Commercial space pleads with NASA to stop moving the goalposts in orbit

NASA's new Moon plan isn't the only policy shift causing concern. Parts of the commercial space industry are also uneasy about the agency's latest change of direction. During a hearing of the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Dave Cavossa, President of the Commercial Space Federation compared …

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it take 10 years to build a vacuum-proof cylinder with a mating adapter at both ends that will fit on top of a rocket?

[Charlie Clark]

Are those European or African cylinders?

The ISS was built ad-hoc by a number of different countries – one of the reasons why it was so expensive. But also the only reason it ever got built. While it's done some useful science, it has always been largely a political project with little or no commercial appeal.

[ecofeco]

With or without a coconut?

[Alan Brown]

Yup, this in spades.

The Russian module in particular was built with American money as a way of ensuring that ex-Soviet designers didn't get poached away into weapons systems development

The USA has been its own worst enemy in this area - the same senators who insist that parts be made in their state to secure voters employment as the ones who insist that newer technology not be developed because what works is good enough. A classic example is the shuttle solid boosters - they were a quick kludge intended to only be used until manned-flight-safe liquid fuelled return-to-base boosters were ready. Those liquid fuelled boosters were cancelled because solid fuelled boosters existed and did the job adequately. We all know how that ended up.

As for why the boosters ended up being made in Utah (which limited segment size thanks to transport constraints). that's entirely down to "government pork". It would have made more economic and logistical sense to build on the space coast and barge to Canavera, but legalised bribes (lobbying) got in the way.

[AVR]

If you want it to draw power from solar panels, support life or run equipment inside you might want a few more features than that.

[Headley_Grange]

"If you want it to draw power from solar panels, support life or run equipment inside you might want a few more features than that."

"Welcome, Mr President. Would you like to have a look inside the next ISS while you're here?"

Trump steps inside cylinder and asks, "Shouldn't it have a door at the other end too?" followed by a big CLANG and the faint sounds of welding.

[EricM]

Why should it take 6 to 8 years to develop a new car from scratch? It's just a box with a wheel on each corner...

In other words: You might miss the one or the other order of magnitude in complexity in your description.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it take 10 years

"cylinder with a mating adapter at both ends that will fit on top of a rocket?"

Usually take humans a few more years to work out how to use their corresponding kit. :)

[Annihilator]

Yeah exactly, it's not exactly rocket science... Oh... wait...

Pretty sure they'll want it to do more than those 3 requirements you suggest.

[DJO]

It's not rocket science, if you're any good at maths rocket science is reasonably easy; "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", remember that and you're halfway there.

This is rocket (or more accurately, space) engineering which is mind boggling complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tsiolkovsky would like a word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

[DJO]

I am well aware of that particularly evil formula but that is purely an engineering issue - it's used to calculate how much fuel is needed to lift the fuel that lifts the fuel that........

It's needed to design† the rocket but has little to do with rocketry principles‡.

† - Engineering.

‡ - Science.

[Alan Brown]

Rocket science is easy. Rocket ENGINEERING is where the difficulties start

[Charlie Clark]

NASA Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations…

…companies just left the building. Calling for an RFI in 2026 for something that is due to be in orbit in just a few years, requiring billions of USD in investment is a serious as the job description of the acting administrator.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: NASA Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations…

We're talking about the organisation which is seriously proposing to land people on the moon the year after next - and recover them, probably - using a human-rated development of a rocket which hasn't yet reached orbit and which has exploded on five our of eleven attempted launches. Within those two years they also have to develop a tanker version and a way of refuelling in space.

Within. Two. Years.

It makes Musk's predictions for his Mars colony (I think it was due to have triple-breasted prostitutes by now) positively conservative.

[Alan Brown]

Re: NASA Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations…

"which has exploded on five our of eleven attempted launches"

In case it slipped your attention, SpaceX have subjected those stacks to loads vastly in excess of the anticipated ones in order to ENSURE they blew up and then work out what broke first (plus how it did so) in order to iterate towards the strongest & lightest working solution (ie: These are INTENDED to be destructive tests providing critical data)

You can computer model this shit all you like, real world mechanics and engineering are still orders of magnitude more complicated than what we can simulate and many of the stresses involved are very difficult to replicate on the ground in practical testing

A sucessful launch and landing, only proves what you already know. A failure expands by demonstrating what you DON'T know.

It might be big loud and public, but device failures in the testing phase are not R&D failures, nor are they setbacks in the overall scheme of things unless you're chasing politically motivated hard deadlines which in the space industry have repeatedly proven to have emphasis on DEAD

[The Organ Grinder's Monkey]

Re: NASA Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations…

Ref "it was due to have triple-breasted prostitutes"

Wasn't that Eroticon 6?

[Alan Brown]

Re: NASA Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations…

Acting or permanent, the administrator is a political figurehead

The DEPUTY (director, administrator, etc) is the important one in any USA bureaucracy.

[KarMann]

High-level get-there-itis?

"They're ready to move faster... we're ready to shortcut wherever we can in order to get a module up there."

Yeah, certainly, nothing's ever gone badly in spaceflight just because they cut a few corners to get things up in time, right? What's the worst that could happen? -->

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: High-level get-there-itis?

Why do the people suggesting these shortcuts never volunteer to be the guinea pigs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: High-level get-there-itis?

Probably similar to the group of US presidents who start wars but who haven't served in the military

[Philo T Farnsworth]

Re: High-level get-there-itis?

Yup, "we're ready to shortcut wherever we can" are not words that should be ever uttered in connection with space and, particularly, human space flight.

Not unless you're prepared to fly the flags at half staff for a week.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Lucy and Charlie Brown

Did I miss the banns ?

If Charlie Brown managed to find himself hitched to Lucy van Pelt there cannot be much hope for the world… actually that seems about right.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Lucy and Charlie Brown

Eats shoots and leaves?

Isn't Charlie Brown pretty much the only character to be referred to by his full name? This is entirely unnecessary, but the whole point because there are no other Charlies in the cartoon. I think you could a have pub quiz based on the full name of the characters!

That aside, I think it's easy enough to see them together.

[NorthIowan]

Re: Lucy and Charlie Brown

Lucy Van Pelt

[Gene Cash]

The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

So whatever the president does with NASA - either more or less money - then congress does the opposite just to spite him. NASA makes an excellent punching bag because it doesn't really have constituents like, for example, farming subsidies where all the farmers would jump up and down if it was messed with.

This is not just Trump. This goes back to every administration starting with Nixon after Apollo ended.

NASA has no way to plan a damned thing past a year, and anything multi-year gets crapped on.

One of the reasons SLS is so expensive is that they stop work every year because the gov't defunds something then funds something else, and it's "different pots of money" so you can't just keep working on what you were working on. This is why it's taken 3 years and half a billion dollars just to build a god damned launch tower.

[MachDiamond]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

"farming subsidies where all the farmers would jump up and down if it was messed with."

There's also the matter of the country going hungry, reduced exports and no food to turn into alcohol to water down the petrol. The look of that in the press would be brutal and there's always an upcoming election.

NASA's benefit is on a longer time scale. There are still new commercial technologies coming out of Apollo era research. Politicians don't really get the value of pure science.

The way to cut corners without cutting corners is to sit down and come up with a good plan and then execute on that plan as quickly as possible. Only make changes when confronted with physical impossibilities. The other is to allocate the budget AND the money to circumvent lack of funding a couple of times per year when the government shuts down. There are many things that can't be stopped to sit around for a month and can be restarted again. It adds costs in other ways such as how TSA agents that aren't getting paid are forced to find other jobs to keep from getting evicted from their homes. Some of those won't be returning which will require training new replacements at an additional cost.

I expect there where many changes to the launch tower over 3 years. Had it been built in 6 months, there would have only been the most critical changes. I watched a video on one of the construction railroads built to construct the Hoover Dam. 3 shifts per day, 7 days per week from inception to completion taking 5 months (lots of hark rock tunnels). No spending years with environmental reports, re-planning the route and the budget spent on "consultants'. A freeway widening project now takes years and the one near me never seems to have people working on it. One day there will be machinery and the next week it's gone for a month. The signs went up a good 6 months before anything started and I expect they'll be up for 6 months after the work is done before being taken down. In the mean time, it will still be a "construction zone" so all citations will be double fines.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

I think planning and funding and execution are separate from some of the other things you raise. One of the reasons for environmental assessments is that failing to do them in the past led to some fairly unpleasant unexpected consequences. The Hooever Dam was indeed an impressive achievement but I believe that it may only have a few decades left to due continual reduction in rainfall in the catchment area – I could be wrong on that so I don't want to make it the point to be discussed just an example of a project with potentially unforeseen downsides. A better example in another country would the Three Gorges Project in China which is already running into trouble. In fact, China has started doing more environmental assessments as the potential effects of climate change become more visible.

[Alan Brown]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

If the dam continues at the current pace Hoover dam is less than 18 months from Deadpool (water levels so low the outlet works cant function - effectively a few feet above the old riverbed level - at which point the river below the dam dried up entirely) and hovering close to levels where the hydro turbines can't function anymore.

The turbines were already reengineered to handle low water about a decade ago, at cost of 40% reduction in output (vs shutting down entirely). Once you hit hydro shutoff there's only a few months until Water supply to Las Vegas fails (it would have already if new tunnels hadn't been drilled by a mayor with foresight, whilst facing considerable opposition from LV businesses. The previous two inlet levels are high and dry.)

Analysis of historic weather patterns indicates that the 19th-20th century was 25% wetter than normal and this one has been 20% drier than normal (it started getting dry shortly before the dam was completed). The problem with that is that all the water treaties and allocations are based on that wetter period and are 20% higher than the river can sustainably provide, whilst everyone invol;ved utterly REFUSES to face facts and accept that lower drawoff rates are needed. The river is about to make that decision for them.

It's not just Hoover dam and Lake Mead. Glenn Canyon dam and Lake Powell are even more badly affected, as is the Davis dam downstream. The Colorado river is still (barely) functional as it reaches Mexico but hasn't consistently reached the sea for decades and the wetlands there are in critical danger

[retiredFool]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

Couple points. Hoover while fast also had a little over 100 people die in the construction. Fast often means shortcuts = deaths. I'll give the Hoover guys credit though, the Panama canal had a massive 22000 French deaths and then the US took it over and another 5600 died. Panama was another get it done fast job. NASA has done a remarkable job in death counts given what they are doing and totally agree the long term benefits of those NASA programs is completely lost on politicians. They really are just looking for some pork in their state/district. In a way I think DARPA flies lower on the radar of the critters. Maybe not though, I imagine DARPA does some pork too, just not as a public.

Time will tell if the Farmers jump up and down with the Iran crises. From what I understand they are already screwed. Even if the strait opened tomorrow, 30 days to get those ships of Urea to the US, and a few more to get them to the midwest. Planting season will be over. I imagine they are substituting potash as best they can, too late to change to a different crop that matches to potash better. Expect crop yields to be meaningfully lower this fall. But I guess ok, as most people get their food at the grocery. /s

[Annihilator]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

Not to mention it didn't really complete when they said it did. They rushed the job of anchoring the dam to the bedrock and didn't complete the grout curtain properly where it was too difficult. They spent a further decade discreetly correcting all of that.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

"Expect crop yields to be meaningfully lower this fall. "

That will be OK. What with the rise in diesel prices, less food will be delivered to the larger cities. Supply and demand will level things out.

Excuse my little attempt at dark humor.

[joypar]

Re: potash and urea

Potassium is not a substitute for nitrogen or for phosphate as a fertiliser because plants need all three. You don't have to take my word for it, read any book on botany, gardening or agriculture.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: potash and urea

True.

Buf if you tell the greenies that, while CO2 is a plant food, plants also need fixed nitrogen (NOx). So pardon me while I start up my non DEF diesel truck.

And then listen to them howl.

[Alan Brown]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

Getting food at the grossery is different from being able to afford it.

[Alan Brown]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

"There's also the matter of the country going hungry, reduced exports and no food to turn into alcohol to water down the petrol."

Which is something that's in the process of happening thanks to tariffs affecting the cost of imported potash

The first thing that will happen is sharply reduced exports as USA farmers can no longer compete on world markets whilst internal costs increase (this is already happening) and then the cycle will start spiralling into a crash.

The effects are delayed slightly as there were high USA stockpiles for the 2025-6 growing season but the oncoming 2026-7 growing year is looking to be nasty. Many farmers aren't even bothering to plan for planting

The element of forward planning and effects projections has always been missing from USA actions. This time it's directly hitting home in ways that will strike to the heart of the problem pool of voters (who will still blame libtards and commies regardless)

[Charlie Clark]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

To be fair, Trumpty also managed to bankrupt more than a few farmers when annoyed China so much they stopped buying soya beans and pork.

[Alan Brown]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

Chinese farmers stopped buying soybeans because the government culled hundreds of millions of pigs whilst combatting the spread of african hemmoragic swine fever. You don't buy animal feed for animals that don't exist and farmers (should) have natural disaster insurance to account for that kind of thing happening in their largest customer.

US Pork was set to sweep in like rescuing angels (and would have subsequently purchased all the unsold USA soybeans - the Chinese market is 3 times the size of the USA one) but the orange turd's mantrums slammed that door in their faces mid negotiations.

Amongst other things, that shitcanned USA-China collaboration on TMSR-LF1 (a rebuild of ORNL MSRE) and pretty much ensured that China will be the economic hyperpower of the last half of this century.

[ecofeco]

Re: The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

The president and congress dick around with NASA every damn year

This. ^^^

[Brave Coward]

Lucy and Charlie Brown (again)

'Dave Cavossa, [...] compared NASA's changing goals to "Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football."'

Not a very good comparison. Everybody knows Lucy is already in the sky (with lots of diamonds).

Poor Charlie Brown, on the other hand...

[Oneman2Many]

What they described as the issue is that there is no private company wanting to get into the space station business that has viable plan which is not surprising as beyond space tourism is there any many to be made with a LEO space station. They have extended ISS to 2032 to give industry more time but I can't see it changing the situation, they even talked about selling the 'commander seat', whatever that means to raise more funds.

Axiom looked like they were getting close but sounds like Axiom are bankrupt as they own money left, right and centre. I have serious doubt about them getting the space suits ready and I think it was mentioned at the press conference to bring suit manufacturing back inhouse with NASA.

Vast have at least built something and have a viable plan, but their plan doesn't have any connection to ISS.

Orbital Reed from Blue sounds promising but not heard anything further after the initial announcement.

No wonder industry is finding it hard to work with NASA on a LEO space station.

[MachDiamond]

"What they described as the issue is that there is no private company wanting to get into the space station business that has viable plan "

It takes an enormous amount of sustaining budget to keep a station operational regardless of tourists or commercial firms wanting to do research. The US will just print money to do that where private companies don't have the luxury. There are also laws in the US that publicly traded companies have to act in the best interest of their owners (shareholders). That's wide open to interpretation so building and operating a space station without an anchor tenant that can pay its bills regularly and one time is a concern. Being self-employed, I'm not getting a paycheck like clockwork every 2 weeks. Creditors are keen on operating on monthly cycles and won't bend on that. While over the course of a year I do just fine, over the course of a few months I might be a ragged payer. That's costly and really hard to budget (not that budgeting is taught in school for this sort of thing). If a winter is particularly slow, I can go through my reserves and have to put some things off to keep other things paid. Getting the cushion built up is a long term operation. While I'm not putting off paying for things now, I'm very hesitant to take on any long term debt that requires regular monthly payments. The next car will again be cash which also means I can have insurance with a higher deductible and a lower cost.

[Paul Hovnanian]

"building and operating a space station without an anchor tenant that can pay its bills regularly and one time is a concern"

And that would be one or more governments. Bring the money. We'll run the shows and restaurants.

Las Vegas calls them whales.

[MachDiamond]

"And that would be one or more governments."

The US government shuts down and stops printing money from time to time so that rent check to a private company might not get paid. To just shut down mission control for ISS and abandon the crew would be a bad look and no way to explain that away where saying that due to regulations a check couldn't be issued with the same sort of outcomes might be tried.

There's also a question of whether there will be projects and money in the next budget for orbital lab investigations. There would have to be a contract for the entire planned life of the station from those governments to rely on them for continuous funding. Even then......

[Alan Brown]

"There are also laws in the US that publicly traded companies have to act in the best interest of their owners (shareholders)."

Not quite but near enough. This is case law interpretation of existing laws and there's an important caveat - "unless the shareholders direct otherwise"

Meaning that if the shareholders direct that the company prioritise green R&D or very long term survivability (or anything else) over maximising shareholder returns, then the company must follow those directions as best it can without damaging its viability.

The problem is usually "activist shareholders" who want to asset strip the company and destroy its viability in the process. Couple that with sociopathic management and you have a perfect storm on your hands, as we've seen so often over the last 40 years.

[cd]

Make gambling, drugs, and and porn legal in space and on the moon. Drop hints about huge rare earth deposits.

Then step aside so as not to be run over.

[Paul Hovnanian]

In space, no one can hear your investors scream.

[imanidiot]

Gateway cancelled, now they have to do something with the modules being built for it.

It looks to me like NASA is having a bad case of sunk cost fallacy and wants desperately to find another place to put the habitation module it is building for the Lunar Gateway (that rightfully is getting abandoned). So suddenly NASA want's to "build it's own space station" and require others to dock to it. The only thing that really makes sense is going to the space station providers it was already contracting with and asking them "hey, we've got this fully designed an nearly built module, can we do something with it by connecting it to your station?" Find one of the commercial destination partners that has the best plan of "doing something with it" and then do that something with it.

[Irongut]

They have already said the Gateway hub module is going to Mars on a nuclear rocket.

[MachDiamond]

"It looks to me like NASA is having a bad case of sunk cost fallacy and wants desperately to find another place to put the habitation module it is building for the Lunar Gateway (that rightfully is getting abandoned)."

Lack of proper program planning. Gateway was part of a much longer term mission architecture that was very ambitious and shouldn't have been started in the first place. The goal of getting humans back on the moon and doing some work on establishing a (semi-) permanent presence should have been the first paragraph. Not longer term compatibility for things a decade down the road and a South Lunar Pole mining consortium.

Congress and NASA have been making very poor decisions of late. Jim Bridenstine, former NASA Administrator, commented that what NASA needed for Artemis was a lander and what an ACTING administrator bought was an entire giant rocket architecture. The largest single contract award to date by NASA.

The concept of NASA having industry propose the hardware seems like a poor idea. In the past, NASA did the engineering and put out requests for bids to build it. There will always be some back and forth, but the design lead was NASA, not the contractor. It may all wind up falling apart. No lander, no suits and jobs program main rocket with a limited build number. Once the RS-25 engines are used up, that's it for the Senate Launch System. It's not going to be easy to bolt up BE-4 or Raptor v8 engines to the existing design and will likely be simpler to make an entirely new rocket. If a continuous presence on the moon is really a goal, that new rocket needs to be in design now with production that can support 4+ missions per year with some good margins.

[Alan Brown]

When does NASA _NOT_ have sunk cost fallacy?

James Webb telescope could have been built more cheaply and faster if it was scrapped and started over (twice) even with those costs folded into the project budget

SLS is a perfect example of sunk cost resulting in extreme expense and dubious usability

The current situation reminds me of the comparison between R100 and R101 - one was commercially developed (Vickers) and quite sucessful whilst the other literally crashed and burned on its first revenue flight - which resulted in the sucessful commercial venture being scrapped and crushed with steamrollers by government edict within a month

[Steve Foster]

"goalposts in space"

Really? Of all the things to put into orbit, when did we do that?

And what sort? Football (soccer for our American acquantainces), Rugby, Hockey, American Football, or some other sport?

Or were they put up as a target for when Elon sent his Tesla Roadster aloft?

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: "goalposts in space"

Why do I hear "goalposts in space" in Tim Curry's voice?

[Irongut]

Re: "goalposts in space"

I hear everything "... in SPACE!" in the voice of whoever did the voieover for "PIGS IN SPACE!" on the Muppets.

[QET]

Re: Why do I hear "goalposts in space" in Tim Curry's voice?

C&C Red Alert 3?

[Charlie Clark]

Re: "goalposts in space"

Wasn't there planet cricket?

Mine's the one with the book called "They should never had made books of the radio show" in the pocket.

[Pete 2]

Re: "goalposts in space"

Due to the vagaries of orbital mechanics, moving goalposts in space requires complex manoeuvres to achieve the desired result. Ones that, I suspect, are far beyond the calculating abilities of NASA beancounters

[Dagg]

Re: "goalposts in space"

Sorry when I first read this I read "Due to the vaginas of orbital mechanics"

[Gort99]

Re: "goalposts in space"

"requires complex manoeuvres to achieve the desired result"

No, I think you're right.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: "goalposts in space"

How about the mechanics involved in a free-kick from just outside the area? And what does the wall do when the ball is gently chipped?

[MachDiamond]

Re: "goalposts in space"

"when Elon sent his Tesla Roadster aloft?"

Martin Eberhard's Roadster that Elon usurped?

[Hurn]

Err... what's a "free-flyer" in this context?

"Eventually, the new element would become a free-flyer."

Is this like, if both parents fly first class, their kid flies for free?

Is there some other article, preferably not behind a pay wall, which explains this usage?

Thanks very much.

[Richard 12]

Re: Err... what's a "free-flyer" in this context?

In space, a "free flyer" is a thing that's in orbit and not attached to anything else.

Usually that's intentional, sometimes not so much

[geoffarnold]

Here's a free tip to the private sector: move on without NASA and develop your own systems...like Space X is doing. Space X will eventually move on from NASA because their goals are far in advance of that agency's myopic vision.

[Chris Coles]

NASA is in deep trouble caused by certain knowledge withheld by US military

NASA is about to launch a rocket to the moon.

Might it be that they, NASA, have recently come to fully understand that there are other people in the United States administration that have known for at least 70 years; that there are resident upon the surface of the planet; particularly in Nevada, several forms of alien life that had arrived here long before their discovery post WW2 that enjoy the capacity to travel interstellar distances at speeds greater than the speed of light, with vehicles, some small local craft created with materials obtained here on our planet, that would probably cost little more than a few million $ to build?

To open try reading the 1965 record of the experiences of Charles James Hall in his six volumes titled; Millennial Hospitality, where, for example, he records witnessing a small craft rise ~20 feet above ground and then travel 7 miles, start to stop in 3 seconds at an average speed of 8,400 mph, and at another place, that the craft; has; No Seat Belts.

Yes, it is so easy to comment that his observations are rubbish; except that was 1965 now more than 70 years ago.

It remains my belief that Hall was correctly describing simple facts. Facts that it would seem no one in the US military, (Generals often mentioned), that had passed on their certain knowledge to the likes of NASA. Yes, I disagree with Halls explanation of how to achieve their technology; and that I had written a chapter in my 2017 book The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy . . . titled; The Control of Gravity. That book was removed from sale by me as I am an opponent to the Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty; which I am convinced made the UK and Australia a colony of the US. That I had asked the Trump administration to tear up that treaty, but was ignored. Yes, I admit that was a mistake; be that as it may, there is a single copy of a later edition deposited in the United Kingdom British Library titled: The Universe is a Steady State Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy . . . that still has that chapter inside it.

A large part of my problem has been that I only recently discovered that the Royal Society in London, had been , apparently for many decades, "Binning" yes destroying; every paper or book copy sent, or in my case delivered to their front desk, to be passed into their library. So every copy of my work was automatically destroyed, rather than looked at for further discussion. I was told, "thousands of pages every year" by their librarian.

On my part I have made the decision that my work will NEVER be published in the English language until that treaty is torn up. That the control of gravity will never be taught in any English language university until the treaty is destroyed, and as such I have a proposal to create a totally independent Gravity and Energy Research Institute before the French government.

It is my profound belief that the refusal to accept any new thinking that destroys Big Bang theory by the most senior scientists in the UK had very effectively destroyed both Cosmology and Physics science in the UK. My last attempt to deliver a copy of my book to the Royal society president with a request to be allowed to demonstrate my facts regarding the associated discovery of the need to re-access Newtons third law to the RS membership, was in fact not even placed in front of the then president, that was also binned.

That Charles James Hall's description of what he observed in Nevada in 1965 was very accurate, and that NASA has recently discovered that Hall was correct; having just spent billions on an VERY old fashioned rocket. In which case now imagine the difficulties NASA now faces in relating their discovery to everyone.

The Royal Society in England has very effectively completely destroyed their credibility by creating a new religion called Big Bang; by refusing to accept ANY new thinking.

NASA must now accept their responsibility to tell everyone that they have been deliberately deceived by their own military; that they have to stop building a rocket, when others already on the planet can deliver anyone, anywhere in the surronding universe, at speeds beyond the speed of light.

[Excused Boots]

Re: NASA is in deep trouble caused by certain knowledge withheld by US military

Now I haven’t downvoted, because I don’t. But I do have to say ‘wow, just fucking wow’.

[Chris Coles]

Re: NASA is in deep trouble caused by certain knowledge withheld by US military

Just to relate that all my new emails disappeared this morning. So someone else has decided they do not like my remarks.

It remains my belief that the US military enjoy control over gravity, and have kept that a total secret, even from NASA.