Travis In Austin

. . . And Carnegie and JP Morgan and Leland Stanford and . . .

Other than the fact that NASA offered it up to a capitalist-free-market, winner take all, scenario and it was too big, too much risk. GOVT is involved in all kinds of things. The reason that the US is the leader, again, in semiconductors is the Govt-Private sector partnership in Austin called Sematech. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424786/lessons-from-sematech/ All of transportation in the US was GOVT led and subsidized. Railroads, Autos,. Air travel, everything. I think there are a lot of people who want to believe that an industry giant, or a sector in the economy is pure capitalist, built from the ground up,.It's a myth that supports their agenda. This thread proves that people are desperate to believe this myth, , but it is just a myth, a canard. The true genius of industry giants, from the industrial revolution up until today, is to take a giant vision and figure out how to partner with government in a way that makes the impossible possible.

This is the big year. Commercial Manned flight is scheduled. NASA has partnered with Boeing and SpaceX and test flights are scheduled for August, and crewed manned flights are scheduled for the end of the year. This has been in the works for 4 years and when we have manned space launches from the US again some uninformed fool will again say "man that is sometin', it figers NASA couldn't do 'er. Honey can you get me another Keystone and some of them spicy pigskins." This is what it has all been leading up to, this will separate the men from the boys, and this is what will accelerate SpaceX and/or Boeing into everything from Earth to earth suborbital flight, to asteroid mining, and even to landing man on Mars. This is the equivalent of breaking the 4 minute mile in terms of commercial Spaceflight. NASA will then begin awarding contracts to private companies to carry people to Space. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will return human spaceflight launches to U.S. soil, providing reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit on systems that meet our safety and mission requirements. To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demonstration Mission 1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will execute a flight test with crew prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation missions. The following schedule reflects the most recent publicly releasable dates for both providers. Targeted Test Flight Dates: Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): August 2018 Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): November 2018 SpaceX Demonstration Mission 1 (uncrewed): August 2018 SpaceX Demonstration Mission 2 (crewed): December 2018

Absolutely money well spent. As someone who has followed this weekly since we'll before 2004, I am trying to correct this misconception about NASA. They were trying to commercialize space flight for two decades before COTS. People seem to have this belief that Musk woke up one day and said I'm going to build a rocket, and he did it on his own and then shopped it to NASA. Or, the absurdity that NASA competes with SpaceX. They are partners. NASA was able to leverage their shrinking budget to a win-win. They set up parameters as to what they want, and let design competition win out. They are not going to get into a monopoly situation again, they will always have at least two contractors. That is their redundancy. If SpaceX or Orbital ATK blow one up on the pad there is another ready to jump in. This incentivizes safety. SpaceX started behind and have surpassed everyone. Better designs, better execution. The path is this. NASA needs something. Like getting man to ISS which they call the Commercial Crew Program (CCP). They offer money to firms to develop a design. Firms are awarded money to design. That goes through a few rounds, Rachel round the companies get money. They narrow it down to two companies to develop and actually build, test and fly the stuff. That is where we are now, CCtCAP and it is SpaceX and Boeing. This all came out of COTS, and COTS is NASA. Below is NASA's explanation of manned space flight costs and funding before and after COTS, and it is ABSOLUTELY money well spent . The emphasis is mine. How NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is DifferentNASA's Prior Approach for Obtaining Crew Transportation Systems:· NASA devised requirements for a crew transportation system that would carry astronauts into orbit, then the agency's engineers and specialists oversaw every development aspect of the spacecraft, its support systems and operations plans.· An aerospace contractor was hired to build the crew transportation system to the design criteria and the standards NASA furnished.· NASA personnel were deeply involved in the processing, testing, launching and operation of the crew transportation system to ensure safety and reliability. The space agency owned the spacecraft and its operating infrastructure.· Every spacecraft built for humans, from Mercury to Gemini and Apollo to the space shuttle and American section of the International Space Station, was built and operated using this model. Commercial Crew's Approach for Obtaining Crew Transportation Systems:· NASA's engineers and aerospace specialists work closely with companies to develop crew transportation systems that can safely, reliably and cost-effectively carry humans to low-Earth orbit, including the International Space Station, and return safely to Earth.· Interested companies are free to design the transportation system they think is best. For the contracts phase of development and certification, each company must meet NASA’s pre-determined set of requirements. · The companies are encouraged to apply their most efficient and effective manufacturing and business operating techniques throughout the process.· The companies own and operate their own spacecraft and infrastructure.· The partnership approach allows NASA engineers insight into a company’s development process while the agency’s technical expertise and resources are accessible to a company. Here is what it has cost at the stage we are at now, and total cost. Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap)Contract CCtCap is the second phase of a two-phase certification plan for commercially built and operated integrated crew transportation systems. Two FAR-based, firm fixed-price contracts were awarded in September 2014 following an open competition. Through its certification efforts, NASA will ensure the selected commercial transportation systems meet the agency’s safety and performance requirements for transporting NASA crew to the International Space Station. NASA awarded a total of $6.8 billion under CCtCap contracts. CCtCap Boeing - $4.2 billionSpaceX - $2.6 billion Who Is Involved These companies played roles in the development and certification phases of the Commercial Crew Program. Amounts are totals of all Space Act Agreements and contracts awarded to each company. Alliant Techsystems Participated in CCDev2 Unfunded partnership Blue Origin Participated in CCDev1 and CCDev2 Awarded $25.6 million Boeing Participated in CCDev1, CCDev2, CCiCap, CPC and CCtCap Awarded $4.82 billion Excalibur Almaz Inc. Participated in CCDev2 Unfunded partnership Paragon Space Development Corp. Participated in CCDev1 Awarded $1.4 million Sierra Nevada Corporation Participated in CCDev1, CCDev2, CCiCap and CPC Awarded $363.1 million SpaceX Participated in CCDev2, CCiCap, CPC and CCtCap Awarded $3.144 billion United Launch Alliance Participated in CCDev1 and CCDev2 Awarded $6.7 million

1. Cheeper than what, NASA partnered and funded half. 2. How are they faster, NASA funded 50% of everything you said, they spearheaded and managed every aspect of it. 3. NASA not only comprehended it, they approved the design, development and testing process, holding out a carrot the entire time. 4. You have really exposed yourself as not having an understanding of the facts and reality on how this development and funding worked. If you want to know the facts on the funding and how the development worked, read the report I posted above. From the Introduction: In May 2012, the SpaceX Dragon made headlines as it became the first commercial spacecraft to deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). In September 2013, NASA saw a second commercial partner, Orbital Sciences Corp., follow with its own resupply mission to the ISS. These successful missions represented the fruition of six years of intensive work executed under partnership agreements between NASA and the commercial space community—partnerships that both resulted in the availability of cost-effective cargo transportation services for the Agency, and the advancement of the U.S. commercial space industry. NASA’s support was critical to the companies’ success. Said Gwynne E. Shotwell, President of the Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), “We would not be the company that we are today without the support of NASA,” continuing, “We’d probably be limping along, trying to change the world, but limping instead of running.” Orbital President and CEO David W. Thompson echoed the sentiment as he described how NASA was “very helpful in helping us work through various kinds of problems that came up,” concluding that “it’s been a great relationship.” These partnerships had their origin in 2005, when NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin was appointed and, with the support of the presidential administration and Congress, allocated a fixed $500 million contribution from NASA’s budget for the instigation of commercial transportation capabilities to low-Earth orbit. The new Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office (C3PO) at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas was charged with the task of “stimulating commercial enterprise in space by asking American entrepreneurs to provide innovative, cost-effective commercial cargo and crew transportation services to the [international] space station.”

Musk didn't, NASA did. NASA made it clear with COTS in 2004-5. NASA is in partnership with SpaceX and the other winners. SpaceX and Boeing were project winners on manned flight to ISS, they begin testing this year. Quote on COTS, the same thing is going on with SpaceX moving to manned flight, partnership. Musk put in 100 million of his own money for SpaceX. Google and Fidelity are in for a billion. Guess how much NASA is in for just manned spaceflight development for SpaceX? NASA is leveraging taxpayer money and facilitating competition. The COTS Program demonstrated that with a limited investment (a total of about $788 million) NASA could encourage the development of non-government cargo delivery services. The majority of the development funds (approximately $1 billion) were provided by industries that saw a solid market for this new capability in ISS resupply. In the end, two new launch vehicles, their automated cargo carrier spacecraft, and the ground support systems needed to operate them were developed collaboratively. An amazing accomplishment in just 10 years. As noted by NASA Administrator Bolden, “The commercial space industry will be an engine of 21st Century American economic growth and will help us carry out even more ambitious deep space exploration missions.”

An acquaintance of mine in Austin, Richard Garriot, paid about 30 million to go up to ISS on a Russian flight. You can get it down to about 6 to 10 million a passenger with a Dream Chaser type vehicle which can launch on a Falcon 9, or an Atlas 5. "NASAs cost of 400 million for a Delta Heavy. Looks good to this taxpayer." @Mallette Technically it's ULA's price, which they were able to get from the USAF or NASA because they had a monopoly. That all ended this week with Falcon Heavy at 90 to 100 million per launch. They are going to be out of military launch business soon if they don't come up with something quick. I think they have about a half dozen contracts left, which I believe USAF or NASA can cancel before a certain point.

They lost out on CRS1, they appealed that and lost the GAO appeal. They were one of 3 that got approved (with SpaceX) for CRS2 and have NASA approval for a cargo flight in late 2020. After a few cargo flights I think they will get rapid approval for manned flight to ISS. That vehicle can land at any large commercial (or military) airport. It can be launched from an Atlas 5 rocket (110 million per launch, made in Texas by the way) or a Falcon 9 (60 million). It can launch from Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, or California without any new infrastructure. It holds six and is full automated with ground support and guidance. Boeing and SpaceX got the funding and approval for development of manned flight to ISS and they begin doing test flights this year. This vehicle could leapfrog over because of cost savings.

Here's what's next. http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-gets-nasa-approval-for-first-dream-chaser-iss-cargo-mission/

No it is firmly in the hands of NASA and the FAA. The FAA will have to certify any space vehicle designed to carry a human that is launched from the US.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Theirs"? We went from a government model to Govt-private partnership in 2006. The model is for the companies to own the vehicles and NASA to contract SpaceX exists because of Congress and ultimately NASA. NASA coordinated and managed half a billion in seed money to private companies in 2006 in order to be able to compete for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts. The brilliance of Musk isn't diminished by the fact that he siezed that opportunity to launch into the commercial space flight arena. He beat out about 10 other companies including Lockheed and Boieng to be one of two companies to be awarded CRS contracts. Three companies were awarded contracts under CRS2 which goes to about 2024 Familiarize yourself with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Program (COTS) if you want to understand how SpaceX went from a dream to a reality. Musk has never been shy about crediting COTS with allowing him to get into the game. I have attached the history of the program for those who want to truly understand how what happened yesterday was a result of what NASA implemented. Here is a great quote from SpaceX as to what NASA and COTS did for that company: NASA’s support was critical to the companies’ success. Said Gwynne E. Shotwell, President of the Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), “We would not be the company that we are today without the support of NASA,” continuing, “We’d probably be limping along, trying to change the world, but limping instead." SP-2014-617.pdf

Why? Absolutely incredible is right.

I was using "autonomous" in the sense that an autonomous airplane has no pilot, either in the cockpit, or on the ground. Computer generated artificial stability is in a lot of things we don't realize, and it makes for smoother and safer flight. However, it doesn't put us any closer to getting on a commercial airliner that has no pilot. The Capt. and FO are there to program, adjust for conditions, and most importantly, to be there when something designed, built, maintained and supplied by humans, goes wrong. It it is this last part that is the most difficult to automate, and you have got to build up flight hours in something, to begin to integrate it into a passenger aircraft. For a strategic bomber, I think a pilot will always be on board, even if the plane could be fully automated, just from a fail-safe perspective.

I never knew that.

It may be a "presumption." If it is rebuttable, this it isn't unconstitutional. Even if it was unconstitutional, I am not sure if that is a defense for you not registering your vehicle. It might very well be, but it is more in the nature of an "equitable" defense which is why you should heed Jeff's advice about laying it out and hoping the Judge sees the fairness of it all. It will be just as important to the judge that you tried to register in AR, got that fixed. You could have just as easily have registered it in Texas. Also be sure to let the judge know that you are from there, grew up there, and as soon as you could retire went back "home." You keep busy with teaching a couple of college courses and run a non-profit. I could help you more if you were busted running a still, growing marijuana or wanted to marry your cousin. Travis

Concur. BUT, you won the battle on the registration being unlocked, and got a ticket while you were battling it out right? I think you also want to show, maybe even more so, is the reason your car wasn't registered was that you tried to register it and they wouldn't let you. By the time you diligently were able to get someone to understand, you got a ticket. As to why this is, you are living in the one town in the United States which is the reason for this whole thing. I'm guessing that it costs more to register a car in Arkansas (is it based on FMV like in Nevada?) then it does in Texas. If that's the case, everyone who lives on the AR side of the line trys to find a TX address to register their vehicles (work, relative, etc.). They used to do this crap all the time at UT. DPS comes over and cruises all of the parking lots and issues tickets to everyone with out of state plates because you are supposed to register after 30 days of moving here.; they didn't realize that students are exempt (this isn't true in a lot of states). Texas has very weird laws on vehicle registration and they are all because of Texarkana and back in the day when people used to commute back and forth from Mexico to work. A non-resident owner of a privately owned vehicle that is not registered in the state may not make more than 5 occasional trips in any calendar month in the state using the vehicle. Each occasional trip into the state may not exceed 5 days. A non-resident owner of a privately owned passenger car that is not registered in the state or country in which the person resides and that is not operated for compensation may operate the car in this state for the period in which the car’s license plates are valid. Exempt from this are active-duty members of the US Armed Forces and full-time students from another state attending a Texas college or university. A resident of an adjoining state or country may operate a privately owned and registered vehicle to go to and from the person’s place of regular employment and to make trips to purchase merchandise if the vehicle is not operated for compensation.

I'm not sure. Maybe @Chief bonehead can chime in and tell us. I'm also pretty sure they offer rebuild kits if you want to do it yourself and keep it "stock." Again, I'm not sure what they currently offer. Travis

I know they rebuild some there in-house right there in Hope. But I am not sure which ones.

I think they do, and I think they even offer rebuild services. Travis

Tissue in the tweeter works great too, wait, that's Yamaha

Klipsch Heritage Museum Association, Inc. President and Curator, @JRH Jim Hunter has been busy down at the Klipsch Museum of Audio History.

Smartest thing anybody has ever said on this forum. A second choice is lucking into an audio friend who has very similar preferences as you do and getting their opinion. (Like a movie critic you agree with 95 percent of the time). Third school of thought is they are purists and don't want to mess with original design and purchase rebuild kit from Klipsch.

Best Buy has announced they will stop selling CD's this June. Sales peaked in 2001. End of an era. I knew it was just a.fad and would never take.

Correct, the lower larger cabinet that contains the complicated folded bass Horn that require a square corner to make the last fold of the horn.

Wow I can't wait for you to unpack that