F.O.R.D. = Fuel. Oil & Repair Daily

Well, it isn't as fast paced as it used to be, but I believe NASA needs better funding and scientists if they want to move into space further than they already are...if you understand me..

-wD

Originally posted by Cyrus


intelgurl's gone for a few days'...

thx 4 the info. val, the chinese on the moon seems like a likely thing to motivate the U.S/U.S.S.R into doing something bigger.
competition? no doubt..
the U.S.S.R is likely to part-take in the chinese project, *oppinions change*
fact is...china is likely to help the U.S.S.R on it's way, no doubt, from my point of view, it seems the russians r hitch-hiking on the chinese with financial aid etc...to get them back onroute.
too bad it's 2020

Cyrus,

I agree with every point you make here. YES, I think this will be good...competition always is. YES, I agree that there will probably be a Russian/Chinese cooperative. YES, I think this will be good for 1. Russia, 2. China (Russian technology transfer) and 3. the US (because the more money Russia gets from China, hopefully the less they'll beg borrow and steal off us!

LOL. IT'S ALL GOOD!

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Well, it isn't as fast paced as it used to be, but I believe NASA needs better funding and scientists if they want to move into space further than they already are...if you understand me..

-wD

this point i totally agree on, my previous one determines some co-factors.
Nasa's just in a little depression, underfunding hasnt helped, ever since 91 they've been taking the loose cut(ie: the leftovers).
i dont know if they'll come back up, there's a reason behind the U.S'es massive investments into military equipment recently, no doubt a plan has been formulated long-ago by_____________?

true to the point, i see this as a tactical delay, "there are more important things at hand than flying astronauts into space".

Cyrus
edit: but, if the U.S'es "treasury" has admitted leftover money have been added to next years' budget, so there's definitely more to this...
seems to me, Nasa's been undefunded for another reason, funding has never been the U.S'es problem, seems to me, the people in charge of funding the NASA research program were told something back in 91' that discouraged them from carrying on with the research...due to the consequences of a horrible secret made public
could a contract have been formed with the russians to keep this secret?? is this one of the ways' the U.S.S.R is blackmailing the U.S currently?
i feel i've come across something here, all this btw, is theoretical.
i take no responsibility for any of this info. it is here for educational purposes only.
Cyrus


[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Cyrus]

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Cyrus]

I'm probably just A LITTLE OUT OF FOCUS, but what i'm seeing is::

NASA being deliberately, down sized etc etc

The new paradigm of this forward looking administration

Is for Private Commercial Ventures to push the Off-Planet Economic Developments...
...someone already cited Lorial, Boeing...add in Rockwell
and a host of other space focused enterprises,-->
...i know ya'll seen blurbs about privitized commercial launchers, wheres in Guiana or Venezuala, i donno???

the think tanks knew that as NASA goes down, that nature [or economies] Abhor a Vacuum...and if money is to be made...the American Entruprinor sp? will milk it !!

Basically, Uncle Sam has got to get out of the space business.... hand it over to capitalism !!
[wee all, US, has a rough-tough future with the 'baby boom generation' walking up to the threshold/...a much more costly$$ step than Armstrong took in june '69]

**things look different from my lilly-pad...
G-G-rr-ribit

I think the space program has lost a bit of its prestige lately. I think we still fund them astronomically(pardon the pun) but the fact is we don't have a national goal when it comes to terms with our space program.

If we set a goal and work towards it, I think the public tends to get more involved which will increase spending on the program.

Originally posted by Lampyridae
F.O.R.D. = Fuel. Oil & Repair Daily

Ford
Fix or repair daily

Ford
Found on road dead

Ford
#ed over rebuilt dodge

Originally posted by Cyrus

"mais bravos!!
well done madame an excellent point made
*takes a deep bow and lets cape sweep majestically*"

I'd curtsey, but that always looks idiotic in blue jeans.
Thanks for the gesture...

"ok, so we come to an agreement that the U.S is concurrent with the hypothesis that a war could emerge whereas the U.S.S.R would most likely try to ask for too much from the U.S black projects are being made for a purpose, billions are spent for a purpose, a grand finale maybe?"

No, I only said it made good business sense. I wouldn't even care to extrapolate past that.

"who's behind all of this...no i dont mean on a small scale
i mean, the muppeteer?
ouf, i need to go back thru some notes' i made on this, i recently had a discussion with an unnamed source on this matter, it is likely that the U.S is simply reparing for "something" that is likely to happen eventually...ie a war? the Nasa space program doesn't need to be cut back, since resources can easily be saved from other unnecessary goals'...no, no , no, there's something hindering the whole attitude towards space."

Perhaps it's something called, "failure." Americans are prideful people and rightfully so. They take it very hard when they fail. NASA has taken it on the chin and lost alot of public "face", as the Japanese would say.

"my hypothesis states the existence of : parallel universes coexisting at different time lapses from our globe.

this could have been found out by the americanos, and they are likely plowing in everything they've got into it...that's where the attention's shifted, ie: a wormhole
far-fetched? no doubt
it frustrates me so much to have to think this through with virtually NO concrete facts on the real reason behind the NASA underfunding calamity.
any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Cordially
Cyrus
i am held not responsible for any of the information in this post, i take no responsibility for it's misuse."

I really can't speak to this part. Theoretical Physics was never a strong suit. Even if there are parallel existences, I find enough interesting in this one to keep me here right now. Buenos dias, senor' Cyrus.

hrxll

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by Cyrus]

[Edited on 1-12-03 by HerExcellency]

Cyrus & HerExcellency: excellent points to consider.

One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Cyrus & HerExcellency: excellent points to consider.

One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?

yes, a very good point stated there.

you are implying that the money-leeches have hit a soft spot and are draining away all they can, while they can?
that would explain russia's launching 25 or so this year into space for a budget of around $230million V/S america's 14 billion launching 5 times' per annum.
your point has seriously damaged all other hypothesis', perhaps because it is a simple conclusion to draw, and is likely to be more logical than all other theories' put together
however... as i type this, i cannot help but doubt
600 billion was spent during this year under bush's command, 14 went to NASA, 230 went to the war, 2/5ths went to collateral funding... and the change was pocketed??
Some of it may have been.. or was it invested in some other unlisted projects?(ie: the black project fundings, A51 and other silo-like anti-everything bunkers').

i dislike the collossal secrecy held on fundings in the U.S, i have a dislike for secrecy in general
but, unless, a technology was uncovered and abused by the U.S(which would be the most likely reason why secrecy would be so well maintained), then there would be no real reason for A51 to remain under such close protection.

admittedly, i am deviating from the topic at hand, i am simply analyzing the different sectors, for it is inevitable that one of us is to strike the right theorem and the missing peices are conclusively fitted.

this thread is leaping dangerously through "was-to-be classified" info.

all i can say is, unless Nasa gets' back onroute, the funding will deteriorate to a joke, and the russians will once again rule space.. no doubt
Cordially
Cyrus


[Edited on 2-12-2003 by Cyrus]

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Cyrus & HerExcellency: excellent points to consider.

One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?

Theres your answer folks! money talks!

Originally posted by Lampyridae

One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?

Ok. Although the Americas have more billionaire & Millionaires than anywhere else in the world, they are still the only ones who can afford a "cheap" ride.

What do you define as cheap? Look at what your considering. This is not a ride on the Ferry, or "hoppin the bus". Even if the passenger does nothing else other than be payload, due to scientific, insurance and liability consideration the individuals would have to be tested and monitored. This takes time, and of course money.

Payload is weight, weight cost fuel even if you use a exotic (personally I think that statement funny) propulsion system your individual cost money.

I vaguely remember during a tour of the Kennedy Space center that the guide mentioned how much it cost to launch something into orbit per pound at it was some Astronomical number like 18 million dollars per pound, and this was 1979 dollars, adjusting for inflation you're looking at something like 25-40 million per pound if you take the Saturn V route.

So what is today's price? The Space Shuttle does it MUCH cheaper, but still not cheap enough for everyday.

Don't get me wrong, space now is commercial. Satellites go up all the time.

Your point about 40 yr tech is noted, but look at it from a business point of view. If General Dynamics could launch cheaper than say Thiokol wouldn't that attract customers?
It's in the vested interest for the aerospace companies to find less expensive ways to do business, because it makes good business sense. The aerospace companies biggest client is the US Government and last time I checked they put all their projects up for competitive bid and take the LOWEST contracted price. (broad stroke generalization, but it serves for this discussion)

As much as we might like to think it, space travel isn't cheap, at least not yet it is.

hrxll



[Edited on 2-12-03 by HerExcellency]

Originally posted by HerExcellency

Originally posted by Lampyridae

One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?

Ok. Although the Americas have more billionaire & Millionaires than anywhere else in the world, they are still the only ones who can afford a "cheap" ride.

some new russians have been known to buy entire factories' in the U.S, cash in hand... a well known ukranian took all the tax money in a go, went off to the U.S, and bought himself a house with two heli-pads in NYC

What do you define as cheap? Look at what your considering. This is not a ride on the Ferry, or "hoppin the bus". Even if the passenger does nothing else other than be payload, due to scientific, insurance and liability consideration the individuals would have to be tested and monitored. This takes time, and of course money.
that is...after all, liable to controversy, humans have been launched into space ever since gagarin the russian
Payload is weight, weight cost fuel even if you use a exotic (personally I think that statement funny) propulsion system your individual cost money.
true
I vaguely remember during a tour of the Kennedy Space center that the guide mentioned how much it cost to launch something into orbit per pound at it was some Astronomical number like 18 million dollars per pound, and this was 1979 dollars, adjusting for inflation you're looking at something like 25-40 million per pound if you take the Saturn V route.
again....launching from the U.S cost 14b this year, russia launched 4 times' as many crafts, and did it for 230m!!

So what is today's price? The Space Shuttle does it MUCH cheaper, but still not cheap enough for everyday.

Don't get me wrong, space now is commercial. Satellites go up all the time.
moscow has a sattelite in parallel orbit with earth, another possible missile interceptor launched this year
Your point about 40 yr tech is noted, but look at it from a business point of view. If General Dynamics could launch cheaper than say Thiokol wouldn't that attract customers?

It's in the vested interest for the aerospace companies to find less expensive ways to do business, because it makes good business sense. The aerospace companies biggest client is the US Government and last time I checked they put all their projects up for competitive bid and take the LOWEST contracted price. (broad stroke generalization, but it serves for this discussion)

As much as we might like to think it, space travel isn't cheap, at least not yet it is.

hrxll



[Edited on 2-12-03 by HerExcellency]

i've currently made it my duty to devote a lot of time to blast off into a conclusive analysis regarding this topic.

it is estimated that the U.S is likely to go into debt as the treasury's contents are totalled under GWB's reign...
this, leaves no doubt, as to Nasa's readily sealed fate.
a looming picture forms in one's mind, as the scenario unfolds, Nasa is likely to be the least of our worries'

an economical crisis is underway? a likely "predestination" on the U.S'es part to start going low on budgets for deemed unnecessary spendings.
another likely reason no?
Peace
Cyrus