In article fca37f21-ccdb-4fa8-bc0e-7f3b0c3b55a4
@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 27, 3:58*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article db229aed-e88d-4a56-8a94-d4ee72451455
@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...
Your better and assuming less crazy solution is?

In commercial space (which is where Mook seems to want to play), my
solution is to let the free market sort it all out.

Public funded NASA is not "free market", more like just the opposite.

Mook's rocket wouldn't be publicly funded (since he keeps claiming that
he's going to find investors fot it), hence I'm talking about commercial
space first. And yes, this would include commercial launches purchased
by NASA or any other government agency. This is little different than
NASA shipping a package by UPS or a NASA employee flying from JSC to KSC
on a commercial airliner.

Mook's fly-by-rocket version seems perfectly doable, if not a whole
lot cheaper and much cleaner than existing alternatives.

Bull. Again, paper rockets are ALWAYS cheaper than real ones. Mook's
paper design is no better than all of the other crazy ideas other people
have had over the past several decades. His cost estimates are
laughable and his mission profile is Rube Goldberg at best.

*There is zero
demand for a vehicle as big as Mook proposes.
Not true. You obviously have no idea what developing the interior of
our moon, my LSE-CM/ISS, or that of relocating our moon to Earth L1
involves?

None of those are funded. Again, there is currently no commercial
demand for a launch vehicle this big.

*Mook thinks that it's
"obvious" that space based power is the market, but that market does not
yet exist.
We're starving for any surplus of clean energy. Spare energy means
everything, especially if it's clean, renewable and as cheap or
cheaper than Mook energy.

Proposals using untested (in flight, in space, etc) technologies won't
be funded commercially. Investors aren't that stupid.

*I'd like to see NASA supporting commercial space more than
it already is. *I'd like to see commercial ISS resupply happening today.
We can't afford NASA or their pet/insider contractors. Mook can
replace each of those, as well as doing it faster and cheaper to boot.

Bull. NASA's current direction with the Direct style shuttle derived
launch vehicle is going to be cheaper than Mook's fantasy vehicle.

In government funded space (where NASA plays), I'm happy to see NASA
being told to build something sane, which looks to be something along
the lines of what Direct has been pushing all along. *Ares I was too
small for an orbital Orion and Ares V was too big to be affordable.

I'd like to see large segmented solids disappear from spaceflight
completely, but that's not happening anytime soon. *For some reason it's
still politically acceptable to keep the pork flowing to ATK.

You obviously like government increased spending of their already
decades red (meaning broke/bankrupt) budget to increase substantially,
and for continued global pollution from all those SRBs (including
their productions) to increase as though the environment and its
biodiversity can survive in spite of whatever such toxic methods do to
it. You and your friends must be at least indirectly public funded.

I've repeatedly voiced my distaste for large segmented solids, but the
environmental issues fall lower on my list than safety and cost.

I would make Mook 50/50 (public/private funded).

Good luck with that fantasy of yours.

Jeff
--
42