Comments on: Where the advocates stand http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=where-the-advocates-stand Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Major Tom http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-285129 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:07:20 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-285129 “Why should NASA spend any funds on these flakes?”

Because NASA wants to use SpaceX services to take cargo up and down from the International Space Station (and may want to use SpaceX services to take crew up and down from the International Space Station).

Duh…

“The US taxpayer owns nothing to SpaceX.”

Unless the federal government purchases their services.

Duh…

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-285075 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:25:24 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-285075 @danwithaplan:

I have no idea what you’re talking about and I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about. You should get your medicine and chill out.

]]> By: danwithaplan http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-285015 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:11:34 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-285015 The US taxpayer owns nothing to SpaceX. And needs nothing from HSF.

So, spend your own money Mr. Musk. Be my guest.

]]> By: danwithaplan http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-285014 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:07:07 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-285014 “common sense”

That is PRIVATE spaceX business.

Why should NASA spend any funds on these flakes?

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284906 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:07:46 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284906 @GuessWho:

You may want to take some reading lessons. Read this “INAUGURAL FALCON 9 / DRAGON FLIGHT HARDWARE UPDATE” dated Monday, January 4, 2010 (http://www.spacex.com/updates.php) which is a little more current than your Sep. 10 2009 reference. I believe I know what he was talking about then BUT I’ll leave the research to you along with the reading classes.

Oh well…

“Recovery Preparations

Both the Falcon 9 first stage and Dragon spacecraft are designed to be recovered. For this first demonstration flight, the Dragon spacecraft will remain in orbit but our team will attempt recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage and has commenced with recovery testing operations (see photo below).”

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284899 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:51:18 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284899 “Unlike you “common sense” I do live in reality and interact with both commercial space and USG-contractor space companies on a daily basis. To paraphrase Major Tom, if you can’t get your facts straight, quit posting here and taking up everyone’s time with inane comments. Sheesh!!”

Glad you keep up to date with the whole business on a daily basis. And it looks like your sources are straight on. My apologies to someone who knows so much. True I live in the US not necessarily in reality. But we shall see soon I guess whose sources are right on. In the mean time I’ll keep posting to my heart’s content but you’re welcome to go elsewhere.

Oh well.

]]> By: Storm http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284838 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:10:19 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284838 Mars doesn’t make me want to hold my breath. It might be interesting for some. I’m not totally against the idea.

]]> By: Storm http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284837 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:07:44 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284837 Once space telescopes and the first robotic precursor missions to nearby solar systems pinpoint the exact place we want to go I would hope we would have the knowledge, technology, and infrastructure to send humans there.

I’m holding my breath

]]> By: Storm http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284835 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:56:17 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284835 GuessWho

Also, I would submit that >85% of potential missions can be done robotically (either tele-operated or autonomously). Putting humans in space for these types of activities just isn’t warranted. IMHO. And don’t be surprised to see this happen sooner than you expect.

Good. Whenever we don’t have to send up a human, then why do it unless it is just to to conduct tests on equipment for NASA to protect astronauts on deep space missions, which like I said, is not my priority for a century. I favor ISS for conducting this testing as well as a plasma driven test bed to conduct tests on how the radiation affects their bodies in GEO – but I don’t favor having humans doing repair work if it is not absolutely required.

I don’t even think humans should fly aircraft. I’m sick and tired of the FAA trying to keep AI out of our civilian airspace with their old, defunct flight system.

]]> By: GuessWho http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/14/where-the-advocates-stand/#comment-284833 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:40:23 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3094#comment-284833 “NASA should get Boeing and Lockmart rolling on the GEO platform – if that is what you think will accomplish this repair capability. I wish we could also repair spacecraft in much farther orbits. If we could send them out to Kepler Telescope perhaps we could extend its mission. If I recall correctly Kepler only has a 3 year mission duration. But GEO Platform would also open up business to for Lockmart/Boeing to repair the myriad of GEO satellites.”

Why should NASA be at the heart of this? I would submit that a purely commercially developed system will be a far cheaper solution that could be implemented sooner without NASA involvement, other than as a procuror of that service. If NASA funds it, they tend to want to own/operate it which will drive up cost and schedule. Also, I would submit that >85% of potential missions can be done robotically (either tele-operated or autonomously). Putting humans in space for these types of activities just isn’t warranted. IMHO. And don’t be surprised to see this happen sooner than you expect.

]]>