Posted on 04/01/2013 6:12:17 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
And he only gets paid for meeting contract milestones. He doesn't get paid for doing studies.
/johnny
And I wouldn't call Columbia and Challenger mission successes.... Your way kills people and wastes billions.
/johnny
Good grief, they had a hell of a lot of successes as well
I wonder if you or I could get one of those contracts.
No existing company, no past performance, no product, no knowledge of the process.
Yeah thats a sweetheart deal you are defending.
NASA has screwed the pooch a LOT because of institutionalized thinking.
NASA didn't build those spacecraft. They hired contractors to that they didn't watch. They let a test go on with men inside at 15 PSI O2 with crap wiring in a flakey spacecraft.
No... I'll never be convinced that government can do a better job of providing transportation from point a to point b.
I've ridden in a C-130 and a 747, one government, one commercial. I know which one was better and safer.
/johnny
It's not that much of a deal, if you look at the financials. Musk dropped $100 million into it. Other folks dropped in about another $100 million of private capitalization.
I know I can't put $100M into a company, I have ex-wives. Can you?
Musk started this in 2002. They do get progress payments for meeting milestones. It's 2013, and cap is around $1B or so, last I heard.
/johnny
“I’ve ridden in a C-130 and a 747, one government, one commercial. I know which one was better and safer.”
LOL. Why don’t you compare apples and chainsaws? They are both associated with trees.
Lives have been lost on both.
I know which one I'd prefer to ride.
There isn't any profit in dead customers for the commercial side.
/johnny
Now just a bleepin second.
Did the government make the C-130?
I know which one I'd ride in, if I was forced to ride in an aircraft again. And I'd pay for the upgrade to first class.
/johnny
A C-130 is a cargo plane.
They also have variants with very, very large weapons in them. Like 155s. And bofors. Thumpy stuff.
So yes, they were designed and spec'ed to carry cargo and passengers in the use of killing people and breaking things, but they also do some serious killing and breaking all their own.
/johnny
AC-130.
If we measured someone's worth by their politics we'd be democrats. They are the ones who consider political influence to be more important that achievement.
Paypal and SpaceX are great businesses, and Falcon/Dragon is a far cheaper way to orbit than the shuttle was. So the founder of those businesses is an idiot in his politics. That doesn't change the value of those businesses.
Ouch... Not good for the hot section parts. Since the bell nozzles are ablative, they would be replaced anyway, but when the hot combustors hit that salt water... Ouch...
“If we measured someone’s worth by their politics we’d be democrats. They are the ones who consider political influence to be more important that achievement. “
So you like corruption and helping those who would be happy to see you jailed for your beliefs. Good to know.
As for the cost of Spacex. Sure its cheaper then the shuttle. Thats to be expected for a platform with a fraction of the capability of the shuttle or many other existing platforms.
We are in a fight for our lives and our freedoms. If you are ok with those who seek to take our freedoms then you are the enemy.
So you’re ok with “fly then fix” for SpaceX and the failures which that introduces but use the failures of NASA to condemn them?
kinda hypocritical
Comparing a C-130 to a 747 is laughable.
I don’t think they will be recovering the stages from the water for reuse in these flights. They just want to reduce the speed down to near zero before it hits the water..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.