|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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..... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
In time, my Summa Cum Laude will bring peace and Nobel Prizes to millions of people. We will sing no Booglebush imperialist nazi. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 22nd 07 08:06 PM |
Elon Musk's Killer App for Space | Space Cadet | Policy | 4 | August 16th 06 03:45 AM |
Good Luck, Elon and Falcon | D. Orbitt | Policy | 61 | January 10th 06 05:30 PM |
Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03 | Josh Gigantino | Policy | 4 | December 15th 03 06:42 PM |