Comments on: House appropriations approve spending bill as NASA, industry complain

By: Expense Control

Expense Control — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 02:22:09 +0000

Fantastic function! This is the sort of details that should often be provided around the net. Disgrace on the internet for no for a longer period placing this particular article superior! Can occur in excess of as well as speak with our web-site. Thanks a lot Equates to)

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:55:08 +0000

I think you’re somewhat overly optimistic but I might be (hope I’m) wrong.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:51:48 +0000

James said:

“$1B of big rocket money can be steered to a large corporation. And hence lobbyist paid, coffers filled, and porkers can wallow in their phony interest of serving the American public”

Yep. And unfortunately the amount we’re talking about is far larger than $1B.

In terms of ROI for NASA programs (i.e. what we as a nation gain for the money we as a nation put in), the SLS program is probably the worst in recent memory…

By: James

James — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:33:22 +0000

Coastal Ron
$1B of space technology is very difficult for the congressional porkers to steer to a large corporation that will then spend monies lobbying congress and lining their re election coffers. In other words technology monies can be spread thin. Too thin for porkers

$1B of big rocket money can be steered to a large corporation. And hence lobbyist paid, coffers filled, and porkers can wallow in their phony interest of serving the American public

Oink oink

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:27:35 +0000

I donâ€™t think you understand what the upcoming changes are, and why they will or wonâ€™t succeed.

Last time I checked they were called landing legs, landing trajectories and landing engines, your mileage may vary.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:37:42 +0000

Guest said:

“…all boosters that self destruct moments after finishing their missions are useless…”

There is a difference between boosters (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, etc.) that have a steady stream of customers that require their services, and a booster (i.e. the SLS) that has no known need, and is so expensive NASA can’t fly it at a safe operational tempo.

“That is about to change.”

Given your history of promoting the SLS over commercial launchers, I don’t think you understand what the upcoming changes are, and why they will or won’t succeed.

“You need to get with the program.”

You need to get a clue…

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:03:55 +0000

Ron, all boosters that self destruct moments after finishing their missions are useless, especially with nothing on top of them, or with missions that accomplish nothing, but also even when launching the most valuable DoD mission ever. Useless.

That is about to change. You need to get with the program.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:32:20 +0000

NASA associate administrator for communications David Weaver. â€œWe are especially concerned the bill cuts funding for space technology â€“ the â€˜seed cornâ€™ that allows the nation to conduct ever more capable and affordable space missions…â€

NASA has been very public about the fact that NASA’s “technology cupboard” is bare.

Instead of spending a decade (likely more) building a rocket with nothing to launch but an oversized, overweight and pretty much useless capsule, NASA had wanted to be spending it’s meager budget creating the technology and techniques needed for human space exploration beyond LEO.

Apparently this continues to confirm that Congress could care less about human space exploration beyond LEO.

That’s not a surprise to me, but I just wanted to make sure that SLS supporters understood that, since the SLS is useless without anything to put on top of it.