Last Longer (up to 500 seconds) on Way to Orbit - J2X Ultra Potencyfrom Stennis Labs ($350K)

On Nov 14, 2:04*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 14, 1:21*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 14, 3:43*am, bob haller wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:32*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message

...
On Nov 13, 9:12 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Nov 13, 5:57 am, bob haller wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:09 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message

...
On Nov 12, 10:18 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:16 pm, bob haller wrote:

Said it before and I'll repeat: NASA does the hard stuff, like
return
to the moon, fly to

NEOs, visits Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange Points, and
explores
Mars.

so whats nasa last accomplishment?

looks like apollo moon landing was its last accomplishement based
on
your criteria

Haller, your oppostion to any form of HSF is well known. Like your
crazy idea for mass-producing rovers like Spirit and Oppertunity. Do
the words "built by hand" ring a bell in that instance? Or your idea
of grounding the HSF program until we're ready for Mars. I'll remind
you: you were told this: Not only would you be laughed out of
whatever
hearing you put that proposal to, they'd also hold the door open for
you and give you a kick in the ass on the way out.

look at what this poster lisited as accomplishments..... according to
their criteria the last nasa accomplishment was landing on the moon/

what i think of HSF doesnt really matter since near every republican
candidate for president has pledged to END ALL HSF SPENDING.......

And even if they wanted to, Congress has to approve. And I suggest the
firestorm over ObamaSpace last year as proof. You can promise one
thing, but
there's an old adage in D.C.: "The Administration Proposes, but the
Congress
disposes." And have you heard Mr.Cain recently? He seems to be going
against
what you're saying.....Not that he's going to be POTUS...And do you
think
for a minute that Governor Perry is going to do something so drastic
that
it'd affect his home state? I doubt that very much.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

as congress slashes spending to kinda balance the budget, or lets the
overspending continue, at some near point we either cut entitlements
like SS medicare etc, or watch our country go bankrupt with riots in
the streets.

under such alternatives who will fund HSF?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It'll be funded, because given what Congress did to this
Administration's NASA plans from FY 11, there's too much politics
involved. Besides, Bobbert, your blatant opposition to ANY HSF, even
commercially provided, is well known. Like I said, if you dared
suggest giving it up to any Congressional Committee, you'd be out of
there so fast you wouldn't know what hit you, and they'd send you back
to the Luddites-by the way, there's only one major newspaper that
agrees with you: the L.A. Times, whose editorial board in the first
two years post-Columbia, was hostile to HSF. In recent years, they've
been more accomodating.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

matt your ignoring the elephant in the room, the big budget
deficit....

when your cutting SS raising retirement age to 75 and ending medicare
as we know it.....

funding a mission to mars will be tough. for the voter it will look
like a grand waste of money.

incidently I support private industry to space, since its more
affordable!!

And given Congressional Skeptics, who hold the purse strings, they'll be
lucky if they get 2/3 of the money NASA wants to provide them. Having Musk
shooting his mouth off about "retiring on Mars" hasn't helped his cause any.
Said it befo NASA explores, and Commercial exploits. Cut and dry, that is
it. Or is that simple concept beyond your comprehension? And you can forget
about outsourcing the explorattion mission to private industry-that ain't
gonna happen, zealots notwithstanding.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

if nasa estimates cost of mars program at 10 times the cost of private
industry why should nasa get the job?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exploration is NASA's job, not the private sectors. How many times
does that have to be knocked into you. NASA explores, the private
sector exploits. Repeat as needed until you get that into your Luddite
skull.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so what can nasa afford to explore? the beach at KSC?

The imbeded costs of nasa have made exploration way too costly.

Have NASA spec what they want to do.... like land on mars explore X
number of miles with these experiments.

have private industry bid to build the device they design...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, private industry will build it, that's how it's been done since
the Mercury days. But NASA will USE it. Not a contractor, bobbert.
Your attitude is either that of a cheapskate or a Luddite (likely
both).

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

if nasa estimates cost of mars program at 10 times the cost of private
industry why should nasa get the job?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exploration is NASA's job, not the private sectors. How many times
does that have to be knocked into you. NASA explores, the private
sector exploits. Repeat as needed until you get that into your Luddite
skull.

While Bob is not the sharpest tool in the shed, his point still stands. Why
would we have NASA do it at 10x the cost if it can be done cheaper in
private industry. Really a Luddite would be the one arguing that only NASA
can do exploration.

In fact, historically private companies have often gotten the exploration
done, if only to better exploit the resources available.





--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
m...
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

if nasa estimates cost of mars program at 10 times the cost of private
industry why should nasa get the job?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exploration is NASA's job, not the private sectors. How many times
does that have to be knocked into you. NASA explores, the private
sector exploits. Repeat as needed until you get that into your Luddite
skull.

While Bob is not the sharpest tool in the shed, his point still stands.
Why
would we have NASA do it at 10x the cost if it can be done cheaper in
private industry. Really a Luddite would be the one arguing that only
NASA
can do exploration.

In fact, historically private companies have often gotten the exploration
done, if only to better exploit the resources available.





--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

For one thing, Greg, it's not politically feasible. Remember the firestorm
last year when the current Administration rolled out their proposed FY 11
NASA budget? The Administration got burned pretty good by Congress as a
result.

Just the hint of "outsourcing exploration" would generate another firestorm
on The Hill, and wouldn't even make it past either the House or Senate
Sci/Tech Committees-which deal with NASA. Something the Bobbert either
cannot or will not understand: there's a difference between what you would
like NASA to do (or not do) and what Congress will allow NASA to do.

The Administration thought their FY 11 plan would be praised to the skies by
the whole Space community; they'd be hailed for doing something "new, bold,
and innovative", and that any pushback from angry Constellation
supporters-including elected officials from affected communities-would go
away, and that Congress would go along. Wrong. The 2010 Authorization Act is
the result.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...


"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
om...
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

if nasa estimates cost of mars program at 10 times the cost of private
industry why should nasa get the job?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exploration is NASA's job, not the private sectors. How many times
does that have to be knocked into you. NASA explores, the private
sector exploits. Repeat as needed until you get that into your Luddite
skull.

While Bob is not the sharpest tool in the shed, his point still stands.
Why
would we have NASA do it at 10x the cost if it can be done cheaper in
private industry. Really a Luddite would be the one arguing that only
NASA
can do exploration.

In fact, historically private companies have often gotten the exploration
done, if only to better exploit the resources available.





--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

For one thing, Greg, it's not politically feasible. Remember the firestorm
last year when the current Administration rolled out their proposed FY 11
NASA budget? The Administration got burned pretty good by Congress as a
result.

Yes, but that's a far different answer than simply saying it's not the
private sector's job.


Just the hint of "outsourcing exploration" would generate another firestorm
on The Hill, and wouldn't even make it past either the House or Senate
Sci/Tech Committees-which deal with NASA. Something the Bobbert either
cannot or will not understand: there's a difference between what you would
like NASA to do (or not do) and what Congress will allow NASA to do.

True, but that has nothing to do with being a Luddite, just politically
naïve.


The Administration thought their FY 11 plan would be praised to the skies
by
the whole Space community; they'd be hailed for doing something "new, bold,
and innovative", and that any pushback from angry Constellation
supporters-including elected officials from affected communities-would go
away, and that Congress would go along. Wrong. The 2010 Authorization Act
is
the result.




--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Nov 15, 5:04*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Matt Wiser" *wrote in ...

"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
om...
"Matt Wiser" *wrote in message
....

if nasa estimates cost of mars program at 10 times the cost of private
industry why should nasa get the job?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exploration is NASA's job, not the private sectors. How many times
does that have to be knocked into you. NASA explores, the private
sector exploits. Repeat as needed until you get that into your Luddite
skull.

While Bob is not the sharpest tool in the shed, his point still stands..
Why
would we have NASA do it at 10x the cost if it can be done cheaper in
private industry. *Really a Luddite would be the one arguing that only
NASA
can do exploration.

In fact, historically private companies have often gotten the exploration
done, if only to better exploit the resources available.

--
Greg D. Moore * President * * * * * * * * * Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans:http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

For one thing, Greg, it's not politically feasible. Remember the firestorm
last year when the current Administration rolled out their proposed FY 11
NASA budget? The Administration got burned pretty good by Congress as a
result.

Yes, but that's a far different answer than simply saying it's not the
private sector's job.



Just the hint of "outsourcing exploration" would generate another firestorm
on The Hill, and wouldn't even make it past either the House or Senate
Sci/Tech Committees-which deal with NASA. Something the Bobbert either
cannot or will not understand: there's a difference between what you would
like NASA to do (or not do) and what Congress will allow NASA to do.

True, but that has nothing to do with being a Luddite, just politically
naïve.



The Administration thought their FY 11 plan would be praised to the skies
by
the whole Space community; they'd be hailed for doing something "new, bold,
and innovative", and that any pushback from angry Constellation
supporters-including elected officials from affected communities-would go
away, and that Congress would go along. Wrong. The 2010 Authorization Act
is
the result.

--
Greg D. Moore * President * * * * * * * * * Green Mountain Softwarehttp://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans:http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Bobbert is both, sad to say.

While some private sector companies may be capable of handling
exploration-and may do it on their own in the future, with the
exception of Lord Musk and Space X, none of the current NewSpace
companies are even mentioning exploration work. And personally, I
think Musk is in way over his head with this idea of sending a Dragon
to Mars when he hasn't even flown a cargo run to ISS, let alone a
crewed test flight. He needs to do what NASA's contracting him to do
first, and when he's settled down in that, go further. The same goes
for the other firms.

Matt Wiser scribbled something like ...

And personally, I
think Musk is in way over his head with this idea of sending a Dragon
to Mars when he hasn't even flown a cargo run to ISS, let alone a
crewed test flight. He needs to do what NASA's contracting him to do
first, and when he's settled down in that, go further. The same goes
for the other firms.

Why is it that I see Elon doing just that ... sending Dragon to ISS on its
next flight, and using that mission and its followups to build experience
for flights that go further?

But remember, serious thinking about how to get to the moon didn't wait
until the end of the Gemini program. It isn't inappropriate for Elon to
have a bigger vision of what can be done with his toolset than just what
meets the next launch.

/dps

On Nov 15, 3:12*pm, Snidely wrote:
Matt Wiser scribbled something like ...

*And personally, I
think Musk is in way over his head with this idea of sending a Dragon
to Mars when he hasn't even flown a cargo run to ISS, let alone a
crewed test flight. He needs to do what NASA's contracting him to do
first, and when he's settled down in that, go further. The same goes
for the other firms.

Why is it that I see Elon doing just that ... sending Dragon to ISS on its
next flight, and using that mission and its followups to build experience
for flights that go further?

But remember, serious thinking about how to get to the moon didn't wait
until the end of the Gemini program. *It isn't inappropriate for Elon to
have a bigger vision of what can be done with his toolset than just what
meets the next launch.

/dps

True that, but he's still thinking way, way, far ahead. At least a
decade if not more-this idea for resuable rocket stages, for example.
There's a difference between NASA during the pre-Gemini days and
during that program and what Musk is doing.
Throw in a Congress that was skeptical to begin with about the
Commercial Crew concept, and they'll be lucky to clear $500 mil in the
CCDev arena in the FY 12 Budget. (they're Lukewarm at best, Skeptical
in the middle, and quite a few who are downright hostile)

On Nov 18, 7:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

The imbeded costs of nasa have made exploration way too costly.

Have NASA spec what they want to do.... like land on mars explore X
number of miles with these experiments.

have private industry bid to build the device they design...

Uh, how do you think it works NOW, Bobbert?

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

Fred, the bobbert has his own little universe, set apart from the one
the rest of us live in. He's hopelessly trapped in the one he's built.