Re: NASA moon trip video

Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> 
>> Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
>> 
>>>Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>It is time that the directors of these 
>>>>>companies were asked how much it would cost to convert a spaceship 
>>>>>reusable 10 times into something that a commercial spaceline could use. 
>>>>
>>>><laughs> This question has been asked many times, and each time the
>>>>answer is oodles more cash than anyone has available.
>>>
>>>Time to ask again. 
>> 
>> Why ? Have the laws of physics changed ?
> 
> Wrong science try economics.  There are very big changes in the R&D money.

Its free of any accountability now ? Amazing claim, not post some PROOF
of it... 
 
>>>NASA has just given the aerospace firms large 
>>>contracts to design new spaceships like the heavy lifter, departure 
>>>stage and Crew Exploration Vehicle.  With a little thought civilian 
>>>versions of these can be produced as spinoffs. 
>> 
>> Um... NASA spacecraft *are* " civilian versions ". What *purpose*
>> are you suggesting that these extra ( Thus, paid for by *whom* ? )
>> versions fulfil ?
> 
> So the astronauts working for the government and still using their 
> military rank as part of their name is presumably accidental. ;)

Nope. Read a book. BTW, nice dodge of my precise question, thus its
clear that your claim doesn't even convince *you*... 
 
>>>If the company directors 
>>>order dual purpose designs *now* this can be done fairly cheaply, wait 
>>>10 years and the design cost will go through the roof.
>> 
>> Real engineers on sci.space.history could correct your erroneous
>> assumptions.
> 
> That one is silly even for you.

<laughs> Go ahead, post your claims over there. I'll see 'em, and the
shellacking that facts will do to them...

> Starting non government ones from scratch in 20 years time is going to 
> cost twice as much.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

> Note a lot of the extra money would go into the pockets of the people on 
> sci.space.history if they are still working on the space programme.
 
Oh, so experts cannot ever be trusted with a *hypothetical* suggestion...

You're fast approaching Black Helicopter Land...
 
>>>There is nothing unusual about American firms piggybacking 
>>>export/civilian versions of aircraft on government contracts, just 
>>>listen to the French complain about subsidies to Boeing.  Although NASA 
>>>should ensure that the companies are paying for the second set of 
>>>specifications with the companies own money rather than as "cost overruns".
>> 
>> Which company has the available bucks, and what near term *paying 
>> enough* market will be thus served ?
> 
> Attaching the civilian version to the NASA programme will cover most of 
> the costs, with a little creative accounting.

You misspelled " *fraud* "...
 
> As for the market, NASA has decided to spend most of its money on space 
> exploration.  Scientists wanting to perform research near the Earth will 
> probably have to get another organisation to launch their satellites - a 
> civilian one perhaps?

NASA IS a civilian organisiation. Read a book !
 
> Extracts from an interview Michael Griffin, Nasa administrator gave to 
> the BBC.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627246.stm
> 
> [quote]
> "There are many different kinds of science that we do. We have not cut 
> back the space science programmes such as New Horizons. *We have, 
> though, cut back on the human-related science to concentrate on building 
> the space station.*" Once built, the ISS will be available for research, 
> he says.

Relevence to any of your claims ? None. Got it.
 
> Stepping stone
> 
> Publicly, Dr Griffin defends the International Space Station and the 
> shuttle programme. But my sense was that he regards them as follies from 
> a bygone age.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.
 
> [snip]
> "The decision to restrict ourselves to low-Earth orbit is not one, in 
> retrospect, I think we would have made. And I think that's the point of 
> President Bush's vision for space exploration.
> 
> "It's time to move out of low-Earth orbit and move on to do other things."
> 
> Suddenly Dr Griffin's eyes light up. This seems to be where his 
> enthusiasm really lies.

What, in following whatever lead his President gives his agency ? Yeah,
thats pretty much what any Federal Agency head tends to do...

> [/quote]
> 
> Over the next 30 years there are other satellites that need launching - 
> replacement global positioning, weather satellites, photographic 
> satellites using light/inferred/ultra violet, sea covering radar and 
> many others.  Some may even need repairing.  NASA's management is not 
> interested in doing it.

No need, as NASA doesn't do most of those *operational* systems now...
For instance, NOAA does the weather sats. Different agency. Try again.
 
>> " Show me the money !! " Jerry McGuire.
 
Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NASA moon trip video
    ... companies were asked how much it would cost to convert a spaceship reusable 10 times into something that a commercial spaceline could use. ... Although NASA should ensure that the companies are paying for the second set of specifications with the companies own money rather than as "cost overruns". ... Scientists wanting to perform research near the Earth will probably have to get another organisation to launch their satellites - a civilian one perhaps? ... We have not cut back the space science programmes such as New Horizons. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... I eventually discovered a set of the ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the first crack in the proposal which I found. ... The argument I heard was that the new LV costs needed to match Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the ... Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • A Cold Look at CATS
    ... reliable transport to orbit at a small fraction of today's cost per kg ... Let's imagine that his expedition was a triumph for NASA (the ... on its Vision for Sled Enhancement. ... Many who wanted to go to Antarctica were offering ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: >>> Apple i-NASA >>>
    ... for NASA, since the private companies have more funds, no political ... or strategic planning capability. ... Fully reusable vehicles, lower cost vehicles, ... He was one of the engineers that worked on the Atlas. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading