Back to Space

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

On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So how is that in anyone else's way?

Well, it does cost the taxpayer money.

Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their
own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert
really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going
to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to.

Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way?


Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the
unmanned cargo flights are testing the falcon booster and operations
while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version....

Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure
heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned
launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past
nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no
money for missions, err jobs for it to do...

I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now.

If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that
will only be used once a year for a family vacation?

or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant
haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the
tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even
afford the fuel

The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs
lower.

the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle

orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ and nasa should of man rated the
delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of
delta would of benefitted everyone


Let me try again, Bobbert. Please 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

He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that
Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts.
Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or not
to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on
Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is a
bad thing.

On Mar 4, 10:45*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Mar 4, 4:12*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:55*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So how is that in anyone else's way?

Well, it does cost the taxpayer money.

Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their
own money, which is what's being talked about. *Unless what Bobbert
really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going
to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to.

Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way?

Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the
unmanned cargo flights *are testing the falcon booster and operations
while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version....

Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure
heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned
launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past
nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no
money for missions, err jobs for it to do...

I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now.

If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that
will only be used once a year for a family vacation?

or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant
haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the
tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even
afford the fuel

The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs
lower.

the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle

orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ *and nasa should of man rated the
delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of
delta would of benefitted everyone

Let me try again, Bobbert. *Please 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

Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by
building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut
launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter.

by all appearances musk operates at a fraction of nasas cost
structure.

assuming orion actually gets built what need would there be for a
private heavy lifter?

nasa will use its own orion and with so few possible commercial
customers no low cost heavy lifter.

its the same issue as why nasa after columbia didnt man rate the delta
heavy? because nasa wanted its own pork project.

if delta had been man rated right after columbia we wouldnt be
dependent on russia today for getting astronauts to ISS.

ARES / Orion / whatever is just pork. that we can no longer afford.

heck they are cutting funding for private launchers while funding
orion at 100%

congress is behind much of this, the same dysfunctional congress who
takes us thru sequestration and in a few weeks will see our country
defaut rather than be reasonable and reach a compromise.

congress prefers to play politics rather than do its job...........

On Mar 5, 1:07*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:8bg9j8t0tp58s40q86vt4uer883okem6ih@4ax .com...



bob haller wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So how is that in anyone else's way?

Well, it does cost the taxpayer money.

Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their
own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert
really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going
to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to.

Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way?

Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the
unmanned cargo flights *are testing the falcon booster and operations
while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version....

Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure
heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned
launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past
nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no
money for missions, err jobs for it to do...

I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now.

If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that
will only be used once a year for a family vacation?

or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant
haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the
tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even
afford the fuel

The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs
lower.

the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle

orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ *and nasa should of man rated the
delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of
delta would of benefitted everyone

Let me try again, Bobbert. *Please 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

He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that
Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts.
Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or not
to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on
Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is a
bad thing.

so you prefer to pay 10 times the cost to launch on orion??

wouldnt it be better to cut launch costs dramatically?

:: Let me try again, Bobbert. =A0Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. =A0How
:: is NASA in anyone else's way?

: bob haller
: Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by
: building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut
: launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter.

And how does the fact that NASA provides more expensive launch services
prevent people from selling them cheaper? After all, it's your contention
that NASA-supported services have overinflated prices. How is anybody
stopped from undercutting them, exactly?

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......

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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


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......


Huh? So you're telling me because NASA will make something expensive that
prevents someone from trying to make something inexpensive?

This is not like the early days of STS when the government mandated all
launches would fly on the shuttle and NASA was subsidizing launch costs.

If there's a market, Musk and others will build a craft for it.


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


And that's all the missions that need it.

This is building the Spruce Goose when the market demands DC-3s.




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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 1:07 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
messagenews:8bg9j8t0tp58s40q86vt4uer883okem6ih@4ax .com...



bob haller wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So how is that in anyone else's way?

Well, it does cost the taxpayer money.

Yes, but that's not in the way of anyone else wanting to spend their
own money, which is what's being talked about. Unless what Bobbert
really means by 'in the way' is it somehow prevents government going
to whoever Bobbert thinks it ought to be going to.

Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way?

Musk is developing a manned falcon to be ready in around 2 years, the
unmanned cargo flights are testing the falcon booster and operations
while resupplying ISS, it costs only 10% of a nasa version....

Now if ares / orion / or whatever its named these days were a pure
heavy lift I probably wouldnt care but its being sold as a manned
launcher too. . Instead its nasas latest pork project. To reward past
nasa contractors. Its cost per flight will be so high there will be no
money for missions, err jobs for it to do...

I dont know about the rest of you, but budgets are tight right now.

If your family is short on cash do you buy a brand new vehicle that
will only be used once a year for a family vacation?

or a slightly smaller daily driver say a minivan? certinally it cant
haul a tractor trailer load of stuff but it can get used daily. the
tractor trailer? not only is purchase price high but we cant even
afford the fuel

The shuttle was sold to have a high flight rate to make its costs
lower.

the last thing we need is another low flight rate vehicle

orion is just a boondgle wasting $$$ and nasa should of man rated the
delta heavy. cost a fraction of orion and the higher flight rate of
delta would of benefitted everyone

Let me try again, Bobbert. Please 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

He won't answer the question, in all likelihood, because the truth that
Space X is developing the Falcon family with its own money hurts.
Nobody-other than Elon Musk-is telling that company what to develop. Or
not
to, as the case may be. To the Bobbert-and those like him on
Spacepolitics.com-anything that doesn't put money in Space X's coffers is
a
bad thing.

so you prefer to pay 10 times the cost to launch on orion??

wouldnt it be better to cut launch costs dramatically?

Bobbert, in case you haven't heard, the commercial sector has a habit of
overpromising themselves. Former NASA Astronaut Leroy Chao said in his blog
back in '10 that at many a commercial spaceflight symposium, where many
upstart companies spent most of their time and money on fancy
presentations-before they went under, NASA-bashing was de jour. Until the
Commercial Sector lives up to their promises, it's best to retain a healthy
skepticism on them-whether it's an established firm like Boeing, or a
startup like Space X, Orbital Science, or Sierra Nevada.

There's nothing to stop these firms from developing and flying their own
spacecraft, then offering cargo and crew services to LEO for NASA and other
space agencies. Nada. Just do it on thier own dime: no government funds
should go to these firms for what should be private R&D costs. That money
going to commercial crew should go to Orion and SLS.

..

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

On Mar 4, 10:45 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Mar 4, 4:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So how is that in anyone else's way?

snip

Again, for Bobbert, so how is that in anyone else's way?
snip


Let me try again, Bobbert. Please ADDRESS THE QUESTION. How is NASA
in anyone else's way?



Nasa is the largest single customer of launch services, currently by
building orion a duplicative and unnecessary launcher it will cut
launch rate and may prevent musk from builiding his own heavy lifter.


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

You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money".
Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'.


by all appearances musk operates at a fraction of nasas cost
structure.

assuming orion actually gets built what need would there be for a
private heavy lifter?

nasa will use its own orion and with so few possible commercial
customers no low cost heavy lifter.


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

You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money".
Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'.

snip


heck they are cutting funding for private launchers while funding
orion at 100%


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

You complaint above amounts to "NASA won't give Musk their money".
Sorry, but that's not 'being in the way'.

snip

Are you starting to sense a thread here, Bobbert? YOU made the remark
that "NASA needs to get out of the way". You are apparently either
unable to understand what what you said means or you were merely
Bobberting, as usual.

Your real complaint seems to be "NASA insists in spending its money on
what NASA wants instead of what Bobbert wants."

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

Exactly, Fred. The Bobbert's fantasy world is such that anything that
contradicts it is either ignored, spun, or otherwise distorted to fit it.
Just like Clueless Cobb over on the military aviation and naval NGs....

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

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.