pyotr filipivich wrote:
"No, it is just taking a nap."

NASA, as a political organization, doing things at the behest of
Congress, is dead. It might be renewed as an "R&D" operation, leaving
the exploitation of "new" technologies to the private sector. And
that includes the building of heavy lifters, space stations,
extra-planetary habitats - all the big ticket Projects - that turned
NASA into a burocratic quagmire.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow.
"Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."


That's backwards from how things usually work.
Usually it's the private sector that does the inventing and developing
before offering something to the government sector...


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

On 7/10/2011 4:18 AM, Karl Townsend wrote:
With the launch of the last shuttle, I expected a media blitz on plans
for a replacement program. This was their chance. The silence on the
subject is deafening. Only thing in the news the last few days is the
cancellation of the next Hubble telescope.

I did find reference on goggle to NASA funding four separate programs
and a tech. carping about the lack of direction here. Didn't see what
the four programs are. There's just not much on goggle about
replacement options either. (Maybe I don't know how to search)

It looks like the only thing going on is the space station. It has no
clearly stated objectives at this point. And it looks like we're going
to let the Russians run it. At least they can make some serious money
here. Bet NASA pays through the nose for the ferry service to the
space station.

Tell me it isn't so Joe. Did we give up?

Karl



Bush cut the program in 2004. Another one of his brilliant decisions.
Now that the shuttle program is dead the only way for Americans to get
into space is to pay the Russians for a ride on their rockets. By the
way, in the next five years the price of sending one of our astronauts
in their rockets will be 63 million bucks each. Great idea scuttling the
shuttle program. Thanks Bush.

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2011 3:18 AM, Karl Townsend wrote:

Bet NASA pays through the nose for the ferry service to
the
space station.

IIRC, someone reported on the news the other day, approx 50
million per
trip for the Russian space-taxi service...


Jon

I'm waiting for the Obamas to require hybrid technology. Big
battery under the space capsule, to capture the energy of
braking, and increase fuel mileage.

Yes, I can easily imagine the rocket industry being
regulated out of existance.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Paul Drahn" wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2011 10:30 AM, Snag wrote:
.... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .

Just wait til OSHA catches up with the private space
businesses. They
will kill it with regulations.

Paul

The Ruskies, or the Chicoms.... either of them might quietly
move into the space station, and not much we can do about
it. Spooky. Some of our Marxist In Chief decisions, make me
worried.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Wes" wrote in message
...

What if the Russians decide they won't carry us up there
anymore? On the high seas an
abandoned vesicle can be claimed, using an extention of sea
law, they might just take the
space station away from us.

Burt Rutan, please hurry, we need you.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to
protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at
home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Please remember who made the decision.... a foreign born
Marxist.

"What you mean we; honkie?" (paraphrasing Tonto, speaking to
the Lone Ranger.)

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Wes"
wrote in message
...

Being able to get to earth orbit is vital to our defense and
our economy. I can't believe
we gave up on it wiht out a replacement ready.

Wes

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:19:46 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
snip
Yes, I can easily imagine the rocket industry being
regulated out of existance.
snip

The U.S. regulatory writ does not run that far. While it
may well kill off the domestic U.S. rocket industry, the
rocket industry, space travel, and the advances in
technology this represents are alive and doing very well in
the PRC and Russia.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Jul 12, 1:35*am, Hawke wrote:


Bush cut the program in 2004. Another one of his brilliant decisions.
Now that the shuttle program is dead the only way for Americans to get
into space is to pay the Russians for a ride on their rockets. By the
way, in the next five years the price of sending one of our astronauts
in their rockets will be 63 million bucks each. Great idea scuttling the
shuttle program. Thanks Bush.

It was the right decision. The shuttles are very old and very
expensive to use. And there is not a lot of science being done with
the shuttles. Unmaned rockets are not as Buck Rogers but provide a
lot more benefit per dollar. There are no good reasons to send
astronauts into space. if you think there are, feel free to name
them.

Dan

Stormin Mormon wrote:

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.


Really? Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to
manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with
another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

CaveLamb on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:35:13 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"No, it is just taking a nap."

NASA, as a political organization, doing things at the behest of
Congress, is dead. It might be renewed as an "R&D" operation, leaving
the exploitation of "new" technologies to the private sector. And
that includes the building of heavy lifters, space stations,
extra-planetary habitats - all the big ticket Projects - that turned
NASA into a burocratic quagmire.

That's backwards from how things usually work.
Usually it's the private sector that does the inventing and developing
before offering something to the government sector...

In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy. NASA was originally the app;lied
idea guys, who would shoot satellites "for research" into the sky, and
test out all sorts of thing. And being part of the Government, they
would occasionally have military assets involved. Whcih also served
as a cover for what the military was doing in space - spy sats, and
the like.
I'm sure that a lot of tech development occurred at private corps,
which then sold it to NASA. X planes, Dyna-soar, etc, were private
built but government funded. Much as the Space-X Dragon is. But the
model now is (and may have been before the moon race), fixed cost. "We
want one of these, for this much money."
It doesn't always work out. The R101 Dirigible was built to
Government specs, and crashed on it's maiden flight.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Jul 12, 7:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
...
* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy.
...
tschus
pyotr

The yearly federal budget cycle with no guarantee the project won't be
cut next year to fund new social entitlements isn't much better.

jsw

On Jul 12, 9:04*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:

...
* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy.
...
tschus
pyotr

The yearly federal budget cycle with no guarantee the project won't be
cut next year to fund new social entitlements isn't much better.

jsw

Actually it is worse.

Many programs have their funding withheld mid year.

That behavior has cost this Country much.

TMT

On Jul 12, 6:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
CaveLamb on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:35:13 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
"No, it is just taking a nap."

NASA, as a political organization, doing things at the behest of
Congress, is dead. *It might be renewed as an "R&D" operation, leaving
the exploitation of "new" technologies to the private sector. *And
that includes the building of heavy lifters, space stations,
extra-planetary habitats - all the big ticket Projects - that turned
NASA into a burocratic quagmire.
That's backwards from how things usually work.
Usually it's the private sector that does the inventing and developing
before offering something to the government sector...

* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy. *NASA was originally the app;lied
idea guys, who would shoot satellites "for research" into the sky, and
test out all sorts of thing. *And being part of the Government, they
would occasionally have military assets involved. *Whcih also served
as a cover for what the military was doing in space - spy sats, and
the like.
* * * * I'm sure that a lot of tech development occurred at private corps,
which then sold it to NASA. *X planes, Dyna-soar, etc, were private
built but government funded. *Much as the Space-X Dragon is. *But the
model now is (and may have been before the moon race), fixed cost. "We
want one of these, for this much money."
* * * * It doesn't always work out. The R101 Dirigible was built to
Government specs, and crashed on it's maiden flight.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

The military will miss their NASA connection...a lot.

Then again...their own budgets are in for a hell of a cut.

TMT

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:33:38 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 12, 6:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
CaveLamb on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:35:13 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
"No, it is just taking a nap."

NASA, as a political organization, doing things at the behest of
Congress, is dead. *It might be renewed as an "R&D" operation, leaving
the exploitation of "new" technologies to the private sector. *And
that includes the building of heavy lifters, space stations,
extra-planetary habitats - all the big ticket Projects - that turned
NASA into a burocratic quagmire.
That's backwards from how things usually work.
Usually it's the private sector that does the inventing and developing
before offering something to the government sector...

* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy. *NASA was originally the app;lied
idea guys, who would shoot satellites "for research" into the sky, and
test out all sorts of thing. *And being part of the Government, they
would occasionally have military assets involved. *Whcih also served
as a cover for what the military was doing in space - spy sats, and
the like.
* * * * I'm sure that a lot of tech development occurred at private corps,
which then sold it to NASA. *X planes, Dyna-soar, etc, were private
built but government funded. *Much as the Space-X Dragon is. *But the
model now is (and may have been before the moon race), fixed cost. "We
want one of these, for this much money."
* * * * It doesn't always work out. The R101 Dirigible was built to
Government specs, and crashed on it's maiden flight.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

The military will miss their NASA connection...a lot.

Then again...their own budgets are in for a hell of a cut.

TMT

Every thing Obama touches tends to break. The good thing is that
without those pesky trips to the moon, there can be a whole lot more
reaching out to the Muslims in the interim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...feel-good.html

Jim Wilkins on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:04:55 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Jul 12, 7:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
...
* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy.
...
tschus
pyotr

The yearly federal budget cycle with no guarantee the project won't be
cut next year to fund new social entitlements isn't much better.

Yeah. But the original program was an R&D shop and cover for
military applications (satellites).
It was also before the Entitlement Mentality set in, which even
NASA succumbed to. "Cost plus" contracts to companies in the various
important congressional districts.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Jim Wilkins on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:04:55 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Jul 12, 7:58 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
...
In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy.
...
tschus
pyotr
The yearly federal budget cycle with no guarantee the project won't be
cut next year to fund new social entitlements isn't much better.

Yeah. But the original program was an R&D shop and cover for
military applications (satellites).
It was also before the Entitlement Mentality set in, which even
NASA succumbed to. "Cost plus" contracts to companies in the various
important congressional districts.


No, NASA was formed from NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics)
specifically to get to the moon...

"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside
the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the
Congress and the President of the United States created the national Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958. NASA's birth was directly
related to the pressures of national defense. After World War II, the United
States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War, a broad contest over
the ideologies and allegiances of the nonaligned nations. During this period,
space exploration emerged as a major area of contest and became known as the
space race.

During the late 1940s, the Department of Defense pursued research and rocketry
and upper atmospheric sciences as a means of assuring American leadership in
technology. A major step forward came when President Dwight D. Eisenhower
approved a plan to orbit a scientific satellite as part of the International
Geophysical Year (IGY) for the period, July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1958, a
cooperative effort to gather scientific data about the Earth. The Soviet Union
quickly followed suit, announcing plans to orbit its own satellite.

The Naval Research Laboratory's Project Vanguard was chosen on 9 September 1955
to support the IGY effort, largely because it did not interfere with
high-priority ballistic missile development programs. It used the non-military
Viking rocket as its basis while an Army proposal to use the Redstone ballistic
missile as the launch vehicle waited in the wings. Project Vanguard enjoyed
exceptional publicity throughout the second half of 1955, and all of 1956, but
the technological demands upon the program were too great and the funding levels
too small to ensure success.

A full-scale crisis resulted on October 4, 1957 when the Soviets launched
Sputnik 1, the world's first artificial satellite as its IGY entry. This had a
"Pearl Harbor" effect on American public opinion, creating an illusion of a
technological gap and provided the impetus for increased spending for aerospace
endeavors, technical and scientific educational programs, and the chartering of
new federal agencies to manage air and space research and development.

More immediately, the United States launched its first Earth satellite on
January 31, 1958, when Explorer 1 documented the existence of radiation zones
encircling the Earth. Shaped by the Earth's magnetic field, what came to be
called the Van Allen Radiation Belt, these zones partially dictate the
electrical charges in the atmosphere and the solar radiation that reaches Earth.
The U.S. also began a series of scientific missions to the Moon and planets in
the latter 1950s and early 1960s.
"
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

On Jul 12, 5:44*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.

* *Really? *Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to
manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with
another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

A) If Stormin hadn't posted that, he wouldn't have had the opportunity
to use cool words like "Ruskies" and "Chicoms."

B) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of our weapons include
boards made in China as part of the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
program.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:19:40 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:44*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.

* *Really? *Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to
manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with
another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

A) If Stormin hadn't posted that, he wouldn't have had the opportunity
to use cool words like "Ruskies" and "Chicoms."

B) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of our weapons include
boards made in China as part of the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
program.

The penalties for exporting US space technology (and other stuff on
the USML) without a license are pretty extreme. It's a bonanza for
European and Asian companies, though, who would otherwise have FAR
less market share than they are now achieving. There are still
safeguards, of course, but not as extreme as ITAR. Compliance is the
only option, of course, but the system is arguably broken.

"Failure to comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as
$500,000 per violation, while criminal penalties include fines of up
to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment per violation. Under EAR,
maximum civil fines can reach $250,000 per violation, while criminal
penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment per
violation."

-- sp (D.O. for a corporation)

On Jul 12, 9:56*pm, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:33:38 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Jul 12, 6:58*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
CaveLamb on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:35:13 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
"No, it is just taking a nap."

NASA, as a political organization, doing things at the behest of
Congress, is dead. *It might be renewed as an "R&D" operation, leaving
the exploitation of "new" technologies to the private sector. *And
that includes the building of heavy lifters, space stations,
extra-planetary habitats - all the big ticket Projects - that turned
NASA into a burocratic quagmire.
That's backwards from how things usually work.
Usually it's the private sector that does the inventing and developing
before offering something to the government sector...

* * * * In something like the space program, the timeline for a return is
"too long" for a company which has to show improvements every ninety
days to keep the stockholders happy. *NASA was originally the app;lied
idea guys, who would shoot satellites "for research" into the sky, and
test out all sorts of thing. *And being part of the Government, they
would occasionally have military assets involved. *Whcih also served
as a cover for what the military was doing in space - spy sats, and
the like.
* * * * I'm sure that a lot of tech development occurred at private corps,
which then sold it to NASA. *X planes, Dyna-soar, etc, were private
built but government funded. *Much as the Space-X Dragon is. *But the
model now is (and may have been before the moon race), fixed cost. "We
want one of these, for this much money."
* * * * It doesn't always work out. The R101 Dirigible was built to
Government specs, and crashed on it's maiden flight.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

The military will miss their NASA connection...a lot.

Then again...their own budgets are in for a hell of a cut.

TMT

Every thing Obama touches tends to break. The good thing is that
without those pesky trips to the moon, there can be a whole lot more
reaching out to the Muslims in the interim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ma-Nasa-mu...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...better to break and fix.

Everything Bush touched turned to sh*t and we and our grandchildren
are still paying for it.

Strange how conservatives forget that...is it because of Alzheimers,
alcoholism or drug use...or all three?

Go look and you will find that Bush and the REPUBLICAN Congress never
fully funded the Orion program.

TMT

On Jul 13, 8:19*am, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:44*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.

* *Really? *Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to
manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with
another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

A) If Stormin hadn't posted that, he wouldn't have had the opportunity
to use cool words like "Ruskies" and "Chicoms."

B) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of our weapons include
boards made in China as part of the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
program.

So do their weapons.

Of course they do the manufacturing.

TMT

I think we got back stabbed by our Muslim in Chief.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Karl Townsend" wrote in
message ...
With the launch of the last shuttle, I expected a media
blitz on plans
for a replacement program. This was their chance. The
silence on the
subject is deafening. Only thing in the news the last few
days is the
cancellation of the next Hubble telescope.

I did find reference on goggle to NASA funding four separate
programs
and a tech. carping about the lack of direction here. Didn't
see what
the four programs are. There's just not much on goggle about
replacement options either. (Maybe I don't know how to
search)

It looks like the only thing going on is the space station.
It has no
clearly stated objectives at this point. And it looks like
we're going
to let the Russians run it. At least they can make some
serious money
here. Bet NASA pays through the nose for the ferry service
to the
space station.

Tell me it isn't so Joe. Did we give up?

Karl

That is why our former White Water president gave the
guidance system from our missiles to the Chinese.

His dictionary defines that as Treason-NOT.

Bubba. Not again.

Martin

On 7/13/2011 8:43 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:19:40 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:44 pm, "Michael A.
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

So, our space program now depends on the Ruskies. Just like
our weapons depend on the Chicoms? Or, at least some of the
circuit boards are made in Communist China.

Really? Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to
manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with
another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

A) If Stormin hadn't posted that, he wouldn't have had the opportunity
to use cool words like "Ruskies" and "Chicoms."

B) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of our weapons include
boards made in China as part of the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
program.

The penalties for exporting US space technology (and other stuff on
the USML) without a license are pretty extreme. It's a bonanza for
European and Asian companies, though, who would otherwise have FAR
less market share than they are now achieving. There are still
safeguards, of course, but not as extreme as ITAR. Compliance is the
only option, of course, but the system is arguably broken.

"Failure to comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as
$500,000 per violation, while criminal penalties include fines of up
to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment per violation. Under EAR,
maximum civil fines can reach $250,000 per violation, while criminal
penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment per
violation."

-- sp (D.O. for a corporation)

On Jul 13, 7:03*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I think we got back stabbed by our Muslim in Chief.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Karl Townsend" wrote in
messagenews:0r1j1717jj6rdav9etttskgbg914ns7bqc@4ax .com...
With the launch of the last shuttle, I expected a media
blitz on plans
for a replacement program. This was their chance. The
silence on the
subject is deafening. Only thing in the news the last few
days is the
cancellation of the next Hubble telescope.

I did find reference on goggle to NASA funding four separate
programs
and a tech. carping about the lack of direction here. Didn't
see what
the four programs are. There's just not much on goggle about
replacement options either. (Maybe I don't know how to
search)

It looks like the only thing going on is the space station.
It has no
clearly stated objectives at this point. And it looks like
we're going
to let the Russians run it. At least they can make some
serious money
here. Bet NASA pays through the nose for the ferry service
to the
space station.

Tell me it isn't so Joe. Did we give up?

Karl

Care to explain why you think that Storming?

I think you are very wrong.

Bush repeatedly tried to kill NASA.

TMT

In article da5a8116-ad2e-4586-a0de-
, says...

On Jul 12, 1:35*am, Hawke wrote:


Bush cut the program in 2004. Another one of his brilliant decisions.
Now that the shuttle program is dead the only way for Americans to get
into space is to pay the Russians for a ride on their rockets. By the
way, in the next five years the price of sending one of our astronauts
in their rockets will be 63 million bucks each. Great idea scuttling the
shuttle program. Thanks Bush.

It was the right decision. The shuttles are very old and very
expensive to use. And there is not a lot of science being done with
the shuttles. Unmaned rockets are not as Buck Rogers but provide a
lot more benefit per dollar. There are no good reasons to send
astronauts into space. if you think there are, feel free to name
them.

Build us a robot to fix Hubble and get back to us when it's done.