Comments on: How will NASA plan to “win the future” in its budget request?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:38:24 +0000

Byeman wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 7:29 am
You continue to embarass yourself.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:29:20 +0000

DCSCA , you would do well not to repeat the same inane comments over and over and learn something about present day NASA, instead of watching old videos. History is just that, history. What happened 50 years ago is not applicable to today. I am ex-military and I can see that the past military influences have been bred out.
You have no insight and experience to base any of your comments on. You are no more than a bystander looking through a peephole.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:59:35 +0000

@Byeman wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:02 pm

You’d do well to reacquaint yourself with the history of the space agency and its acqusition/use/procurment of military assets- everything from early missles and LVs to the roster of astronauts past and present. =sigh=

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:23 +0000

As Byeman said: The DOD has little use for the Taurus II and much less Wallops

The DoD launches large spacecraft from Florida – mainly to geosynch and transfer orbits. A launch from Wallops would cost them prop to change the orbital plane even more – and they need the largest boosters available. So don’t look for the DoD to launch from Wallops.

Now, NASA might for missions to ISS – the higher inclination would allow higher payload weights.

And as with all things – when we see a successful Falcon Heavy launch from VAFB we can all believe that it is real. Not a minute before. All the plans in the world don’t mean anything.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:02:07 +0000

NASA was never a step child of the DOD. DCSCA, you must have a reading/viewing comprehension problem. Also, read heppenhiemer (if you can), NASA had requirements for a large payload bay too.
The DOD’s budget didn’t pass NASA until the mid 80’s
The only tentacles that exist are the ones of delusions in your head

By: Byeman

Byeman — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:49:12 +0000

The DOD has little use for the Taurus II and much less wallops. Once OSC establishes Minotaur capabilities at CCAFS, the DOD will have little use for wallops, despite what Dutch and Mikulski want.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:44:36 +0000

@MrEarl wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Use it or lose it, as they say. Was reviewing some video circa 1977-87. NASA was a stepchild of DoD for a long time as military space budgets soared while civilian space budgets evaporated. Tentacles of DoD have run through it since its inception. For HSF, shuttle was designed with DoD specs as a precursor for its very survival- and a key rationale for Carter not cancelling it.

By: MrEarl

MrEarl — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:09:54 +0000

Well, the Airforce already uses Minitors out of Wallops and the Taurus 2 will be launching the Cygnus from there starting in December.

Dutch and Mikulski have been big supporters of expanding the DoD’s use of the Wallops facility.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:12:38 +0000

NASA ‘won the future’ in 1969. It’s ‘mission’ has been accomplished. Dissolve it. The America of 2011, whose government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends, cannot afford to keep this Cold war relic around any longer. Absorb it into DoD– or dissolve it.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:57:29 +0000

Purely FWIW, the Falcon-9 BEO figures I’ve been reading are 3t to the lunar surface including a stop in LLO parking orbit and 2t to the Martian surface with direct descent (a bit like the MERs). I may have misread the reporting of Mr. Musk’s (verbal) comments though.