"Terrell Miller" wrote:
Totally wrong. Rational analysis doesn't claim something is "easy" and
straightforward when it has not only never been done,

It does do so when the something is a simple and undemanding step from
what it known, involving well known techniques, and requiring only the
application of well known management and planning systems. The only
magic that needs to be invoked is a genie willing to put enough zeros
on the check.

George, Rand, Henry, and myself have all pointed this out to you.
Your only argument to date has been "it can't be done, it's never been
done, it can't be done, it's never been done". Not one single
rational answer.

but is also completely uneconomical to a staggering degree.

It's only uneconomical if you fail to understand the issues.

And you may have noticed that I have been calmly, rationally drumming this
simple point into the thick skulls of the SPS advocates here all along

No, you have yet to provide a single rational argument. Your only
argument to date has been "it can't be done, it's never been done, it
can't be done, it's never been done".

hysterical ranting that essentially amounts to Zeno's Paradox
restated snipped

From a false premise arises false conclusions, thank you for an
eloquent demonstration of what we already knew.

There's absolutely no way you can honestly get around these harsh
real-world facts, Derek.

Sorry, but the launch costs/reliability argument is a non-starter.
You've been shown that, but your response is ever the same, "it can't
be done, it's never been done, it can't be done, it's never been
done".

no, I simply tell the truth and recognize a bull**** sales pitch when I step
in one. But thanks ever so much for the kind words, sir g

Not only a fraud, but intellectually dishonest and willingly, wilfully
ignorant.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.