RPK going down fighting - may sue

[no_way]

They dont need to reinvent themselves actually, just keep doing what they have always been doing: design webpages.<br />Its a decent living for some people. Oh, dont expect to get paid millions for it, of course.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Deserting the sinking ship, perhaps??><br /><br />Same guy who sent NASA the hatemail. After a stunt like that, would you keep him in management if it was your company?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

NASA FIRES ROCKETPLANE <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Finally!<br /><br />The bad news is that it doesn't look like RPK will finally dump the bloodsucking vampire that is the K-1. They're still going to try to finish it (good luck with that <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />) in the hopes that they can regain the contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Well, isn't time to press on the the next round?<br /><br />*DING* Round 2 <br /><br />Let's see who gets the contract now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

SpaceDev, t/space and SpaceHab were all in the running. Perhaps Constellation Services, since their concept is largely plug-and-play?<br /><br />Maybe ULA is ready to step up.<br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[halman]

shuttle_guy,<br /><br />From what you said about the top RpK management, I imagine that they are a bunch of guys with degrees in business, management, and finance, who believe that raking in big bucks is the reason for space exploration, and that flying stuff cuts into the flow of money. And, as long as they avoid flying anything, they don't have to worry about redesigns, which can be oh, so expensive. Their product is the perception of ability, which is used to convince people to give them money.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I believe that NASA is going to have a tough time coming up with a civilian contractor who can meet the needs of servicing the International Space Station unless they commit to buying a minimum number of launch vehicles. And, seeing as the only proven launch vehicles are ineligible for this contract, NASA is going to have to help whatever contractor wins the contract to build a prototype and test it.<br /><br />This all seems so stupid to me! The smartest thing to do would be to contract with the Russians for a bunch of launches over the next ten years, and focus on building the stuff that we want to launch. Once we get some enterprises going up there, the demand for launch capacity will start to grow, providing an incentive for the private sector to develop a new launch system.<br /><br />No start-up is going to be able to compete with the Russians, who are building rockets on assembly lines, and have been doing so for years. But an entirely new launch system, perhaps akin the SpaceShip One/White Knight concept, will become attractive as launch rates increase. But we have to get stuff up there first, so that the growth can occur that will require a higher launch rate. The Russians are the hands-down experts at getting mass into orbit cheaply and reliably, and it is stupid to use our political differences with them to hamstring our space program. Re-inventing the wheel is not going to promote our off planet exploration efforts. Building hardware <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Russia is leading in space business.Wish them all succes.

 

[PistolPete]

The problem with Russia is that if we rely too heavily on them for resupply, then we run the risk of being cut off from the ISS if the political situation deteriorates (this may be why ESA and Japan are also making their own resupply vehicles). Columbia taught us that relying too heavily on one system can lead to problems if the system goes down for whatever reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Exactly, and Uncle Vlad hasn't been exactly helpful of late.<br /><br />As for relying on one system, yes. All the more reason the decision to cancel the HL-20/HL-42 was such a bad idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Agreed. But until the same congress that would not wish the US space program to be dependent upon the Russians gives NASA the necessary funding to keep the programs going that would keep our people on the ISS after the shuttle gets canceled, then NASA is going to have to continue to cancel very worthwhile programs such as you just named!<br /><br />Just throwing vast sums of money at NASA will not work either (better than now, but not as good as it could be). What is needed is a constant 10% increase each year over the rate of inflation, until some reasonable value (such as some 1% of the federal budget, just about twice NASA's current funding level) is reached. This would actually allow NASA to plan on what it is going to do, instead of never knowing from one year to the next. Almost any such advanced and complicated program that runs over years needs this kind of funding!<br /><br />Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever be done, as it removes some of congress micromanagement power!<br />