Ares V: 5 SSME's in the core

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.&nbsp; how many launches can you get out of a set of reusable engines in 5 years?&nbsp; 200 Million a year would be cheap,&nbsp; Especially if you can&nbsp;go back to the original utilization rates specified&nbsp;before NASA decided to rebuild them before every flight for safety.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Would a different application&nbsp;enable components for air&nbsp;start for&nbsp;less, if weight and size weren't major considerations?</p><p>3. Who say's an air start is required in this case or they have to be fired horizontally?&nbsp; And what precludes horizontal firing?Are you saying that it is impossible to run the shuttle engines in anything but a vertical attitude?</p><p>4. And what the heck is a "an ballon"?&nbsp;<br /><br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; The 200 million was for current flight rates not the high one.&nbsp; Higher flight rate would cost more.</p><p>2. no, still would cost big $$ for the mods and certification. weight and size isn't an issue if you able to carrying large amounts of high pressure helium and can afford to lose large amounts of liquid oxygen and hydrogen. </p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; Your LTA is horizontal and would use an airstart.&nbsp; Starting horizontal is the issue.&nbsp; </p><p>4.&nbsp; A balloon is your LTA&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Your stupidity is showing again. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You must be looking in a mirror again&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And you are saying that if NASA offered Space-X a ready to go RS-68 engine they would turn it down in pursuit of their own design?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Here is where you are clueless about the spaceflight business and what is actually happening. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;It wouldn't be NASA.&nbsp; The contractors themselves would offer it.&nbsp; But anyways,&nbsp; Spacex turned down all outside help because they wanted to do everything in house. &nbsp; Spacex has no major subcontractors </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.&nbsp; The 200 million was for current flight rates not the high one.&nbsp; Higher flight rate would cost more.2. no, still would cost big $$ for the mods and certification. weight and size isn't an issue if you able to carrying large amounts of high pressure helium and can afford to lose large amounts of liquid oxygen and hydrogen. &nbsp;3.&nbsp; Your LTA is horizontal and would use an airstart.&nbsp; Starting horizontal is the issue.&nbsp; 4.&nbsp; A balloon is your LTA&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Wrong....</p><p>1. Higher flight rates would actually reduce the overall cost per launch, especially if you used the original utilization rates prior to rebuild.</p><p>2. No problem at all in that area I have 3 million pounds of buoyancy to work with.</p><p>3.Ok explain why a horizontal start is out of the question, and what makes you think that I can't attain a vertical attitude prior to engine start.</p><p>4. The LTA system is not a balloon it has an airframe designed to sustain the dynamic loads involved.</p><p>Your stupidity is still showing</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You must be looking in a mirror again&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />LOL <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Higher flight rates would actually reduce the overall cost per launch,&nbsp; loads involved.Your stupidity is still showing <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;You can't be more wrong and it is your&nbsp; stupidity.</p><p>&nbsp;Who said anything about cost per launch.&nbsp; More flights are going cost more per year.</p><p>&nbsp;Also you have to get the flights.&nbsp; it would be hubris to think you would be flying that much </p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.&nbsp; I have 3 million pounds of buoyancy to work with</p><p>2. .Ok explain why a horizontal start is out of the question, and what makes you think that I can't attain a vertical attitude prior to engine start. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1. &nbsp; yeah, right.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;2. the SSME has purges and drains setup for a vertical attitude. This also prevents&nbsp; liquids from accumulating in the combustion chambers </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Who said anything about cost per launch. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I did</p><p>Again it seems like you are just trying to argue for arguments sake.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p>I am out of here</p><p>1.&nbsp; It was shown that the SSME's will not be available, which was my point in the first place</p><p>2.&nbsp; I am not going to get it over your non viable LTA craft.&nbsp; I know it won't be built nor is there any intellectual property worth protecting&nbsp;</p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am out of here Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Probably best all the way around because I don't think you are capable of having a real discussion of the pertinent technical and programmatic issues involved because you don't have the expertise to understand all of them.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Probably best all the way around because I don't think you are capable of having a real discussion of the pertinent technical and programmatic issues involved because you don't have the expertise to understand all of them. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just sour grapes, since I was right about the non availability of the SSME's.&nbsp; you started spouting off the FAR and I said it wasn't applicable.&nbsp; I even showed that giving them to the NASM is still within the bounds of the FAR.&nbsp; In the end, who was right?&nbsp; Regardless of the mechanism, the SSME's are going to museums and vistors centers.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Also, you have not shown that you know anything about launch vehicles design or analysis.&nbsp; (the LTA idea is proof).&nbsp; When was the last time you lead the integration of&nbsp; a spacecraft on a launch vehicle? Or participanted in the source selection of a launch vehicle for a spacecraft?&nbsp; </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Just sour grapes, since I was right about the non availability of the SSME's.&nbsp; you started spouting off the FAR and I said it wasn't applicable.&nbsp; I even showed that giving them to the NASM is still within the bounds of the FAR.&nbsp; In the end, who was right?&nbsp; Regardless of the mechanism, the SSME's are going to museums and vistors centers.&nbsp; &nbsp;Also, you have not shown that you know anything about launch vehicles design or analysis.&nbsp; (the LTA idea is proof).&nbsp; When was the last time you lead the integration of&nbsp; a spacecraft on a launch vehicle? Or participanted in the source selection of a launch vehicle for a spacecraft?&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Not really.&nbsp; I will still maintain that they can be made available to industry under the COTS program, and if not to industry then to another government agency (DoD comes to mind in this case) given proper justification, and interest at levels higher than NASA.&nbsp; and "giving" them to NASM is not possible under the FAR, only the option of a loan is applicable (which means they can be reposessed any time it is in the interest of the government).&nbsp; As far as the work on the LTA system goes maybe you should go do some research before you raise "arbitrary arguments" about what is feasible and what isn't.&nbsp; I suggest you start with the development efforts made by the Lockheed/Martin company at a place known as the Skunk Works, maybe you can convince everyone that they are not competent in their activities to produce an LTA system that utilizes some of the same principles (might be hard though since they have already built a demonstrator).&nbsp; And I have not participated in any launch vehicle integration effort or sat on the source selection board for a spacecraft.&nbsp; I have participated in source selection efforts and lead integration efforts for systems , so I do have experience in the processes,&nbsp;but unlike you I won't argue about how things work that I am not an expert in without looking into them, or asking someone who actually does have expertise in the area.&nbsp; In this case I also don't believe it would be 100% applicable given the differences in the systems we are talking about.&nbsp; Adittionally sitting on a source selection board or participating in an integration effort does not make one an expert in all of the areas required to make a system work.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You must be looking in a mirror again&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>*mod hat on*</p><p>Alright guys, both of you -- by calling one another stupid, you are crossing a line.&nbsp; It is not acceptable to call other posters stupid.&nbsp; Knock it off.</p><p>Surely we can discuss this like mature adults, can we not? </p><p>*mod hat off* </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not really.&nbsp; I will still maintain that they can be made available to industry under the COTS program, and if not to industry then to another government agency (DoD comes to mind in this case) given proper justification, and interest at levels higher than NASA.&nbsp; and "giving" them to NASM is not possible under the FAR, only the option of a loan is applicable (which means they can be reposessed any time it is in the interest of the government). <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Two points:</p><p>1) I think NASM actually counts as part of the government, as part of the Smithsonian Institution.&nbsp; So giving the hardware permanently to the NASM doesn't involve a transfer of ownership, at least from a legal sense.&nbsp; However, I must point out that even if that is not the case, there's nothing unusual about long-term loans in the museum world.&nbsp; A great many artifacts in museums around the world do not actually belong to the museums.&nbsp; Many belong to private collectors who don't have anyplace to store them and have placed them with museums on long-term loans. </p><p>2) I have to share Cygnus' cynicism that NASA would actually go through the bother of making a small number of spares available to the public.&nbsp; Past history suggests the extras will be mothballed, reused on some other program (unlikely given the nature of these particular pieces), or placed into a museum for educational purposes. So while it would be neat, I do not have your optimism. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Two points:1) I think NASM actually counts as part of the government, as part of the Smithsonian Institution.&nbsp; So giving the hardware permanently to the NASM doesn't involve a transfer of ownership, at least from a legal sense.&nbsp; However, I must point out that even if that is not the case, there's nothing unusual about long-term loans in the museum world.&nbsp; A great many artifacts in museums around the world do not actually belong to the museums.&nbsp; Many belong to private collectors who don't have anyplace to store them and have placed them with museums on long-term loans. 2) I have to share Cygnus' cynicism that NASA would actually go through the bother of making a small number of spares available to the public.&nbsp; Past history suggests the extras will be mothballed, reused on some other program (unlikely given the nature of these particular pieces), or placed into a museum for educational purposes. So while it would be neat, I do not have your optimism. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Calli,</p><p>&nbsp; I will admit to not knowing where NASM falls as far as being a Gov't agency and whether or not they would have precedence if the FAR came in to play (but we already covered that with the loan option so the point is now moot).&nbsp; I will also concede that this would not be business as usual.&nbsp; But I have some experience in the process of acquisition and just don't believe that it "can't" be done given interest by someone in authority. And at the moment I don't believe that would include cygnus.&nbsp; The public or industry in this case are free to propose solutions to the government under the COTS program that includes reutilization of existing government owned property.&nbsp; Further NASA does not represent the whole government.&nbsp; So far the argument has been that there&nbsp; is no way to do it and the decision has already been made.&nbsp; I will disagree.&nbsp; Even assuming that all of the NASA leadership is as intractable in their views as cygnus I still believe that higher authority could step in and require NASA to deliver the components to, at the very least, another program within the government who demonstrated a high level of interest,&nbsp;with a program and the funds to make use of them.&nbsp; And I will apologize once again for the discourse with cygnus breaking down to name calling but when he jumps into my conversations and makes arbitrary statements as to the feasibility of something outside of what he admits is his area of expertise it tends to get me upset.&nbsp; You will note that I had no disagreement with his statements about firing the SSMEs from a horizontal position (because in that instance I believed he knew what he was talking about).&nbsp; I also believe that if a probability of success could be demonstrated for any concept, that foregoing delivering one or more sets of engines&nbsp;(when there are many to be had) to a museum is a small price to pay.&nbsp; I think NASA and the government have an obligation to the taxpayer to reuse as much material as possible in any effort where it is demonstratively feasible to garner benefits from said reuse.&nbsp; I personally think that giving some of the systems up to industry or to another part of the government is a better option than throwing them away or donating them all to museums,&nbsp;these systems are really expensive and we should drive them until the wheels fall off (metaphorically speaking).&nbsp; I don't disagree with saving certain items for posterity but I also think it is ludicrous to take the stance that all of the stuff we have already paid for is better off collecting dust behind a rope in some building.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p>[QUOTE</p><p>1.&nbsp; I will still maintain that they can be made available to industry under the COTS program, and if not to industry then to another government agency </p><p>2.&nbsp; (DoD comes to mind in this case) given proper justification, and interest at levels higher than NASA.&nbsp; and "giving" them to NASM is not possible under the FAR, only the option of a loan is applicable (which means they can be reposessed any time it is in the interest of the government).[/QUOTE]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Industry won't touch them with a ten foot pole.&nbsp; They are too expensive for the commercial.&nbsp; They only exist because the gov't funded them and cost wasn't an issue.</p><p>2.&nbsp; The DOD wouldn't use even a 100 foot pole.&nbsp; They don't want anything to do with shuttle hardware. &nbsp; The DOD has no need for them.&nbsp; They have their two EELV's with their two different engines </p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Industry won't touch them with a ten foot pole.&nbsp; They are too expensive for the commercial.&nbsp; They only exist because the gov't funded them and cost wasn't an issue.2.&nbsp; The DOD wouldn't use even a 100 foot pole.&nbsp; They don't want anything to do with shuttle hardware. &nbsp; The DOD has no need for them.&nbsp; They have their two EELV's with their two different engines <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>It ought to be quite clear to anyone with any serious experience in dealing with&nbsp;government contracts in general and NASA in particular, that as a practical matter things will play out just as Cygnus_2112 has described them.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[QUOTE1.&nbsp; I will still maintain that they can be made available to industry under the COTS program, and if not to industry then to another government agency 2.&nbsp; (DoD comes to mind in this case) given proper justification, and interest at levels higher than NASA.&nbsp; and "giving" them to NASM is not possible under the FAR, only the option of a loan is applicable (which means they can be reposessed any time it is in the interest of the government).</DIV>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Industry won't touch them with a ten foot pole.&nbsp; They are too expensive for the commercial.&nbsp; They only exist because the gov't funded them and cost wasn't an issue.2.&nbsp; The DOD wouldn't use even a 100 foot pole.&nbsp; They don't want anything to do with shuttle hardware. &nbsp; The DOD has no need for them.&nbsp; They have their two EELV's with their two different engines <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>I won't argue the point ad nauseum,&nbsp; You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express mine.&nbsp; Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that.&nbsp; Time will prove one of us right either way.&nbsp; And if it happens to be you cangratulations to you and condolences to the taxpayer.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It ought to be quite clear to anyone with any serious experience in dealing with&nbsp;government contracts in general and NASA in particular, that as a practical matter things will play out just as Cygnus_2112 has described them. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />So are you taking the stance that it can't be done?&nbsp; or are you just saying it won't be? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So are you taking the stance that it can't be done?&nbsp; or are you just saying it won't be? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>There is very little that can't be done.&nbsp; There is a great deal that won't be done.&nbsp; There is also a great deal that shouldn't be done.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a great deal that won't be done. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Do you believe that NASA would not be willing to transfer these assets to a program that could demomstrate the technical and economic viability for their use?&nbsp; (this question is not&nbsp;concept specific. I am talking about any concept in general)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you believe that NASA would not be willing to transfer these assets to a program that could demomstrate the technical and economic viability for their use?&nbsp; (this question is not&nbsp;concept specific. I am talking about any concept in general) <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>NASA will do whatever is determined by politics or national interest to be a desirable course of action.&nbsp; It is unlikely that such a course of action would be to transfer used SSMEs to another program, rather than to use them for educational and display purposes.&nbsp; It is extremely unlikely that they would be used for a risky and ill-conceived project with the primary emphasis being an entrepreneurial enterprise in the open market.&nbsp; I doubt highly that the SSMEs would be officially declared surplus and sold for scrap, particularly given the sensitive technology involved.&nbsp; And NASA is way to savvy about public relations to want to see the widely recognized SSMEs on the next Hindenberg disaster.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA will do whatever is determined by politics or national interest to be a desirable course of action.&nbsp; It is unlikely that such a course of action would be to transfer used SSMEs to another program, rather than to use them for educational and display purposes.&nbsp; It is extremely unlikely that they would be used for a risky and ill-conceived project with the primary emphasis being an entrepreneurial enterprise in the open market.&nbsp; I doubt highly that the SSMEs would be officially declared surplus and sold for scrap, particularly given the sensitive technology involved.&nbsp; And NASA is way to savvy about public relations to want to see the widely recognized SSMEs on the next Hindenberg disaster. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I believe the question was for a technically and economically feasible concept.&nbsp; I believe that pretty much excludes any thing&nbsp;risky and ill conceived, again the question is not concept specific it just assumes a valid concept that has merit.</p><p>What does the Hindenburg (or put in a better way, what does your opinion of my concept), have to do with a technically and economically feasible concept* in the context the question was presented *?</p><p>So are you now taking the position that NASA would look at a concept and say "yep that is a technically and economically feasible idea but instead of giving you some of the assets that costs billions to produce, we are going to put them away where they can't be used because looking at them from behind a rope is a better option"</p><p>If you don't want to answer the question in the context presented because you&nbsp;think the answer&nbsp;will support my argument why not just say so.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.&nbsp; The public or industry in this case are free to propose solutions to the government under the COTS program that includes reutilization of existing government owned property.&nbsp;</p><p>2.&nbsp; Further NASA does not represent the whole government.&nbsp; So far the argument has been that there&nbsp; is no way to do it and the decision has already been made.&nbsp; I will disagree.&nbsp; Even assuming that all of the NASA leadership is as intractable in their views as cygnus I still believe that higher authority could step in and require NASA to deliver the components to, at the very least, another program within the government who demonstrated a high level of interest,&nbsp;with a program and the funds to make use of them.&nbsp; </p><p>3. &nbsp; feasibility of something outside of what he admits is his area of expertise it tends to get me upset.&nbsp; </p><p>4. &nbsp; I think NASA and the government have an obligation to the taxpayer to reuse as much material as possible in any effort where it is demonstratively feasible to garner benefits from said reuse.&nbsp; I personally think that giving some of the systems up to industry or to another part of the government is a better option than throwing them away or donating them all to museums,&nbsp;these systems are really expensive and we should drive them until the wheels fall off (metaphorically speaking).&nbsp; I don't disagree with saving certain items for posterity but I also think it is ludicrous to take the stance that all of the stuff we have already paid for is better off collecting dust behind a rope in some building. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; The COTS program is not funding anymore entrants.&nbsp; OSC and Spacex get all the money.</p><p>2.&nbsp; the higher authority to NASA is the president. He isn't going toget involved and neither is the DOD</p><p>3.&nbsp; You don't know what my expertise and experience is. Disposal of NASA hardware is among it, in addition to the DOD's view of the shuttle and it components.&nbsp; </p><p>4.&nbsp; No one in industry or the gov't is going to take a money pit like the SSME.&nbsp; </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
I am truly amazed that a man of your education has so much trouble with simple questions.&nbsp; I am also amazed that you run away anytime you know you are being put in a box.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts