NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

On Dec 29, 11:03*am, bob haller wrote:
*Your claim was YOU CANNOT *EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND *LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.

Liar on the former. No "vague plan"...Ever hear of SLS? I thought not.
SLS contracts are being issued, hardware such as J-2X is being tested,
the Orion's had a LAS (Launch Abort System) test, and so on. Come back
when you have more than mindless drivel.

On Dec 29, 2:08*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Your claim was YOU CANNOT *EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND *LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
pound" to "Russian passenger price".

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.

currently nasa has no manned space capability

the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
would of liquified, besides it cost too much

the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
operational

the falcon if successful might make it affordable.

On Dec 29, 2:20*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:03*am, bob haller wrote:

*Your claim was YOU CANNOT *EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND *LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.

Liar on the former. No "vague plan"...Ever hear of SLS? I thought not.
SLS contracts are being issued, hardware such as J-2X is being tested,
the Orion's had a LAS (Launch Abort System) test, and so on. Come back
when you have more than mindless drivel.

ares had hardware and a mock up flight test too.....

which led to zip nada nothing.

except congressional pork make work project thats going no where fast.

if dragon is successful nasa will look like a total waste

On Dec 29, 2:57*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:08*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Your claim was YOU CANNOT *EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND *LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
pound" to "Russian passenger price".

fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.

currently nasa has no manned space capability

the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
would of liquified, besides it cost too much

the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
operational

the falcon if successful might make it affordable.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole about
"NASA cost per pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught
on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to
"Russian passenger price".

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

show me a nasa estimated cost per pound to loft a human.......

On Dec 29, 5:21*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:57*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:08*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Your claim was YOU CANNOT *EARN ENOUGH MONEY IN SEVERAL LIFETIMES TO
PAY THE COST PER POUND *LAUNCH COSTS OF NASA FOR A HUMAN BEING.

fred since nasa has no human launcher, and only a new vague plan for a
human launch vehicle in the far future, that will not cut shuttle
costs....

so again i am correct.

the only way the US can launch a human being is by soyuz at err 63
million each.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole, got
caught on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per
pound" to "Russian passenger price".

fred you are as usual being intentionally ignorant.

currently nasa has no manned space capability

the replacement would have shaken so badly the astronauts spleens
would of liquified, besides it cost too much

the latest nasa plan would cost way too much, and take forever to get
operational

the falcon if successful might make it affordable.

In other words, you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole about
"NASA cost per pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught
on it, and are now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to
"Russian passenger price".

show me a nasa estimated cost per pound to loft a human.......

Cost per pound is cost per pound. *Once more time. *In other words,
you engaged in deliberately lying hyperbole about "NASA cost per
pound" and "several lifetimes of earnings", got caught on it, and are
now wriggling madly to change "NASA cost per pound" to "Russian
passenger price".

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

cost per pound freight is far less than cost per pound human and in
any case provide a link to nasa estimated human costs to orbit.....

Chicken little again. Come back when you have something with more
flesh on the bone

note large cuts in military spending.........

On Jan 8, 11:29*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Chicken little again. Come back when you have something with more
flesh on the bone

note large cuts in military spending.........

That's what happens when you wind down from fighting a war, you bird
brain.

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

it appears the budget driven changes will exceed just the costs of
winding down 2 wars.

plus have you heard Iraq is destabilizing, and a civil war is coming.
Iran is becoming more important

sure we deposed saddam hussein, but for the people and the region our
meddling just made things worse.

although the military spending has been good for military suppliers,
heck even the body bag ones with so many deaths sales soared........

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:10:25 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

I go by remaining non-relevant idiocy snipped

--
"Ordinarily I am insane. But I have lucid moments when I am
only rock dumb-stupid."
-- Fred J. McCall

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist
organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist
warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself
created.

We can only pray they drone you.

Amici, Just a question in the Air: if musk is so damned almighty, why doesn't he gonna run his toys on their own long buckies. if he can show ability to provide commercially successful stuff, nasa will be crawling up to'im on their knees. so far, he issues useless anime, falcon 1e lives 4 nothing with so hella cheap price, space x has lack of specialists to run R&D. seems musk ain't right horsey to bet on XD others, private companies, aren't too far from him. if they're this way to keep going, new solyndras the matter of coming time.

On Dec 10 2011, 8:24*pm, wrote:
"SpaceX will attempt the first commercial link-up with the
International Space Station (ISS) on Feb. 7, which could
be a major milestone on the way to the low-Earth-orbit
economy NASA is trying to create."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/awx/2011/12/....


The Feb. 7th flight has been postponed:

1st Private Rocket Launch to Space Station Delayed.
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 16 January 2012 Time: 01:51 PM ET
http://www.space.com/14251-launch-de...aceflight.html


The Russians and some members of NASA were uncertain about SpaceX's
ability to perform the linkup with the ISS successfully. For a $100
billion asset, that is an understandable concern.

A couple of suggestions. First hire away from the Russians some top
guys involved with the Progress cargo vehicle to the ISS and from the
Europeans some top guys involved with the ESA's Automated Transfer
Vehicle(ATV). For the billion dollar cargo supply contract SpaceX has
with NASA, it can afford to do that.

Secondly, prior to the ISS docking mission do some rendezvous
missions in space with the Dragon spacecraft. Ideally it would be with
a vehicle that it could actually dock with. The Progress M-13M cargo
vehicle for instance is scheduled to undock from the ISS in a few
days. According to the Wikipedia page the undocking is scheduled for
the 25th:

Progress M-13M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-13M

while on this NASA release it's listed as on the 23rd:

NASA ISS On-Orbit Status 19 January 2012.
Source: NASA HQ
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39635

The release of a small Russian satellite from the Progress and the de-
orbit burn for the Progress is scheduled to occur a day later. Could
the undocking or least the de-orbit burn be postponed for enough time
for SpaceX to launch the Dragon to be able link up with the Progress
vehicle?

In any case, the current plan is not for Dragon to perform the final
link-up with ISS under its own power and navigation capabilities but
just to get close enough for the robot arm to grapple it and pull it
to the station to dock with it. So for this, all the Dragon has to do
is demonstrate the ability to get close enough to some orbiting
satellite without colliding with it to within a similar distance is it
would be to the ISS. It might be able to do this several times with
different satellites to further demonstrate this capability.


Bob Clark