New Shuttle-derived booster squabbles

In article ,
says...

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2011 6:02 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Sure does look like a Jupiter to me.
Does anyone want a new giant rocket booster with no mission?
Let the squabble-fest begin:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7080265.story


Pat

There I was thinking that using solid fuel rockets for manned launches had
been killed off to avoid killing off the astronauts.

And using in throw-away mode three engines designed for re-use...


What I want to know is why NASA thinks they need to be
launching a lot of people into space?

Because we can. It's as good a reason as any...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

What I want to know is why NASA thinks they need to be
launching a lot of people into space?

Because we can. *It's as good a reason as any...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011-

NASA is totallyu ignoring the economic collapse of our country.....

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

What I want to know is why NASA thinks they need to be
launching a lot of people into space?

Because we can. It's as good a reason as any...

Jeff

I have no issue with a government agency dedicated to the objective of
launching government employees (esp. legislators) into space.

What I object to is also tasking said agency with bringing them back.

;-)

Dave

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
What I want to know is why NASA thinks they need to be
launching a lot of people into space?

Because we can. It's as good a reason as any...

The bobbert's opposition to HSF is well known. I actually concur with the
above. We do it because we can. And want to-luddites like the bobbert
notwithstanding.

On May 13, 9:49*am, bob haller wrote:
What I want to know is why NASA thinks they need to be
launching a lot of people into space?

Because we can. *It's as good a reason as any...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011-

NASA is totallyu ignoring the economic collapse of our country.....

This 'collapse' made possible by insane right wing policies such
as starving government of revenues by cutting corporate taxes
to historic lows, such that companies such as GE making 10
billion dollar profits not only paid no taxes, but got a billion
free 'back'...

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...ate-taxes.html

Although taxes paid by corporations, measured as a share of
the economy, rose modestly during the boom years of the 1990s,
they remained sharply lower even in the boom years than in
previous decades. According to OMB historical data, corporate
taxes averaged 2 percent of GDP in the 1990s. That
represented only about two-fifths of their share of GDP in the
1950s, half of their share in the 1960s, and three-quarters of
their share in the 1970s.
The share that corporate tax revenues comprise of total
federal tax revenues also has collapsed, falling from an average
of 28 percent of federal revenues in the 1950s and 21 percent in
the 1960s to an average of about 10 percent since the 1980s.
The effective corporate tax rate — that is, the percentage of
corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate income
taxes — has followed a similar pattern. During the 1990s,
corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their
profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new
Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they
paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s,
and 33 percent in the 1970s.
Corporate income tax revenues are lower in the United States
than in most European countries. According to data from the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, total
federal and state corporate income tax revenues in the United
States in 2000, measured as a share of the economy, were about
one-quarter less than the average for other OECD member
countries. Thirty-five years ago, the opposite was true —
corporations in the United States bore a heavier burden than their
European counterparts.-

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1311

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

Wouldeveryone who belied ARES was a good idea please cite your posts.

the only people who liked ARES were the existing shuttle contractors,
who no doubt paid off congress to build it.

any thinking person knew solids on a manned vehicle were a bad idea.

and according to jonh young nasa specked a vehicle that was too big
too costly that no one wanted.

we could of already been flying on existing delta and atlas heavies if
nasa congress hadnt ordered keep the pork flowing.

as our economy continues to un.

wind the $ for nasa will decrease, and blunders make their budget
decline a lot is more likely

giving nasa $ is like giving a sailor on leave money for investment,
it will be squandered

On May 14, 10:39*am, bob haller vomited:
congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

Wouldeveryone who belied ARES was a good idea please cite your posts.

Well, if you're going to ignore the main body of my post
that gave solid evidence that your ASSertion about the
economy was WRONG, then I will ignore your drug
addled brain damaged screed that is utterly a factless
and unfocused mess.

And, your meds are still failed.

Andre

On May 14, 11:18*am, Andre Lieven wrote:
On May 14, 10:39*am, bob haller vomited:

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

Wouldeveryone who belied ARES was a good idea please cite your posts.

Well, if you're going to ignore the main body of my post
that gave solid evidence that your ASSertion about the
economy was WRONG, then I will ignore your drug
addled brain damaged screed that is utterly a factless
and unfocused mess.

And, your meds are still failed.

Andre

corporations solved many tax issues by moving production to foreign
countries, nearly everything gewts produced in places like china and
their 2 buck a day pay american.

some produts marked made in america are produced with all imported
from china parts, and mostly assembled in china. final assembly in
here, for the made in america label but really they arent.

congress meddling in nasa is just one example, of boondoggle spending
driven by congress, pork piggie spending that we can no longer afford

On May 14, 11:18*am, Andre Lieven wrote:
On May 14, 10:39*am, bob haller vomited:

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

Wouldeveryone who belied ARES was a good idea please cite your posts.

Well, if you're going to ignore the main body of my post
that gave solid evidence that your ASSertion about the
economy was WRONG, then I will ignore your drug
addled brain damaged screed that is utterly a factless
and unfocused mess.

And, your meds are still failed.

Andre

There are government entities that work and government entities that
don't work. The differences between these can be traced back to how
they're organized and function. Eisenhower was a master at getting
things done. He was not only President of the United States at a time
when that job meant a lot more than it does now, Eisenhower was
Supreme Commander of the Allied Command in Europe in World War Two.
The War In Europe ended before the War in Japan. Eisenhower knew how
to get the job done.

Eisenhower organized NASA.

Eisenhower opposed a civilian space program following the leaks that
occurred through civilians about our atomic secrets. He arranged
things so that vonBraun couldn't accidentally orbit a payload on a
missile test in 1956 for this reason. But the events of 1957 inspired
Congress to demand the President *do* something about a non-existent
Soviet lead in space. Eisenhower was sure that the entire Sputnik
thing was a psyop by the Soviets against the West's bravado and
derring do.

You may recall JFK ran on a non-existent missile gap that Eisenhower
refused to talk about for fear of leaking missile secrets to the
Soviets who had just gotten the bomb years ahead of schedule.

So what did Eisenhower do when he created NASA? Well first - the
name. Sounds a lot like NAZI doesn't it? Its not accidental! Werner
Von Braun, Krafft Ehricke, Professor Von Eschen were all former NAZIs
picked up in Operation Paperclip. You know, that wonderful government
program that brought you MK-ULTRA and LSD. It also brought you
missiles that could vaporize any city in the world in 42 minutes or
less and Eisenhower wanted to keep that **** secret. People hated the
NAZIs so why not name the agency in a way that pointed right at the
NAZIs who ran it!? Eisenhower read the debriefing documents in 1947
where these assholes wanted to put a base on the moon to bomb Earth in
the event of a Soviet attack. He had no doubt they could do it! He
asked, who would run these bases? Well, experts would! You know, the
damn NAZIs!! F**k that **** - he just got done beating those
*******s. He's not going to spend billions of dollars to set up a
base on the moon to let them drop bombs on the Earth! He classified
that **** and kept them in the background. He sure as hell didn't
want a lot of publicity for it.

So, when he was forced by Congress to do something, he created NASA.
Being the expert in getting things done - he made damn sure he
structured the new agency in a way that it wouldn't get things done.
It would quickly become a political football and irrelevant to the
nation - and eventually, the American people would say, why are we
paying for this ****, and it would end an ignoble death.

I am absolutely certain that the very structure of NASA and the way it
does business has a multitude of bombs built into that assure its self-
destruction - put there by Eisenhower. I am aware of only one, but
its illustrative of what Eisenhower did. He made Vice President
Richard Nixon the Director of the agency! Can you imagine anything
worse than to put the Vice President in charge of a highly
sophisticated technical project? Ever wonder why nothing got done
when Dan Quayle was in charge of NASA? hahaha.. The National Academy
of Science urged the President in 1957 to create a National Space
Academy, put von Braun in charge, and give it the task of making long-
term space policy based on the scientific, industrial, and resource
needs of the nation. ****, here we go with those damn NAZIs again!

Ever wonder why the term Space Academy is so marginalized?

Our attitudes have been shaped by government ever since radio
broadcasting began and Walter Lippmann wrote his book PROPAGANDA.

If you cut through all that **** and read what the National Academy
wrote in 1956 and 1957 on the subject, and compare it to the
declassified reports where vonBraun and others were debriefed, you'd
see that a long-term plan, headed up by a capable rocket man, or
rocket woman, who could get the job done, that we'd follow a
particular path - using chemical then nuclear rockets - and later in
the 1980s this was expanded to laser rockets and laser light sails - a
particular path to making use of space.

First lets start with the basics.

What do you get when you invest in a real space program? What should
you expect to get?

The answer! Momentum per dollar.

This if the fundamental measure of success. Momentum per dollar.

Well we all know what dollars are. But, What the hell is momentum?
Momentum you may recall from your introductory physics is mass - we
feel it as weight in the gravity field of Earth - and speed or
velocity. Mass times velocity is momentum.

In other words, rockets get bigger and faster for a given amount of
money.

And you can see that through November 1963, the size of the rockets
and the speed of the rockets grow a lot faster than the dollars spent
on the rockets.

That's how rockets work.

The next thing you've got to know is how to use rockets to get
somewhere in space. This is called ASTRONAVIGATION - or astrogation
for short. Its basically the application of orbital mechanics that
every astronomer learns, to the problem of figuring out how to get
from here to there. These are also a superset of BALLISTIC
PROBLEMS.

Cutting through all the bull, we're talking about tossing things.

So, to sum up you use rockets to toss things from here to there.

Now there are three aspects to tossing something.

1) The direction you toss it,
2) when you toss it, and
3) how fast you toss it.

That's it.

The where is where you are and where you want to be. The when is when
you want to blast off - or start. The direction - that's the hard
part but it can be programmed in a navigation computer slightly more
advanced than a GPS and downloaded as an app

and how fast ties back to how much momentum you get per dollar - which
tells you how much it costs to maintain a given rate of mass flow
between here and there in the cosmos - which tells you what size and
what speed you need to say

send a probe one way
send a lander one way
send a probe and return
send a lander and return
send a person one way
send a person there and back
send an outpost there
send a factory there
send a city there
maintain regular trade for expensive ****
maintain regular trade for common ****
use the resources there to replace resources here at less cost than
getting them here

These are classed into

Information
Presence
Settlement
Exploitation

Now how do I know all of this? I grew up in the 1950s and was keenly
interested in space travel. I was taught by Von Eschen for crying out
loud! I learned rocket propulsion from the designer of the V1 and we
became friends and talked about this ****!

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=-...A487&lpg=PA487
http://trashotron.com/agony/columns/05-24-02.htm

Now it turns out there are some major here and there points in the
solar system - and this is what the National Academy of Science
outlined in 1956 and 1957.

1) small sub-orbital rockets - 1950s - 1 & 2 stage chemical
2) large orbiting rockets - 1960s - 3+stage chemical
3) very large cislunar rockets - 1970s - 4+ stage Saturn Class
4) extremely large interplanetary rockets - 1980s - NERVA, ORION Class

Now, since everyone on Earth is on the surface of a sphere 12,732 km
in diameter, we're all at the same potential energy in the Earth's
gravity field. That means anytime we do anything in space everyone is
affected equally. In simple terms, anything we do in space transcends
the Earth and affects everyone the same. If we can throw something
around the Earth, we can throw something from anywhere to anywhere.
That's we go ape**** over North Korea or Iran or Libya having a
satellite capability. That's why we take missile proliferation as
seriously as nuclear proliferation. Don't even talk about nuclear
propelled rockets!!

But what this growing capability does is result in a variety of
changes in the world that everybody sees. These include;

1) ICBM - global thermonuclear war - global battlefield
2) Telstar - global communication - global business
3) Apollo - global awareness - environmental movement

Then the elites that own this world and own me and you, pulled the
plug. **** was getting out of hand. Practical hard-headed folks like
Eisenhower saw this as a f**king waste of time and money for something
that could already be done by other means. Dreamers who saw operating
in a world far larger than the one we presently operate in were
confronted with that fact that the universe is not only stranger than
we imagine - it is stranger than we CAN imagine. That means ****
happens you can't predict. That means if you're in control, you might
lose it. When the **** hasn't happened yet, you think you can handle
it. When it happens, it scares you, and you back down.

We're in a back down phase now.

Blaming NASA for this is missing the point.

We can restructure NASA to be more effective. We can even restructure
our society to embrace our frontiers.

But right now the elites are hunkering down for the engineered die off
that will take place between now and 2025. Then, things will be more
under control.

Except -

A world of 500 million will be quite different than a world of 7,000
million - and the ability of the human species to face up to the
challenge of space travel - will be greatly reduced. How reduced?
Well consider that an emergent systems capacity to handle things grows
as the factorial of the number of elements. What is the ratio of
7,000 million factorial to 500 million factorial. haha - I don't
recall the formula to estimate it, but the number is very very
large.

On May 14, 12:12*pm, bob haller idioted:
On May 14, 11:18*am, Andre Lieven wrote:

On May 14, 10:39*am, bob haller vomited:

congreess is directing nasa keep the pork flowing, but doing so may
likely kill nasa completely

Your meds have failed.

Andre

Wouldeveryone who belied ARES was a good idea please cite your posts.

Well, if you're going to ignore the main body of my post
that gave solid evidence that your ASSertion about the
economy was WRONG, then I will ignore your drug
addled brain damaged screed that is utterly a factless
and unfocused mess.

And, your meds are still failed.

Andre

corporations solved many tax issues

No, they 'solved' THEIR paying tax issues by doing that.

We should tariff the hell out of them for doing that. That too,
would raise needed revenues.

by moving production to foreign
countries, nearly everything gewts produced in places like china and
their 2 buck a day pay american.

some produts marked made in america are produced with all imported
from china parts, and mostly assembled in china. final assembly in
here, for the made in america label but really they arent.

congress meddling in nasa is just one example, of boondoggle spending
driven by congress, pork piggie spending that we can no longer afford

Putting corporate taxes where they were in the 60s would fix that.

You're still bat**** insane and willfully ignorant. QED.

Andre