Back to Space

On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581-

, says...

Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in

anyone else's way?

NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system

will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market......

In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and

switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is

politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon.

I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for

decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle.

While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because

thats at best all they can afford

Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation.

Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating

a dead horse. *Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times

successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. *But I think it

more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's

clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for

decades. *Again, this is the reality of US space politics.

I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill,

battle ahead of them. *Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed.

Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for
everything will have to be gutted.

If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our
country collapses.

Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in
pittsburgh for mass transit.........

Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this

How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea???

Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something
else????

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581-



, says...



Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in



anyone else's way?



NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system



will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market......



In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and



switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is



politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon.

On Mar 6, 2:06*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:39*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581-

, says...

Once more. *PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in

anyone else's way?

NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system

will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market......

In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans and

switch to commercial launches only. *This is a desire I share, but it is

politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime soon.

I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding for

decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle.

While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because

thats at best all they can afford

Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the situation.

Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is beating

a dead horse. *Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more times

successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. *But I think it

more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if it's

clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for

decades. *Again, this is the reality of US space politics.

I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long, uphill,

battle ahead of them. *Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed.

Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for

everything will have to be gutted.

If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our

country collapses.

Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in

pittsburgh for mass transit.........

Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this

How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea???

Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something

else????

Just because the Bobbert thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean that NASA and Congress do. Or does that little tidbit escape you. You're just upset that NASA is going in a direction that YOU disagree with, and it's not putting money into Elon Musk's bank account in the process. If you don't like it, write your Congress-critter and Senator and get them to push your pet Commercial-only route. In case you haven't noticed, Bobbert, other than Rohrabacher, there's ZERO support on the Hill-and even less in NASA for that route.. Or did that fact go in one ear and out the other?

you DONT GET IT

Congress and government no longer cares about being efficent or really
doing anything......

other than enriching politically connected people...

thats why congress is a joke today, their attitude is undermining the
future of our country

In article ,
says...

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and
none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating
that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the
rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals
with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And
there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? Would a
politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the
detriment of others?

Politics, plain and simple.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 2:06 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:39 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 0da076a5-b951-4d2a-a581-

, says...

Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA
in

anyone else's way?

NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system

will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market......

In other words, you want NASA to abandon its launch vehicle plans
and

switch to commercial launches only. This is a desire I share, but it
is

politically unacceptable and will definitely *not* happen anytime
soon.

I think it's likely SLS will gobble up a huge amount of NASA funding
for

decades to come, even if its flight rate is lower than the shuttle.

While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year,
because

thats at best all they can afford

Very likely, but again, that is the political reality of the
situation.

Continuing to advocate the elimination of SLS, at this time, is
beating

a dead horse. Perhaps when Falcon Heavy has flown a dozen or more
times

successfully, the politicians may *start* to see reason. But I think
it

more likely that SLS will continue to be funded for decades even if
it's

clearly far too expensive, just as the space shuttle was funded for

decades. Again, this is the reality of US space politics.

I'm rooting for SpaceX to be successful, but they have a long,
uphill,

battle ahead of them. Their success is absolutely *not* guaranteed.

Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much
cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it
in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none.
Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating that
particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the rest of the
House Science and Technology Committee-which deals with NASA, gives
him the cold shoulder-as they should. And there's no one in the Senate
echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

if finances of america continue on their present course budgets for

everything will have to be gutted.

If congress were mart they would make necessary cuts now before our

country collapses.

Building SLS is like the tunnel under the allegheny river in

pittsburgh for mass transit.........

Hey its free federal money we need more projects like this

How many here think SLS Ares or whatever is a good idea???

Imagine how much good that money could do if spent on something

else????

Just because the Bobbert thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean that NASA
and Congress do. Or does that little tidbit escape you. You're just upset
that NASA is going in a direction that YOU disagree with, and it's not
putting money into Elon Musk's bank account in the process. If you don't
like it, write your Congress-critter and Senator and get them to push your
pet Commercial-only route. In case you haven't noticed, Bobbert, other
than Rohrabacher, there's ZERO support on the Hill-and even less in NASA
for that route. Or did that fact go in one ear and out the other?

you DONT GET IT

Congress and government no longer cares about being efficent or really
doing anything......

other than enriching politically connected people...

thats why congress is a joke today, their attitude is undermining the
future of our country

You don't get it, do you? What YOU want NASA to do is not politically
feasible. When there's a grand total of ONE congressman-and no
senators-pushing the commercial-only route, that should tell you enough
about such a plan's chances on The Hill.

Like I said once befo if you took your idea to the Hill, they'd laugh you
out of the committee room-and give you a kick in the ass on the way out. And
then watch the money go to KSC, Marshall, Michoud, Stennis, etc. for SLS
work.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and
none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating
that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the
rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals
with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And
there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? Would a
politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the
detriment of others?

Politics, plain and simple.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit.
There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a facility
in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits in
Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those
firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More
NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No
difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion (Lockheed-Martin's
Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing SLS
work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at Michoud.
Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local."

On Mar 7, 12:39*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...





In article ,
says...

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and
none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating
that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the
rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals
with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And
there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? *Would a
politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the
detriment of others?

Politics, plain and simple.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit.
There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a facility
in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits in
Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those
firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More
NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No
difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion (Lockheed-Martin's
Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing SLS
work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at Michoud.
Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local."

Congress shouldnt rule by pork. Its killing america these days.

If it were a individual it would force them into bankruptcy

Guess what? Its doing the same thing to our country

Business buying congressional votes, leads to no compromises, which
leads to congressional gridlock, and ultimately killing of our
country.

I believe its also creating the divide, a small number of super rich
only getting richer, and the vast majority working very hard getting
no where but broke. This group has survived by getting government
handouts which can no longer be afforded.

Look at history, things like this tend to cause revolutines

We need some sanity in congress, all they are are bought and sold.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:


Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How is NASA in
anyone else's way?

NASA by building a unnecessary and way too expensive launch system
will prevent commercial firms from exploitating this market......


That makes no sense. How does having a way too expensive competitor
prevent cheaper providers from entering the market?


While nasa may build the system and launch just once a year, because
thats at best all they can afford


Irrelevant. Once more. PLEASE ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!! How
is NASA in anyone else's way?

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

Fred, he won't answer the question. All Bobbert wants is for NASA to spend
its money the way HE wants. Anything else is heresy.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Matt Wiser wrote:


The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and none.


And Slim is on vacation.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

How true.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 12:39 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...





In article ,
says...

The Bobbert's grasp of political reality is twofold: slim and
none. Right now, there's only ONE congresscritter who's beating
that particular drum: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but the
rest of the House Science and Technology Committee-which deals
with NASA, gives him the cold shoulder-as they should. And
there's no one in the Senate echoing Rohrabacher's POV.

Could it be that CA would benefit from such a policy? Would a
politician lobby for a position that benefits *his* state to the
detriment of others?

Politics, plain and simple.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Not exactly the whole state, but parts of SoCal certainly would benefit.
There's several commercial space outfits in SoCal-and Space X has a
facility
in Hawthorne. Even if there's no Commercial Space (or NerdSpace) outfits
in
Rohrabacher's district, he probably has constitutents who do work at those
firms. To him, that's reason enough to push a Commercial/Depot path. More
NASA money to those outfits means more money and jobs into SoCal. No
difference than Colorado's delegation fighting for Orion
(Lockheed-Martin's
Orion program is HQ'd in the Denver Area), or Sen. Shelby of AL pushing
SLS
work at Marshall, or Sens. Landreau and Vitter pushing the same at
Michoud.
Like Tip O'Neil once said back in the '80s: "All politics is local."

Congress shouldnt rule by pork. Its killing america these days.

If it were a individual it would force them into bankruptcy

Guess what? Its doing the same thing to our country

Business buying congressional votes, leads to no compromises, which
leads to congressional gridlock, and ultimately killing of our
country.

I believe its also creating the divide, a small number of super rich
only getting richer, and the vast majority working very hard getting
no where but broke. This group has survived by getting government
handouts which can no longer be afforded.

Look at history, things like this tend to cause revolutines

We need some sanity in congress, all they are are bought and sold.

All politics is local, bobbert. Take it or leave it. And there's more
politics in favor of SLS and Orion than there is for Space X and the
Dragon/Falcon 9-9 Heavy combo. One, repeat, ONE congresscritter pushing the
latter, while there's numerous Senators and Congressmen pushing the former.
Or does that escape your fantasy world?