Clueless in Italy

On Jan 22, 3:14*pm, wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:02 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Jan 22, 2:47 pm, wrote:

*b *-/On Jan 22, 1:37 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. * We are talking about the nature of international partners not who
owns the hardware. But now that you mention it, what IP's own ISS hardware
other than Canada and the arm?

2. * What agreements did we have on Freedom with international
partners that we don't have with ISS? Were any IPs on Freedo that were not part
of the Spacelab agreement?

3. * Did any IP exist for the original Freedom project that was not
part of

the Spacelab agreement?

4. * You seem to be in the know, explain how the ground segment for

Spacelab got moved from GSFC to MSFC? What caused that relocation?

1. *ESA owns the Columbus, JAXA owns JEM, Russia owns the SM and
PIRS. *The MPLM *and FGB are US owned, even though foreign made. I
think this applies to the arm too.

2. *Canada, and Japan were not part of Spacelab. * The spacelab
agreements were only applicable to spacelab and not to any station
program. * Space station agreements are separate

Given that the timeframe of Freedom and Spacelab being about a decade
before ISS, I'd say that that was the necessity of why the two
agreements were separate.

Incorrect again. *The *ISS agreements are the same as the Freedom
agreements for ESA and JAXA. *They just were updated as the Space
station evolved. *There is no distinction between Freedom and ISS as
far as Columbus and JEM are concerned.

Why the name change?

On Jan 23, 1:04 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. Speak in terms of dollars and work not modules and trusses.

2. Freedom NEVER "existed"!

3. MSFC in charge of the Spacelab Input Processing System (SIPS) and
Spacelab Output Processing System (SOPS)? I beg to differ, they were
at GSFC and under GSFC management. MSFC provided mission planning (as
they do), GSFC delivered the data.


1. The change from Freedom to ISS, reduced $ amounts of the JSC work
packages. Actually ISS almost provided another system for MSFC, the
propulsion module. (Propulsion was orginally part of JSC work
packages, truss segments S2, P2)

2. There was a Freedom program office and the bulk of the US ISS
components were put on contract and started contruction by this
office. Freedom does exist, it morphed into ISS.

3. Those are minor parts of the program. The management of the
Spacelab system was always done by MSFC

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/yy/y1973.html

"In conjunction with the Shuttle, the European Space Research
Organization (ESRO) announced in 1973 that their organization would
design, develop and manufacture a Spacelab to be launched by the
Shuttle The Spacelab agreement, signed in March, represents a major
step in the sharing of space costs between the U. S. and European
countries.

Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight assigned the Spacelab lead center
role to Marshall shortly after the NASA-ESRO agreement was signed. "

On Jan 23, 1:51*pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:04 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. Speak in terms of dollars and work not modules and trusses.

2. * Freedom NEVER "existed"!



3. *MSFC in charge of the Spacelab Input Processing System (SIPS) and
Spacelab Output Processing System (SOPS)? I beg to differ, they were
at GSFC and under GSFC management. MSFC provided mission planning (as
they do), GSFC delivered the data.

1. *The change from Freedom to ISS, reduced $ amounts of the JSC work
packages. *Actually ISS almost provided another system for MSFC, the
propulsion module. *(Propulsion was orginally part of JSC work
packages, truss segments S2, P2)

The point is that when Freedom turned into ISS JSC benefitted whereas
MSFC did not. Texas politicians over Alabama ones.


2. *There was a Freedom program office and the bulk of the US ISS
components were put on contract and started contruction by this
office. *Freedom does exist, it morphed into ISS.


Yes, I know.

3. *Those are minor parts of the program. *The management of the
Spacelab system was always done by MSFC

Yes, management. The ops was done at GSFC until MSFC decided it wanted
to do the ops, too! THAT was in response to ISS going to JSC. The
timeframe backs me up. Think domino effect. Were YOU at GSFC at the
time? I was!

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/yy/y1973.html

Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!


"In conjunction with the Shuttle, the European Space Research
Organization (ESRO) announced in 1973 that their organization would
design, develop and manufacture a Spacelab to be launched by the
Shuttle The Spacelab agreement, signed in March, represents a major
step in the sharing of space costs between the U. S. and European
countries.


I have the book:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...cno =ED291565

Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.

What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.

NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight assigned the Spacelab lead center
role to Marshall shortly after the NASA-ESRO agreement was signed. "

So MSFC has a ground operations center or do we get to look at the
data after the Germans process it in Oberpfaffenhofen?

On Jan 22, 3:14*pm, wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:02 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Jan 22, 2:47 pm, wrote:

*b *-/On Jan 22, 1:37 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. * We are talking about the nature of international partners not who
owns the hardware. But now that you mention it, what IP's own ISS hardware
other than Canada and the arm?

2. * What agreements did we have on Freedom with international
partners that we don't have with ISS? Were any IPs on Freedo that were not part
of the Spacelab agreement?

3. * Did any IP exist for the original Freedom project that was not
part of

the Spacelab agreement?

4. * You seem to be in the know, explain how the ground segment for

Spacelab got moved from GSFC to MSFC? What caused that relocation?

1. *ESA owns the Columbus, JAXA owns JEM, Russia owns the SM and
PIRS. *The MPLM *and FGB are US owned, even though foreign made. I
think this applies to the arm too.

2. *Canada, and Japan were not part of Spacelab. * The spacelab
agreements were only applicable to spacelab and not to any station
program. * Space station agreements are separate

Given that the timeframe of Freedom and Spacelab being about a decade
before ISS, I'd say that that was the necessity of why the two
agreements were separate.

Incorrect again. *The *ISS agreements are the same as the Freedom
agreements for ESA and JAXA. *They just were updated as the Space
station evolved. *There is no distinction between Freedom and ISS as
far as Columbus and JEM are concerned.

Yeah, here we are building the ISS and the Germans and Japanese are
building space labs on it and our administrator makes claims like:

I am sure these will be based on discussions with our international
partners, progress toward our Exploration goals, utility of this
national laboratory, and the affordability of projected ISS
operations. Again, we plan to keep our commitments to our partners,
utilizing ISS if it makes sense.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Germans and the Japanese seem to think so!

On Jan 23, 2:11 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:


1. Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!


Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.


1. GSFC never had a large role in Spacelab. Maybe a little with data
flow. Mission management (control) was always at MSFC, in HOSC,
which was the way it was done on Skylab.

2. There is a lot more to a program. Ground control is a minor
area. ESA may have designed and built the spacelab. But sustaining
engineering and mission integration is what MSFC did. Also some
reeningineering was done after Challenger.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:52:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Jan 23, 2:11 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:


1. Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!


Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.


1. GSFC never had a large role in Spacelab. Maybe a little with data
flow. Mission management (control) was always at MSFC, in HOSC,
which was the way it was done on Skylab.

2. There is a lot more to a program. Ground control is a minor
area. ESA may have designed and built the spacelab. But sustaining
engineering and mission integration is what MSFC did. Also some
reeningineering was done after Challenger.

Be aware that you are arguing with an historically ignorant idiot and
conspiracy monger, who views everything though a cracked political
lens.

On Jan 23, 4:04 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:52:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:



On Jan 23, 2:11 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!

Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.

1. GSFC never had a large role in Spacelab. Maybe a little with data
flow. Mission management (control) was always at MSFC, in HOSC,
which was the way it was done on Skylab.

2. There is a lot more to a program. Ground control is a minor
area. ESA may have designed and built the spacelab. But sustaining
engineering and mission integration is what MSFC did. Also some
reeningineering was done after Challenger.

Be aware that you are arguing with an historically ignorant idiot and
conspiracy monger, who views everything though a cracked political
lens.

I won't feed them any more

On Jan 23, 4:04*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:52:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:





On Jan 23, 2:11 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. *Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!

Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.

1. *GSFC never had a large role in Spacelab. *Maybe a little with data
flow. * Mission management (control) was always at MSFC, in HOSC,
which was the way it was done on Skylab.

2. *There is a lot more to a program. Ground control is a minor
area. * ESA may have designed and built the spacelab. *But sustaining
engineering and mission integration is what MSFC did. *Also some
reeningineering was done after Challenger.

Be aware that you are arguing with an historically ignorant idiot and
conspiracy monger, who views everything though a cracked political
lens.

Huh, there is no 'Rand Simberg' on the X.500 NASA website. I'm there
and he isn't. Go figure.

Rand is a wannabee and a cheerleader for commercial spaceflight. Maybe
that is why it hasn't done anything since SS1 several years ago.

On Jan 23, 4:34*pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:04 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:





On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:52:07 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Jan 23, 2:11 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

1. *Sure sure, MSFC isn't going to say we took Spacelab from GSFC because
JSC took ISS from us. Nor is GSFC going to say that MSFC stole
Spacelab. But THAT is what happened!

Spacelab efforts in the U S will be managed by the Marshall Center.
What efforts? All I see is ESA and their center near Munich.

1. *GSFC never had a large role in Spacelab. *Maybe a little with data
flow. * Mission management (control) was always at MSFC, in HOSC,
which was the way it was done on Skylab.

2. *There is a lot more to a program. Ground control is a minor
area. * ESA may have designed and built the spacelab. *But sustaining
engineering and mission integration is what MSFC did. *Also some
reeningineering was done after Challenger.

Be aware that you are arguing with an historically ignorant idiot and
conspiracy monger, who views everything though a cracked political
lens.

I won't feed them any more

Why, because a guy with a two-bit blog on space tells you not to? Rand
doesn't have me in his killfile because I see right through him. And
he wants you to ignore me. Think about that...

If SIPS and SOPS were minor, as you put it, then why did MSFC even
bother to move them out of GSFC to MSFC?

We don't even do space lab anymore. The Japanese and Germans took it
over and we let them due to lousy politics between ourselves.