| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kT
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
 |
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:JjGZh.3880$VE.1025@newsfe12.lga...
"Specifically, he argues that a steady budget of about
14 billion FY2000 dollars per year can comfortably
accommodate the Moon landing, Moon base, and
Mars landing programs proposed by President Bush
in February 2004."
......and that's it. Nothing else but the moon.
Fortunately this administration doesn't have
time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
to merge Nasa into Lockheed. By having one
big juicy long term contract take up pretty much
all the money for the foreseeable future.
And a program that only returns benefits to the people
with more White Elephants ...like the ISS.
It's only a matter of time before the climate
change movement/energy paranoia finds it's
way to Nasa and rightly becomes the focus
of our long term space goals.
Cutting edge agencies are for cutting edge problems.
NOT make-work programs for the military
industrial Lockheed complex.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Fortunately this administration doesn't have
time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
|
Do you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4644d715.292129880@news.giganews.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
Fortunately this administration doesn't have
time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
Do you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously?
|
I don't expect them to take it literally, as you always
and conveniently do. But Lockheed and Bush are
joined at the hip and everyone knows it. You honestly
don't think Lockheed orchestrated this attempt to
return to the moon? Are you naive, or just in denial?
These are the guys that designed, pushed and made
the Vision happen.
http://www.spacecoalition.com/AboutUs.cfm
All organized, bought and paid for by Lockheed.
Do your homework, I have. Look at all the paid
shills they've hired, as usual Buzz at the top of list.
Look at all the companies they've organized to push
this through. They've spared no expense...
no expense at all~
I mean wake up, do you know anything at all about
politics?
s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:25:04 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4644d715.292129880@news.giganews.com...
On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
Fortunately this administration doesn't have
time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
Do you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously?
I don't expect them to take it literally, as you always
and conveniently do. But Lockheed and Bush are
joined at the hip and everyone knows it.
|
I don't know it, so once again, you spout nonsense.
| Quote: |
You honestly
don't think Lockheed orchestrated this attempt to
return to the moon?
|
Yes, I honestly don't think that. They're not that competent, nor
were they prescient enough to know that they would win Orion.
| Quote: |
Are you naive, or just in denial?
|
No, just sane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred J. McCall
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
:"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:>Fortunately this administration doesn't have
:>time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
:>to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
:
 o you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously?
What's so odd? Why shouldn't NASA belong to the same conglomerate as
the Air Force? :-)
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:16 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i22g33tc3bh3pqd5pr2bt9t8jjfmvfpr5g@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
:"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:>Fortunately this administration doesn't have
:>time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
:>to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
:
o you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously?
What's so odd? Why shouldn't NASA belong to the same conglomerate as
the Air Force? 
|
I think Air Force Space Command has first dibs.
| Quote: |
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alex Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
On 1 May, 13:22, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_Griffin_Space_Fantasy_Is_The_Futu...
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
|
The article is premised on:
"On the other hand, NASA is still buying complex hardware that is
designed by salaried engineers and hand-crafted on a piecework basis
by highly paid unionized technicians. There is still virtually no
automation or mass production in the space industry, due to the
extremely low production volume between model changes. Trained
personnel have become much more expensive relative to ordinary
consumer goods."
I don't really buy this. I know productivity gains are hard in some
service areas, like teaching and nursing, but not necessarily in high
tech engineering. It would be interesting to see what productivity
gains Boeing civil aviation and RR aeroengines have made in their
development areas.
The Engineers who designed Apollo did so on paper based drawings. Now
you can create, modify, disseminate and share drawings and knowledge
easily. You can subject it to analysis which couldn't be dreamed of in
the 1960s.
Furthermore, in Apollo days, lessons had to be learned from scratch.
So much is obvious these days, for example:
- Low Earth orbit launches should be procured on a competitive basis,
and there is no need to design an entirely new launch vehicle for just
a few launches.
- Liquid propellants (Kerosene / LOx) are lower cost than cryogenic or
solids
- Solid rocket booster have inherent survivability problems and really
shouldn't be used for manned launches.
- Costs are lower by having large numbers of medium lift vehicles
(especially if they're already built) than a few very large launches
- Command Module vehicles can be reduced in cost by leaving more of
the accommodation piece to burn up, thereby reducign heat shield
sizes.
all these are obvious, aren't they?
Next sentence:
"NASA HQ has a group of economists to calculate its own private
inflation index, in order to project the costs of projects more
accurately. This group (Code BC) generates the "NASA New Start Index"
which is a much more accurate measure of relative costs over time for
space projects."
Ah - that explains it. How many Economists does SpaceX have?
More simply, just compare the launch costs (including development
costs) of Ares 1 / V versus Atlas / Delta, for 300 tons a year to LEO.
And then compare those to Falcon 9. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
| Quote: |
More simply, just compare the launch costs (including development
costs) of Ares 1 / V versus Atlas / Delta, for 300 tons a year to LEO.
And then compare those to Falcon 9.
|
Ah yes, let's bring a launcher that doesn't exist yet into the equation.
First class thinking there.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alex Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
On 3 May, 23:37, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Alex Terrell wrote:
More simply, just compare the launch costs (including development
costs) of Ares 1 / V versus Atlas / Delta, for 300 tons a year to LEO.
And then compare those to Falcon 9.
Ah yes, let's bring a launcher that doesn't exist yet into the equation.
First class thinking there.
|
Are you referring to Ares 1 or Ares V? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred J. McCall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
Alex Terrell <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote:
:On 1 May, 13:22, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
:> http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_Griffin_Space_Fantasy_Is_The_Futu...
:>
:> --
:> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
:
:The article is premised on:
:"On the other hand, NASA is still buying complex hardware that is
:designed by salaried engineers and hand-crafted on a piecework basis
:by highly paid unionized technicians. There is still virtually no
:automation or mass production in the space industry, due to the
:extremely low production volume between model changes. Trained
:personnel have become much more expensive relative to ordinary
:consumer goods."
:
:I don't really buy this. I know productivity gains are hard in some
:service areas, like teaching and nursing, but not necessarily in high
:tech engineering. It would be interesting to see what productivity
:gains Boeing civil aviation and RR aeroengines have made in their
:development areas.
:
:The Engineers who designed Apollo did so on paper based drawings. Now
:you can create, modify, disseminate and share drawings and knowledge
:easily. You can subject it to analysis which couldn't be dreamed of in
:the 1960s.
The problem isn't the engineering costs. It's all that 'touch labor'
required to build each article after the initial engineering is done.
Handcrafted is always more expensive. Until looser tolerances are
used, all that 'touch labor' is going to be necessary during the
finishing stages.
:
:Furthermore, in Apollo days, lessons had to be learned from scratch.
:So much is obvious these days, for example:
:
Many of the things you think are 'obvious' are matters of contention.
:
:- Low Earth orbit launches should be procured on a competitive basis,
:and there is no need to design an entirely new launch vehicle for just
:a few launches.
:
This depends on whether there is an existing launch system that will
do what you want. If you're creating a 'competitive basis' to get NEW
vehicles built, you're essentially betting your whole mission on
something no longer under your control. This is bad.
:
:- Liquid propellants (Kerosene / LOx) are lower cost than cryogenic or
:solids
:
Uh, LOX is cryogenic. Please publish your cost comparisons proving
your contention FOR THE SAME PERFORMANCE. The reason the Shuttle used
SRBs is because that was cheaper than developing liquids that would do
the same job.
:
:- Solid rocket booster have inherent survivability problems and really
:shouldn't be used for manned launches.
:
Lots of argument here. I agree with you, but lots of people will make
the argument that the records of the two aren't that different.
:
:- Costs are lower by having large numbers of medium lift vehicles
:(especially if they're already built) than a few very large launches
:
This merely says that there is an economy of scale with regard to
production of items. This wasn't an 'unknown' and hasn't been since
the days of Henry Ford.
Total ownership costs may not be lower, however, if what you really
need is heavy lift and not having it requires a bunch of additional
expense and inefficiency on the 'cargo' side.
:
:- Command Module vehicles can be reduced in cost by leaving more of
:the accommodation piece to burn up, thereby reducign heat shield
:sizes.
:
So expendable is cheaper than reusable in all cases forever? I don't
see that this follows.
:
:all these are obvious, aren't they?
:
See above. Not so 'obvious' at all.
:
:Next sentence:
:"NASA HQ has a group of economists to calculate its own private
:inflation index, in order to project the costs of projects more
:accurately. This group (Code BC) generates the "NASA New Start Index"
:which is a much more accurate measure of relative costs over time for
:space projects."
:
:Ah - that explains it. How many Economists does SpaceX have?
:
:More simply, just compare the launch costs (including development
:costs) of Ares 1 / V versus Atlas / Delta, for 300 tons a year to LEO.
:And then compare those to Falcon 9.
:
And compare apples and apples, if you please. I'd bet you that SpaceX
has business people to do the same sorts of cost analysis. If they
don't, their business plan isn't worth the paper it's written on.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Michael Griffinonomics at NASA |
|
|
On May 1, 8:11 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 1 May 2007 20:05:33 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
Fortunately this administration doesn't have
time to complete their Nasa Vision, which is
to merge Nasa into Lockheed.
Do you really expect people to take nonsense like this seriously?
|
I dunno. This administration did a pretty fair job of merging the DOD
into Halliburton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
