YOU can come up with a better way to the Moon.

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma.
posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM
By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
"WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review
NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping
the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket
program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the
moon.
But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a
troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope
of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or
more."
....
"But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program
by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they
saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it,
“infeasible.”
"But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for
another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.
"Even the panel members themselves were surprised.
"Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-
member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option
that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the
committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...a-dilemma.html

It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100
billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up
with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years?
According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6
successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted
dollars:

Apollo program.
7 Program costs and cancellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...d_cancellation

You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than
that?
Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned
missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates
led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly
1/10th that amount.
We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon
missions.

Bob Clark

On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
Clark wrote in
:

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:


Some viewpoints:

In a way we seem to be in a post-technology era.
Technology had a big flight in the previous century, but was
then shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.
No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...

An other point of view is that US has much to lose.
If it reaches the moon, it will just be repeating the past.
If it fails with Ares, then it will make a laughing stock of itself.
So much better to head for mars - politically speaking - as a few failures there will
not hurt so much.
And establishing a human presence on mars would be good from a military viewpoint too.
Put the flag there, and charge landing rights :-)

That bring me to the third POV.
There is no buck to be made.
I do not even believe there is much money in space tourism.
The only space money is in launching satellites (like commercial ones for telecommunication).
Here there is already great competition, Ariane, the Chinese, India, Russia, you name it, and more
are entering that business,

Space shuttle and ISS are money dumping holes, the only thing of value those did was Hubble,
and that could have been launched with a normal rocket, and for the money saved, every 10 years a new one :-)

And there is the Republican - Democratic conflict.
Changing target with every change in administration is like doing one step forward, one step left,
one step right, and one step backward (I will not associate direction with any party here), but that goes around in circles,
like orbiting the earth for the sake of international cooperation,
and then stating those things can only be financed on an international level...

What would be needed is
1) A sane use of available technology, nuclear power, Vasimir perhaps, use engineers not politicians
to make a good design, let them finish it and get the problems out.
2) Political will (either for the glory of the US, or for the military advantage, the same basically).
3) Some reward, something they can bring back (other then samples for science) from planets,
that is of great use here, is needed here.
Not value in the form of 'gold' or 'diamonds', bring enough of it and it will become cheaper...
So what? Here is little to be expected.
The greenies hate point 1 and will oppose it, so 2 will have problems.

So the conclusion?
Maybe if a big meteorite started threatening earth life (that 2028 thing is close no?), or indeed the Chinese
started building restaurants on mars, then yes perhaps THEN the political will would
happen, the anti-techs locked up, and import from good Chinese food from mars would make a buck?
mmm seems do not count on anything in the near future.

Ooop, sorry:-)

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
Clark wrote in
:

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:


Some crackpot viewpoints:

shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.

**** your god of death.

No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...

Good.

An other point of view is that US has much to lose.

Actually, no, we're broke.

There is no buck to be made.

**** your profit of death.

I do not even believe there is much money in space tourism.

No, just good will among men and women of nations.

And some great zero gee space sex.

And there is the Republican - Democratic conflict.

There is no conflict. You're a ****ing retard. End of story.

What would be needed is
1) A sane use of available technology, nuclear power, Vasimir perhaps, use engineers not politicians
to make a good design, let them finish it and get the problems out.

Michael Griffin was an engineer, look where that got us.

2) Political will (either for the glory of the US, or for the military advantage, the same basically).

**** your god of politics.

3) Some reward, something they can bring back (other then samples for science) from planets,
that is of great use here, is needed here.

Rocks are far more important than knowledge and good will among nations.


So what?

Another epic fail from the Michael Griffin school of idiotic quotes.

The greenies hate point 1 and will oppose it, so 2 will have problems.

No, you hate. It's all you know and do, besides the killing and death.

So the conclusion?

You're an asshole. Nothing new there.

Maybe if a big meteorite started threatening earth life (that 2028 thing is close no?)

No, we can track them if NASA performed any kind of due diligence in
that area, the real problem is with comets and outer moon ice fragments.

or indeed the Chinese
started building restaurants on mars,

Have you ever considered a reality based approach to knowledge?

Just sayin. Try it, you might like it. It might even work.

Your retard approach to knowledge is a guaranteed fail.

then yes perhaps THEN the political will would

You mean scientific knowledge and engineering consensus, right?

happen, the anti-techs locked up, and import from good Chinese food from mars would make a buck?
mmm seems do not count on anything in the near future.

Chinese food from Mars, huh?

Your brain is fried.

Ooop, sorry:-)

Mars has fried your brain.

On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:42:15 -0500) it happened kT
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
Clark wrote in
:

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:


Some crackpot viewpoints:

shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.

**** your god of death.

No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...

Good.

Yea, go back to where you came from caveman.

On Aug 23, 4:38*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma.
posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM
By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
"WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review
NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping
the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket
program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the
moon.
But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a
troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope
of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or
more."
...
"But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program
by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they
saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it,
“infeasible.”
"But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for
another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.
"Even the panel members themselves were surprised.
"Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-
member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option
that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the
committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020."http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/pre...

*It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100
billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up
with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years?
*According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6
successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted
dollars:

Apollo program.
7 Program costs and cancellation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ts_and_cancell...

*You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than
that?
*Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned
missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates
led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly
1/10th that amount.
We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon
missions.

* * Bob Clark

With far better fly-by-rocket and payload applied technology, at
roughly 10% less inert mass than any of their original Apollo era GLOW
(gross lift-off weight), and roughly consuming 1% of the electrical
energy demand for accomplishing better and more reliable science, as
such I too do not understand where the problem is.

Exactly how much of the public funded Apollo era R&D, technology and
expertise was lost and/or stolen from us?

I think we need a far reaching retroactive (multi-generation) GAO
investigation into the whole freaking mess that's DARP and NASA.

~ BG

In sci.physics Jan Panteltje wrote:

Some viewpoints:

In a way we seem to be in a post-technology era.
Technology had a big flight in the previous century, but was
then shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.
No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...

The Concorde was killed by economics. If it had been able to fly nonstop
from Calfornia to Japan it might have made it.

Apollo was killed mostly by economics and competition for funds. If NASA
hadn't done Skylab, we could have had two or three more Apollo missions.

But nuclear powered spacecraft will probably never make it past the
envios.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 23, 8:42*am, kT wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
Clark wrote in
:

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Some crackpot viewpoints:
shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.

**** your god of death.

No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...

Good.

An other point of view is that US has much to lose.

Actually, no, we're broke.

There is no buck to be made.

**** your profit of death.

I do not even believe there is much money in space tourism.

No, just good will among men and women of nations.

And some great zero gee space sex.

And there is the Republican - Democratic conflict.

There is no conflict. You're a ****ing retard. End of story.

What would be needed is
1) A sane use of available technology, nuclear power, Vasimir perhaps, use engineers not politicians
* *to make a good design, let them finish it and get the problems out.

Michael Griffin was an engineer, look where that got us.

2) Political will (either for the glory of the US, or for the military advantage, the same basically).

**** your god of politics.

3) Some reward, something they can bring back (other then samples for science) from planets,
* *that is of great use here, is needed here.

Rocks are far more important than knowledge and good will among nations.

So what?

Another epic fail from the Michael Griffin school of idiotic quotes.

The greenies hate point 1 and will oppose it, so 2 will have problems.

No, you hate. It's all you know and do, besides the killing and death.

So the conclusion?

You're an asshole. Nothing new there.

Maybe if a big meteorite started threatening earth life (that 2028 thing is close no?)

No, we can track them if NASA performed any kind of due diligence in
that area, the real problem is with comets and outer moon ice fragments.

or indeed the Chinese
started building restaurants on mars,

Have you ever considered a reality based approach to knowledge?

Just sayin. Try it, you might like it. It might even work.

Your retard approach to knowledge is a guaranteed fail.

then yes perhaps THEN the political will would

You mean scientific knowledge and engineering consensus, right?

happen, the anti-techs locked up, and import from good Chinese food from mars would make a buck?
mmm seems do not count on anything in the near future.

Chinese food from Mars, huh?

Your brain is fried.

Ooop, sorry:-)

Mars has fried your brain.

kT, you are very correct. However, this is obviously a very kosher
Usenet/newsgroup (aka faith-based cesspool), and much like having
orchestrated 9/11, they very much intend to get their own way, or
else.

~ BG

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:42:15 -0500) it happened kT
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
Clark wrote in
:

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Some crackpot viewpoints:
shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.
**** your god of death.

No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...
Good.

Yea, go back to where you came from caveman.

Ares I, caveman, Ares I.

On Aug 23, 6:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Exactly how much of the public funded Apollo era R&D, technology and
expertise was lost and/or stolen from us?


Here, this is worth seeing.

http://blog.go-here.nl/5768
The Case for Antigravity

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje wrote:

Some viewpoints:

In a way we seem to be in a post-technology era.
Technology had a big flight in the previous century, but was
then shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.
No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...


Apollo was killed mostly by economics and competition for funds. If NASA
hadn't done Skylab, we could have had two or three more Apollo missions.

Agreed on the first part, but I disagree on the second. It's highly
doubtful we'd have flown additional Apollo flights to the Moon, since we had
the hardware for 2 more missions and they were already cancelled before
Skylab was flown.


But nuclear powered spacecraft will probably never make it past the
envios.


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