What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

I don't think there is any way to change group names, only create new ones
when needed.

I'd wait and see before jumping to any conclusions myself anyway. You will
have a new administration by then.

What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

i believe the shuttle will at minimum fly its current list of missions
unless it kills again......

hopefully the next adminstration almost certinally obama will take man
to LEO off nasa, and have them contrat it out.......

let private industry do the job, cheaper better faster.

private industry will do better cause nasa priorities are, pork, jobs
and payoffs

What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

On 26 Feb, 13:26, "Alan Erskine" <alanersk...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

Methinks SSS will go into SSH, as for what takes its place I couldn't
say.
I suggest Sci Space Craft Current as a candidate - S squared, C
squared, which kinda rolls of the tongue and covers a multitude of
space hardware. ;-p

Thoughts anyone?

On Feb 29, 5:27�pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:





On Feb 29, 3:52�pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com
wrote:

i believe the shuttle will at minimum fly its current list of missions
unless it kills again......

hopefully the next adminstration almost certinally obama will take man
to LEO off nasa, and have them contrat it out.......

let private industry do the job, cheaper better faster.

private industry will do better cause nasa priorities are, pork, jobs
and payoffs

There's been too much of that and more, for sure. Nevertheless,
negligence often causes the crashes of large airliners (which, BTW,
have no crew escape systems). Passengers and crew alike rely on heads-
up maintenance, take-off, and landing procedures. In short, management
with integrity makes the difference, whether it's in the government
sector or the commercial sector.

JTM

airliners arent launced to orbit as loaded bombs.

nasa design wise wants lots of jobs and pork to distruibuite as
payoffs.

private industry will want something safe cheap and effective. so they
can make a profit
Did I get this right, there are TWO successors being developed for

my point was that airliners by nature are much safer and easier to
operate than a space vehicle with solids or cryogenic fuels. true bad
management can make either unsafe. but space vehicles have a lot less
margin...

On Mar 2, 9:50 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
nasa design wise wants lots of jobs and pork to distruibuite as
payoffs.

private industry will want something safe cheap and effective. so they
can make a profit
Did I get this right, there are TWO successors being developed for
replacing the shuttle? The Constellation program by NASA, and Falcon 9/
Dragon by SpaceX?

And another question: Why does NASA not buy/license the Energiya
rocket from the Russians? Sounds like a successful design with no
chance to get built again due to money shortage...

Kalle07 wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:50 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
nasa design wise wants lots of jobs and pork to distruibuite as
payoffs.

private industry will want something safe cheap and effective. so they
can make a profit
Did I get this right, there are TWO successors being developed for
replacing the shuttle? The Constellation program by NASA, and Falcon 9/
Dragon by SpaceX?

Not really. NASA's involvement with SpaceX currently only regards cargo
transfer to ISS, not crew.

And another question: Why does NASA not buy/license the Energiya
rocket from the Russians? Sounds like a successful design with no
chance to get built again due to money shortage...

Because it fails the number one objective of the new program: reducing US
dependence on Russia.

I don't know why people keep on trotting out Energiya as a symbol of
success.
It was a honest question, not a suggestion to NASA.

Because it fails the number one objective of the new program: reducing
US dependence on Russia.

And another question: Why does NASA not buy/license the Energiya
rocket from the Russians? Sounds like a successful design with no
chance to get built again due to money shortage...

Because it fails the number one objective of the new program: reducing US
dependence on Russia.

And fails quite a few other criteria, such as "2 flights a successful
program does not make".