Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.


I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.

On Jan 5, 3:08*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...





In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? *The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. *If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. *Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. *I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. *Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. *In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. *Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.

I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. *Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. *I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. *The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. *If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. *They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. *They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. *I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S..
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

private launchers are likely the only way the us can afford HSF,

getover this or get out of the way.......

since nasas costs are exponentially more than private industry

On Jan 5, 7:50*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

private launchers are likely the only way the us can afford HSF,

Perhaps, but unlikely.



getover this or get out of the way.......

'Get out of the way' of what, Bobbert?



since nasas costs are exponentially more than private industry

You really don't know what 'exponentially' means, do you?

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

compare nasa costs with private indutry.........

people in industries eating at the public money trough dont want to
wake up to what is about to occur.

the us no longer has the money to do all it once did. and the economic
collapse has begun.

Matt Wiser wrote:
And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

I think government participation in HSF is going to actually shrink.

BEO is essentially at the present a "talking point". There is no clear vision
of what this is. The lack of focus here is what drove Neil Armstrong and Gene
Cernan to go before Congress and say "this isn't the way forward"...

Now you don't actually need a focused program to keep jobs programs like SLS
going. In fact a constantly shifting focus might actually keep it alive more
than finishing it would. If its jobs in "space states" we're mostly concerned
with it doesn't really matter if the hardware flies.

And that, to my thinking, is the real problem here.


And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.

Fury? Outsourcing? COTS/CCdev was NASA's idea. SpaceX is an American company.
So is Boeing which is also working on their own CCdev capsule. The lifters
needed for the Boeing capsule are also planned on being provided by US companies.

?

Dave

On Jan 5, 4:11*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:08*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:





"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...

In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? *The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. *If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. *Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. *I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. *Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. *In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. *Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.

I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. *Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. *I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. *The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. *If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. *They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. *They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. *I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U..S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

private launchers are likely the only way the us can afford HSF,

getover this or get out of the way.......

since nasas costs are exponentially more than private industry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Boobert, you really are in a dream world. What you advocate is NOT
politically possible. Get OVER THAT. And enough with the chicken
little BS.

On Jan 5, 4:24*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:11*am, bob haller wrote:





On Jan 5, 3:08*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...

In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? *The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. *If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. *Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. *I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. *Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. *In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. *Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.

I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. *Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. *I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. *The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. *If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. *They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. *They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. *I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

private launchers are likely the only way the us can afford HSF,

getover this or get out of the way.......

since nasas costs are exponentially more than private industry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Boobert, you really are in a dream world. What you advocate is NOT
politically possible. Get OVER THAT. And enough with the chicken
little BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

fred, face reality. if musk is successful with dragon nasa will be
forced to innovate or die.

no one in this economy will agree to pay 10 times the cost for a nasa
run operation when private indutry will supply the same services for a
fraction of the price.

you likely have investments that favor the status quo

stock goes up and what goes up may come down.....

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.


I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.

What makes you think that Congress has any say in the matter? All that
Congress can do is ensure that future space operations and exploration
are done without the participation of the government. And if Congress
is paying NASA to put government astronauts into space while commercial
operators are putting non-government astronauts into orbit for a
fraction of the price, Congress is going to have some 'splaining to do
to its constituents.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 00:41:03 -0000, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 00:41:03 -0000, wrote:
Jim Pennino "Menstrual Blood Gurgling Vampire"

Kewl!

Thanks, Jim, for that load of overinfo.

Anyway, for the space cadets too dense to get the point, any
significant population requires a significant infrastructure to
support basic human biological requirements i.e. you must be able
to identify menstrual blood gurgling vampires like me.
* ggggggarrrggggggggllllleeeeeeeee.*

Thanks, Jim, for that load of overinfo.

You st0OpiD fukking idjit.

On Jan 5, 2:43*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? *The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. *If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. *Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. *I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. *Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. *In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. *Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.

I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. *Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. *I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. *The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. *If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. *They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. *They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. *I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U..S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.

What makes you think that Congress has any say in the matter? *All that
Congress can do is ensure that future space operations and exploration
are done without the participation of the government. *And if Congress
is paying NASA to put government astronauts into space while commercial
operators are putting non-government astronauts into orbit for a
fraction of the price, Congress is going to have some 'splaining to do
to its constituents.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In case you haven't noticed, NASA cannot spend money on any program
without Congressional approval. And turning over all HSF to private
industry is NOT possible. Guess what? Congress can direct NASA as part
of its authorization act or its appropriations to spend X amount of
money on government vehicles for HSF. There's an old saying that runs
in D.C. that you and those like you might be well advised to remember:
"The Administration Proposes, but the Congress Disposes." Any such
proposal to turn all HSF over to the private sector would have to be
approved by Congress. And it WON'T. It wouldn't even make it out of
committee.

In article 69ec7df1-59e5-474d-a7fb-
,
says...

On Jan 5, 2:43*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article dfd09faf-259f-4754-b145-
,
says...

On Jan 3, 6:34 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Jeff, as I said, there's nothing wrong with dreaming big things. After
all, that's what makes America great: the ability to dream big things
and do the impossible. But Musk has shot his mouth off more than once
about "retiring on Mars" and boasting that he (and he alone) could
provide rockets for NASA. That doesn't make TPTB on Capitol Hill who
fund NASA happy. Musk may not retire on Mars, but his grandkids will
have that chance.

Again, how does this compare to NASA "shooting its mouth off" in the
60's? *The politicians of the time were concerned about the budget,
which was being pressured by "little" things like the Vietnam war. *If
anything, Musk is just following in the footsteps of NASA. *Most people
familiar with history will recognize that he's just "dreaming big" and
apply the appropriate "grain of salt" to everything he says.

What Musk needs to do is follow what the Commercial
Space Federation said a year and a half ago: "We need to stop talking
and start flying." The fact that Space X is a startup is great, but
they need to concentrate on what NASA's paying them to do: COTS first,
then CCDev. Once you show that you have a spaceflight capability, not
just a demonstration or proof of concept, then start efforts devoted
elsewhere.

Musk is doing a hell of a lot more flying of new hardware than NASA, and
he's doing it with a hell of a lot less money than NASA ever could. *I
personally think the results coming out of SpaceX so far are extremely
encouraging. *Despite the constant stream of criticism, SpaceX is making
steady progress by actually flying hardware. *In my eyes, they're doing
the very thing you say they should do, preparing to fly the first COTS
mission to ISS. *Manned Dragons will necessarily need to wait for Dragon
to prove itself on COTS missions.

I've seen too many aerospace organizations flounder due to lack of
vision. *Hell, over the past several decades, NASA has been repeatedly
accused of lacking vision. *I don't see Musk's vision as detrimental to
anyone but the politicians who want to see NASA's socialistic HLV topped
by a renamed socialistic Orion as their vision of the future.

It's time for the US to abandon the socialistic model of manned
spaceflight and transition to a capitalistic model. *The US aerospace
industry is more than mature enough for this to happen. *If it weren't,
established companies like Boeing wouldn't be working on commercial crew
capsules.

SpaceX has little to do with my argument. *They're just one of several
US companies capable of producing a manned space vehicle. *They've just
never wanted to directly compete with the US government as that's
usually a *very* stupid thing to do. *I think it's well past time for
the US government to get out of the way and let commercial industry take
over US manned spaceflight.

Far too many politicians are quick to cry socialism on issues like
health care, but turn a completely blind eye towards socialism when it
comes to issues like manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

And you know as well as I do that commercial industry taking over the U.S.
HSF program is not politically possible. There's NO WAY that it would pass
Congressional muster. Nada, Zero, Zip. Said it before, Jeff, but I'll
repeat: there is a big difference between what you would want NASA to do and
what Congress will permit. As the adage goes in D.C.: "The Administration
proposes, but the Congress disposes." The current Administration found that
out when Congress rejected the FY 11 budget request and instead wrote their
own.

And if you think the fury over "outsourcing" LEO to the private sector was
bad enough, try doing it for BEO. Like the bobbert's proposals (half-assed
as they are), it'd never make it out of Committee.

What makes you think that Congress has any say in the matter? *All that
Congress can do is ensure that future space operations and exploration
are done without the participation of the government. *And if Congress
is paying NASA to put government astronauts into space while commercial
operators are putting non-government astronauts into orbit for a
fraction of the price, Congress is going to have some 'splaining to do
to its constituents.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In case you haven't noticed, NASA cannot spend money on any program
without Congressional approval.

So what? Commercial space doesn't require NASA to spend money.

And turning over all HSF to private
industry is NOT possible.

What law of physics prevents this?

Guess what? Congress can direct NASA as part
of its authorization act or its appropriations to spend X amount of
money on government vehicles for HSF.

What of it? And why would Congress do this if there are much cheaper
commercial alternatives available?

There's an old saying that runs
in D.C. that you and those like you might be well advised to remember:
"The Administration Proposes, but the Congress Disposes." Any such
proposal to turn all HSF over to the private sector would have to be
approved by Congress. And it WON'T. It wouldn't even make it out of
committee.

And business doesn't give a crap about either. That's the thing that
you're just plain not getting. COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT DON'T NEED NO
STEENKEENG NASA.

I want to make myself clear. I don't give a flying fart in space about
NASA. If Congress wants to require NASA to waste yet more money so be
it--that's about all that NASA manned spacefilght has really
accomplished since the end of Apollo is waste money. Commercial space
will happen with or without NASA. And once it happens Congress can
continue to fight progress for a while but eventually the voters, sick
of Congress wasting money on reinventing the wheel in the name of
national prestige, will dispose of Congress.

What I don't understand though is why you think that it's so important
to Congress that NASA develop manned spacecraft. If they really gave a
crap they'd actually fund something that might be useful.