Pirate 4x4 banner

61 - 80 of 148 Posts

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,525 Posts
Do you also build your own trucks or are you relying on a reliable, cost effective alternative to making your own that already exists?
It's a joke, not a dick.

We make some large things. We also make the parts small enough to fit on our own truck so we don't have to spend money renting a YUUUUUGE truck.

Let the south americans do the final assembly at $0.42/hr :flipoff2:


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
we should have the resources to be able to do our own launching to get OUR astronauts into space.

but instead, we rely on a country that you claimed is interfering with our elections? What private sector is building and launching Soyuz rockets that transport our people to the ISS?
I agree with you 100% there.

What I don't agree with is the anger expressed on this thread that Lockheed, a private company, had to contract out with another private company to launch their telecom satellite built for a private foreign-run company.

I don't see that as a situation where NASA needs more taxpayer money to help Lockheed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
Since when do you guys advocate for US taxpayer-funded, government-run institutions taking over duties that can be handled by a private business?



If that's the way we're going, I have a great idea for healthcare in this country. :flipoff2:


Come on man. You got to feel a bit guilty picking on him when he’s all lathered up. :flipoff2:

Well played sir. Well played indeed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,852 Posts
I agree with you 100% there.

What I don't agree with is the anger expressed on this thread that Lockheed, a private company, had to contract out with another private company to launch their telecom satellite built for a private foreign-run company.

I don't see that as a situation where NASA needs more taxpayer money to help Lockheed.
That and people saying Lockheed's should just build their own plane, take years to certify it, and maintain and crew it to transport something and windmill our american dick around for all to see. Instead they can just call the airplane equivalent of a dude in flip flops and track suit with a vnl780 to haul it across the country for them. Make sense to me if that's the cheaper option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
What's the problem? I've flown on a Russian AN-124 many times while transporting the Atlas V rocket. We flew out of Denver and delivered to the Cape and Vandenberg. Using the AN-124 for transport is nothing new. It is a heavy lift plane and has range.

FYI - the plane that handled the satellite would be held by Volga-Dnepr. They are an international company with operations in many countries including Ireland and Houston, TX, USA so that they can do business with countries like the US. There are also trade laws, specifically International Traffic in Arms, that regulate contracts, transport and handling of information/hardware like the satellite going to S. America to the Japanese.

So, unwad your panties and read up a little about how the world works.
Not only but that but the Antonov Corp that designed and built the the plane is Ukrainian and not Russian anyway.
Yes the basis for the AN-225 the AN-124 was used by the Soviets military, but the An-225 was intended for transporting the Buran shuttle.
ON TOP of all that the AN-225 even built wasn't built and ready to fly until shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union and then the plan became property of it's home country I.E. Ukraine, so it spent very little time if any as an asset of the Soviet military.

So I guess you can bitch about it all you want, but why your argument is invalid right from the hop.
 

·
Surgical Shotgunner
Joined
·
15,752 Posts
I don't see that as a situation where NASA needs more taxpayer money to help Lockheed.
who said anything about launching a private satellite on taxpayer money? I gave an example of the USPS vs UPS vs Fedex, et al.

Put Americans to work competing with private companies for these types of ventures. Unless you just like giving the Musk $5 billion or so of taxpayer money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,681 Posts
Pay attention numb nuts, the former :mr-t: defunded most of NASA, meaning no new research into new rockets that could cheaply carry payloads (for cash) and now we along with other countries have to export our needs.

Had NASA a real budget, we could be raking in the money for commercial launches.
Because US .gov agencies & their suppliers are known for doing things cost effectively and being commercially competitive.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,947 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
who said anything about launching a private satellite on taxpayer money? I gave an example of the USPS vs UPS vs Fedex, et al.

Put Americans to work competing with private companies for these types of ventures. Unless you just like giving the Musk $5 billion or so of taxpayer money.
You're getting lost in the weeds dude.
OB was mad that his favorite :mr-t: defunded(as in took taxpayer money away from) NASA and they couldn't help Lockheed launch their satellite. I found it ironic that such a sentiment would be brought up on this site and said so. Then you showed up to disagree with what I said. So to answer your question, everyone but you was talking about launching a private satellite on taxpayer money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
I'm not getting all the SpaceX hate here. Yes, Elon is a bit eccentric, but SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. Every satellite that goes up on a Falcon 9 vs an Atlas V is saving us our tax dollars. Don't even get me started on the SLS that NASA is ramming though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
I'm not getting all the SpaceX hate here. Yes, Elon is a bit eccentric, but SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. Every satellite that goes up on a Falcon 9 vs an Atlas V is saving us our tax dollars. Don't even get me started on the SLS that NASA is ramming though.
Because no one can seem to separate Musk's businesses from each other, so they think space x is getting tons of government subsidies, even though it isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Because no one can seem to separate Musk's businesses from each other, so they think space x is getting tons of government subsidies, even though it isn't.
In all honesty SpaceX was given a large amount of cash to develop the commercial resupply vessels, but then again so was Boeing. The shit part is that when the money is allocated for future launch contracts they give Boeing/ULA way more money because their rockets are so much more expensive to launch. That sucks for us, the tax payer.

In all fairness to ULA, their rockets have a ridiculous success record than SpaceX should strive to meet.

In fairness to SpaceX, their lower costs have finally caused ULA to work on increasing efficiency and start work on their new Vulcan rocket.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,530 Posts
The real outrage here should be that we have to ship a satellite out of the country to be launched into space by someone else and not by NASA since Obama decided to dismantle our space program and make NASA in charge of how to fall in love with Muslims.

We put men on the moon 50 years ago and we have to ship a satellite to French GuineaPig in 2020 to get into Earths Orbit.


Thanks, Obama.
Fuck even I know that the reason for the South American launch site is to allow the satellite to take off from the equator. By launching from the equator the rocket gains free speed from the spinning of the earth. You can launch bigger payloads from the equator than from the cape with the same size rocket. Surprised it took so long for someone to mention that. The pbb is slacking.
 
61 - 80 of 148 Posts
Top