Elifritz is always a troll. On Usenet, he’s the stuff killfiles are made of. That’s why he’s infesting blogs now.

You people just don’t get it. You have failed, from climate, to finances, to unnecessary failed wars WORSE THAN VIETNAM, to idiotic rockets, all across the board is massive failure, yet not a single one of you can come to grips with it. Why am I not surprised. But alas, I am an America, so no matter how idiotic your failures get, I will continue to insult your sorry asses.

what we have here is a failure to communicate.

With this, I am done until you civil up

Robert G. Oler

Regarding Top Dog: Have you learned nothing on the internet?

Don’t – feed – the – trolls. Even if the trolls are self-proclaimed experts on aerospace. Just ignore them until they’re ready to act like adults.

Did it ever occur to you that Rocketdyne might have needed to make a profit on those engines? Nobody knows the price of an SSME, the 40 to 60 is the oft quoted price, because NASA has declined to provide that information.

Those are Ray’s numbers take it up with him, I only add up the contract values and divide them by the number of engine flights. I also get the impression that none of you guys even want to ever go into space.

Certainly you don’t give a damn about America if you are not incensed.

It’s going to be great fun trashing your failures in your face.

And I fully expect a flowery speech soon from Obama.

Having never experinced an Elifritz freakout, I always wondered why people said he should be banned. Having experinced one – well, I am now in that camp as well.

The whole reason for the shuttle retirement was originally costs, we were bitching about launch costs of STS and EELVs long before you arrived on the scene ‘Tom’. Or should I say ‘Tammy’. Safety had nothing to do with it, there are people lined up to fly it right now since the government is paying.

The whole reason for the existence of Newspace was launch vehicle costs. Yet Bolden et al. still talks about new ‘lite’ heavy expendable development when it already is a demonstrable failure. What I’m talking about is ‘lite’ flexible COTS/EELV/STS hybrid incremental launch vehicle development. What is there not to like about that if the SSME numbers are this good. And believe me, when you multiply that by flight rate, these numbers are damn good, but only if you have the technological and management skills to pull it off. Are you saying NASA doesn’t have the technological saavy or people that can better the shuttle in unmanned cargo only lite conventional RLVs?

Then you have US Industry, COTS competitors and Newspace, and if they can’t do it then maybe some up and coming third world country can do it.

ISS is going to get extended, COTS and CRV is going to fly, EELVs are flying now, and a new second generation launch vehicle is going to be developed.

You decide, NASA can either screw this up all over again, or you can get something that will grow and evolving into your now idiotic expectations.

This outcome after four years is seriously laughable. That’s you ‘Tom’.

Not according to the production total you quoted:

“Production (1978-83): $1.3B”

$1.3 billion divided by 55 engines is $24 million, not $45-60 million.

“I thought you could see that. Silly me.”

I’m not the one who has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to perform basic math.

“Either you want a second generation reusable launch vehicle to complement your large inventory of EELVs, COTS vehicles and international offerings…”

If there is a “large inventory” of other launch vehicles, then by definition, there is not enough demand to support the development of a new launch vehicle, RLV or otherwise.

Look, Elifritz, either take your medicine so you can add two numbers and put together a coherent argument without insulting every other poster on the board and threatening public figures.

Or leave. You’re wasting your time and ours.

Bleah…