Is NASA dead
 

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

Is NASA dead
 

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

Is NASA dead
 

Jon Anderson wrote:
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

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm . I'd say we're
getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .

--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Is NASA dead
 

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:23:13 -0800, the renowned Jon Anderson
wrote:

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

NASA claims $450,000,000 per shuttle launch:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/...le_faq.html#10

But the shuttle has higher capacity to LEO, so cost per kg is maybe
only halved by using the Soyuz (again, using NASA's numbers- which
cover only operating costs.. real costs from NASA are more like
$1.3bn/launch when you amortize the cost of the program over the
number of launches).

Either way, it looks to be MUCH cheaper than using current NASA
technology. Given that the ISS is doomed to "de-orbiting" in 8 or 9
years (2020), it seems like a reasonble choice.

... also see the article in the most recent issue of _The Economist_
entitled "The end of the Space Age".

http://www.economist.com/node/18897425


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Is NASA dead
 

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

Is NASA dead
 

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:30:34 -0500, "Snag"
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
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

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm . I'd say we're
getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .

Hear, hear!

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Is NASA dead
 

On 7/10/2011 9:30 AM, Snag wrote:

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle
launch http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm.

Well, it's $50 mil to send two astronauts up, with a bit of gear.
Anything else right now has to ride on a conventional rocket. We now
send folks into space at the pleasure of the Russian government. IOW, we
can be locked out of space for years if they chose to do so. Not likely,
but possible.

the time has come for the private sector to show us what they can do
with costs .

I couldn't agree more on this. And I do think while we've become
dependent upon Russia to get people into space, in the long run it will
be to our benefit to get serious about space in a commercial way for low
orbit stuff and leave NASA to deeper exploration.


Jon

Is NASA dead
 

Snag wrote:
Jon Anderson wrote:
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

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm . I'd say we're
getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .


Actually the cost is closer to 60 million per astronaut for the trip.
That gets you one seat and 110 pounds of cargo.

The Shuttle on the other hand can handle a payload of 55,000 pounds,
With 7 people on board and with the capability of 11 people during
emergency transport. 7 during normal operations.

So for 9X the price you get a very large increase in abilities.

--
Steve W.

Is NASA dead
 

"Steve W." wrote:

Snag wrote:
Jon Anderson wrote:
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

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm . I'd say we're
getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .


Actually the cost is closer to 60 million per astronaut for the trip.
That gets you one seat and 110 pounds of cargo.

The Shuttle on the other hand can handle a payload of 55,000 pounds,
With 7 people on board and with the capability of 11 people during
emergency transport. 7 during normal operations.

So for 9X the price you get a very large increase in abilities.

Which is akin to using a 53' semi to carry that passenger and luggage if
you don't need to haul anything big. Certainly more capability, but a
better value to take the taxi.

Is NASA dead
 

Karl Townsend wrote:

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.

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

Is NASA dead
 

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Either way, it looks to be MUCH cheaper than using current NASA
technology. Given that the ISS is doomed to "de-orbiting" in 8 or 9
years (2020), it seems like a reasonble choice.

If a viable shuttle was still in existance, would it be possible to attach propulsion to
increase the height of the orbit and the stations life?

Wes

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 6:54*pm, Wes wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
....

If a viable shuttle was still in existance, would it be possible to attach propulsion to
increase the height of the orbit and the stations life? *
Wes

The Russians wisely gave their ISS module tow eyes.

jsw

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 7:18*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

spacex ( http://www.spacex.com ) is more-or-less right down the street
from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport
capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and
at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to
the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO
stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch
on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding
the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit
surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two
were NASA employees and the others were contractors.

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 6:44*pm, Wes wrote:
Karl Townsend wrote:
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.

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

www.spacex.com They'll be flying to the ISS in three years.

Is NASA dead
 

On 7/10/2011 7:18 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


Now NASA won't be distracted with accomplishments and can harvest a cash
crop grown in "Climate Change".

Is NASA dead
 

On 7/10/2011 6:54 PM, Wes wrote:
Spehro wrote:

Either way, it looks to be MUCH cheaper than using current NASA
technology. Given that the ISS is doomed to "de-orbiting" in 8 or 9
years (2020), it seems like a reasonble choice.

If a viable shuttle was still in existance, would it be possible to attach propulsion to
increase the height of the orbit and the stations life?

Wes

The station is routinely boosted by engines built into the Russian
Zvezda module, by Progress capsule engines, and by other robotic
delivery trucks that arrive regularly.

Is NASA dead
 

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:47:30 -0700, Paul Drahn
wrote:

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.

Hopefully, the people will have phased them out along with the other
75% of useless bureaucracies within our government, allowing us to end
deficit spending and pay off the debt, and then reduce taxation.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Is NASA dead
 

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:16:56 -0400, Tom Gardner Mars@tacks wrote:

Now NASA won't be distracted with accomplishments and can harvest a cash
crop grown in "Climate Change".

That's what scares me: Did Hanson and cronies just get a raise?
They're worse than OSHA, if you can believe that.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Is NASA dead
 

Pete C. wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:
Snag wrote:
Jon Anderson wrote:
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
And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm . I'd say we're
getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to
show us what they can do with costs .

Actually the cost is closer to 60 million per astronaut for the trip.
That gets you one seat and 110 pounds of cargo.

The Shuttle on the other hand can handle a payload of 55,000 pounds,
With 7 people on board and with the capability of 11 people during
emergency transport. 7 during normal operations.

So for 9X the price you get a very large increase in abilities.

Which is akin to using a 53' semi to carry that passenger and luggage if
you don't need to haul anything big. Certainly more capability, but a
better value to take the taxi.

In case you didn't notice the shuttle carried just a few large items up
there that NOTHING else could have carried.
Also take a look at the Hubble, without the shuttle it would be a piece
of useless junk.

There is also nothing to prevent the soviets from saying that we cannot
catch a ride.

--
Steve W.

Is NASA dead
 

rangerssuck wrote:

spacex ( http://www.spacex.com ) is more-or-less right down the street
from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport
capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and
at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to
the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO
stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch
on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding
the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit
surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two
were NASA employees and the others were contractors.

Been that way for years. All the way back to the Apollo era.

--
Steve W.

Is NASA dead
 

Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 7/10/2011 6:54 PM, Wes wrote:
Spehro wrote:

Either way, it looks to be MUCH cheaper than using current NASA
technology. Given that the ISS is doomed to "de-orbiting" in 8 or 9
years (2020), it seems like a reasonble choice.

If a viable shuttle was still in existance, would it be possible to
attach propulsion to
increase the height of the orbit and the stations life?

Wes

The station is routinely boosted by engines built into the Russian
Zvezda module, by Progress capsule engines, and by other robotic
delivery trucks that arrive regularly.


Moving it out to high orbit would possibly pin it up there forever.
But reentry from that high gets a little dicey.


--

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

Is NASA dead
 

CaveLamb wrote:
One lousy beer and my fingers don't know me...

(Edit)

I'd strongly agree with John's sentiments here.

The Shuttle was "supposed" to be a cheap way to get to orbit.
But it was designed by committees (some of whom had a hard on
for it - like the USAF).

It turned out to be a 1953 Chevy space pickup truck - low orbit only.

And it turned out to be WAY more expensive to operate than was intended.

And more dangerous than intended.

An argument could be offered that the Shuttle itself is the cause of the
space agency losing it's future. Were it less expensive and less dangerous
it could be kept going for many more years.

Bucks per pound delivered to orbit is one serious parameter.
Having more lift capability than needed for the job really means the
job cost more.

But the on-orbit hands-on repair capability (Hubble) and the retrieval
capability were something special. Low orbit only didn't hurt there,
because that where the work was to be found.

But no way to take it to the moon, say. Or even a really high orbit.
(what goes up higher comes down much faster!)

But as a delivery truck for the Maytag Satellite Repair crew?
Priceless...




--

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

Is NASA dead
 

On 7/10/2011 10:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:16:56 -0400, Tom GardnerMars@tacks wrote:

Now NASA won't be distracted with accomplishments and can harvest a cash
crop grown in "Climate Change".

That's what scares me: Did Hanson and cronies just get a raise?
They're worse than OSHA, if you can believe that.


My mom worked for NASA for all of her adult life. She said that grants
and other money was their major concern, science was secondary.

Is NASA dead
 

Jon Anderson wrote:
On 7/10/2011 9:30 AM, Snag wrote:

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle
launch http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm.

Well, it's $50 mil to send two astronauts up, with a bit of gear.
Anything else right now has to ride on a conventional rocket. We now
send folks into space at the pleasure of the Russian government. IOW,
we can be locked out of space for years if they chose to do so. Not
likely, but possible.

Then maybe we'd finally get sensible and send up experiments in remotely
controlled modules.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

Steve W. wrote:

In case you didn't notice the shuttle carried just a few large items
up there that NOTHING else could have carried.
Also take a look at the Hubble, without the shuttle it would be a
piece of useless junk.

Without the expense of the shuttle we could have sent up 20 Hubbles and 20
times as many planetary probes.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

There's Delta IV for the military. And there are other options for
commercial satellites.

But the public likes to see astronauts go up. A cheap probe can learn a lot
more than an astronaut in the same low orbit they were in 50 years ago, but
the public wants adventure and doesn't care if anything is learned or not.


Is there any benefit, vital or otherwise, to putting people into
space? Wasn't the ISS just a make-work project to keep Russian
scientists from churning out ICBM designs to pay the rent?

Definitely.

People will be needed on planetary missions when we can do them, but that
will require new propulsion technology that NASA chose not to develop in
favor of funding the shuttle.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

John R. Carroll wrote:

Hubble would have been lttle more than useless space junk without the
capacity of the shuttle.
And the Shuttle can retrieve things like broken satellites on the
return trip if required.
That's the real loss.

Satellite return was done once, just to test the concept. It was never
necessary.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

CaveLamb wrote:

The true technological sin here was breaking up the Saturn V tooling.

That was something special...

Incredible thing to do.

The Hall of Science Museum in NYC had the base of a Saturn V stage 1, with
the main engines and about 20 feet of the rocket above them. It was removed
to who-knows-where.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Then maybe we'd finally get sensible and send up experiments in remotely
controlled modules.


If you know so much about space exploration, why aren't you in charge
of NASA?


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

Is NASA dead
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Then maybe we'd finally get sensible and send up experiments in
remotely controlled modules.


If you know so much about space exploration, why aren't you in
charge of NASA?

I might as well ask, "Why aren't you President?"


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Is NASA dead
 

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:28:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


John R. Carroll wrote:

Hubble would have been lttle more than useless space junk without the
capacity of the shuttle.
And the Shuttle can retrieve things like broken satellites on the
return trip if required.
That's the real loss.

Satellite return was done once, just to test the concept. It was never
necessary.

Failure analysis might be useful- but the X-37B can probably do things
like that, at least for smaller satellites, without endangering
humans.

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 11, 1:28*pm, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:

Satellite return was done once, just to test the concept. *It was never
necessary.

Minor correction. Satellite return using the shuttle was done
once.............

Dan

Is NASA dead
 

On 07/10/2011 04:21 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:18 am, Karl
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

spacex ( http://www.spacex.com ) is more-or-less right down the street
from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport
capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and
at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to
the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO
stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch
on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding
the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit
surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two
were NASA employees and the others were contractors.

It's certainly time to privatize space travel. It makes sense for
government to pioneer it -- particularly in that the biggest reason for
the Apollo program was to generate the Best Damn Propaganda Ever. But
now that it can be done, I think private industry will find the best
balance of risk, money, etc.

Unless it's just private industry latching onto the government tit, for
even more inefficiency and bigger payoffs to the suits -- hopefully
there'll end up to be at least two providers, and even more hopefully
those providers will be doing launches independent of NASA for
commercial satellites &c.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Is NASA dead
 

John R. Carroll wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Hubble would have been lttle more than useless space junk without the
capacity of the shuttle.
And the Shuttle can retrieve things like broken satellites on the
return trip if required.
That's the real loss.
Satellite return was done once, just to test the concept. It was
never necessary.

It's always been necessary.
When you buy a computer or other electronic device these days the price
includes a fee to dispose of the trash the device becomes once it's become
scrap.
Low Earth has become a flying junk yard that's continuing to be added to
much faster than it self recycles.
Cleaning up that mess would have and should have been one of the Shuttle's
primary missions.
That would have meant fewer glorified professors as mission specialists, of
course, but who really cares about flying PHD's into space.
Most of what these over qualified Bozo's did could have been automated
altogether and flown unmanned.



Well, there was ONE flying PHD that really mattered a lot.

That was Buzz Aldrin aka "Doctor Rondevous" :)

As for the trash issue...

http://tinyurl.com/66adfnx
....or...
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...t:429,r:11,s:0

--

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

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 6:18*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

No..but anything worthwhile costs money.

And money is in short supply these days.

Outsourcing capability makes sense if it allows you to develop the
next new thing.

The recent news that the Republicans are trying to kill the Webb
Telescope tells you all you need to know about who is trying to kill
the American space program.

Another excellent reason why I will vote Democrat come the next
election.

TMT

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 6:21*pm, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:18*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

spacex (http://www.spacex.com) is more-or-less right down the street
from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport
capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and
at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to
the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO
stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch
on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding
the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit
surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two
were NASA employees and the others were contractors.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NASA outsourced many years ago.

Much of the brain trust walked years ago too.

TMT

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 10, 10:22*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

spacex (http://www.spacex.com) is more-or-less right down the street
from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport
capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and
at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to
the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO
stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch
on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding
the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit
surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two
were NASA employees and the others were contractors.

Been that way for years. All the way back to the Apollo era.

--
Steve W.

If you have followed the program, outsourcing ramped up BIG TIME after
Apollo.

The the brain drain started BIG TIME too.

TMT

Is NASA dead
 

On Jul 11, 4:09*am, Tom Gardner Mars@tacks wrote:
On 7/10/2011 10:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:16:56 -0400, Tom GardnerMars@tacks *wrote:

Now NASA won't be distracted with accomplishments and can harvest a cash
crop grown in "Climate Change".

That's what scares me: Did Hanson and cronies just get a raise?
They're worse than OSHA, if you can believe that.

My mom worked for NASA for all of her adult life. *She said that grants
and other money was their major concern, science was secondary.

When you are always working to lowest bid, money always takes priority
over technology development.

Meanwhile making a mistake in space kills.

I have enormous respect for those who have done so much with so
little...and so do those whose lives have depended on the result.

TMT

Is NASA dead
 

"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."

Is NASA dead
 

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Then maybe we'd finally get sensible and send up experiments in
remotely controlled modules.


If you know so much about space exploration, why aren't you in
charge of NASA?

I might as well ask, "Why aren't you President?"


I'm smart enough not to want that job, and I've never claimed to have
all the answers.


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