Well, they must be doing something right...

On Feb 7, 8:28*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?

In article 211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
, says...

On Feb 7, 8:28*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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.

WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?

Cite?

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

On Feb 7, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
, says...



On Feb 7, 8:28*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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.

WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?

Cite?

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

just look at nasas costs in comparison to space X..............

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Feb 7, 1:10 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
, says...



On Feb 7, 8:28 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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.

WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?

Cite?

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

just look at nasas costs in comparison to space X..............



Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?



Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
budgets and considerably more people?

On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.

In article dd40153a-4d3c-402c-a0d7-
, says...

On Feb 7, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 211befc3-32b0-4647-a6fe-
, says...



On Feb 7, 8:28*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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.

WHY PAY 20 TIMES THE COST OF DOING IT THEMSELVES?

Cite?

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

just look at nasas costs in comparison to space X..............

For the Falcons and Dragons, others have already done this. SpaceX's
costs are far lower than what NASA could achieve. So, you seem to have
your costs completely ass-backwards, unless you can support your
assertion.

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

In article . com,
says...

On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?


Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
budgets and considerably more people?

On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.

The results of that changing political dynamic can be seen in the graph
of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!

Sorry everyone, but we beat the Godless Communists to the moon, the
Soviet Union is no more, the Berlin wall fell and Germany is once again
a single country. Face it everyone, the Cold War is long over, and
manned spaceflight just doesn't have the political support it once have.

The glory days of seemingly endless funding are gone and are NOT coming
back. Unfortunately, NASA has failed numerous times to come up with
manned space programs which accept that fact. Instead, they seem
determined to pick the most expensive path forward possible, hoping that
cost overruns and schedule delays will be covered by some mythical
increasing budget.

Sorry guys, but NASA's budget is doing well if it's not cut. Meaningful
budget increases just aren't going to happen.

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

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article . com,
says...

On 8/02/2012 10:42 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Sure. Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?


Well, what had NASA done in its first eight years with much larger
budgets and considerably more people?

On a per-capita and dollar-for-dollar basis, SpaceX are still way ahead.
Also, don't forget the political dynamic has changed considerably
since the 50's/60's; there isn't the need for rushing that existed then.

The results of that changing political dynamic can be seen in the graph
of NASA funding over time. For those of you too lazy to look for this
yourselves, here's a well done Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Pay special attention to the "% of Federal Budget" column, because that
is most telling when it comes to the discussion of political reality.
When measured by that metric, today's funding is about 1/10th of what it
was at the peak of Apollo/Saturn!


Actually, no. Look at the 'constant dollars' column. What you
suggest merely shows the addition of social programs to the budget
coming out of The Great Society.

That and increases in spending to pay for wars. Vietnam was no small
cost to the federal government when NASA had its budget squeezed. In
more recent times, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have loomed far more
important (in dollars spent) than NASA's budget.

The percentage of the total federal budget shows us how important NASA
is to the politicians when compared to other (growing) areas of the
budget such as social programs and defense. Clearly, NASA has grown
smaller in importance when compared with social programs and fighting
wars overseas.

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

In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:28:02, Jeff Findley
posted:


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.

If they have any sense at all, they'll buy at least enough training from
NASA to make sure that the companies know all that NASA trainers know.
The companies will also need to know what NASA passengers will already
know before they get company training.

NASA needs (or at least wants) to keep its training facilities, which
were enough for several shuttle crews per year and now only need to
part-train a few Soyuz passengers annually (both in addition to nearly
half of ISS crews), in the hope of regaining, eventually, a USG/NASA
manned launch capability. They should be happy to hire them out for
whatever money they can get - it will be a buyer's market.

AIUI, the Pool is already hired out for non-space work.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

Remind me who Space X has launched into space again?

Jacques Le Bouere.

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...