| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » WH on Ares-1 - What's the point?... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pat Flannery... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Spain... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
[quote]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18031-white-house-panel-sees-little-point-to-new-nasa-rocket.html
Commercializing launchers via complete NASA incompetence is a whole new
approach to privatizing space. :-)
Pat
[/quote]
The Augustine Commission's final report is 157 pages long. I'm plowing through it,
but honestly can't say I find anything wrong going the COTS route.
We can quibble over exactly *what* commercial tech should be employed.
Frankly I *hate* the idea of a return to capsules, but for only journeys to the space
station, I can't see the point of larger expenditures on transport right now.
I get the chilly feeling that space exploration is not high on this administration's
agenda. Better figure out lots that can be done on the ISS over the next decade as
that's probably the only ride in town....
Dave |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Navigaiter... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
More to the point would be "What's the point of nasa?"
They've been the gateway to space and have kept it closed. Every good
vehicle they've ever had a part in developing has been cancelled.
[x-38 and spacehab and SpaceLab to name a few]
The sooner we start ignoring them the better. The NSS had better
drop their nasa advocacy too, if they really want to get to space.
Nasa is nothing.
On Oct 24, 2:40 pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18031-white-house-panel-sees-li...
Commercializing launchers via complete NASA incompetence is a whole new
approach to privatizing space. :-)
Pat[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 7:46 pm, Navigaiter <allenme... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]More to the point would be "What's the point of nasa?"
They've been the gateway to space and have kept it closed. Every good
vehicle they've ever had a part in developing has been cancelled.
[x-38 and spacehab and SpaceLab to name a few]
The sooner we start ignoring them the better. The NSS had better
drop their nasa advocacy too, if they really want to get to space.
Nasa is nothing.
On Oct 24, 2:40 pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18031-white-house-panel-sees-li...
Commercializing launchers via complete NASA incompetence is a whole new
approach to privatizing space. :-)
Pat
[/quote]
Ignoring those nondisclosure Zionist Nazi cabals of DARPA and NASA
isn't going to be easy.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Spain wrote:
[quote]The Augustine Commission's final report is 157 pages long. I'm plowing
through it,
but honestly can't say I find anything wrong going the COTS route.
We can quibble over exactly *what* commercial tech should be employed.
[/quote]
You can see why the Air Force is interested after looking at Constellation:
"You know who could do a better job at this than NASA? _We_ could do a
better job at this than NASA"
"Hell, sir, the Army National Guard could do a better job at this than
NASA."
"God-damned Army National Guard..." ;-)
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Navigaiter <allenmeece at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]More to the point would be "What's the point of nasa?"
They've been the gateway to space and have kept it closed. Every good
vehicle they've ever had a part in developing has been cancelled.
[x-38 and spacehab and SpaceLab to name a few]
[/quote]
Of course all the good vehicles have been canceled - vehicles that
never fly never get the chance to disappoint.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 9:46 pm, Navigaiter <allenme... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]More to the point would be "What's the point of nasa?"
They've been the gateway to space and have kept it closed. Every good
vehicle they've ever had a part in developing has been cancelled.
[x-38 and spacehab and SpaceLab to name a few]
The sooner we start ignoring them the better. The NSS had better
drop their nasa advocacy too, if they really want to get to space.
Nasa is nothing.
[/quote]
Yeah, all those rovers and landers on Mars are nothing. Neither are
the other unmanned sats and probes that NASA has put up for years.
I can always tell that when someone mistakes manned spaceflight for
spaceflight, that they are naive, to be polite. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 12:19 am, fairwa... at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
[quote]Navigaiter <allenme... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
More to the point would be "What's the point of nasa?"
They've been the gateway to space and have kept it closed. Every good
vehicle they've ever had a part in developing has been cancelled.
[x-38 and spacehab and SpaceLab to name a few]
Of course all the good vehicles have been canceled - vehicles that
never fly never get the chance to disappoint.
[/quote]
SpaceLab was part of the shuttle. SpaceLab was canceled due to ISS
picking up the SpaceLab work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RalphE... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Frankly I *hate* the idea of a return to capsules, but for only journeys to the space
station, I can't see the point of larger expenditures on transport right now.
[/quote]
I think that is actually a very important point, which is very much
overlooked in the debate. The key to a successful space program (IMO)
is sustainability. The key to that is public interest/support.
Returning to Apollo's spam-in-a-can architecture doesn't inspire
anybody, and therefore there isn't any public support. As engineers
(myself included) we are used to thinking "form follows function", but
it is foolish to forget that the ability to inspire is a very (if not
the most) important function of any design. Without it, a human space
program is not sustainable.
The original Apollo Moon landing program and the Space Shuttle
program encountered very significant
technological setbacks and cost challenges, yet leadership
persevered and the programs eventually succeeded. In
contrast, more recent programs have been canceled when cost or
technology challenges were encountered. Rather
than adjusting the approach and continuing based on the lessons
learned, an altogether new program is put in place
to start from scratch. Problems are solved by reorganizing, which
doesn't really solve anything at all.
Of course it is difficult to build something new & different, but
without taking on that challenge, every space launch effort that
relies on public support is doomed to fizzle out and die.
Ralph
--
Dream of Space? Make it Real.
http://www.OpenAerospace.Org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Me... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 1:18 am, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote]David Spain wrote:
The Augustine Commission's final report is 157 pages long. I'm plowing
through it,
but honestly can't say I find anything wrong going the COTS route.
We can quibble over exactly *what* commercial tech should be employed.
You can see why the Air Force is interested after looking at Constellation:
"You know who could do a better job at this than NASA? _We_ could do a
better job at this than NASA"
"Hell, sir, the Army National Guard could do a better job at this than
NASA."
"God-damned Army National Guard..." ;-)
Pat
[/quote]
The DOD and USAF have no interest in Constellation whatsoever and much
less in Ares I. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Cushing's Ghost... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"koTex" burped:
[quote]Like Apollo. So much for the success of Apollo.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, please remind me of all of your projects that have gone anywhere?
Apollo accomplished all it's goals in the timeframe mandated by your
President Kennedy. No Saturn V failed. The moon landing is inarguably
regarded as the greatest single technological feat of the 20th Century.
Meanwhile Russia's N1 never made it more than a minute into flight and their
first Soyuz manned flight resulted in the first space flight death.
Bitter people who've wasted their lives are always the most amusing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RalphE wrote:
[quote]Frankly I *hate* the idea of a return to capsules, but for only journeys to the space
station, I can't see the point of larger expenditures on transport right now.
I think that is actually a very important point, which is very much
overlooked in the debate. The key to a successful space program (IMO)
is sustainability. The key to that is public interest/support.
Returning to Apollo's spam-in-a-can architecture doesn't inspire
anybody, and therefore there isn't any public support. As engineers
(myself included) we are used to thinking "form follows function", but
it is foolish to forget that the ability to inspire is a very (if not
the most) important function of any design. Without it, a human space
program is not sustainable.
The original Apollo Moon landing program and the Space Shuttle
program encountered very significant
technological setbacks and cost challenges, yet leadership
persevered and the programs eventually succeeded. In
contrast, more recent programs have been canceled when cost or
technology challenges were encountered. Rather
than adjusting the approach and continuing based on the lessons
learned, an altogether new program is put in place
to start from scratch. Problems are solved by reorganizing, which
doesn't really solve anything at all.
Of course it is difficult to build something new & different, but
without taking on that challenge, every space launch effort that
relies on public support is doomed to fizzle out and die.
[/quote]
Like Apollo. So much for the success of Apollo.
[quote]Ralph
--
Dream of Space? Make it Real.
http://www.OpenAerospace.Org/[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Cushing's Ghost wrote:
[quote]"koTex" burped:
Like Apollo. So much for the success of Apollo.
I'm sorry, please remind me of all of your projects that have gone
anywhere?
[/quote]
Well, the silo house and farm is gone, sold to the developers.
But that certainly didn't go to waste.
[quote]Apollo accomplished all it's goals in the timeframe mandated by your
President Kennedy. No Saturn V failed. The moon landing is inarguably
regarded as the greatest single technological feat of the 20th Century.
[/quote]
Which is why you retards are incapable of repeating it with
Constellation. The subject here is the Ares I and Constellation debacle.
The problem is that you retards continue to pursue and reward failure.
At least in the late sixties and early seventies we had the balls to
cancel what clearly was not affordable and sustainable space exploration
and then pursue the unmanned missions which produced orders of magnitude
more data, images, scientific insight with a much larger social impact.
[quote]Meanwhile Russia's N1 never made it more than a minute into flight and
their first Soyuz manned flight resulted in the first space flight death.
[/quote]
Who said anything about Russia? Afraid of commies and mobsters much?
[quote]Bitter people who've wasted their lives are always the most amusing.
[/quote]
Testosterone addled American retards posting about things they know
little about is amusing as well. Were you even alive for the Apollo
landings? Let me clue you in, the program was canceled long before it
finished. Most of my projects still exist in the real world. You are
welcome to falsify any of my hypotheses with your own personal evidence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Cushing's Ghost wrote:
[quote]Meanwhile Russia's N1 never made it more than a minute into flight and
their first Soyuz manned flight resulted in the first space flight death.
[/quote]
Tell us what you know about the N1's engines, rocket boy. Yes, this is a
quiz. Most of us are already pretty aware of Soyuz' and shuttles
successes and failures. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RalphE <ralph at (no spam) open-aerospace.org> wrote:
[quote]Frankly I *hate* the idea of a return to capsules, but for only journeys to the space
station, I can't see the point of larger expenditures on transport right now.
I think that is actually a very important point, which is very much
overlooked in the debate. The key to a successful space program (IMO)
is sustainability.
[/quote]
You use the term 'sustainability' as if it were a technical or legal
term with a widely understood and unambiguous meaning. Which it
isn't.
'Sustainability' is a buzzword borrowed from the Green movement (where
it isn't entirely unambiguous either) because it is a hot marketing
term currently.
[quote]The key to that is public interest/support. Returning to Apollo's
spam-in-a-can architecture doesn't inspire anybody, and therefore
there isn't any public support.
[/quote]
Horseshit. The goverment enages in all manner of programs, highly
visible and nearly invisible, regardless of public support or even
wide public awareness.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
