Losers from Obama's proposed 2011 budget

I echo your comments Mike.
It is not what one would call 'scientific' in any sense of the word.
More like cultural ludite-ism.
They won't evolve past their personal prejudices and biases.
I won't say "can't"... I don't have that data grin

"Mike" wrote in message
trig, everything to you is racial, racism and racist. broaden your
mind....

On Feb 1, 4:57 pm, |"
wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:12 am, Mike wrote:

the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....

Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.

Mike, on the left and the right a large share of congress persons
are lawyers. And lawyers largely unschooled in science.
And plenty on the right are anti-science as well and often
have closeted KKK type attitudes. And even the ones
that have other education seem to fail to apply it i.e.
Bill Frist and the Terry Schive (Ms) case as an example.
Her brain was largely gone and it seemed so was his.
Her husband was right. Just look at the CAT scan.

Left to their own devices congress persons would likely try to
declare Pi and E to be the rounded to number of 3
after a conference committee session.

Not a fan of L or R.............Trig



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jeff Findley wrote:

Now that Ares I is dead and lunar missions are dead as well, this
requirement could be added back in a "commercial" version of Orion.
Don't think for one minute that the Orion contractors won't propose a
"commercial" version of Orion. They've got to find some way to keep that
gravy train going.

If Orion doesn't need to do a lunar return velocity reentry, then a major
reason to base its design on the Apollo CM vanishes; it doesn't need the
wide (and very heavy) heatshield anymore and a shape more like the Soyuz
descent module would give greater internal volume at lower weight by
having a smaller diameter heatshield for the overall passenger and cargo
capacity of the spacecraft.
Since such a redesign would mean pretty much starting over from scratch,
they might as well go with the manned Dragon capsule variant, as at least
some design work has been done on that.

Pat

Last time they went to the moon they took the whole re-entry vehicle with
them complete with heat shield, right?
Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just throwing
in my 2 cents.

Graystar



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Jonathan" wrote in message

"Mike" wrote in message
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....


Watching the world burn, while NASA takes a long and
platinum-plated safari to the Moon, would certainly 'endear'
the space agency to the American people. Wasting every
last dime for the next twenty years on a useless moon-shelter
would make NASA a national joke. And be a set back
for space exploration like no other. Not just from the
wasted twenty years and wasted money, but mostly
from the loss of trust in an agency that's ....supposed
to be about OUR future.

Not there own.

Jonathan

s

Compared to the Porkulous... the Space program funding is microscopic.
You would scream price? when Trillions are being wasted? Puh-leez!

Useless to YOU maybe... which is non-sequitor.
It's not the Ritz, for Marx's sake, and it's not silk lined.

We don't have to get fancy with a moon lab habitat.
The HabLab could be sent unmanned, orbited and R/C landed in a designated
area.
May have to have someone controlling from lunar orbit to get the timing. I
don't know that part of the tech.

Even rover bots could cover it with moon soil if that method is still
acceptable for radiation shielding.
We got Drones now, it should be but a small problem emplacing the habitat
from orbit.
The Power core would likely be sent down as a seperate package to maximize
it's size.
All that can be done remotely.
Goto it whenever with an international team to help the politics part.
If possible, figure out how to make metal ingots from harvested top soil ore
to return to Earth: Ti, Si, whatever...

Metals from the moon, zero Earth pollution.
Anyone smelling money yet?
Because external resources = money = more space stuff.
Small scale soon, large scale? May not be necessary.

It's a big universe, Mr. Scott...
g



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Shem wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:10:52 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Watching the world burn, while NASA takes a long and
platinum-plated safari to the Moon, would certainly 'endear'
the space agency to the American people.

Since the idiot intends to bankrupt the country, why not at least do
something that'll leave behind an *honorable* legacy? Gene Cernan said
as much this afternoon in an interview, and he's right.

Yeah! LOL!
If we give him the "Buzz" figuratively speaking we just might pull a
rabbit out of our hats mining maybe?



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Shem wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:10:52 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Watching the world burn, while NASA takes a long and
platinum-plated safari to the Moon, would certainly 'endear'
the space agency to the American people.

Since the idiot intends to bankrupt the country, why not at least do
something that'll leave behind an *honorable* legacy? Gene Cernan said
as much this afternoon in an interview, and he's right.


Bush left almost every aspect of the US govt, except for
the military, in disgraceful condition due to either
corruption, incompetence or neglect.
Mostly neglect!

******
[*eh*.... RINOs! So whatchyagonnado? Roll over and play dead? LOL!]
******

You political rubes....all of you!
America has not just lost it's manned space program.
The military and NASA have been following separate
....competing....tracks to replace the shuttle.
NASA LOST! Due to ignorantly deciding upon taking
the long expensive and useless track....Moon part deux!
So now we have only one.

******
Oh please, cry me a river complete with tiny violins. Do you always give up
so easily?
******

The military won, and now has your precious manned
space program. Because as the entire world knows, except
for the few here, only military uses justify putting
people in space.

******
Even the military needs resources. That's where civilians come in, my
fiendish friend. grin
******

And that isn't going to change until the commercial
sector invades earth orbit en masse.

******
Takes two to tango
******

So, lower cost to orbit, combined with a NEW market
for space activity would seem to be the logical next
steps.

******
All of it "would seem to be the logical next steps".
Dump the political hacks out of the program unless they fight FOR it
intelligently.
******

Y'all know well what my opinion is about solving those
two problems, Space Solar Power. When is anyone
here going to stop pointing fingers, and start pointing
towards a new, more thoughtful, direction for the
future?
This exact time is a golden opportunity for change.
Jonathan

******
Space solar has some serious problem right now.
I hear they are working on the multilayer solar cells to make them
profitable to reproduce en masse,
but that's only part of the problem.
There is a thought. Try it for the Moon base First... land a Rectenna and
try it out.
Less problems of creating an incident that way.
It certainly would lighten the landing load, huh?

Lots of great guys & gals out there in the US who could brainstorm it.
Even some good sci-fi writers as well have already considered some of the
problems.
Nasa is pretty insular when it comes to taking ideas from general sources.
Rather like when our country was young... if a good idea came from a woman,
it was immediately circular filed.
That and other kinds of stupid biases have to be overcome for the cause of
this quest.
If some can't do that, it is suggested that they change their POV or failing
that... recuse themselves.

For what it's worth... YMMV

******



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Graystar wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jeff Findley wrote:

Now that Ares I is dead and lunar missions are dead as well, this
requirement could be added back in a "commercial" version of Orion.
Don't think for one minute that the Orion contractors won't propose a
"commercial" version of Orion. They've got to find some way to keep
that gravy train going.

If Orion doesn't need to do a lunar return velocity reentry, then a
major reason to base its design on the Apollo CM vanishes; it doesn't
need the wide (and very heavy) heatshield anymore and a shape more
like the Soyuz descent module would give greater internal volume at
lower weight by having a smaller diameter heatshield for the overall
passenger and cargo capacity of the spacecraft.
Since such a redesign would mean pretty much starting over from
scratch, they might as well go with the manned Dragon capsule variant,
as at least some design work has been done on that.

Pat

Last time they went to the moon they took the whole re-entry vehicle
with them complete with heat shield, right?
Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.

The wizards of smart figured out long ago that the amount of propellant
needed to brake back into LEO from a translunar trajectory to return to
ISS was a lot heavier than a heat shield.

"Graystar" wrote in message
.. .


Last time they went to the moon they took the whole re-entry vehicle with
them complete with heat shield, right?
Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.

Two reasons:

1) ISS is in an awful orbit for assembly (too high an inclination.)
2) You can't stop at ISS w/o slowing down. And the easiest way to stop is
to simply use the atmosphere and at that point you might as well re-enter.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
Graystar wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
Jeff Findley wrote:

Now that Ares I is dead and lunar missions are dead as well, this
requirement could be added back in a "commercial" version of Orion.
Don't think for one minute that the Orion contractors won't propose a
"commercial" version of Orion. They've got to find some way to keep
that gravy train going.

If Orion doesn't need to do a lunar return velocity reentry, then a
major reason to base its design on the Apollo CM vanishes; it doesn't
need the wide (and very heavy) heatshield anymore and a shape more like
the Soyuz descent module would give greater internal volume at lower
weight by having a smaller diameter heatshield for the overall passenger
and cargo capacity of the spacecraft.
Since such a redesign would mean pretty much starting over from scratch,
they might as well go with the manned Dragon capsule variant, as at
least some design work has been done on that.

Pat

Last time they went to the moon they took the whole re-entry vehicle with
them complete with heat shield, right?
Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.

The wizards of smart figured out long ago that the amount of propellant
needed to brake back into LEO from a translunar trajectory to return to
ISS was a lot heavier than a heat shield.

OK then why not send the heat shield ahead and attach it in lunar orbit?
That shouldn't be all the difficult to design. No?
Of course the reentry vehicle would have to modified to do that.
or... put a HEO transfer manuever cylinder to catch the incoming and have
it's own retro fuel.
Is the return that unpredictable that a HEO vehicle could not capture the
incoming module
to link and provide the breaking burns?
That would allow the vehicle to be stored in HEO for reuse?
and perhaps refuel the module so it could go for ISS.
It certainly would help ISS gain energy, would it not?



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
"Graystar" wrote in message


Last time they went to the moon they took the whole re-entry vehicle with
them complete with heat shield, right?
Why? Why not leave that part out, send the mission vehicles to the ISS,
assemble them there, goto the moon,
return to ISS, then take the shuttle down.
The wizards of smart have probably already figured this out. Just
throwing in my 2 cents.

Two reasons:

1) ISS is in an awful orbit for assembly (too high an inclination.)
2) You can't stop at ISS w/o slowing down. And the easiest way to stop is
to simply use the atmosphere and at that point you might as well re-enter.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On 1:
What of a cylinder unmanned LEO to HEO R/C manuevering vehicle to transfer
the components to higher orbit for mating?

that could be refueled by small packets for when the lunar module returns,
or a ISS to HEO vehicle manned & fueled to do the job?

On 2:
The unmanned HEO vehicle captures the returning module by matching
trajectory and since it has a full fuel tank, make the deceleration burn for
the module, to LEO protecting it and transferring it to ISS.
Sometimes the easiest way would not be the best.
It might be slower, but more efficient to take some longer steps until newer
vehicles are developed.
Since ISS needs to be spun up in it's decaying orbit continuously, it would
add to the ISS orbit preservation,
modules stay in orbit an could be parked again in HEO.
Science packs & crew Xfer to Shuttle or whatever reentry vehicle is handy,
then back to Earth.

It would put the lie to the claim of "and expensive and useless mission" or
that it was safe or cushy...
and should the test mining experiment yield some useful samples, that would
be the proof of an ore claim as viable.

Just trying to apply some of the stuff I gathered from talking to R Forward
in 2001 or 2 at ISDC, and from F. I. Ordway III
May not be the way I'm thinking of it, but might inspire someone to consider
some options.

Seems to me if we can place a LabHab in a highly mineralized zone
for experiments in light r/c mining for profit,
setup a rectenna to test Sol Sat prototypes,
and perhaps later experiment with the elevator concept...
all in a place that would have little political impact...

Just tossing those in the hat.



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Couple of comments.

"axing the moon" made it as a major news item in foreign press reports.

I think that Obama should have worded it this way:

Constellation is the wrong technological solution which does not advance
the technology of getting to space, and hasn't gone far enough to even
develop actual moon landing vehicles. The Orion capsule is still just a
design in flux. 5 years after the project was started.

So he cuts constellation, so NASA can focus on R&D for new designs for
engines, vehicles, heat shields etc.

Then, you have the option to hand over those designs to private industry
so they can build something.