Thoughts on 1969
 

I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.

Fast Forward to 2009

Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?

For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. One could almost believe in conspiracy. I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.

Thoughts on 1969
 

Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.

Fast Forward to 2009

Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?

For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. One could almost believe in conspiracy. I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.


Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 12:30*pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. *I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. *It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.

Fast Forward to 2009

Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?

For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. *Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. *Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. *The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". *When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. *In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) *NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. *One could almost believe in conspiracy. *I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. *Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.

Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

HArry, you should do the math on who spent what because you are wrong.

Thoughts on 1969
 

Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:30 pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.
Fast Forward to 2009
Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?
For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. One could almost believe in conspiracy. I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.

HArry, you should do the math on who spent what because you are wrong.

As is often the case. Harry doesn't care about facts. And He's too
stupid to research anything. Kill file him, or at least don't quote the
fat obnoxious blowhard. Please?!

Thoughts on 1969
 

Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:30 pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.
Fast Forward to 2009
Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?
For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. One could almost believe in conspiracy. I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.
Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

HArry, you should do the math on who spent what because you are wrong.


Bush spent us into a hole, ignored the financial markets, ignored
infrastructure, and let his fat cat buddies suck the national teat dry.





--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 12:38*pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:30 pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. *I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. *It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.
Fast Forward to 2009
Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?
For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. *Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. *Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. *The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". *When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. *In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) *NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. *One could almost believe in conspiracy. *I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. *Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.
Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

HArry, you should do the math on who spent what because you are wrong.

Bush spent us into a hole, ignored the financial markets, ignored
infrastructure, and let his fat cat buddies suck the national teat dry.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

In reality, I do not blame either Bush or Obama, I blame Nixon AND the
DEM congress of the time for killing the Saturn V.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 12:46*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:38*pm, H the K wrote:



Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:30 pm, H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. *I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. *It
was reasonable to expect that when I was older I would be exploring
the moons of Jupiter and I really looked forward to the future.
Fast Forward to 2009
Aint it depressing how far we have fallen?
For awhile, I thought NASAs post Apollo ineptitude was something
brought on by the Viet nam defeat and they would get over it and I
told my kids that I expected they would be able to explore lava tubes
on the moon but I would be too old to do so. *Now, even that vision
for my kids has faded and on nights on the sailboat when we look up to
the stars and they ask "Dad, Why don't we go to the moon anymore?",
all I can do is get a lump of sadness in my throat and mumble
something about bureaucrats.
Our kids have little hope and encouragement for the future and all the
excitement they can look forward to is shoot-em up video games and
drive by shootings for thrills. *Every society needs an outlet for the
drive to explore and we have willingly given it up and have lost our
souls in the process. *The voice that said "JOHNNY, get down from that
tree fort, it's too high and unsafe and you might get hurt" is the
voice that says to us when we get older, "You have a family and
responsibilities now, why would you give up a good job shuffling
papers for something uncertain even if you have always wanted it" is
also the voice that says "NASA, dont you dare think about going to the
stars when we have ANY unsolved problems here". *When you give in to
these voices and no longer explore, you are a dead man who simply goes
through the motions of being alive.
The ineptitude of NASA seems to not be just a case of post Viet Nam
caution but has become something much darker and seems to be an effort
to keep anybody from doing space exploration. *In every case where
somebody has gotten to the point of achieving private spaceflight
(Kistler, Beall, Conestoga, etc) *NASA either coopts and kills the
effort or announces an new initiative in direct competition with the
private effort. *One could almost believe in conspiracy. *I am willing
to bet that NASA does all it can to kill SpaceX after its recent
successful launch.
If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. *Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.
Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

HArry, you should do the math on who spent what because you are wrong..

Bush spent us into a hole, ignored the financial markets, ignored
infrastructure, and let his fat cat buddies suck the national teat dry.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

In reality, I do not blame either Bush or Obama, I blame Nixon AND the
DEM congress of the time for killing the Saturn V.

Killing the Saturn V was one of the worst techno decisions of all time
but it was felt necessary to develop the shuttle, a system that has
never worked well.
NASA has proven themselves incapable of doing the exploration and we
should no longer expect them to do so. This is not a matter of
spending govt money at all but of simply encouraging pvt people to do
so and not allowing NASA to stop them by trying to coopt them or
otherwise cause them to fail by temporarily trying to compete with
them.
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.
Why not sell it to pvt industry? Why not sell the shuttle system to
pvt industry (prob no takers for it). Just keep NASA and the FAA out
of the way.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 1:22*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? *If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA. *
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects. *

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Thoughts on 1969
 

The funding has been eliminated for most of the station's research
programs and the Space Shuttle program is ending in 2010. With no
money to continue, what you have is a really expensive piece of space
junk waiting to fall on somebody's head. A controlled de-orbiting of
something apparently no longer valued may not be all that bad an idea.


Not to mention the fact that it costs a friggin' fortune to get a plumber up
there to fix the godamn toilet.

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. How many million parts? NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. They should have build 2
sizes. One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 3:59*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. *Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. *Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. *How many million parts? *NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. *They should have build 2
sizes. *One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. *Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. *And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 4:19*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. *Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. *Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. *How many million parts? *NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. *They should have build 2
sizes. *One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. *Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. *And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. *The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. *It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. *Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. *Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. *Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was *a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.

NASA now proposes to develop the Ares/AresV rockets supposedly based
on shuttle hardware and while this is a good thing compared to the
shuttle, I prefer the so-called Direct concept that actually does use
shuttle hardware. The NASA Ares rockets would use a new version of
the shuttle solid rockets lengthened by a half core length thus
requiring a lot of testing and unknowns. Direct uses existing shuttle
solids, existing shuttle external tank and existing Atlas rocket
engines. The payload would sit atop the whole thing unlike the
shuttle where the payload (shuttle) rides aside the tank.
I will support either one or even the alternative of man rating the
Atlas V Heavy. However, I think manned spaceflight should be the
province of pvt industry and NASA (and FAA) should simply get out of
the way and allow it to happen.
BTW, there is a $50 million prize for first pvt manned orbiting craft
to dock with another craft (I forget the rest of the requirements) but
it was put up by Bigelow Aerospace.

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:02:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

1965 Budget for NASA was 33.5B
1966 Budget for NASA was 32.1B
1967 Budget for NASA was 29.7B
1968 Budget for NASA was 26.1B
1969 Budget for NASA was 21.4B


In 2000, the budget dipped below 15B and hasn't been any more than
half of the 1965 budget amount since. When it was important to us, we
spent 5.5% of the national budget on NASA, we now spend about .55% or
less... 1/10th of the commitment.

We've made a decision where our money *won't* be spent... is it any
wonder that it shows?

The space race is over. It was more a product of the cold war than
anything else.
Personally I'm a sci-fi fan and believe we should strive to do those
things Captain Kirk so eloquently spoke of.
When he tore his eyes from those pantyhose wearing space gals,
or took a break from wondering what the Klingons were up to,
he often got all starry-eyed about distant stars and man's need to
explore and settle new worlds.
Besides, where will we escape to when the earth turns socialist?
Having said that, you won't see me within 10 miles of a rocket ship.

--Vic

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Jul 20, 4:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:02:48 -0400, Gene Kearns



wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

1965 Budget for NASA was 33.5B
1966 Budget for NASA was 32.1B
1967 Budget for NASA was 29.7B
1968 Budget for NASA was 26.1B
1969 Budget for NASA was 21.4B

In 2000, the budget dipped below 15B and hasn't been any more than
half of the 1965 budget amount since. When it was important to us, we
spent 5.5% of the national budget on NASA, we now spend about .55% or
less... 1/10th of the commitment.

We've made a decision where our money *won't* be spent... is it any
wonder that it shows?

The space race is over. *It was more a product of the cold war than
anything else.
Personally I'm a sci-fi fan and believe we should strive to do those
things Captain Kirk so eloquently spoke of.
When he tore his eyes from those pantyhose wearing space gals,
or took a break from wondering what the Klingons were up to,
he often got all starry-eyed about distant stars and man's need to
explore and settle new worlds.
Besides, where will we escape to when the earth turns socialist?
Having said that, you won't see me within 10 miles of a rocket ship.

--Vic

If I had a terminal illness, you could give me a one way trip to the
moon where I could explore a lunar lava tube and a bit of CO in my
Oxygen tank at the end and I'd die a happy man.

Thoughts on 1969
 

H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It

If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.


Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.


I believe we have done nothing significant in space since long before
the Bushes. Clinton was not interested in the space program since there
were no skirts on the Moon or Mars

Thoughts on 1969
 

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:09:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:



If I had a terminal illness, you could give me a one way trip to the
moon where I could explore a lunar lava tube and a bit of CO in my
Oxygen tank at the end and I'd die a happy man.

If I wasn't averse to rocket ships, I'd probably go for a super nova.
Great light show.

--Vic

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. How many million parts? NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. They should have build 2
sizes. One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery
of
smaller stuff to orbit. Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.
_____________________________________________

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile per
hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the wings,
but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears. Use
rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane / shuttle would
suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much less fuel. Not the
90% fuel as you already have some speed so less inertia and lots less air
resistance to overcome

Thoughts on 1969
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile per
hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the wings,
but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears. Use
rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane / shuttle
would
suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much less fuel. Not
the
90% fuel as you already have some speed so less inertia and lots less air
resistance to overcome


They already did that. It was the X15


Prototype. Needs to be bigger. I stood next to an X15 at Wright-Patt AF
museum. Pretty small airplane. No room for a toilet.

Thoughts on 1969
 

Thoughts on 1969
 

Bush spent us into a hole, ignored the financial markets, ignored
infrastructure, and let his fat cat buddies suck the national teat dry.

Yessiree Krausie, you tell 'em! Been to any Yale alumni meetings
lately?

Yours always,
GC Boater

Thoughts on 1969
 

"H K" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile
per hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the
wings, but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears.
Use rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane /
shuttle would suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much
less fuel. Not the 90% fuel as you already have some speed so less
inertia and lots less air resistance to overcome

They already did that. It was the X15



It would be a better investment to put a few spaceward-aimed broadcast
beacons in orbit, and hope that a friendly alien civilization hears their
signals and stops by with technology a few thousand years more advanced
than ours they are willing to share.

We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.

Thoughts on 1969
 

"GC Boater" wrote in message
...
Bush spent us into a hole, ignored the financial markets, ignored
infrastructure, and let his fat cat buddies suck the national teat dry.

Yessiree Krausie, you tell 'em! Been to any Yale alumni meetings
lately?

Yours always,
GC Boater


I think it's cute how he brags constantly about his "filters," but now
changes his id to try to dodge everyone elses. What's good for the goose,
*ain't* good for the gander. g

--Mike

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...


We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.



Yep. Just think. In some distant galaxy, far away, the residents are
watching the "Beverly Hillbillys".

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...


We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.



Yep. Just think. In some distant galaxy, far away, the residents are
watching the "Beverly Hillbillys".




Lucky ba&^%$ds. I can't find re-runs anymore. g

--Mike

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...


We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.



Yep. Just think. In some distant galaxy, far away, the residents are
watching the "Beverly Hillbillys".




In Ork, they may be getting Mork and Mindy.

Thoughts on 1969
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"H K" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile
per hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the
wings, but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing
disappears. Use rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified
airplane / shuttle would suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would
require much less fuel. Not the 90% fuel as you already have some
speed so less inertia and lots less air resistance to overcome

They already did that. It was the X15



It would be a better investment to put a few spaceward-aimed broadcast
beacons in orbit, and hope that a friendly alien civilization hears their
signals and stops by with technology a few thousand years more advanced
than ours they are willing to share.

We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.

IIRC, Nikolai Tesla was declared the inventor of the wireless in about 1947,
after study the government. Not Marconi.

Steve

Thoughts on 1969
 

SteveB wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"H K" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile
per hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the
wings, but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing
disappears. Use rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified
airplane / shuttle would suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would
require much less fuel. Not the 90% fuel as you already have some
speed so less inertia and lots less air resistance to overcome
They already did that. It was the X15


It would be a better investment to put a few spaceward-aimed broadcast
beacons in orbit, and hope that a friendly alien civilization hears their
signals and stops by with technology a few thousand years more advanced
than ours they are willing to share.
We have been broadcasting into space for a lot of years. Ever since
Marconi.

IIRC, Nikolai Tesla was declared the inventor of the wireless in about 1947,
after study the government. Not Marconi.

Steve



That, and the fact that we've been doing what Harry is suggesting for
YEARS! He's just had his head stuck so far up his own ass that he missed
it....

Thoughts on 1969
 

NotNow wrote:


IIRC, Nikolai Tesla was declared the inventor of the wireless in about
1947, after study the government. Not Marconi.

Steve


That, and the fact that we've been doing what Harry is suggesting for
YEARS! He's just had his head stuck so far up his own ass that he missed
it....

I wrote this the other day right after talking to *** on the phone..
This time he called me, my butt didn't call him. Here is a snip.

snip
By the way, most here have filtered WAFA out as his shtick never really
changes. Funny though he is still talking about me, WAFA. He will never
change..

First, he will mellow and go after one who he knows won't be bothering.
Then he will start talking boats, here and there.
Then he will start being extra nice to Tim, Dick, Tom, and a couple of
others hoping to break the ice.

Then he will start back in with the fourth grade insults and the whole
cycle starts again... He

Thunderbird and eternal-september are a simple and free way to go WAFA
free, you all should try it...

unsnip

It's working for now.. I see he has one or two of you all back working
with him and presumably he is being "nice", but you all know how it
goes.. I have been made aware however that he is still taking shots at
me and using copyrighted pictures and information to slap at me so you
see, it's a cycle with no end.. wasted bandwidth.

Later, gotta' go...

Thoughts on 1969
 

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:


IIRC, Nikolai Tesla was declared the inventor of the wireless in
about 1947, after study the government. Not Marconi.

Steve


That, and the fact that we've been doing what Harry is suggesting for
YEARS! He's just had his head stuck so far up his own ass that he
missed it....

I wrote this the other day right after talking to *** on the phone..
This time he called me, my butt didn't call him. Here is a snip.

snip
By the way, most here have filtered WAFA out as his shtick never really
changes. Funny though he is still talking about me, WAFA. He will never
change..

First, he will mellow and go after one who he knows won't be bothering.
Then he will start talking boats, here and there.
Then he will start being extra nice to Tim, Dick, Tom, and a couple of
others hoping to break the ice.

Then he will start back in with the fourth grade insults and the whole
cycle starts again... He

Thunderbird and eternal-september are a simple and free way to go WAFA
free, you all should try it...

unsnip

It's working for now.. I see he has one or two of you all back working
with him and presumably he is being "nice", but you all know how it
goes.. I have been made aware however that he is still taking shots at
me and using copyrighted pictures and information to slap at me so you
see, it's a cycle with no end.. wasted bandwidth.

Later, gotta' go...


I see you are still short, stupid, and obsessed.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

Thoughts on 1969
 

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:


IIRC, Nikolai Tesla was declared the inventor of the wireless in
about 1947, after study the government. Not Marconi.

Steve


That, and the fact that we've been doing what Harry is suggesting for
YEARS! He's just had his head stuck so far up his own ass that he
missed it....

I wrote this the other day right after talking to *** on the phone..
This time he called me, my butt didn't call him. Here is a snip.

snip
By the way, most here have filtered WAFA out as his shtick never really
changes. Funny though he is still talking about me, WAFA. He will never
change..

First, he will mellow and go after one who he knows won't be bothering.
Then he will start talking boats, here and there.
Then he will start being extra nice to Tim, Dick, Tom, and a couple of
others hoping to break the ice.

Then he will start back in with the fourth grade insults and the whole
cycle starts again... He

Thunderbird and eternal-september are a simple and free way to go WAFA
free, you all should try it...

unsnip

It's working for now.. I see he has one or two of you all back working
with him and presumably he is being "nice", but you all know how it
goes.. I have been made aware however that he is still taking shots at
me and using copyrighted pictures and information to slap at me so you
see, it's a cycle with no end.. wasted bandwidth.

Later, gotta' go...

I've got him filtered nine ways to Sunday and really enjoy it! I only
see his **** slinging when someone replies to him, and I wish they'd
quit quoting the fat bitch.