Strike three for SpaceX, or three home runs for Team Muzzie. Obama wanted Muslims to feel good about our space program, they love watching Obama fuck up America.

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strike three for SpaceX, or three home runs for
> Team Muzzie. Obama wanted Muslims to feel good
> about our space program, they love watching Obama
> fuck up America.


Space X is a private company. It was the invisible hand of capitalism that reached out and destroyed that rocket.

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strike three for SpaceX, or three home runs for
> Team Muzzie. Obama wanted Muslims to feel good
> about our space program, they love watching Obama
> fuck up America.


So you are saying we should go back into the capable hands for the government for supply....Fucking Commie.

Wealth of Nations Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True The Vote ! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Strike three for SpaceX, or three home runs for
> > Team Muzzie. Obama wanted Muslims to feel good
> > about our space program, they love watching
> Obama
> > fuck up America.
>
>
> Space X is a private company. It was the
> invisible hand of capitalism that reached out and
> destroyed that rocket.


You might want to go back and read Obama's statement when he effectively killed off NASA's program specifically citing SpaceX as his go-to.

I paid good money for that negro and I own him fair and square.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092204702.html

Rightards are incoherent and completely void of the facts these days. It's sad to watch really. At this point just agree and smile. :)

Obama hates America more than Gerry. I think Obama is an American, I know Gerry was not born in this country, neither was Obama, but his mother is white, and she was born in this country, not a turd world country like Gerrytard2's goat parents

Personal attacks on GerryManderer2's heritage, mother, etc. are just personal attacks.

Your Mom gave birth to a racist, bigot, piece of trailer trash, who can't stay on topic, or argue facts.

In summary - no matter what shit you fling at him G2 will always be from a higher grade of superior DNA - with more brain power, more street smarts, more ingenuity, more spirit, and superior qualities in every aspect of the human genome.

He's a leader. You're a discarded POS. You make the case for Eugenics in America. We don't need your inferior rat bastard retard genetics in the human gene pool.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rightards are incoherent and completely void of
> the facts these days. It's sad to watch really. At
> this point just agree and smile. :)



"On Thursday, Obama will trek to Sony Pictures Entertainment in Culver City for a late-afternoon backlot rally with a capacity of 3,000 and Jamie Foxx on the bill as a “special guest”; tickets range in price from $100 to $2,500 for VIP seating. That will be followed by a much smaller dinner on the lot for some 60 people, with tickets priced at $35,800 per person; the president is expected to go from table to table to spend face time with donors.

A second dinner will follow at the Brentwood restaurant Tavern. Among those expected are such moguls and major L.A. figures as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Lynton, Berry Gordy, Elon Musk and Russell Goldsmith, as well as the two Southern California finance co-chairs for the Democratic National Committee, Capital Group’s John Emerson and Tennis Channel CEO Ken Solomon."

+

President Barack Obama tours SpaceX with CEO Elon Musk

.




=


"A New Vision

President Obama has been pushing the idea of this kind of space taxi for hire. In April, he visited the Falcon 9 rocket before giving a speech on space policy. In that speech, he said NASA would "work with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable."

Under his new plan for the space agency, private companies would take over the job of getting astronauts to the space station so that after NASA retires the space shuttles, it can focus on developing technologies to get people farther out into space to visit new destinations like asteroids.

As part of this shift in strategy, the Obama administration wants Congress to kill a rocket program called Constellation that NASA has been working on to replace its aging shuttles."


BOOM

Hey facts, Nice shot.

Actually Congress gave more money to Constellation and shortchanged commercial crew.

Kapow! Boom! Muzzies like to watch shit blow up.

you got it backwards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually Congress gave more money to Constellation
> and shortchanged commercial crew.


Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011 budget.

'
Attachments:

Buzz Aldrin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you got it backwards Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually Congress gave more money to
> Constellation
> > and shortchanged commercial crew.
>
>
> Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011 budget.


Well, the giant rocket has more support in Congress' latest budget than does commercial crew. We need full funding for commercial crew.

hg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buzz Aldrin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > you got it backwards Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Actually Congress gave more money to
> > Constellation
> > > and shortchanged commercial crew.
> >
> >
> > Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011
> budget.
>
>
> Well, the giant rocket has more support in
> Congress' latest budget than does commercial crew.
> We need full funding for commercial crew.


Not really comparable.

The Space Launch System is a huge many-year program intended for manned deep space travel which funds a major part of an entire government agency with R&D, construction, and all kinds of other costs involved beyond the system itself. Yes, it's also corporate welfare and its a lot of money.

They gave Elon $250 million to get started. Plus more to come on the backend. He gets to build his company and prove its capabilities on the public dime which then will extend beyond doing just government work to a much larger market for his and his investor's benefit. Or not. The government backing takes much of the financial risk out and also makes it easier to attract future private funds. Same with Tesla. The government makes squat on its money put in. Maybe 1.5x for money it loaned. Not counting the cost of tax and other subsidies. Elon gets the stability and other benefits that provides as far as supporting sales and business development and makes 100X on the money he puts in. Not a bad deal for some relatively piddly campaign contributions.

That's in addition to the same kind of deal for Orbital which already had an ongoing company and launch platform built. (And some others going forward without government funding.) Not sure how much more "full funding" you could ask for short of the government taking over the commercial side and doing it itself. Elon and Orbital have plenty of backing to do what they need to do and they'll get the bigger payoff on the backend.

Carl Sagan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Buzz Aldrin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > you got it backwards Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Actually Congress gave more money to
> > > Constellation
> > > > and shortchanged commercial crew.
> > >
> > >
> > > Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011
> > budget.
> >
> >
> > Well, the giant rocket has more support in
> > Congress' latest budget than does commercial
> crew.
> > We need full funding for commercial crew.
>
>
> Not really comparable.
>
> The Space Launch System is a huge many-year
> program intended for manned deep space travel
> which funds a major part of an entire government
> agency with R&D, construction, and all kinds of
> other costs involved beyond the system itself.
> Yes, it's also corporate welfare and its a lot of
> money.
>
> They gave Elon $250 million to get started. Plus
> more to come on the backend. He gets to build his
> company and prove its capabilities on the public
> dime which then will extend beyond doing just
> government work to a much larger market for his
> and his investor's benefit. Or not. The
> government backing takes much of the financial
> risk out and also makes it easier to attract
> future private funds. Same with Tesla. The
> government makes squat on its money put in. Maybe
> 1.5x for money it loaned. Not counting the cost
> of tax and other subsidies. Elon gets the
> stability and other benefits that provides as far
> as supporting sales and business development and
> makes 100X on the money he puts in. Not a bad deal
> for some relatively piddly campaign
> contributions.
>
> That's in addition to the same kind of deal for
> Orbital which already had an ongoing company and
> launch platform built. (And some others going
> forward without government funding.) Not sure how
> much more "full funding" you could ask for short
> of the government taking over the commercial side
> and doing it itself. Elon and Orbital have plenty
> of backing to do what they need to do and they'll
> get the bigger payoff on the backend.

The other company is Boeing, not Orbital. SpaceX and Boeing. And congress took $200M away from it and added to SLS.

Glad to see so many that post on the forum. Freight, astronauts and passengers destined for low earth orbit will be transported by private contractors. Deep space exploration will be conducted by NASA. President Bush signed off on the cancelation of the Space Shuttle program years earlier than was planned.
The nations space program was then scraped and restarted from scratch.

"wanna take a ride?"

hg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carl Sagan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Buzz Aldrin Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > you got it backwards Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Actually Congress gave more money to
> > > > Constellation
> > > > > and shortchanged commercial crew.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011
> > > budget.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, the giant rocket has more support in
> > > Congress' latest budget than does commercial
> > crew.
> > > We need full funding for commercial crew.
> >
> >
> > Not really comparable.
> >
> > The Space Launch System is a huge many-year
> > program intended for manned deep space travel
> > which funds a major part of an entire
> government
> > agency with R&D, construction, and all kinds of
> > other costs involved beyond the system itself.
> > Yes, it's also corporate welfare and its a lot
> of
> > money.
> >
> > They gave Elon $250 million to get started.
> Plus
> > more to come on the backend. He gets to build
> his
> > company and prove its capabilities on the
> public
> > dime which then will extend beyond doing just
> > government work to a much larger market for his
> > and his investor's benefit. Or not. The
> > government backing takes much of the financial
> > risk out and also makes it easier to attract
> > future private funds. Same with Tesla. The
> > government makes squat on its money put in.
> Maybe
> > 1.5x for money it loaned. Not counting the
> cost
> > of tax and other subsidies. Elon gets the
> > stability and other benefits that provides as
> far
> > as supporting sales and business development
> and
> > makes 100X on the money he puts in. Not a bad
> deal
> > for some relatively piddly campaign
> > contributions.
> >
> > That's in addition to the same kind of deal for
> > Orbital which already had an ongoing company
> and
> > launch platform built. (And some others going
> > forward without government funding.) Not sure
> how
> > much more "full funding" you could ask for
> short
> > of the government taking over the commercial
> side
> > and doing it itself. Elon and Orbital have
> plenty
> > of backing to do what they need to do and
> they'll
> > get the bigger payoff on the backend.
>
> The other company is Boeing, not Orbital. SpaceX
> and Boeing. And congress took $200M away from it
> and added to SLS.


Nope. Boeing is one of those involved on the other side in the SLS program.

Orbital is the other COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) launch partner on the commercial side. You might remember their rocket launching from Wallops in VA that blew up not long ago.

From NASA:

"One of the first of NASA’s commercial partners selected in August 2006, SpaceX, represented the unequivocal success of the COTS model. Shortly after its successful ISS demonstration mission in May 2012, the company quickly provided two critical resupply service missions to the orbiting laboratory under NASA’s follow-on Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract.

The other partner chosen in the initial selection was less fortunate. NASA terminated its relationship with Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) in October 2007 after the company failed to raise sufficient private funding to continue vehicle development.

Orbital Sciences Corp., selected as a COTS partner to replace RpK in February 2008, completed its ISS demonstration mission in the fall of 2013, and joined SpaceX as the second company NASA would rely on for cargo delivery services to ISS."

Obama has hope and wants to change the space program by fundamentally transforming it.
A proposal has just been received to launch his stinky arse to where no man has gone before.

Alan Shepard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Carl Sagan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hg Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Buzz Aldrin Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > you got it backwards Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Actually Congress gave more money to
> > > > > Constellation
> > > > > > and shortchanged commercial crew.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Obama scrapped Constellation in the 2011
> > > > budget.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, the giant rocket has more support in
> > > > Congress' latest budget than does
> commercial
> > > crew.
> > > > We need full funding for commercial crew.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not really comparable.
> > >
> > > The Space Launch System is a huge many-year
> > > program intended for manned deep space travel
> > > which funds a major part of an entire
> > government
> > > agency with R&D, construction, and all kinds
> of
> > > other costs involved beyond the system itself.
>
> > > Yes, it's also corporate welfare and its a
> lot
> > of
> > > money.
> > >
> > > They gave Elon $250 million to get started.
> > Plus
> > > more to come on the backend. He gets to
> build
> > his
> > > company and prove its capabilities on the
> > public
> > > dime which then will extend beyond doing just
> > > government work to a much larger market for
> his
> > > and his investor's benefit. Or not. The
> > > government backing takes much of the
> financial
> > > risk out and also makes it easier to attract
> > > future private funds. Same with Tesla. The
> > > government makes squat on its money put in.
> > Maybe
> > > 1.5x for money it loaned. Not counting the
> > cost
> > > of tax and other subsidies. Elon gets the
> > > stability and other benefits that provides as
> > far
> > > as supporting sales and business development
> > and
> > > makes 100X on the money he puts in. Not a bad
> > deal
> > > for some relatively piddly campaign
> > > contributions.
> > >
> > > That's in addition to the same kind of deal
> for
> > > Orbital which already had an ongoing company
> > and
> > > launch platform built. (And some others
> going
> > > forward without government funding.) Not
> sure
> > how
> > > much more "full funding" you could ask for
> > short
> > > of the government taking over the commercial
> > side
> > > and doing it itself. Elon and Orbital have
> > plenty
> > > of backing to do what they need to do and
> > they'll
> > > get the bigger payoff on the backend.
> >
> > The other company is Boeing, not Orbital.
> SpaceX
> > and Boeing. And congress took $200M away from
> it
> > and added to SLS.
>
>
> Nope. Boeing is one of those involved on the
> other side in the SLS program.
>
> Orbital is the other COTS (Commercial Orbital
> Transportation Services) launch partner on the
> commercial side. You might remember their rocket
> launching from Wallops in VA that blew up not long
> ago.
>
> From NASA:
>
> "One of the first of NASA’s commercial partners
> selected in August 2006, SpaceX, represented the
> unequivocal success of the COTS model. Shortly
> after its successful ISS demonstration mission in
> May 2012, the company quickly provided two
> critical resupply service missions to the orbiting
> laboratory under NASA’s follow-on Commercial
> Resupply Services (CRS) contract.
>
> The other partner chosen in the initial selection
> was less fortunate. NASA terminated its
> relationship with Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) in
> October 2007 after the company failed to raise
> sufficient private funding to continue vehicle
> development.
>
> Orbital Sciences Corp., selected as a COTS partner
> to replace RpK in February 2008, completed its ISS
> demonstration mission in the fall of 2013, and
> joined SpaceX as the second company NASA would
> rely on for cargo delivery services to ISS."

The subject is commercial crew, not COTS. SpaceX is building the Dragon, and Boeing is building the CST-100. Those are COMMNERCIAL CREW vehicles


From NASA:

NASA announced this afternoon that Boeing and SpaceX will be sending astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) from Kennedy Space Center as early as 2017!

This announcement is part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, identifying private companies to provide safe and reliable access through U.S. space transportation systems to and from the ISS and low Earth-orbit.

The Boeing Company is developing the CST-100 spacecraft in a former shuttle processing facility at Kennedy Space Center. The CST-100 will launch with United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket.

SpaceX continues to advance the Crew Dragon spacecraft, a more advanced version of the cargo-carrying spacecraft used to transport supplies to the ISS. SpaceX will launch Crew Dragon aboard their Falcon 9 rocket.

The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts announced today are designed to complete the NASA certification for human space transportation systems capable of carrying people into orbit. The contract includes at a minimum of one crewed flight test per company with at least one NASA astronaut to the International Space Station to validate all systems. Once each company’s test program is successfully completed and receives NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six crewed missions to the ISS. Boeing received $4.2 billion and SpaceX received $2.6 billion to fulfill this contract.

With private companies handling low-Earth orbit launches to the ISS, NASA can focus on 1) getting the most research and experience out of the space station, and 2) deep space missions, including manned flights to Mars.

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/nasa-news-and-history/commerical-crew-program/ccp-announcement.aspx

SpaceX

is said to be started, owned, and operated by one United Kingdom boy who's hardly passed his teenage years. they say he's "real bright" but he has no education or experience in space technology. (IN OTHER WORDS THE WHOLE AGENCY IS A FLIM FLAM to get USA dollars and steal Nasa technology and contracts)

total bullshit USA would give them a fucking dime

therefore - you can count on obama to funnel foreigners money that way

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama hates America more than Gerry. I think Obama
> is an American, I know Gerry was not born in this
> country, neither was Obama, but his mother is
> white, and she was born in this country, not a
> turd world country like Gerrytard2's goat parents


you disappoint me

hg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> The subject is commercial crew, not COTS. SpaceX
> is building the Dragon, and Boeing is building the
> CST-100. Those are COMMNERCIAL CREW vehicles
>
>
> From NASA:
>
> NASA announced this afternoon that Boeing and
> SpaceX will be sending astronauts to the
> International Space Station (ISS) from Kennedy
> Space Center as early as 2017!
>
> This announcement is part of NASA’s Commercial
> Crew Program, identifying private companies to
> provide safe and reliable access through U.S.
> space transportation systems to and from the ISS
> and low Earth-orbit.
>
> The Boeing Company is developing the CST-100
> spacecraft in a former shuttle processing facility
> at Kennedy Space Center. The CST-100 will launch
> with United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket.
>
> SpaceX continues to advance the Crew Dragon
> spacecraft, a more advanced version of the
> cargo-carrying spacecraft used to transport
> supplies to the ISS. SpaceX will launch Crew
> Dragon aboard their Falcon 9 rocket.
>
> The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability
> contracts announced today are designed to complete
> the NASA certification for human space
> transportation systems capable of carrying people
> into orbit. The contract includes at a minimum of
> one crewed flight test per company with at least
> one NASA astronaut to the International Space
> Station to validate all systems. Once each
> company’s test program is successfully completed
> and receives NASA certification, each contractor
> will conduct at least two, and as many as six
> crewed missions to the ISS. Boeing received $4.2
> billion and SpaceX received $2.6 billion to
> fulfill this contract.
>
> With private companies handling low-Earth orbit
> launches to the ISS, NASA can focus on 1) getting
> the most research and experience out of the space
> station, and 2) deep space missions, including
> manned flights to Mars.
>
> https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/nasa-news-and-h
> istory/commerical-crew-program/ccp-announcement.as
> px


In that case, you're correct. Sorry, I read past crew in your earlier post. Thought that you were talking about the commercial launch side where the vast majority of activity is.

Still not sure what you'd want there as far as more money. Regardless what they may say in some glossy program plan, that entire program exists basically to provide replacement transport services to the ISS. And it's structured in a way that it's for a set number of transports for a set dollar amount to outsource that aspect to commercial providers. Basically it's a glorified taxi service. There's no program to do anything beyond that or interest on the commercial side to do much of anything else otherwise. At least not on top of a rocket. Even if you developed the best crewed platform ever, where are you going to send anyone even if you could? ;)

The whole purpose of the program is to get that out of NASA's way so that they can focus on the bigger stuff. Unless you're wanting to get into a huge near earth development program to go along with it, then there's not much reason to throw more money in that direction.