Plotting A New Course for NASA

On Nov 25, 3:28*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...







Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget

On Nov 25, 4:15*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 25, 3:28*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:





"bob haller" wrote in message

...

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.

On Nov 25, 9:08*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:15*am, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 25, 3:28*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message

....

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

saturn died at the time of cost cutting to fund the vietnam
war.........

basically no bucks

see anything interesting in this?

mars probes ending?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av028/111124future/

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 9:08 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:15 am, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 25, 3:28 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message


...

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But,
and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors
is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year?
You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster.
No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the
trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of
mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the
testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never
ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

saturn died at the time of cost cutting to fund the vietnam
war.........

basically no bucks

see anything interesting in this?

No. Killing Apollo wasn't due to the Vietnam War, it was the "been there,
done that" attitude that was coming along post Apollo 11. Then the proposal
for Shuttle came along, with the promise of easy, cheap, and reliable access
to space. In the budget climate of the early '70s, the latter rang louder
than continued Apollo-derived concepts.

On 11/24/2011 10:58 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts
haven't been finalized.

When you take into consideration even the preliminary numbers for cost of operations of SLS they are not good compared to cost to
operate Falcon 9 Heavy or even Atlas 5 Heavy or Delta 5 Heavy configurations. That's why I urge a study to compare the costs of
re-use of KSC assets with ELVs. It may be the bulk of cost to operate is due to the expensive ground infrastructure and has little
to nothing to do with the rocket (in the case of SLS I doubt this as well). In any case, the numbers I've seen (so far) don't look good.


And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but
there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several
commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities
from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work
at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters
from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they
pushed for and got SLS.

I understand the political issues. However these are not the "numbers" that would change my mind. Wasting money because its
politically expedient right now to do so isn't going to make for a healthy space program once a "reformer" gets elected president,
who will take the case of money being wasted directly to the American people and starts to wield his veto power. If that reformer is
not pro-space, a government space program that has put all its eggs in the SLS basket will be in really big trouble.

They didn't want the Administration to wait up
to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine
strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If
Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a
position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-
TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even
though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if
you'll recall.

JSC interests aka stated NASA policy *is* COTS / CCDev. At least for access to ISS.
Today the engineering numbers say it should be COTS/CCDev for all access to LEO. Why suck up all of NASA financial resources on
rebuilding the wheel? Let's focus the $$$ being spent on BEO on true Exo-Atmospheric Vehicles EAVs. IMHO NASA should be working in
sync with private companies (as it always has in the past) to reduce costs to LEO. That will naturally lead to all sorts of BEO
opportunities. We already know we can't afford SLS if its numbers to operate are at the same levels as shuttle. If we don't have a
good handle on those numbers, logic says we should *stop* and do more cost studies until we do, not charge ahead full speed.

But I did not start this thread as an SLS vs COTS debate. I want constructive suggestions as to how NASA should move forward. If
that's a lunar colony, I'd like to hear it and the reasoning why. Personally, I favor a solar exploration vehicle for going to the
inner planets (Venus and Mars) and to continue to explore the Moon with tele-robotics. I think surface exploration (initial surveys)
can be done with a manned government program, but colonization or permanent habitation is not politically expedient and is best left
to the NGOs. Government *can* provide important subsidies to provide infrastructure to enable that. Just as it has with roads and
bridges.

To further debate along these lines I propose the following question: If you *had* an EAV and *had* completed a manned Mars surface
landing, what would you do next? Contrast those possibilities against those if you only had a mission-specific tasked Mars program
with no ability to do tours of the nearby solar system.

Dave

On Nov 26, 2:52*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...
On Nov 25, 9:08 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 25, 4:15 am, bob haller wrote:

On Nov 25, 3:28 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message

...

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But,
and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors
is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year?
You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster..
No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the
trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of
mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the
testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never
ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

saturn died at the time of cost cutting to fund the vietnam
war.........

basically no bucks

see anything interesting in this?

No. Killing Apollo wasn't due to the Vietnam War, it was the "been there,
done that" attitude that was coming along post Apollo 11. Then the proposal
for Shuttle came along, with the promise of easy, cheap, and reliable access
to space. In the budget climate of the early '70s, the latter rang louder
than continued Apollo-derived concepts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

obviously you werent alive at the time.

the vietnam war paid for as it occured was one big cost that sucked
the $ out of other things.

so nasa sold shuttle as a cheap alternatuve where clearly nasa
management knew the cost projections were fantasy, but they wanted a
new big project....

On Nov 27, 11:17*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
mars probes ending?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av028/111124future/

It's like several of us have been telling you, Bobbert. *Kill manned
space and the rest of space takes an even bigger cut....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. Simple as that. Then again, that's kinda
going over the Bobbert's head. But then again, what do you expect from
a clown who believes that MER-class rovers can be built on an assembly-
line basis when both flight articles (and the spare at JPL used as a
test bed) were literally hand-made?

On Nov 27, 10:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never ceases to
amaze....

I don't find his political ignorance amazing at all. *It seems to be
equal to his engineering ignorance, his economic ignorance, his ...

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about his general ignorance: is he living like Cobb over on the
military NGs? In his own fantasy world?

On Nov 27, 8:40*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 26, 2:52*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:





"bob haller" wrote in message

....
On Nov 25, 9:08 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Nov 25, 4:15 am, bob haller wrote:

On Nov 25, 3:28 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message

....

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But,
and
here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors
is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year?
You'd
get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster.
No
offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the
trash
after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero

In your dreams, Bobbert. Still clinging to the fantasy of
mass-producing MER
type rovers, hmm? Hard to do that when both flight articles and the
testbed
at JPL were literally HAND-BUILT. Your political ignorance never
ceases to
amaze....-

yeah just claim everything is impossible, and do nothing while
spending boatloads of bucks on studies.

design and build something thats performs awesome, and outlives
everyones wildest dreams.

then abandon the design and start over......

thats not intelligent thinking when your on a tight budget- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, Bobbert, but your "ideas" won't get anywhere in Congress. Like
I said, they'd laugh you out of the hearing room, hold the door open
for you, and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. If you want to
blame someone for killing Saturn, as you imply, then throw darts at a
pic of Tricky Dick Nixon. He gave the order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

saturn died at the time of cost cutting to fund the vietnam
war.........

basically no bucks

see anything interesting in this?

No. Killing Apollo wasn't due to the Vietnam War, it was the "been there,
done that" attitude that was coming along post Apollo 11. Then the proposal
for Shuttle came along, with the promise of easy, cheap, and reliable access
to space. In the budget climate of the early '70s, the latter rang louder
than continued Apollo-derived concepts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

obviously you werent alive at the time.

the vietnam war paid for as it occured was one big cost that sucked
the $ out of other things.

so nasa sold shuttle as a cheap alternatuve where clearly nasa
management knew the cost projections were fantasy, but they wanted a
new big project....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Shuttle was never a substitute for Saturn: Saturn was meant for BEO,
Shuttle for LEO. Two different systems for two different missions. I
strongly suggest you grow a brain and start using it instead of using
your fantasies to cloud your thinking. Or is that too much for the
Bobbert?