Obama: Buy American

[Sir Bandelot]

Do you know what a man rated program is?

I know what our fiscal outlook is...

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bos0711e.pdf

All good

And if that means ridin your asses, no problem. That's just the way we roll...

[Guest American Woman]

Yes...it is an amazing site and sound. Even Canadians come down to watch, except for those who think NASA is doomed.

Yes, it is quite incredible. The launch had been delayed many times over due to weather, and yet, from what we were told, cars were parked bumper to bumper on the both sides of the road every day - jam packed with people hoping to be able to see the launch. And yes, the people came from all over - including Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And if that means ridin your asses, no problem. That's just the way we roll...

...whether it be outer space...or Afghanistan!

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it is quite incredible. The launch had been delayed many times over due to weather, and yet, from what we were told, cars were parked bumper to bumper on the both sides of the road every day - jam packed with people hoping to be able to see the launch. And yes, the people came from all over - including Canada.

Just wait until the new generation of liquid fueled heavy lift rockets start operations at the Cape....it will be like the 1960's moon shots all over again.

[Guest American Woman]

Loved the video - and can't wait! It'll be extraordinary, for sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

Loved the video - and can't wait! It'll be extraordinary, for sure.

NASA has achieved some amazing things, even after disaster and crew losses. There are dozens of ongoing missions that span the entire solar system. One small minded Canadian can't change that.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah it looks pretty but it's just a drawing on a piece of paper. Building those suckers will cost 35 billion a pop. Speaking of small minded, you won't be getting that money from Obama

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah it looks pretty but it's just a drawing on a piece of paper. Building those suckers will cost 35 billion a pop. Speaking of small minded, you won't be getting that money from Obama

Just quit while you are behind....Canada can't even decide on the purchase of new strike aircraft to replace flying museum pieces, but you still want to rip NASA and Obama. Marvelous...

[Sir Bandelot]

Just quit while you are behind....Canada can't even decide on the purchase of new strike aircraft to replace flying museum pieces, but you still want to rip NASA and Obama. Marvelous...

Isn't the thread about Obama, jobs, United States economy?

You keep taking it all over the place, in your typical evasive fashion.

I know the loss of the shuttle program, and depending on Russia to deliver the groceries was a sore spot.

Just cause I slam dunked ya on every point...

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't the thread about Obama, jobs, United States economy?

NO...it's about buying American. Believe it or not, the space shuttles were actually built in the USA.

You keep taking it all over the place, in your typical evasive fashion.

You want I should change now...just for you?

I know the loss of the shuttle program, and depending on Russia to deliver the groceries was a sore spot.

Nonsense...the shuttle program MTBF was decreasing and costs were accelerating (pun intended). The program was over 30 years old.

Just cause I slam dunked ya on every point...

You are a legend in your own mind...now go see your satellite weather map courtesy of NOAA and NASA...from the US of A.

Edited September 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

NO...it's about buying American.

And without jobs, what shall you buy? Kraft Dinner?

You want I should change now...just for you?

Heaven forbid. But if there is thread drift, you certainly can't say it's all my fault!

You are a legend in your own mind...now go see your satellite weather map courtesy of NOAA and NASA...from the US of A.

Ahh... Watch out for those hurricanes!

[Bonam]

There is a certain space station that would disagree. The shuttle was getting the job done. Meanwhile, there is nothing to replace it except for unreliable Russian rockets that have a tendency to explode. I hope the folks on the ISS packed some extra underwear. There's even talk of abandoning it completely for a while, if they can't get reliable service within a certain time frame.

Soyuz rockets actually have a better manned safety record than the shuttle does:

Soyuz (1967-Present)

------------------------------

Flights: 95

Failures: 4 (2 non-fatal)

Failure Rate: 4.21%

Cosmonauts Flown: 228

Fatalities: 4

Fatality Rate: 1.75%

Shuttle (1981-Present)

------------------------------

Flights: 116

Failures: 3 (1 non-fatal)

Failure Rate: 2.59%

Astronauts Flown: 692

Fatalities: 14

Fatality Rate: 2.02%

If NASA has got so much money, why didn't they build the new design shuttle to replace it? Or even just make another one of the current design. Because they just don't have the money to do it. Economics trumps virtue, it is your nations swan song.

Another one of the current design? The vast majority of the components used to make space shuttles are no longer produced or available. It would be literally impossible to make another one of the current design without undertaking costs greater than the original costs of the shuttle R&D program. As for a new one, there are no and have never been any plans to make a replacement space shuttle. The entire space shuttle experience has conclusively proved one thing: the shuttle design is fundamentally far far more expensive than it needs to be for the job that it does. That's why all future designs, whether NASA, private, or from other nations, rely on a more conventional rocket + capsule design rather than a shuttle.

[Sir Bandelot]

Soyuz rockets actually have a better manned safety record than the shuttle does:

Not too good lately, unfortunately for the crew on the ISS.

Link

Another one of the current design? The vast majority of the components used to make space shuttles are no longer produced or available. It would be literally impossible to make another one of the current design without undertaking costs greater than the original costs of the shuttle R&D program.

Exactly. No longer made in USA!

As for a new one, there are no and have never been any plans to make a replacement space shuttle.

The entire space shuttle experience has conclusively proved one thing: the shuttle design is fundamentally far far more expensive than it needs to be for the job that it does. That's why all future designs, whether NASA, private, or from other nations, rely on a more conventional rocket + capsule design rather than a shuttle.

I think it conclusively proved to be a big success.

Never any plans to make a replacement? I recall hearing of several ideas and plans put out in recent years. The X-33 was one of them.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it conclusively proved to be a big success.

It was...for the USA.

Never any plans to make a replacement? I recall hearing of several ideas and plans put out in recent years.

Lots of plans....NASA has canceled far more programs than Canada has ever completed!

[Sir Bandelot]

It was...for the USA.

And any country that paid money to have equipment sent up through NASA's services. That was the general idea, make money off of US innovation.

Lots of plans....NASA has canceled far more programs than Canada has ever completed!

And now...

[bush_cheney2004]

And now...

...commercial near Earth lift to the ISS...NASA will develop heavy lift for the Moon and Mars missions. You can visit the retired shuttles at several locations in the US.

[dre]

I think it conclusively proved to be a big success.

Actually consensus is it was a bad idea in the first place, which is probably why they canned the program. The US used to have a near monopoly on sattelite deployment but the shuttle was a crappy and unreliable platform that cost way to much to launch and the US only has a small share of the launches now.

The Soyuz rocket, which you were knocking early (or maybe it was someone else), is actually a much better platform.

[Bonam]

Not too good lately, unfortunately for the crew on the ISS.

Link

Yes, one recent incident on a cargo rocket. Hardly a huge deal. The ISS is designed to be able to miss a supply shipment like this without any significant hardship. Furthermore, I would bet that Soyuz flights will resume shortly. The scenario of the space station being abandoned, while possible, is extremely unlikely, and is mostly media hype.

I think it conclusively proved to be a big success.

How so? The shuttle program sucked up roughly half of NASA's budget over the past 30 years and saw the interest of the American public in space steadily decline, saw manned spaceflight confined to low Earth orbit, resulted in two deadly disasters killing 14 people, and took over a decade and dozens of flights to construct a single space station. A simple unmanned heavy lift vehicle and a separate manned launch vehicle would have been a much better human spaceflight architecture, and is indeed the architecture being pursued now that NASA leaders have had a chance to review the lessons learned from the shuttle program.

From a technical standpoint, the shuttle is quite inefficient compared to conventional launch vehicles, because it accelerates a lot of useless mass to orbital or near-orbital velocity, most notably the large external fuel tank for the main engines.

Never any plans to make a replacement? I recall hearing of several ideas and plans put out in recent years. The X-33 was one of them.

Let me amend my statement to never any serious plans.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Lots of plans....NASA has canceled far more programs than Canada has ever completed!

It also canceled more programs than it itself completed.

[Guest American Woman]

Good article on the the Space Launch System that was just unveiled: Future NASA rocket to be most powerful ever built

Calling it the "largest, most powerful rocket built," NASA's exploration and operations chief, William Gerstenmaier, said the rocket will be tough to construct. But when NASA does it, "we'll have a capability to go beyond low-Earth orbit like no other nation does here on Earth," he said in a telephone briefing Wednesday.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes, one recent incident on a cargo rocket. Hardly a huge deal. The ISS is designed to be able to miss a supply shipment like this without any significant hardship. Furthermore, I would bet that Soyuz flights will resume shortly. The scenario of the space station being abandoned, while possible, is extremely unlikely, and is mostly media hype.

It comes at a bad time though. I would not call information provided by NASA 'media hype'.

"Logistically, we can support [operations] almost forever, but eventually if we don't see the Soyuz spacecraft, we'll probably going to unmanned ops before the end of the year," Michael Suffredini, NASA's space station program manager, told Spaceflight Now.

How so? The shuttle program sucked up roughly half of NASA's budget over the past 30 years and saw the interest of the American public in space steadily decline, saw manned spaceflight confined to low Earth orbit, resulted in two deadly disasters killing 14 people, and took over a decade and dozens of flights to construct a single space station. A simple unmanned heavy lift vehicle and a separate manned launch vehicle would have been a much better human spaceflight architecture, and is indeed the architecture being pursued now that NASA leaders have had a chance to review the lessons learned from the shuttle program.

From a technical standpoint, the shuttle is quite inefficient compared to conventional launch vehicles, because it accelerates a lot of useless mass to orbital or near-orbital velocity, most notably the large external fuel tank for the main engines.

- It and the astronauts who worked on it accomplished the mission objectives, and more.

- The American publics interest is always waning, even did so during the Apollo missions. Didn't you watch 'Apollo 13'?

- Manned space flight confined to low earth orbit was not a fault of the shuttle. It was a decision by NASA directors. That's what the shuttle was designed to do.

- Blasting off from Earth on a rocket is inherently dangerous. Returning is also very dangerous.

- Unmanned vehicles can deliver equipment, but complex repairs requiring improvisation will still require human beings. That is still in the plans now.

Let me amend my statement to never any serious plans.

More amendments are required.

NASA had invested $922 million in the project before cancellation and Lockheed Martin a further $357 million.

Over one billion dollars invested, test rockets built etc. is not being serious? How much would it take for you to call it serious?

And this is only one proposed design. Other designs are/were also on the table, such as Orion.

[BubberMiley]

Good article on the the Space Launch System that was just unveiled: Future NASA rocket to be most powerful ever built

Fixed it for you.

[Sir Bandelot]

That article on the new rocket was already quoted earlier in this thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

It also canceled more programs than it itself completed.

That's true....NASA has many things going on at any given time, and the very nature of aerospace R&D requires exactly that. Canada has participated, but has never led the way to space for several reasons. I would also point out that the US maintains a completely separate military payload launch capability, partly because of the problems that NASA has faced. Lots of interesting things go into the sky from Vandenberg AFB, and many NASA missions have been a purposeful distraction from military objectives, including "chimps in space" to cloak Corona and Keyhole surveillence sats.

[GostHacked]

This thread has hit a pissing match stage. Yikes.