Re: Burt Rutan "****ed off"

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Xenia Dragon" > They are fair questions - should the US government be
allowed
> > to continue to dominate near earth space? Is space going to be
> > nothing more than a scientific laboratory and military training
> > ground for the rest of this century? If yes, then why would the
> > billions on this planet want to pay the freight for those
> > government controlled programmes?
> >
> > Xenia
>
> Burt Rutan had some good points to make. As for U.S. government
> domination, this is not entirely true. There are all kind of civilian
> satellites up there these days. NASA, ESA, Russian or China launched.
This
> is an expensive thing to do. I don't think others are discouraged, they
> just don't have the bucks. Industry requires a return on investment or
the
> stock holders get annoyed! The government has the "deep pockets" to fund
> such endeavours. If they didn't do this, no one would. This goes for
most
> "pure" scientific research. It costs money with unpredictable returns on
> investment. In the early days, and to some extent now, most astronauts
were
> "jet jocks" or test pilots. Some monkeys and dogs too. ;-)

The GAO has found that NASA has far too many astronauts and that they are
taking up engineering slots they are unqualified to fill. Additionally, GAO
found that NASA has failed to attract and retain electrical engineers,
probaly related to the cost of keeping excess astronauts. I expect NASA to
pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation board,
while ignoring Rutan and BBC.

[Ed Majden]

"Tarver Engineering"
.. I expect NASA to
> pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation board,
> while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
>
Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the investigation
boards! Rutan, was I think, trying to point out that the Shuttle is in need
of replacement. This is "old" technology! Unfortunately, this needs
support from the public and BIG bucks! The public attention span is short!
They sit back and think the shuttle and space launches are routine and this
is "FAR" from the truth.
Ed Majden

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Tarver Engineering"
> . I expect NASA to
> > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation board,
> > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> >
> Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the investigation
> boards! Rutan, was I think, trying to point out that the Shuttle is in
need
> of replacement. This is "old" technology!

Going after NASA on having too few astronauts demonstrates a certain amount
of cognitive dissonance on Rutan's part.

> Unfortunately, this needs
> support from the public and BIG bucks! The public attention span is
short!

Let's see, fix the electrical grid capacity, or give NASA money to go to a
dead planet?

That should have the voters flocking to NASA's aid.

> They sit back and think the shuttle and space launches are routine and
this
> is "FAR" from the truth.

Wolesale management replacement may be required to break down the "culture"
described by the Columbia accident board. It is that same management and
regional political pressures that make change unlikely.

[Ed Majden]

"Tarver Engineering" >
> Going after NASA on having too few astronauts demonstrates a certain
amount
> of cognitive dissonance on Rutan's part.
>
I don't recall Rutan saying there were "too few" astronauts. He was
against NASA trying to stop the Russians from taking civilians into space on
a "pay-as-you-go" basis. In effect space tourism! The Russians I think
were doing this to make "bucks" to support their cash strapped program. Not
too different than NASA's unfortunate attempt to take a school teacher into
space. I don't agree with Rutan here! These limited spaces should be
reserved for "research" people, not space tourism or public promotion! This
is a serious business or should be! As for the electrical grid and NASA,
that's a choice the voter will have to make. This also needs investigation!
Are privately own utilities trying to save bucks by cutting back on grid
maintenance? A question that needs to be answered!
Ed

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" >
> > Going after NASA on having too few astronauts demonstrates a certain
amount
> > of cognitive dissonance on Rutan's part.
> >
> I don't recall Rutan saying there were "too few" astronauts.

From the original article:

"Going on memory and willing to be corrected, I recall Rutan
saying that NASA has trained only 105 astronaut pilots
during its 40 year stranglehold on American spaceflight.
He asked the interviewer "Doesn't that **** you off?"
Clearly Rutan is angry."

> He was
> against NASA trying to stop the Russians from taking civilians into space
on
> a "pay-as-you-go" basis. In effect space tourism!

Rusains are comercializing space and Rutan has a a vested interest in the
same.

> The Russians I think
> were doing this to make "bucks" to support their cash strapped program.
Not
> too different than NASA's unfortunate attempt to take a school teacher
into
> space. I don't agree with Rutan here! These limited spaces should be
> reserved for "research" people, not space tourism or public promotion!

In that case, you will support the effort to use an air breather for the
first 50,000 feet. That does shut Cape Canaveral, a tourist attraction.

> This
> is a serious business or should be! As for the electrical grid and NASA,
> that's a choice the voter will have to make. This also needs
investigation!
> Are privately own utilities trying to save bucks by cutting back on grid
> maintenance? A question that needs to be answered!

No, New York has 950 MW sitting idle, for the Green vote. Adding
transmission capacity exports pollution, but it is not the only way to bring
the electrical grid into balance.

[Ed Majden]

"Tarver Engineering" >
> "Going on memory and willing to be corrected, I recall Rutan
> saying that NASA has trained only 105 astronaut pilots
> during its 40 year stranglehold on American spaceflight.
> He asked the interviewer "Doesn't that **** you off?"
> Clearly Rutan is angry."

I think he was referring to the "age" of the astronauts in this case
which he claimed, the average to be sixty years old. There are only so
many spaces to fill, so the number trained is probably close to being
appropriate but young graduates should be given a chance also.

> Rusains are comercializing space and Rutan has a a vested interest in the
> same.

The USA also promotes the commercialization of space. Who do you think
designed and payed for your TV, communications, and radar mapping
satellites? A Canadian company in Vancouver is one of the world leaders in
the radarsat business that does agricultural and environment studies.

> In that case, you will support the effort to use an air breather for the
> first 50,000 feet. That does shut Cape Canaveral, a tourist attraction.
>
This is already being done. A Canadian satellite was resently launched
from the USA by this method. It seems to be cost effective in some cases!
>
No, New York has 950 MW sitting idle, for the Green vote. Adding
> transmission capacity exports pollution, but it is not the only way to
bring
> the electrical grid into balance.
>
If utilities are interested in energy conservation why is there a high
pressure mercury vapour or sodium vapour lamp installed along our streets at
four house intervals? I don't know the pricing information in the USA but
some utilities in Canada charge less for electricity as you use more energy.
Is that energy conservation????? Some say lighting stops crime, but in NYC
crime went down during the blackout. The presents of more police on the
streets had something to do with this! If lighting contolled crime,
downtown Chicago or other major cities would be the safest places in the
world. Is this the case????? Aren't we getting "off topic" again for a
military aviation newsgroup?????

Ed

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" >
> > "Going on memory and willing to be corrected, I recall Rutan
> > saying that NASA has trained only 105 astronaut pilots
> > during its 40 year stranglehold on American spaceflight.
> > He asked the interviewer "Doesn't that **** you off?"
> > Clearly Rutan is angry."
>
> I think he was referring to the "age" of the astronauts in this case
> which he claimed, the average to be sixty years old. There are only so
> many spaces to fill, so the number trained is probably close to being
> appropriate but young graduates should be given a chance also.

GAO has reported that the number of astronauts is not supportable by the
flight schedule of NASA. Additionally, GAO found that NASA is
inapropriately filling engineering slots with astronauts.

> > Rusains are comercializing space and Rutan has a a vested interest in
the
> > same.
>
> The USA also promotes the commercialization of space. Who do you
think
> designed and payed for your TV, communications, and radar mapping
> satellites? A Canadian company in Vancouver is one of the world leaders
in
> the radarsat business that does agricultural and environment studies.

I think robots have to be developed to enable the experiments in LEO and no
human cargo is necessary.

> > In that case, you will support the effort to use an air breather for the
> > first 50,000 feet. That does shut Cape Canaveral, a tourist attraction.
> >
> This is already being done. A Canadian satellite was resently
launched
> from the USA by this method. It seems to be cost effective in some cases!

It is not a good prospect for NASA's public relations wing. Those big
motors going off are so much more attractive than an air breather launch.

> No, New York has 950 MW sitting idle, for the Green vote. Adding
> > transmission capacity exports pollution, but it is not the only way to
bring
> > the electrical grid into balance.
> >
> If utilities are interested in energy conservation why is there a high
> pressure mercury vapour or sodium vapour lamp installed along our streets
at
> four house intervals?

Canadian have excess capacity they sell South.

> I don't know the pricing information in the USA but
> some utilities in Canada charge less for electricity as you use more
energy.
> Is that energy conservation?????

It was like that in the US during the 1960's.

> Some say lighting stops crime, but in NYC
> crime went down during the blackout. The presents of more police on the
> streets had something to do with this! If lighting contolled crime,
> downtown Chicago or other major cities would be the safest places in the
> world. Is this the case????? Aren't we getting "off topic" again for a
> military aviation newsgroup?????

The first half of this is OK, but we should quit the electricity discussion.

[Ed Majden]

"Tarver Engineering" >
> GAO has reported that the number of astronauts is not supportable by the
> flight schedule of NASA. Additionally, GAO found that NASA is
> inapropriately filling engineering slots with astronauts.
> I think robots have to be developed to enable the experiments in LEO and
no
> human cargo is necessary.

That's been the case from the beginning! That is not only the case for
Low Earth Orbit robotics but also for Planetary exploration. Look at the
success of the Mars Pathfinder mission. Too bad they sometimes screw up and
mix calculations because of metric and imperial measure. Stupid mistakes
like that cost big bucks. Another mistake was not comparing the two primary
mirrors built for the Hubble. They selected the "bad" one for launch.
Cutting costs and cancelling testing, resulted in a lot of dollars being
wasted. Was that NASA's fault or govenment funding cutbacks??? Manned
exploration is important but not necessary in some cases. Columbus would
still be sticking notes in bottles had he not sailed west. There is a case
for both to be made.
Ed

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message >...
> "Tarver Engineering"
> . I expect NASA to
> > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation board,
> > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> >
> Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the investigation
> boards!

Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
by your auto mechanic. As to Rutan, you were closer to the mark with
your initial comments--he is apparently clueless is he really thinks
NASA or the US government has placed a "stranglehold" on space
operations (I have to wonder if the initial poster was not waaaay off
base with his recollection of Rutan's remarks, as I would have thought
he is a bit brighter than that...).

Brooks


Rutan, was I think, trying to point out that the Shuttle is in need
> of replacement. This is "old" technology! Unfortunately, this needs
> support from the public and BIG bucks! The public attention span is short!
> They sit back and think the shuttle and space launches are routine and this
> is "FAR" from the truth.
> Ed Majden

[Xenia Dragon]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...

> Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> by your auto mechanic. As to Rutan, you were closer to the mark with
> your initial comments--he is apparently clueless is he really thinks
> NASA or the US government has placed a "stranglehold" on space
> operations (I have to wonder if the initial poster was not waaaay off
> base with his recollection of Rutan's remarks, as I would have thought
> he is a bit brighter than that...).
>
> Brooks

I don't have a transcript at hand but Rutan was clearly
agitated during the segment while discussing NASA vs private
initiatives. He thinks NASA propagates a mythology about
space flight being best left to an elite corps of astronauts
arguing that much of the danger has been eliminated by automated
control systems, and that the first decades of space
exploration have been
so much safer for pilots than conventional air flight was.
He was scathing in his condemnation of NASA forcing Russia
to abandon selling seats on flights to the ISS, as it
had done with California businessman Dennis Tito.
With respect to Tito, how often have you heard him snidely
described as a "space tourist" ? Tito earned a B.S. in
astronautics and areonautics as well as an M.S. in
Engineering Science. He is also an ex-NASA employee.
If that is the calibre of "tourist" going up ... let me
carry his luggage to the pad.

I don't know that the GAO report on the Orbiter factors
in so tightly to what Rutan is saying.

I might share one more thought. My impression is that
most of the posters to this group are well educated males
between the ages of 40 - 60. If you take care of your
health you may all live to witness just ONE MORE generation of
spacecraft to replace the Shuttle orbiter, and ONE MORE
generation of "front line" combat aircraft in the US national
inventory. Burt Rutan is saying that the only guarantee
for spaceflight to become a commonplace for mankind
is simply to put more PEOPLE up, not just aged astronauts.
(Yes he did say the average age of a NASA pilot is 60 years.)
That fixation doesn't make him a crank, and it doesn't make
him un-American.

Xenia

[Walt BJ]

I believe what Burt Rutan was referring to was the stranglehold on
pirvate space projects. What ever hapened to the guy who was
scrounging old Atlas missile parts to make his own 100 kilo rocket? I
can just see the FAA inspectors quibbling him to death because nothing
had a yellow tag on it, or he couldn't prove provenance of a part.
As for NASA, what we are seeing is very typical of a mature
Bureaucracy where all the decision makers got where they are by never
taking a chance as far as they know and never making waves. 'Go along
to get along', etc. Not a leader in the bunch. Score points by making
the boss happy - always. Squelch the wave-makers. All decisions
approved by committee thus diluting the blame. A complete antithesis
of the old Skunk Works.
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

(Xenia Dragon) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
>
> > Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> > your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> > by your auto mechanic. As to Rutan, you were closer to the mark with
> > your initial comments--he is apparently clueless is he really thinks
> > NASA or the US government has placed a "stranglehold" on space
> > operations (I have to wonder if the initial poster was not waaaay off
> > base with his recollection of Rutan's remarks, as I would have thought
> > he is a bit brighter than that...).
> >
> > Brooks
>
> I don't have a transcript at hand but Rutan was clearly
> agitated during the segment while discussing NASA vs private
> initiatives. He thinks NASA propagates a mythology about
> space flight being best left to an elite corps of astronauts
> arguing that much of the danger has been eliminated by automated
> control systems, and that the first decades of space
> exploration have been
> so much safer for pilots than conventional air flight was.
> He was scathing in his condemnation of NASA forcing Russia
> to abandon selling seats on flights to the ISS, as it
> had done with California businessman Dennis Tito.

Gee, since we footed the majority of Russia's original planned bill
for the ISS, is it any wonder that we would veto then turning it into
a glorified vacation destination?

> With respect to Tito, how often have you heard him snidely
> described as a "space tourist" ? Tito earned a B.S. in
> astronautics and areonautics as well as an M.S. in
> Engineering Science. He is also an ex-NASA employee.
> If that is the calibre of "tourist" going up ... let me
> carry his luggage to the pad.

Incidental qualifications. His sigle biggest qualification was that he
forked up the money for the trip. You do recall how close that singer
came to getting a similar shot?

>
> I don't know that the GAO report on the Orbiter factors
> in so tightly to what Rutan is saying.
>
> I might share one more thought. My impression is that
> most of the posters to this group are well educated males
> between the ages of 40 - 60. If you take care of your
> health you may all live to witness just ONE MORE generation of
> spacecraft to replace the Shuttle orbiter, and ONE MORE
> generation of "front line" combat aircraft in the US national
> inventory. Burt Rutan is saying that the only guarantee
> for spaceflight to become a commonplace for mankind
> is simply to put more PEOPLE up, not just aged astronauts.
> (Yes he did say the average age of a NASA pilot is 60 years.)
> That fixation doesn't make him a crank, and it doesn't make
> him un-American.

Nor does it make him right.

Brooks

>
> Xenia

[Kevin Brooks]

(Walt BJ) wrote in message >...

(second attempt to reply due to a server failure (gotta love
Adelphia...)

> I believe what Burt Rutan was referring to was the stranglehold on
> pirvate space projects.

Where is the beef here? Did NASA shut down Orbital Sciences and
Pegasus? Has it not privatized a significant amount of launch-related
work over the past few decades?

What ever hapened to the guy who was
> scrounging old Atlas missile parts to make his own 100 kilo rocket? I
> can just see the FAA inspectors quibbling him to death because nothing
> had a yellow tag on it, or he couldn't prove provenance of a part.

Hey, I used to play with stuff that went "boom" a bit, but that does
not mean I think that the US government should allow me to do so
whenever or wherever I so choose to. I kind of *like* the idea that we
may require Fred-the-auto-mechanic to meet some standards before we
allow him to place a bunch of us under his range fan for his first
orbital attempt.

> As for NASA, what we are seeing is very typical of a mature
> Bureaucracy where all the decision makers got where they are by never
> taking a chance as far as they know and never making waves. 'Go along
> to get along', etc. Not a leader in the bunch. Score points by making
> the boss happy - always. Squelch the wave-makers. All decisions
> approved by committee thus diluting the blame. A complete antithesis
> of the old Skunk Works.

Gee, you seem to have a bird's eye view of NASA...IMO, your analysis
is a bit too "in depth". Sure it has its bureaucratic twits--as does
GM, Boeing, et al. "Not a leader in the bunch", huh? You know all of
them intimately perhaps?

The plain fact of the matter is that until it becomes truly profitable
to conduct private space development operations, companies are not
going to invest the massive capital that such an endeavor would
require. The Russians are trying to sop bucks up from anybody who can
pay for a trip (and thank goodness we scotched the idea of them doing
so in the case of the ISS, which we paid for the lion's share of; last
thing we need is a bunch of dot-com Yuppies sucking up valuable oxygen
in the ISS), and they are doing so only after having already invested
the massive required outlays to build an infrastructure to allow such
flights. Would *you* invest a big chunk of *your* 401K in a private
space travel venture capital fund?? If not, then one suspects it would
be for the same reason few others would--unlikely return of
investment.

Brooks

> Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tarver Engineering"
> > . I expect NASA to
> > > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation
board,
> > > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> > >
> > Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the
investigation
> > boards!
>
> Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> by your auto mechanic.

The GAO works for Congress, their findings are not just suggestions. If
NASA wants to stay funded, they will respond positively to the GAO
investigation.

[Ed Majden]

I don't know why some of you are putting Rutan down. He has the right
to his own opinions. I also think he has contibuted to avaition by spending
his own money and not the tax payers.
Good luck to him!
Ed

[Paul Austin]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Austin wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now, the launcher business is almost impossible to make
money
> > in, because there's way too many launchers looking for customers.
The
> > US (four launcher companies), Europe, Russia (two launcher
companies),
> > China, Japan, India and soon, Brazil compete for the dozen or so
> > commercial launches each year.
> >
> > The main obstacle to cheap space is the cost of access. A lot of
> > people keep hoping of a skyhook that will reduce the cost of a
pound
> > to orbit into the sub-hundred dollar range. For all Rutan (and
others)
> > complaining about restrictive bureaucracies, if a cheap launch was
> > technically possible,_someone_among all those subsidized launcher
> > companies would come up with it.
>
> Rutan has of of course built (and has already done the first drop
flight)
> of a sub-orbital combo mother ship/rocket with his own and other
people's
> money, in an attempt to win the X-prize:
>
> http://www.xprize.org/press/what.html
>
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/spaceshipone_tested_030809.html
>
> AvLeak has also been covering this quite extensively.

That's true enough. The fact remains that what's needed is low cost to
orbit. Rutan is embroidering on the notion behind Pegasus, which I had
considerable hopes for, so much that I invested substantially in
Orbital. If you look at Pegasus' cost per pound in LEO, you'll see
that it doesn't compete well with even a Delta. I got a tour of the
Delta Clipper when I was visiting Huntington Beach years ago
and_that_concept had a lot of hopes riding on it. There have been a
lot of disappointments in the economical launcher "business"

NASA sponsored a study some years back to determine why ArianneSpace's
cost to launch is so much lower than the US launchers and the answer
was in the size of the launch crews. Because of the nature of Sea
Launch's operations and the fact that their launcher takes advantage
of superb Russian rocket engineering (and low costs), I have hopes
that SL will eventually shake down into a low cost launcher.

Until we get propulsion with high enough Isp that we don't have to
pare off every extraneous gram and which can be turned around and
reused on a weekly basis, getting_to_space is going to remain an
expensive business, so expensive that space operations will yield
marginal or negative returns. Once there, as long as we have to do
those gram by gram weight budgets, the satellites and spacecraft will
continue to make solid gold look like the low cost spread.

[Paul Austin]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote
>
> "Paul Austin" wrote
> >
> > One of the reasons why US launches are so expensive (compared to
> > ArianneSpace) is that Cape Canaveral is so much nicer than Guyana.
If
> > there's a launch at the Cape, every contractor that_touches_the
bird
> > sends people (and their families) to <help>. Nobody in their right
> > mind goes to Devil's Island.
>
> NASA delivers the pork and I don't forsee any of the regions they
deliver to
> giving it up.

Yup. NASA's regional centers carry a lot more clout than does
Headquarters, precisely because of the pork involved. Headquarters
does manage overall tone and direction (remember how Better, Cheaper,
Faster permiated NASA during the Golden years?) but it doesn't have
the clout to make significant changes to the Centers.
>
> > Still, I think Rutan is off base. Even with a heavily subsidized
> > launcher business, the last five years has seen about 7 billion
> > dollars go to money heaven through space enterprises like Iridium
and
> > GlobalStar. In Iridium's case, Moto did everything it could to
build
> > the constellation on the cheap. They employed industrial processes
and
> > components instead of traditional space grade parts, built a
satellite
> > factory to punch out 77 identical satellites and bought the
cheapest
> > rides to orbit that they could find. The rest as they say is
history.
>
> Moto sold something they could not build and as the say, "screwed
the
> pooch". There were plenty of us well aware that Iridium was to be a
dud,
> not long after the first phone call. In fact, one of Irridium's
biggest
> users was al Qaeda and only because there was no other option.
Selling
> Iridium to corporate aircraft showed the system had more
non-coverage than c
> overage.

The Iridium business plan was a bust even before it became apparent
that the 'phones didn't work in anything but optimimum conditions. One
of our guys attended a presentation at the Space '99 conference, where
the Iridium suits explained that their natural business base was
<cannonical Frenchman> flying from CdG to JFK and demanding that the
same phone work in both places. Since Mr Hertz rented
phones-real-cheap, those free-spending Frenchmen seemed likely to be
few in numbers.

As an aside about Al Qaeda, I was manning our booth at the Space 2000
conference (December 1999) {with a dreadful cold as it happened} when
I was approached by a German guy who wanted to buy a COMSAT to beam
Koranic broadcasts to the faithful in Afghanistan. He claimed to be
Osama Ben Laden's personal representative and the WARC signator for
Afghanistan. Even then, I remembered OBL's name and with red flares
going off and flashing warning lights in my head, sent him down to
talk to the nice people at Lockheed's booth.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tarver Engineering"
> > > . I expect NASA to
> > > > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation
> board,
> > > > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> > > >
> > > Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the
> investigation
> > > boards!
> >
> > Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> > your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> > by your auto mechanic.
>
> The GAO works for Congress, their findings are not just suggestions.

Yes they are just suggestions, in reality. You think they run around
in black coats and pull out their GAO ID's and all other feds
immediately melt into oblivion and do their bidding? Coming from
"Splaps Boy", I guess this is to be expected...how are those "optical
nukes" of yours coming these days, Tarvernaut?

If
> NASA wants to stay funded, they will respond positively to the GAO
> investigation.

ROFLOL! Care to guess how many GAO findings have been laughed off (or
easily shrugged off) in the past by various federal organizations who
understand that the GAO is so politically motivated that their
objectivity has been completely compromised? Not to mention the fact
that the GAO is not an enforcement agency...

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote
> >
> > "Paul Austin" wrote
> > >
> > > One of the reasons why US launches are so expensive (compared to
> > > ArianneSpace) is that Cape Canaveral is so much nicer than Guyana. If
> > > there's a launch at the Cape, every contractor that_touches_the bird
> > > sends people (and their families) to <help>. Nobody in their right
> > > mind goes to Devil's Island.
> >
> > NASA delivers the pork and I don't forsee any of the regions they
deliver to
> > giving it up.
>
> Yup. NASA's regional centers carry a lot more clout than does
> Headquarters, precisely because of the pork involved. Headquarters
> does manage overall tone and direction (remember how Better, Cheaper,
> Faster permiated NASA during the Golden years?) but it doesn't have
> the clout to make significant changes to the Centers.

The Centers have an engineering deficit and FAA can deliver that pork in a
different useful form. I hope NASA will take the GOA advice to heart, but
conflict is the mother of creativity and that is a culture missing at NASA.
A power point expert does not an engineer make.

> > > Still, I think Rutan is off base. Even with a heavily subsidized
> > > launcher business, the last five years has seen about 7 billion
> > > dollars go to money heaven through space enterprises like Iridium and
> > > GlobalStar. In Iridium's case, Moto did everything it could to build
> > > the constellation on the cheap. They employed industrial processes and
> > > components instead of traditional space grade parts, built a satellite
> > > factory to punch out 77 identical satellites and bought the cheapest
> > > rides to orbit that they could find. The rest as they say is history.
> >
> > Moto sold something they could not build and as the say, "screwed the
> > pooch". There were plenty of us well aware that Iridium was to be a
dud,
> > not long after the first phone call. In fact, one of Irridium's biggest
> > users was al Qaeda and only because there was no other option. Selling
> > Iridium to corporate aircraft showed the system had more non-coverage
than c
> > overage.
>
> The Iridium business plan was a bust even before it became apparent
> that the 'phones didn't work in anything but optimimum conditions. One
> of our guys attended a presentation at the Space '99 conference, where
> the Iridium suits explained that their natural business base was
> <cannonical Frenchman> flying from CdG to JFK and demanding that the
> same phone work in both places. Since Mr Hertz rented
> phones-real-cheap, those free-spending Frenchmen seemed likely to be
> few in numbers.

Charlatans.

> As an aside about Al Qaeda, I was manning our booth at the Space 2000
> conference (December 1999) {with a dreadful cold as it happened} when
> I was approached by a German guy who wanted to buy a COMSAT to beam
> Koranic broadcasts to the faithful in Afghanistan. He claimed to be
> Osama Ben Laden's personal representative and the WARC signator for
> Afghanistan. Even then, I remembered OBL's name and with red flares
> going off and flashing warning lights in my head, sent him down to
> talk to the nice people at Lockheed's booth.

We like to have the destination country on our export 8110-3s, for that
reason.

[Ed Majden]

> > > "Paul Austin" wrote
> > > > dollars go to money heaven through space enterprises like Iridium
and
> > > > GlobalStar. In Iridium's case, Moto did everything it could to build
> > > > the constellation on the cheap. They employed industrial processes
and
> > > > components instead of traditional space grade parts, built a
satellite
> > > > factory to punch out 77 identical satellites and bought the cheapest
> > > > rides to orbit that they could find. The rest as they say is
history.

Don't knock the Iridium satellites. We use the flares to calibrate the
all-sky cameras used by the Sandia Bolide Detection Network. They do cause
problems for astronomers however, if they flare up while your doing a long
exposure to capture a spectrum! Flare predictions for your location can be
obtained from the "Heavens Above" web site.
Ed

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > . I expect NASA to
> > > > > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation
> > board,
> > > > > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> > > > >
> > > > Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the
> > investigation
> > > > boards!
> > >
> > > Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> > > your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> > > by your auto mechanic.
> >
> > The GAO works for Congress, their findings are not just suggestions.
>
> Yes they are just suggestions, in reality.

No, GAO only investigates at the behest of Congress.

<snip of insulting little punk rant>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > > . I expect NASA to
> > > > > > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident investigation
> board,
> > > > > > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the
> investigation
> > > > > boards!
> > > >
> > > > Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like asking
> > > > your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure planned
> > > > by your auto mechanic.
> > >
> > > The GAO works for Congress, their findings are not just suggestions.
> >
> > Yes they are just suggestions, in reality.
>
> No, GAO only investigates at the behest of Congress.

Again, as usual, you are only partly correct. Not at the "behest of
Congress" as a a whole. Any swinging Richard in Congress with an axe
to grind can request a GAO investigation--and it has happened in
exactly that manner quite often. Then a report is published, and the
congressman in question gets the canned findings he wants in many
cases (recall that "liars figure, and figures lie". The agency in
question may or may not accept the findings of the GAO--they have *no*
enforcement capability themselves, and unless the congress weenie can
swing enough other weenies to his side, or unless is is in a
particularly powerful position, there is nothing *he* can do to
enforce their findings either.

>
> <snip of insulting little punk rant>

But it was only a repetition of some of your finer spoutings,
Tarvernaut! Gee, I even left off your theory as to how the Confederacy
was the party who did the blockading of the Union during the Civil
War, and how you claimed the AC-130 is armed with a recoiless rifle...
is that webpage dedicated to the more infamous Tarverisms still out
there?

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > > > . I expect NASA to
> > > > > > > pay attention to the GAO and the Columbia accident
investigation
> > board,
> > > > > > > while ignoring Rutan and BBC.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, the government should pay close attention to the
> > investigation
> > > > > > boards!
> > > > >
> > > > > Running a space program based upon GAO findings would be like
asking
> > > > > your local brain surgeon to remove a tumor using a procedure
planned
> > > > > by your auto mechanic.
> > > >
> > > > The GAO works for Congress, their findings are not just suggestions.
> > >
> > > Yes they are just suggestions, in reality.
> >
> > No, GAO only investigates at the behest of Congress.
>
> Again, as usual, you are only partly correct.

Again as usual, Kevin is a little punk with nothing to offer to the thread.