#11
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Quadibloc wrote: On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: So how is that in anyone else's way? Well, it does cost the taxpayer money. Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to. Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way? Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the unmanned cargo flights are testing the falcon booster and operations while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version.... Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no money for missions, err jobs for it to do... I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now. If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that will only be used once a year for a family vacation? or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even afford the fuel The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs lower. the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ and nasa should of man rated the delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of delta would of benefitted everyone Let me try again, Bobbert. Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. How is NASA in anyone else's way? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts. Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or not to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is a bad thing. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Mar 4, 10:45*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 4:12*am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Quadibloc wrote: On Mar 3, 7:55*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: So how is that in anyone else's way? Well, it does cost the taxpayer money. Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their own money, which is what's being talked about. *Unless what Bobbert really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to. Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way? Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the unmanned cargo flights *are testing the falcon booster and operations while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version.... Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no money for missions, err jobs for it to do... I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now. If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that will only be used once a year for a family vacation? or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even afford the fuel The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs lower. the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ *and nasa should of man rated the delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of delta would of benefitted everyone Let me try again, Bobbert. *Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. *How is NASA in anyone else's way? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar *territory." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter. by all appearances musk operates at a fraction of nasas cost structure. assuming orion actually gets built what need would there be for a private heavy lifter? nasa will use its own orion and with so few possible commercial customers no low cost heavy lifter. its the same issue as why nasa after columbia didnt man rate the delta heavy? because nasa wanted its own pork project. if delta had been man rated right after columbia we wouldnt be dependent on russia today for getting astronauts to ISS. ARES / Orion / whatever is just pork. that we can no longer afford. heck they are cutting funding for private launchers while funding orion at 100% congress is behind much of this, the same dysfunctional congress who takes us thru sequestration and in a few weeks will see our country defaut rather than be reasonable and reach a compromise. congress prefers to play politics rather than do its job........... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Mar 5, 1:07*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:8bg9j8t0tp58s40q86vt4uer883okem6ih@4ax .com... bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Quadibloc wrote: On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: So how is that in anyone else's way? Well, it does cost the taxpayer money. Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to. Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way? Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the unmanned cargo flights *are testing the falcon booster and operations while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version.... Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no money for missions, err jobs for it to do... I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now. If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that will only be used once a year for a family vacation? or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even afford the fuel The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs lower. the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ *and nasa should of man rated the delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of delta would of benefitted everyone Let me try again, Bobbert. *Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. *How is NASA in anyone else's way? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *--G. Behn He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts. Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or not to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is a bad thing. so you prefer to pay 10 times the cost to launch on orion?? wouldnt it be better to cut launch costs dramatically? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
:: Let me try again, Bobbert. =A0Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. =A0How
:: is NASA in anyone else's way? : bob haller : Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by : building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut : launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter. And how does the fact that NASA provides more expensive launch services prevent people from selling them cheaper? After all, it's your contention that NASA-supported services have overinflated prices. How is anybody stopped from undercutting them, exactly? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"bob haller" wrote in message
... Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... Huh? So you're telling me because NASA will make something expensive that prevents someone from trying to make something inexpensive? This is not like the early days of STS when the government mandated all launches would fly on the shuttle and NASA was subsidizing launch costs. If there's a market, Musk and others will build a craft for it. While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford And that's all the missions that need it. This is building the Spruce Goose when the market demands DC-3s. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"bob haller" wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 1:07 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote: "Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:8bg9j8t0tp58s40q86vt4uer883okem6ih@4ax .com... bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Quadibloc wrote: On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: So how is that in anyone else's way? Well, it does cost the taxpayer money. Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to. Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way? Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the unmanned cargo flights are testing the falcon booster and operations while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version.... Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no money for missions, err jobs for it to do... I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now. If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that will only be used once a year for a family vacation? or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even afford the fuel The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs lower. the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ and nasa should of man rated the delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of delta would of benefitted everyone Let me try again, Bobbert. Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. How is NASA in anyone else's way? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts. Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or not to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is a bad thing. so you prefer to pay 10 times the cost to launch on orion?? wouldnt it be better to cut launch costs dramatically? Bobbert, in case you haven't heard, the commercial sector has a habit of overpromising themselves. Former NASA Astronaut Leroy Chao said in his blog back in '10 that at many a commercial spaceflight symposium, where many upstart companies spent most of their time and money on fancy presentations-before they went under, NASA-bashing was de jour. Until the Commercial Sector lives up to their promises, it's best to retain a healthy skepticism on them-whether it's an established firm like Boeing, or a startup like Space X, Orbital Science, or Sierra Nevada. There's nothing to stop these firms from developing and flying their own spacecraft, then offering cargo and crew services to LEO for NASA and other space agencies. Nada. Just do it on thier own dime: no government funds should go to these firms for what should be private R&D costs. That money going to commercial crew should go to Orion and SLS. .. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 10:45 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: bob haller wrote: On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Quadibloc wrote: On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: So how is that in anyone else's way? snip Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way? snip Let me try again, Bobbert. Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. How is NASA in anyone else's way? Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter. Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money". Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'. by all appearances musk operates at a fraction of nasas cost structure. assuming orion actually gets built what need would there be for a private heavy lifter? nasa will use its own orion and with so few possible commercial customers no low cost heavy lifter. Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money". Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'. snip heck they are cutting funding for private launchers while funding orion at 100% Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money". Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'. snip Are you starting to sense a thread here, Bobbert? YOU made the remark that "NASA needs to get out of the way". You are apparently either unable to understand what what you said means or you were merely Bobberting, as usual. Your real complaint seems to be "NASA insists in spending its money on what NASA wants instead of what Bobbert wants." -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn Exactly, Fred. The Bobbert's fantasy world is such that anything that contradicts it is either ignored, spun, or otherwise distorted to fit it. Just like Clueless Cobb over on the military aviation and naval NGs.... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Back to Space
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581- , says... Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in anyone else's way? NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market...... In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and switch to commercial launches only. This is a desire I share, but it is politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon. I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle. While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because thats at best all they can afford Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation. Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating a dead horse. Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. But I think it more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for decades. Again, this is the reality of US space politics. I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill, battle ahead of them. Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed. 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 The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Now the military's space plane is back.. | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 3 | June 29th 12 05:50 AM |
Looking back in space | N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) | Astronomy Misc | 39 | February 21st 06 01:38 PM |
US Space News is back | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 3 | November 7th 05 06:27 PM |
US Space News is back | Das Editor | Policy | 2 | November 7th 05 06:08 PM |
US Space News is back | [email protected] | Space Station | 1 | November 6th 05 05:28 PM |