Thanks for the link. I'll use them next time.
I did, however, check the receipts from my last Estes launch. The figure I cited seemed a little high. I was right. It was actually $7.50.
But, still...
On Mar 1, 2022, at 11:46 PM, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:You should have bought it from the ACME catalog: https://laughingsquid.com/the-acme-catalog-retro-product-catalog-for-looney-tunes-fans/
Pretty sure they do fixed price. But no guarantees...
On 3/1/22 19:28, Michael Kelly (mskellyrlv) wrote:The cost of everything is skyrocketing. That includes the cost of skyrockets, which is...uh...hmmm...increasing very rapidly (I couldn't think of a snappy metaphor).
This hurts the poorest among us the hardest. And it isn't just the cost of skyrockets. Think of the effect of inflation on hot air balloons. And the weight of the cost of anvils, not to mention pharmaceutical costs (such as earthquake pills) are huge burdens. The cost of portable holes? Don't get me started.
These all hit the poorest among us, the lowly coyote, pricing all of the basic tools of survival out of reach to those wretched creatures.
It isn't just NASA or coyotes who are affected. My last Estes rocket launch set me back $750,000. So, yes, this thread is relevant to us amachures.
Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 1, 2022, at 9:19 PM, William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gentlemen, and I note that we are all men, some apparently not so gentle:
1. This has nothing to do with amateur rockets.
2. I observe that this conversation reveals a very great deal about our individual unconscious drives…but then I am a manager and used to seeing what drives….
3. Which part of NASA is a jobs program do you not parse?
Just sayin’
Bill
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 7:07 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I don't speak french and I'm in the US,
Ken
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:03 PM Matthew JL <prmattjl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:In French a potato is an “earth apple,” I’d be wary of your analogies ;)
Best,
-Matt L.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:29 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Apollo is apples and potatoes, it was never going to be a long term program let alone reusable. Apollo 20 was going to be the end and didn't even make it that far.
Mars was supposed to follow.
Ken
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:10 AM Matthew JL <prmattjl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Apollo was ~$90 billion adjusted for inflation for the Saturn V ($50 billion) and CSM ($37 billion) and yet we’re up in arms over the same capability as that for about half the price (SLS being $27 billion and Orion being $24 billion).
Need I add that NASA’s budget is still significantly less than half what it was at the height of Apollo despite enjoying record public enthusiasm.
PS - contract cost divided by number of units always distorts the marginal cost and it’s a mistake I see across the board.
Best,
-Matt L.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:42 PM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:It's now over twenty billion since 2010.
On 3/1/22 10:32, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:SLS, presumably. Is anyone shocked? ~$4 billion a year program budget, ~one flight a year, let's see, divide 4 by 1... However the SLS establishment massaged the numbers, that's what it was always going to work out to.
Ignoring the huge development costs, of course. I've lost track. How many tens of billions have been sunk into this thing over the years? With or without its Ares predecessor, it's a very large number.
Henry
On 3/1/2022 10:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:Aahhhhhhhhhhhhhh…. -George Sent from my iPhone
