NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

Has anyone asked them? *Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?

almost 100% of all republican presenditial candidates, pledged during
a republican debate

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
But can't you just paste 16 747s together?


Of course not. That's just plane (sic) silly.

You can't use paste. You need duct-tape!

For this project you need Duck!-tape, as in what you say when you see it coming...

;-)

Dave

Matt Wiser wrote:

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Yes, there is a lot about Congress, doors and ass-kicking I intend to engage
in this year.

;-)

Dave

On Dec 20, 10:54*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
total privatization of HSF.

Has anyone asked them? *Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?

Ron Paul is one. Mainly because it's not in the Constitution.

lets rephrase the question

Recent links to anyone supporting MSF, espically presenditial
candidates......

"David Spain" wrote in message
...

There a lot been written on this thread I have little to add.

But here is a prediction. In five years you can go back and fact check me
as this post will be in the archive.

I predict SLS funding will continue. The project will plod along, there
will be a few static rocket tests.

I predict Dragon will launch successful cargo flights to the ISS within the
year (2012).

I predict SpaceX will continue on the path to getting a man rating and
flying a crew (timeframe still a little hazy here, but I think 5 years is a
safe bet).

At the end of 5 years SpaceX will have flown a crew to the ISS and returned
them safely. In the meantime SLS will still be largely on the drawing
board,
all the money spent to keep contractors in various Congressional districts
busy and THIS KEY LITTLE ITEM: "0 dollars spent to upgrade existing KSC
infrastructure to support SLS". People will want to spread the dollars not
concentrate them. And without this up-front work SLS remains purely
pie-in-the-sky regardless of how much $$$ Congress pours down this
rat-hole.

At the end? SpaceX launches from their own facilities whilst VAB and
complex 39 sit largely empty and/or rusting away in the Atlantic
sea-breezes. When the money spent on SLS could have been going to useful
ground support upgrades.

(LC-39 a&b should be made dual-fuel capable NOW, Mobile Launch Platform &
Crawler vehicle should be updated immediately for using Falcons and the
current generation of EELVs) why on Earth should we wait on this?


I agree with most of this, other than LC-39. Not sure that buys SpaceX or
anyone else much of anything.


Dave



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Dec 21, 7:52*am, David Spain wrote:
There a lot been written on this thread I have little to add.

But here is a prediction. In five years you can go back and fact check me as
this post will be in the archive.

I predict SLS funding will continue. The project will plod along, there will
be a few static rocket tests.

I predict Dragon will launch successful cargo flights to the ISS within the
year (2012).

I predict SpaceX will continue on the path to getting a man rating and flying
a crew (timeframe still a little hazy here, but I think 5 years is a safe bet).

At the end of 5 years SpaceX will have flown a crew to the ISS and returned
them safely. In the meantime SLS will still be largely on the drawing board,
all the money spent to keep contractors in various Congressional districts
busy and THIS KEY LITTLE ITEM: "0 dollars spent to upgrade existing KSC
infrastructure to support SLS". People will want to spread the dollars not
concentrate them. And without this up-front work SLS remains purely
pie-in-the-sky regardless of how much $$$ Congress pours down this rat-hole.

At the end? SpaceX launches from their own facilities whilst VAB and complex
39 sit largely empty and/or rusting away in the Atlantic sea-breezes. When the
money spent on SLS could have been going to useful ground support upgrades.

(LC-39 a&b should be made dual-fuel capable NOW, Mobile Launch Platform &
Crawler vehicle should be updated immediately for using Falcons and the
current generation of EELVs) why on Earth should we wait on this?

Dave

your ignoring the elephant in the room, the fiancial collapse of the
US....

spending must be cut, or our country will go bankrupt

On Dec 23, 7:07*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Has anyone asked them? *Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?

almost 100% of all republican presenditial candidates, pledged during
a republican debate

Quote them and list them by name.

Yeah, I thought not...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

i posted the link awhile ago. its probably still up........

claiming its not fact ignores the fact i posted the link quoting this
here.... it was neaR 100% NO MORE FUNDING FOR HSF

Has anyone asked them? *Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?

almost 100% of all republican presenditial candidates, pledged during
a republican debate

Quote them and list them by name.

Yeah, I thought not...



The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers
in America: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space
flight, [video clip at 6:50 to 9:28].

Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in
attendance whether they would continue federal funding for human space
flight. Not a single candidate - Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their
hand.


The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate
tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.


GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says "NASA has become an
absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate,” he said.
“What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy, failure after
failure.”

On 25/12/2011 1:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:


It'll survive. No question. Now, you may now go back to your fantasy
world. You keep wailing about something that is irrevelant to HSF.
There's a few like you over on sci.military.naval and
rec.aviation.military who do the same thing: wail about topics not
relevant to what's being discussed. Or they're living in their fantasy
world and not bothering to take into account the fact that the policy
or procurement suggestions they offer have two chances of being put
forward by either Congress or POTUS: Slim and none. The stuff you keep
pushing has zero chance of being adopted, so why do you keep pressing
for it? Hoping that lightning will strike twice? Said it befo NO
BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS. Cut and dry, that is it.

I think Bob's been really quite good lately. It can be said you are
also in a fantasy world of your own - it depends on perspective.

As for HSF being just for NASA, I doubt they will get anywhere with
SLS/Orion. I firmly believe that Dragon and Dreamchaser will be the
transport of choice until Stratolaunch (combined with Dreamchaser?) get
into gear. Then, costs _will_ be less than 10% of current LVs.

I agree that HSF will survive, but will not use NASA/government-specific
systems for much longer. NASA's budget might stay the same, but don't
forget they do research into all sorts of other things; aviation, space
and other areas.