“=yawn= It’s an international facility. Whether it’s supplied from the U.S. is redundant and a waste of tax subasidies- its throwing good monies after bad.”

Blah blah blah ..you are just cranking to crank.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the comment you replied to.

A person is talking about American DOMESTIC capacity and launching taking place on American soil.

You then go off, as usual, on one of your disjointed tangents which had appsolutely nothing to do with the point Vulture was making.

Namely .. Orbital and SpaceX will give us domestic capability for supply launched on american soil and domestic crew access launched from American soil.

I am sure you would love to see more money flowing to soviet style design bueros rather than american commercial firms.. hell you are probably wetting yourself at the possiblity we could also pay china for those services rather an a wholely owned american company.

Vultures point was not about sending american taxpayer’s money to russian or even china.

His point was about America regaining the ability to recapture domestic capabilitys. Not paying the russians for a service.

Try to stay on point.

The russians said they can do lunar trips for 150 million a seat. Why are you not advocating that NASA buy those seats from the Russians also and save us the 50 billion being spent on SLS?

or are you just cranking to crank SpaceX?

“It’s hard to see what you’re cranking on, what other posters have written, and whether wheels of cheese are hollow if you’re constantly looking at the inside of your head.”

I haven’t posted in a while but your last post. Well. Thanks for making my day a lighter day today. I might have been… well y’know… a little cranky otherwise.

“constantly looking at the inside of your head.” Not bad. Not bad at all.

You’re off by eight years. NASA didn’t launch anyone from 1975-1982 and stopped launching again last year. They’re not scheduled to launch anyone again for another decade at the earliest, and that assumes there is no cost growth, schedule delays, or cancellations on SLS/MPCV.

51 years is not the same thing as 43 years. Once again, you are engaging in mathematical…

False equivalency.

“Americans drive Audis, Austin Minis, Mercedes and Toyotas, too”

Other Americans don’t spend my tax dollars on those Audis, Minis, Mercedes, and Toyotas. And none of those cars is built in a foreign country opposed to many U.S. foreign interests. And no multi-billion communications, national security, or human space flight transports are dependent upon any of those foreign production lines.

False equivalency.

“the Musketeer’s mantre.”

“you Musketeers do everything”

“the personal attacks only diminish your pitch.”

You’re the one who just called me a “Musketeer”. Twice. That’s very hypocritical…

False equivalency.

“it’s a ‘notice of intent’… just another piece of classic Space X hype– a press release”

The “notice of intent” (an Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement) was released by the Federal Aviation Administration in the Federal Register, not by SpaceX in a press release.

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=40524

If you had a background in policy, you’d understand words like “Source” and acronyms like “FAA”. But as a mere, helpless technician, the meaning of these things is far beyond your comprehension. Just stick to cranking wrenches.

But don’t crank to crank.

But you can crank a crank if it’s one of the duties of your job.

As a technician.

“you can access BEO directly”

Not without going through LEO.

You’re not a very good technician, are you?

“In fact, you did”

No, I didn’t. I wrote “public works paid for with tax dollars should not be named after congressmen.”

I’m pretty sure supernova don’t qualify as “public works”.

Apparently you’ve not done your ‘homework’– it’s easy to research whether a supernova is a public work, as present on the internet, in astronomy texts, in encyclopedias, and in dictionaries, long before you arrived.

But then again, you’re just cranking to crank.

“take a look at some swiss cheese”

When I look at a wheel of swiss cheese, I’m pretty sure that I can’t see through it. Here’s an example:

https://www.babyswiss.com/shop/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=16&cat=2+lb.+Wheels+of+Baby+Swiss+Packs

Apparently you’ve not done your ‘homework’– as I’ve just shown, it’s easy to research whether you can see through a wheel of cheese, as present on the internet, in astronomy texts, in encyclopedias, and in dictionaries long before you arrived.

But then again, you’re just cranking to crank.

“=eyeroll=

=eyeroll=

=eyeroll=”

You’d be a better technician if you’d see an opthalmologist and get that eye rolling problem fixed.

It’s hard to see what you’re cranking on, what other posters have written, and whether wheels of cheese are hollow if you’re constantly looking at the inside of your head.

You still don’t get it. That’s absolutely not true when an independent assessment found it would have cost NASA ten times as much to do this in-house. Whether you like it or not, the ISS is our outpost and foothold in space. Without it, the HSF enterprise would be dead in the water right now because of the Constellation Program’s failure to go anywhere.

Enabling companies like SpaceX to provide launch services and getting out of programs like SLS is what will allow us to focus more resources on space operations. That’s how your beloved Air Force and NRO afford their oh-so-expensive satellites. They aren’t stuck in the launch business.

No, those are his words. “Musk hasn’t put more money in because he hasn’t needed to.” If he if he can get government subsidies like he did w/Tesla it’s easy to see why, but it doesn’t reinforce his commitment in that CBS puff piece. That’s the whole point- he doesn’t need government subsidies. It’s not a ‘private enterprised’ firm and every tax dollar spent on Space X is siphoned off from dwindling resources for the government space operations- including BEO planning and hardware development.

“They have enough private investment and enough of a backlog from government and commercial customers to operate.” You keep erinforcing my point- then they don’t need government subsidies- yet keep asking for it. End of story.

“You also completely ignore the geopolitical and technical issues with continuing with Soyuz and Progress, like the INKSA waiver and the lack of sufficient downmass capability.” There’s nothing to consider beyond fulfilling minimal contractual obligations and getting out of the ISS ASAP. It’s a dinosaur from an era long gone and has no relevence in the Age of austerity. LEO is a ticket to no place. =eyeroll=

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ April 10th, 2012 at 9:37 am

=yawn= False equivalency is the Musketeer’s mantre.

NASA has been lofting people into space for over fifty years. Russia, too. China has done it. Space X has flown nobody. End of story.

‘Soyuz and Progress are foreign, Russian systems.” So– Americans drive Audis, Austin Minis, Mercedes and Toyotas, too. The ISS is an international platform and both Soyuz and Progress are operational– for decades. You advocate using tax dollars to subsidize developing a redundant system to a limited lifetime space platform– a dinosaur from plast planning in another era– funds denied by private capital sources wary of the limited market and low to no ROI to access said dinosaur. It’s throwing good money after bad. Space exploitation is not space exploration and LEO is a ticket to no place. And, of couse, you can access BEO directly. Sad and desperate on your part and the personal attacks only diminish your pitch. “SpaceX has already garnered hundreds of millions of dollars in private investments (besides Musk’s share).” From his circle of Silicon Valley cronies and now that source has dwindled. Apparently you’ve not done your ‘homework’– it’s easy to research those who’ve inested and been posted on this forum long before you arrived. And Musk has only put $100 million of his own money into it, as he said himself on ’60 Minutes.’ .” “Space X is building a launch facility…” =eyeroll= No they’re not– it’s a ‘notice of intent’ posted yesterday, 4/9/12 regarding an environmental impact study to get clearence to begin — (which can be objected to and denied, of course) =eyeroll= — they haven’t built a thing– just another piece of classic Space X hype– a press release. Musk has expressed an ‘intent’ to ‘retire’ on Mars, too. =eyeroll= so we can expect Space X to reimburse the U>S> Treasury for the facilities renovated already. “I never objected to naming a supernova after Mikulski”- In fact, you did, as the discovery of the BH is a matter of public works by the STI. you Musketeers do everything but the one thing to earn cerdibility- fly somebody. Shelby, Cernan, Armstrong, Lovell, Kraft, et al have ‘em pagged. BTW, take a look at some swiss cheese. =eyeroll=

=yawn= It’s an international facility. Whether it’s supplied from the U.S. is redundant and a waste of tax subasidies- its throwing good monies after bad. but if Space X wants to pay for it on its own and make a buck at it, fine, but it is still a redundancy not needed with Soyuz and Progress working just fine toi service a space platform doomed to Pacific splash. Musk has only put $100 million of his own money into his firm and asks for tax subsidies- apparently he doesn’t have confidence in his own firm- or is simply tapping the Treasury liek he did for his other hobby, Tesla. It’s a waste of tax dollars. End of story.

Vulture commented “If SpaceX succeeds, we will at least have the capability to launch supplies (and ultimately crew) to the ISS from the US. We do not have that capability now, and we aren’t likely to ever get it from SLS/Orion.”

DCSCA wrote: “We’ do already. Progress spacecraft have been servicing space platforms/stations for over 34 YEARS.

I embolded a phrase from Vulture’s comment.

Vulture was clearly refering to a domestic company. You could conceviably include an international company launching from U.S. soil but I can reasonably conclude that Vulture was refering to the U.S. having a domestic company launching from U.S. soil.

You then said .. The United States already has a company launching from American soil the Russian spacecraft Progress.

Where do the Russians launch the soyuz on American soil? maybe I missed it and Vulture CLEARLY predicated his statement on a conditional: U.S soil so how is your statement relative to Vultures?

Orion/MPCV hasn’t gotten anyone, anything, or even itself up and down. Even the lowliest technician can tell the difference between a vehicle that has flown and one that hasn’t. And comparing the two is just pure, unadulterated…

False equivalency.

“easy for all space advocates to see though. Like the holes in a wheel of cheese.”

You can’t see through the holes in a wheel of cheese. Your analogy doesn’t hold up.

You’re just cranking to crank.

“A system to access LEO for ISS servicing is already long in place; been operational and been delivering crews and goods for years: Soyuz and Progress”

Soyuz and Progress are foreign, Russian systems. Domestic U.S. launch systems keep U.S. taxpayer dollars in the U.S., generate jobs in the U.S., and don’t support regimes that oppose U.S. foreign interests. Using foreign, Russian launch systems sends U.S. taxpayer dollar overseas, takes jobs out of the U.S. and props up a regime that doesn’t support U.S. foreign interests. Comparing the two is a big load of…

False equivalency.

“A subsidy which in actual fact, benefits a select few at the expense of the many… to benefit a select few at the expense of the many…”

SpaceX has a workforce of more than 1,000 workers, all of which benefit from employment at SpaceX. Comparing a few to more than 1,000 is serious, mathematical…

False equivalency.

“denied funds by wary, private capital sources… can access same from the private capital markets…”

SpaceX has already garnered hundreds of millions of dollars in private investments (besides Musk’s share).

You clearly havn’t done your homework.

You’re just cranking to crank.

“1+1=2, not 11.”

And 2+2=4, not 22.

And 3+3=6, not 33.

And 4+4=8, not 44.

Cool… now anyone can troll using 1st grade math!

“Space exploitation is not space exploration and LEO is a ticket to no place.”

And space exploration is not space exploitation and you can’t get to BEO without a ticket through LEO.

Cool… now anyone can troll using repetitive catch-phrases!

“public servants who’ve commited their lives to public service”

Is not the same as losing your life in service to your country. Comparing the career of one person to the loss of another person’s life takes some crazy…

False equivalency.

(Seriously, you really should apologize to our dead servicemen and their families for assigning the same value to the loss of their lives as the political careers of congressmen.)

“So Mikulski got an exploded star 7.5 billion light years away named after her”

I never objected to naming a supernova after Mikulski. I objected to naming a facility paid with taxpayer dollars after Mikulski.

You’re so confused.

You’re just cranking to crank.

“Spending tax dollars on government operations to benefit the many is a correct and positive use of government funds…”

And COTS, CCDev, and CRS are doing that. SpaceX alone has over 1,000 workers, who all benefit from the tax dollars spent on these programs. Blue Origin, Boeing, OSC, and Sierra Nevada add many thousands more.

You clearly havn’t done your homework.

You’re just cranking to crank.

“those same funds could have been better spent building their own launch facilities for a start”

SpaceX is building their own launch facility:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=40524

You clearly havn’t done your homework.

You’re just cranking to crank.

Musk hasn’t put more money in because he hasn’t needed to. They have enough private investment and enough of a backlog from government and commercial customers to operate. If you have data to contradict this, put up or shut up.

You also completely ignore the geopolitical and technical issues with continuing with Soyuz and Progress, like the INKSA waiver and the lack of sufficient downmass capability.