Comments on: Commercial space gets its day on the Hill

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:15:48 +0000

Here is a name that should be not only prominent but preeminent in terms of â€œcarrying the waterâ€ for the Obama administration: Gabrielle Giffords. She chairs the very sub-committee who has direct oversight and responsibility for appropriations to NASA.

Um, no. She’s an authorizer, not an appropriator. An authorization is nice to have, but an appropriation is a need to have. That’s where the focus will be.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:00:53 +0000

Rand Simberg wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 12:08 am <- your perpetual historical inaccuracies are always amusing– and easy to correct. Your lessons for today- Nixon ended Apollo and 1+1 =2, not 11.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:30:23 +0000

@ DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 8:11 pm

“It is always applicable. =sigh=”

What a thoughtful answer! And some still wonder why the POR supporters won’t get their way… Very impressive piece of reasoning…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:08:47 +0000

By citing a completely irrelevant bit of history, thank you for demonstrating that you are an ahistorical moron.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:07:22 +0000

“Itâ€™s because you idiotically and ignorantly want to insist that Johnson was a visionary space president…” <–He was.

"and Nixon was an evil anti-space president, despite the fact that he approved the Shuttle." <– He was:

"Early in his presidency, Nixon appointed a Space Task Group under the direction of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew to assess the future of spaceflight in the nation. Its report recommended a vigorous post-Apollo exploration program culminating in a human expedition to Mars. Nixon did not approve this plan, but did decide in favour of building one element of it, the Space Shuttle, which was approved on January 5, 1972."

=sigh= 1+1=2, not 11.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:00:15 +0000

@RandSimberg- Why do you insist on being so obtuse?<- indeed, why do you- or why do you insist on being inaccurate. The Saturn V program was terminated/killed/ended/buried/unfunded/closed/people fired/furlough under the NIXON administration. Good grief. 1+1=2, not 11. But your historical inaccuracies are always amusing.

By: Godzilla

Godzilla — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:14:29 +0000

PS: Oh and yeah X-33 was a subscale prototype of the real thing (it was an X vehicle, duh!). Venturestar was supposed to be the final vehicle.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:12:09 +0000

Webb placed Saturn production on ‘hold’

In other words, it started under Johnson. Do you think it could be “on hold” indefinitely? This is exactly why it will cost so much to restart Shuttle now.

Why do you insist on being so obtuse?

Oh. Wait. I know.

It’s because you idiotically and ignorantly want to insist that Johnson was a visionary space president, and Nixon was an evil anti-space president, despite the fact that he approved the Shuttle.

Tell me, who made the decision to shut down the Shuttle, George Bush, or Barack Obama?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:11:36 +0000

â€œcommon sense wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 6:03 pm <- past is prologue." "When applicable yes."

It is always applicable. =sigh=

By: Godzilla

Godzilla — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:09:41 +0000

The Reusable Launch Vehicle program SSTO proposals (X-33, X-34) had a number of technical difficulties and the program was eventually canceled.

The Space Launch Initiative (SLI) was a proposal to make a TSTO Shuttle replacement which would supposedly require less advanced materials and vehicle construction techniques. Supposedly the SLI TSTO would have a LOX/Kerosene first stage (a proposed engine was RS-84) and a LOX/LH2 first stage (proposed engines were RS-83 and COBRA).

Wikipedia is just plain wrong. Unfortunately you would think these people would bother to check their facts before writing, or changing what someone else wrote. I personally got tired of Wikipedia after I saw cohesive articles based on actual facts being mass edited into a mash of errors. The worst thing is these Wikipedia bozos then claim you need “references” to “prove you are right” when they changed the whole thing based on some nutcase’s website on the web instead of going for reliable sources!

It is pretty futile to rely on Wikipedia for things are are either: a) not mainstream knowledge, or b) heavily contested.