"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :And the evidence that you have presented for your original
: osition is...?
:
: Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
: for duplicating what we did in the 1960's.
:
:This was quickly debunked right here on this group.

Well, no, it wasn't. As I said, go ahead and use the numbers the
'debunker' posted, if you like.

: Even then I suspect some
: of the numbers are being jiggered a bit to lower current costs
: compared to what was necessary back then in the way of investment in
: infrastructure.
:
:"The numbers didn't agree with my prejudice, therefore they must
:be wrong."

Again, if you want to use those numbers, by all means use them. Even
THOSE numbers support my contention and debunk yours.

: Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
: moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
: NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
: those decades is just pretty damned small.
:
:It's there, though. Small != zero.

So we only need wait another half a millennia or so for things to
eventually come down in price to the point where what you say makes
sense?

: Look at the cost of currently getting a pound of stuff to orbit back
: in the 1960s. Look at the cost of doing the same now. Again, the
: price reduction over all those decades is just pretty damned small.
:
:Um, no. The cost of getting to orbit is down quite a bit,
articularly if you buy Russian launchers.

Compare apples to apples, Paul. Getting cheaper prices because of a
currently weak economy and a hunger for convertible currency in Russia
doesn't precisely support your case. Neither does using LOW
TECHNOLOGY, OLD launchers support your 'the ever advancing
technosphere' claims.

Care to try again?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn