American crew on the station is still cheaper than
a single shuttle flight. Up it to 15 and you're still cheaper than 3
shuttle flights.

But as they say, "Math is Hard".
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #33  
Old April 20th 10, 10:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Patriot Games[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:05:46 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:
"Patriot Games" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 02:02:23 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
President Whoever ; I 'promise' to land a man on the surface of
wherever
by the year whatever.
( whispers to his VP )
President Whoever ; F'ing rubes will believe anything whatsoever
if it's whatever they want to hear.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Meanwhile... The world's ONLY Space Ship gets mothballed while the
world's ONLY Space Station (built 95% by America and Americans) is
floating in space and WE CAN'T GET THERE...
We'll be PAYING THE RUSSIANS to take us to OUR Space Station.
Guess what the cost is per trip per astronaut?
$51,000,000.00 (each).

Well ya know the military has figured out a way to dramatically reduce
launch costs, the solution was so obvious it seemed to have escaped
everyone. The solution is to launch ...unmanned...spacecraft.


I could be wrong but I think if you check with the Viking Project
folks they will tell you they kinda-sorta heard about that new-fangled
'unmanned' stuff...

Granted that people are much faster at building things, and
hands-down winner of the sticky bolt competition. But considering
the huge difference in expense? We can upgrade our
'fastener technology', and what's the big hurry anyway?


There's nothing wrong with unmanned exploration, it makes a lot of
sense to send a machine out there a few times just in case there are
face-eating aliens hiding out there.

But it's gonna take HUMANS to build the orbiting solar power
stations...

And all that aside... Maybe it was bred out of you, or beaten out of
you, but as HUMANS we NEED TO EXPLORE.

We have a primal NEED to see what's on the other side of that hill, we
MUST go deeper, higher, farther, and faster than we did the last time
we tried to go deeper, higher, farther, and faster.

If the DemocRATs and/or Socialists and/or Communists and/or Marxists
and/or Muslims take that away from us, or beat it out of us, or breed
it out of us WE WILL CEASE TO BE A VIABLE INTELLIGENT SPECIES IN THIS
UNIVERSE and will become just another ****ing insect.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp
cancels the WORLD'S ONLY SPACESHIP and within TWO DAYS the ****ing
Russians already have an entire billing plan in place to taxi our lame
ass up to the WORLD'S ONLY SPACE STATION (that WE built and WE paid
for)?

Do you think the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp's canceling the WORLD'S
ONLY SPACESHIP, visiting 50 countries and apologizing for America, and
then complaining about being the WORLD'S ONLY SUPER-POWER "whether we
like it or not" are UNRELATED?

You need to wise up....
  #34  
Old April 21st 10, 12:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!


"Patriot Games" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:05:46 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:
"Patriot Games" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 02:02:23 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
President Whoever ; I 'promise' to land a man on the surface of
wherever
by the year whatever.
( whispers to his VP )
President Whoever ; F'ing rubes will believe anything whatsoever
if it's whatever they want to
hear.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Meanwhile... The world's ONLY Space Ship gets mothballed while the
world's ONLY Space Station (built 95% by America and Americans) is
floating in space and WE CAN'T GET THERE...
We'll be PAYING THE RUSSIANS to take us to OUR Space Station.
Guess what the cost is per trip per astronaut?
$51,000,000.00 (each).

Well ya know the military has figured out a way to dramatically reduce
launch costs, the solution was so obvious it seemed to have escaped
everyone. The solution is to launch ...unmanned...spacecraft.


I could be wrong but I think if you check with the Viking Project
folks they will tell you they kinda-sorta heard about that new-fangled
'unmanned' stuff...




And NASA's manned space program is finding out the hard way
which form is more competitive. We use to build both forms, now
just the one.



Granted that people are much faster at building things, and
hands-down winner of the sticky bolt competition. But considering
the huge difference in expense? We can upgrade our
'fastener technology', and what's the big hurry anyway?


There's nothing wrong with unmanned exploration, it makes a lot of
sense to send a machine out there a few times just in case there are
face-eating aliens hiding out there.

But it's gonna take HUMANS to build the orbiting solar power
stations...



Maybe a few, for a time. But still some 99 launches out of a 100 will
still be unmanned.



And all that aside... Maybe it was bred out of you, or beaten out of
you, but as HUMANS we NEED TO EXPLORE.



And it takes 2 or 3 years to land a rover on Mars, it takes 30 or 40 years
to get men there. So humans need to explore in the ....slowest most
exensive form possible? Sounds anti-exploration to me.



We have a primal NEED to see what's on the other side of that hill,



And when a rover goes over the hill, hundreds of millions of people
can be watching as if they were there.


we
MUST go deeper, higher, farther, and faster



Right, unmanned spacecraft can go places no human would dare.
It could visit far more inhospitable environments, and in
fact go deeper, higher, farther and faster than manned
spacecraft.


than we did the last time
we tried to go deeper, higher, farther, and faster.

If the DemocRATs and/or Socialists and/or Communists and/or Marxists
and/or Muslims take that away from us, or beat it out of us, or breed
it out of us WE WILL CEASE TO BE A VIABLE INTELLIGENT SPECIES IN THIS
UNIVERSE and will become just another ****ing insect.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp
cancels the WORLD'S ONLY SPACESHIP and within TWO DAYS the ****ing
Russians already have an entire billing plan in place to taxi our lame
ass up to the WORLD'S ONLY SPACE STATION (that WE built and WE paid
for)?

Do you think the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp's canceling the WORLD'S
ONLY SPACESHIP, visiting 50 countries and apologizing for America, and
then complaining about being the WORLD'S ONLY SUPER-POWER "whether we
like it or not" are UNRELATED?

You need to wise up....



It was Lockheed that wanted to go back to the Moon.
In order to pocket just as much taxpayer money that
their best friend and 'Vision' creator, Dick Cheney could
manage to stuff in their pocket. Do you think Mrs. Cheney
was on the Lockheed Board because of her vast knowledge
of military contracts?

Who needs to wise up. NASA has suffered at the hands of
self serving, big-money and back-room politics for decades.
It's why NASA is in the shape it's in today.

It's time the people decide a sensible goal that benefits
society first, and Big-Aero last. And if you asked the
people they would answer Space Solar Power.



Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm

Business Presentation for Space Solar Power
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation


War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation

"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf










  #35  
Old April 21st 10, 03:50 AM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Buster Norris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Buster Norris wrote:
" wrote:

You seem like a retard. Are you a retard or a Democrat-in-training?

There is no cost-per-year, retard. The cost isbased per shuttle
mission, retard.


You may want to read up on how the government actually works. Yes, there is
a cost per year. Federal budgets are appropriated on a yearly basis.


The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high and at
this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more realistic number.


Prove it, put that cite right he_____________


  #36  
Old April 21st 10, 04:22 AM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!


The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. � Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high and at
this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more realistic number.


Prove it, put that cite right he_____________



Buster why bother you wouldnt be able to understand it in any case.
Its beyond your ability

You need a job? there are openings nationwide for garbagemen. True it
will be tough for you but with effort you may be able to master
putting trash bags in a compactor.......


  #37  
Old April 21st 10, 01:20 PM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Buster Norris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

bob haller LIAR advocate wrote:

The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. � Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high and
at
this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more realistic number.


Prove it, put that cite right he_____________



Buster why bother you


You can **** off now, LIAR!!!

You need a job?


No, LIAR, I'm doing very well, LIAR.

You can **** off now, LIAR!!!


  #38  
Old April 21st 10, 02:09 PM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

On Apr 21, 8:20�am, Buster Norris wrote:
bob haller LIAR advocate wrote:

The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high and
at
this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more realistic number..


Prove it, put that cite right he_____________


Buster why bother you


You can **** off now, LIAR!!!

You need a job?


No, LIAR, I'm doing very well, LIAR.

You can **** off now, LIAR!!!


buster please dont hold back tell us how you really feel.

kinda surprised at your posts, when did they start allowing internet
access from jails and mental hospitals???
  #39  
Old April 21st 10, 03:40 PM posted to alt.politics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_929_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

Buster Norris wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Buster Norris wrote:
" wrote:

You seem like a retard. Are you a retard or a Democrat-in-training?

There is no cost-per-year, retard. The cost isbased per shuttle
mission, retard.


You may want to read up on how the government actually works. Yes,
there is a cost per year. Federal budgets are appropriated on a
yearly basis.


The cost per mission is $450 million.


Was. Unfortunately the fixed costs of shuttle flights is very high
and at this point about $1 billion per flight is a far more
realistic number.


Prove it, put that cite right he_____________


Typically when one makes the original, they're expected to provide the cite.

However, since you can't seem to do that:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0534.pdf This estimates the additional cost
of the Hubble mission at well over $1B dollars.
Now that mission had some unique requirements, including making sure a 2nd
shuttle was on the pad as a rescue orbiter. So let's assume the $2.4B
number is way off and the $1.7B is still a bit high.

Or from 2000: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011000r.pdf and I quote": For
fiscal year 2000, NASA calculated an average cost per launch of $759 million
based on four shuttle launches."

Those costs have gone up since then. Tossing into on example inflation
calculator I get inflation along bringing the costs up to $936 Million. So
that's with 10% of my Billion estimate.

In any case, any realistic number at this point is far more than $450
million.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #40  
Old April 21st 10, 08:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,alt.politics
Patriot Games[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Fearless Leader Makes NASA Solumn Promise!

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:56:40 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:
"Patriot Games" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:05:46 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:
"Patriot Games" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 02:02:23 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
President Whoever ; I 'promise' to land a man on the surface of
wherever
by the year whatever.
( whispers to his VP )
President Whoever ; F'ing rubes will believe anything whatsoever
if it's whatever they want to
hear.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Meanwhile... The world's ONLY Space Ship gets mothballed while the
world's ONLY Space Station (built 95% by America and Americans) is
floating in space and WE CAN'T GET THERE...
We'll be PAYING THE RUSSIANS to take us to OUR Space Station.
Guess what the cost is per trip per astronaut?
$51,000,000.00 (each).
Well ya know the military has figured out a way to dramatically reduce
launch costs, the solution was so obvious it seemed to have escaped
everyone. The solution is to launch ...unmanned...spacecraft.

I could be wrong but I think if you check with the Viking Project
folks they will tell you they kinda-sorta heard about that new-fangled
'unmanned' stuff...

And NASA's manned space program is finding out the hard way
which form is more competitive. We use to build both forms, now
just the one.
Granted that people are much faster at building things, and
hands-down winner of the sticky bolt competition. But considering
the huge difference in expense? We can upgrade our
'fastener technology', and what's the big hurry anyway?

There's nothing wrong with unmanned exploration, it makes a lot of
sense to send a machine out there a few times just in case there are
face-eating aliens hiding out there.
But it's gonna take HUMANS to build the orbiting solar power
stations...

Maybe a few, for a time. But still some 99 launches out of a 100 will
still be unmanned.
And all that aside... Maybe it was bred out of you, or beaten out of
you, but as HUMANS we NEED TO EXPLORE.

And it takes 2 or 3 years to land a rover on Mars, it takes 30 or 40 years
to get men there.


We could do it in 15, maybe 20 years.

So humans need to explore in the ....slowest most
exensive form possible? Sounds anti-exploration to me.


Maybe it sounds anti-exploration to you because you've been down-bred?

We have a primal NEED to see what's on the other side of that hill,

And when a rover goes over the hill, hundreds of millions of people
can be watching as if they were there.


"As if" isn't the same. Humans don't identify with machines , humans
identify with their kind.

we
MUST go deeper, higher, farther, and faster

Right, unmanned spacecraft can go places no human would dare.


Which is precisely why we should use them for that.

It could visit far more inhospitable environments, and in
fact go deeper, higher, farther and faster than manned
spacecraft.


Correct. Machines are an extension of humans, not a replacement for
humans.

than we did the last time
we tried to go deeper, higher, farther, and faster.
If the DemocRATs and/or Socialists and/or Communists and/or Marxists
and/or Muslims take that away from us, or beat it out of us, or breed
it out of us WE WILL CEASE TO BE A VIABLE INTELLIGENT SPECIES IN THIS
UNIVERSE and will become just another ****ing insect.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp
cancels the WORLD'S ONLY SPACESHIP and within TWO DAYS the ****ing
Russians already have an entire billing plan in place to taxi our lame
ass up to the WORLD'S ONLY SPACE STATION (that WE built and WE paid
for)?
Do you think the Buckwheat Moron PresiChimp's canceling the WORLD'S
ONLY SPACESHIP, visiting 50 countries and apologizing for America, and
then complaining about being the WORLD'S ONLY SUPER-POWER "whether we
like it or not" are UNRELATED?
You need to wise up....

It was Lockheed that wanted to go back to the Moon.
In order to pocket just as much taxpayer money that
their best friend and 'Vision' creator, Dick Cheney could
manage to stuff in their pocket. Do you think Mrs. Cheney
was on the Lockheed Board because of her vast knowledge
of military contracts?


I think Mrs. Cheney was on the Board because prior to that she had
been a Director with Lockheed. And she resigned her position as Board
member about TEN years ago...

Of course Lockheed wants us to go to the Moon. If you asked ANY of
the large gov't contractors if they wanted to go to the Moon they'd
all say YES. But if you asked ANY of the large gov't contractors if
they wanted to go to the bottom of the ocean, or Uranus, they'd all
also say YES.

Who needs to wise up.


You do.

NASA has suffered at the hands of
self serving, big-money and back-room politics for decades.
It's why NASA is in the shape it's in today.


Wrong. NASA is in the shape it's in today because NASA was forced to
"share" with the world's idiots. The only thing NOT "international"
about the Space Station is WHO PAID FOR IT.

It's time the people decide a sensible goal that benefits
society first, and Big-Aero last.


Society? **** society. NASA is by and for AMERICA and Americans.

And if you asked the
people they would answer Space Solar Power.


Unfortunately you're wrong. They SHOULD give that answer BUT they
aren't smart enough to give that answer.

But the REALLY BIG problem is that our Buckwheat PresiChimp thinks
"Space Solar Power" is a BattleStar Galactica episode and thinks the
answer is do nothing and wait for somebody to hand you something for
free...
 




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
Our fearless Leader at Work .. Hagar[_1_] Misc 0 November 6th 09 03:53 PM
Our fearless Leader at Work .. jughead Misc 0 November 6th 09 04:05 AM
etter, Faster Spacecraft Designs: New Software System Offers Promise Of NASA-Wide Collaboration [email protected] News 0 May 18th 06 09:37 PM
Nasa Makes A Disgusting Political Decision OhBrother Astronomy Misc 35 March 31st 04 07:11 AM
NASA Portal Makes A Little Bit Of Mars Available To Everyone On Earth Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 0 February 20th 04 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.