Well, they must be doing something right...

On 5/02/2012 3:01 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
Look at the person to your left.
Now look to the person on your right.

Three of you won't be making it to the next round.

Might be more accurate to say- two of you won't make the next round, none
of you will fly.



They'll fly, but I doubt it'll be on a NASA spacecraft.

" They'll fly, but I doubt it'll be on a NASA spacecraft.

This could be a interesting subject - just how far NASA will go to man
commercial spacecraft, what conditions will be put on using NASA personnel;
and just how much the private conttractors will go to utilize NASA personnel
instead of their own test pilots or crew. Has to be some interesting
liabilities buried in this. Like NASA pilot error looses a craft or
contractor rules result in NASA crew injury/death. Might also be some obtuse
reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
with a commercial firm.

On 5/02/2012 5:52 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
" They'll fly, but I doubt it'll be on a NASA spacecraft.

This could be a interesting subject - just how far NASA will go to man
commercial spacecraft, what conditions will be put on using NASA personnel;
and just how much the private conttractors will go to utilize NASA personnel
instead of their own test pilots or crew. Has to be some interesting
liabilities buried in this. Like NASA pilot error looses a craft or
contractor rules result in NASA crew injury/death. Might also be some obtuse
reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
with a commercial firm.



Just like a military pilot.

Alan Erskine wrote:
Might also be some
obtuse
reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
with a commercial firm.



Just like a military pilot.

No need for an 'obtuse reason'. The scenario is straightforward. As declining
budgets force NASA back into a NACA style role, it will contract out its
astronaut training as a service to the private contractors who cannot afford
the facilities to do so.

That's if the 'taxi-style' approach is adopted, rather than the 'rental-car'
approach.

I think the budget trend will resolve which of these approaches finally wins.
And as long as the public thinks, thanks to the 'opinion leaders', that a moon
colony is 'lunacy' I think I can guess which way it will go.

BTW I happen to agree on the moon colony idea. It's just that what I'd prefer,
a habitable solar excursion vehicle along the lines of Nautilus-X would get
the same reception by this crowd.

I'm done with government run space 'programs'.

Dave

Catherine Jefferson wrote:
If I were looking for a job as an astronaut, I'd study engineering and
then go to work for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or another private
spaceflight firm.

Bingo!

David Spain wrote:
Catherine Jefferson wrote:
If I were looking for a job as an astronaut, I'd study engineering and
then go to work for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or another private
spaceflight firm.

Bingo!

A stint in the military flying high performance jets wouldn't hurt either.
And it'd help pay for that Eng. degree. to boot!

Dave

David Spain wrote:
It won't be just the military that gets downsized....

... [in the not too distant future] ...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have just entered the most exclusive process known to mankind.
The process by which we choose the next class of NASA Astronaut.

I'm here to inform this small group of you gathered here in Houston that you
have just entered the next phase of our selection process.

Look at the person to your left.
Now look to the person on your right.

Three of you won't be making it to the next round.

...

;-)

Sure, but does Zed the NASA HR guy then administer an eye test using
the flashy thing?-)

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Alan Erskine wrote:
Might also be some
obtuse
reason for training with NASA - then dropping out and applying for a job
with a commercial firm.

Just like a military pilot.

No need for an 'obtuse reason'. The scenario is straightforward. As declining
budgets force NASA back into a NACA style role, it will contract out its
astronaut training as a service to the private contractors who cannot afford
the facilities to do so.

I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
destination is for the "taxi" .

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

Jeff Findley wrote:
I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
destination is for the "taxi" .

Jeff you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Think not what NASA wants to do with ISS, but what Bigelow might want to do
with its inflatable habitats.

As a private venture, it seems perfectly natural it might seek out NASA's help
to help train its work crews. Or to ask to use of the big water tank for
training its future space worker crews. And it seems only natural that NASA
would be willing to help, for a fee.

Think SpaceX wanting to train its own class of pilot-astronauts for manned
Dragon capsules. It's not a stretch to imagine SpaceX loaning a couple of
Dragons to NASA and paying a fee to NASA to train its crews.

Dave

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
I seriously doubt that NASA is going to "contract out its astronaut
training". Even if you discount training for riding the "taxi", the
real work starts when the astronauts actually get to ISS or whatever
destination is for the "taxi" .

Jeff you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Think not what NASA wants to do with ISS, but what Bigelow might want to do
with its inflatable habitats.

As a private venture, it seems perfectly natural it might seek out NASA's help
to help train its work crews. Or to ask to use of the big water tank for
training its future space worker crews. And it seems only natural that NASA
would be willing to help, for a fee.

Think SpaceX wanting to train its own class of pilot-astronauts for manned
Dragon capsules. It's not a stretch to imagine SpaceX loaning a couple of
Dragons to NASA and paying a fee to NASA to train its crews.

Yes, I misread that.

I'm really not sure if companies like Bigelow and SpaceX would want to
start buying such services from NASA. I wonder exactly what training
they would want to buy from NASA that they could not do themselves.

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