CEV to be made commercially available

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

: wrote:
: :
: :And, like bilge, the results will stink.
: :
: : Yes, space flight is utter bilge, let's just sit here and spend that
: : money on some more wars.
: :
: :You can always tell when a space advocate is losing the debate
: :when he trots out the 'but X is a bigger waste' argument.

: You call that a 'debate', Paul? Jesus, what happened to you?

He became more like you!

Eric

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

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Scott Lowther wrote:

: Same thing that happened to Rand, I think. After decades of nothing much
: out of NASA, *finally* something is going forward... but instead of
: their Chosen Direction Of Obvious Wisdom, NASA is doing something
: slightly different. And nothing so enrages a zealot as a heretic.
:
:
: I've seen rather a lot of this. The fact that NASA is doing things
: Apollo Style, coupled with not using EELV, has driven a number of
: alt.spacers over the edge.

: It's easy to explain, Scott. When things were still up in the air,
: still just hopes, we could still think they'd come up with something
: that actually made sense, or at least had significant components that
: made sense.

: They didn't. The concrete plan is devoid of the things that would
: make it worthwhile.

: What I don't understand is why anyone who is not feeding at this
: trough (do you resemble that remark, Scott?) would support this plan.
: It accomplishes very little at enormous cost. It doesn't solve the
: important problem preventing exploitation of space.

: The reason we don't support this is that we've thought it through,
: and concluded there's little here worthy of support. It's as simple
: as that.

Translation: Since NASA doesn't plan on allowing space tourism, the travel
agents are ****ed off.

Eric

: Paul

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Paul F. Dietz wrote:

:
: It's easy to explain, Scott. When things were still up in the air,
: still just hopes, we could still think they'd come up with something
: that actually made sense, or at least had significant components that
: made sense.


: The problem is that everyone has their own idea of what makes sense, and
: is ready to damn anyone else's concept of how things should be done. As
: long as the proposal is all all pie in the sky, everything is fine-
: because everyone assumes that NASA will see the light and do it their
: way....as that is the only obviously correct way of doing it.
: But as soon as something concrete is proposed, around 9/10th's of the
: space community is ****ed off, as it isn't what they wanted to see.
: Should it be done by government developed rockets, or be privately
: developed ones?
: Big aerospace firms or small ones?
: Are we going wherever we end up going to explore, do business of some
: sort, mine, set up military bases, or colonize?
: We even have the Moon exploration and Mars exploration fans at each
: other's throats as both think that the other destination makes no sense
: as a target.
: If anything dooms this whole program, it will probably be the space fans
: tearing it apart as much as any lack of support on the part of congress
: or the general public.

Well said. With attitudes like Dietz's we'd still be in Philadelphia
arguing over the Constitution. I don't doubt he would have made a fine
Tory.

Eric

: Pat

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:

: :What I don't understand is why anyone who is not feeding at this
: :trough (do you resemble that remark, Scott?) would support this plan.
: :It accomplishes very little at enormous cost. It doesn't solve the
: :important problem preventing exploitation of space.
:
: Some of us think that ANY new activity that will get more people
: interested is a good thing, Paul. After all, why does my (and I
: presume your) generation have so many people that got interested in
: science and engineering?

: It wasn't because of NASA; don't confuse correlation with causation.
: Technical people would have naturally be interested in what NASA
: was doing. I knew from the beginning (having a father in the
: military side of the aerospace industry) that this was not
: a place I wanted to work. I have never regretted that decision.

: I consider you attitude there to be unfortunate, actually. Luring
: innocent youth into dysfunctional careers does them, and us, a
: disservice. I know individuals with recent aerospace BAs that
: found those degrees worthless.

Worthless? Can't even get jobs as programmers?

: It was only flags and footprints in the final analysis (although it
: certainly could have been more), but even that got a lot of people
: interested. Going back to the Moon (hopefully to stay this time) and
: going to Mars are worth doing.

: Sorry, but 'getting people interested' is not worth much. How
: about getting them interested in something that's actually worthwhile?

And what is that?!

: My daughters are more interested in bio sci/tech/med oriented careers
: than hard physical engineering. Given the rate at which knowledge
: is advancing there, I think they're on the right track.

Good for them, but that doesn't mean that the physical sciences are
inferior.

: :The reason we don't support this is that we've thought it through,
: :and concluded there's little here worthy of support. It's as simple
: :as that.
:
: In other words, Scott seems to be pretty much right. It's not the
: plan you want, so you're Mr Sour Grapes....

: Mr. Smug Realism, actually. I have no regrets, and there is a small
: satisfaction in seeing one's assessment confirmed. I suspect those
: that aimed their careers down this black hole have rather more
: acid in their tummies at this point.

Totally false! I can tell you that the unmanned sector of NASA is
thriving.

Do you honestly in private cheer when NASA experiences a disaster?
Do you really hate your father that much?

Your comment about assessment and satisfaction with failure has me asking
these questions. Perhaps your kids should go more into the mental side of
medicine and help their father?!

Eric

: Paul

Alan Anderson ) wrote:
: " wrote:

: Paul F. Dietz wrote:
: EELV is probably too expensive also. But Scott, the faults of
: any particular alternative do not justify the current loser approach.
:
: And the faults in this approach do not justify assuming that it's a
: "loser."

: Paul is not assuming any such thing. He's *concluding* it.

: No, terminating the manned space program is clearly a better approach.
:
: boggle
:
: Yeah. Right.

: If the goal is more affordable spaceflight for people, there is a
: compelling argument to be made for returning NASA to its NACA roots and
: getting it out of the spaceflight operations business.

And then we'd have no spaceflight...

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: wrote:

: EELV is probably too expensive also. But Scott, the faults of
: any particular alternative do not justify the current loser approach.
:
: And the faults in this approach do not justify assuming that it's a
: "loser."

: Yes, they do. What else could?

: Going to the moon, by itself, is worth very little. It is only
: worthwhile indirectly, if it leads to something else that's directly
: valuable.
:
:
: Just as Apollo did. While Apollo was not allowed to reach it's full
: potential in lunar development, it lead, directly and indirectly, toa
: great many other advanced in sceince and economics. One way among many
: was inspiration.

: Apollo was a dead end for the same reason ESAS is a dead end.
: It costs far too much for what was delivered. I don't believe
: the spinoff claims for Apollo, and I noticed no one's even
: bothering to make them about ESAS (the embarrassing lack
: of even supposed spinoffs from Shuttle and ISS probably has
: something to do with that.)

: The scientific return from Apollo was low considering how much
: was spent. Science is the rationalization, the fig leaf, for
: manned space activities.

And unmanned is?

: About 'full potential': with an unlimited money spigot,
: Apollo could have done more on the moon. Also, everyone
: could get a pony.

: The ESAS approach doesn't do that. It's an economic
:
: dead end.
:
:
: As was the B-52 and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Yet... they're
: still successful.

: The B-52s and our nuclear carriers deliver militarily valuable services,
: most recently in Afghanistan. They're the descendants of less capable
: systems performing much the same kinds of missions, satisfying their
: military customers, winning battles and wars.

So war IS better and more "successful" than space exploration? You have a
strange sense of values.

: There is no similar history of worthwhile lunar manned activities
: (and, no, Apollo doesn't count). Simply delivering a few people to the
: moon may be interesting performance art,

You fool, art is life in this sense! Going to the moon was superior to all
of warfare from day one on earth.

: but it isn't actually *doing*
: anything that's worthwhile in and of itself. Nor does ESAS have much
: to do with being a precursor to a system that actually could be
: justified by value produced.

: No, terminating the manned space program is clearly a better approach.
:
:
: boggle
:
: Yeah. Right.

: See, Scott, there's your problem. When otherwise intelligent people
: such as yourself go so astray, it's often because their belief systems
: have some latent falsehoods. You take the worthiness of the manned
: space program as an item of almost religious dogma.

As compared to your take on war?! Sorry, I'm with Scott on this one.


Eric

: Paul

Pete Lynn ) wrote:
: "Scott Lowther" wrote in message
: ...
: Pete Lynn wrote:
:
: Apollo 2.0 does nothing significant to address the
: economic cost

: Apollo 2.0 is, as currently planed, substantially
: cheaper than Apollo 1.0.

: Comparing apples with apples in an orange market...
: In the current context, Apollo 2.0 is unnecessarily expensive and likely
: unsustainable.

So is the war in Iraq but we'r still at it. If the powers-at-be can stay
committed to NASA like they ar to this war, then how can we lose?

: , and so does nothing significant to address the
: sustainability problem.

: Well, it's to use Shuttle equipment and infrastructure.
: THAT particular "unsustainable" program stuck
: around for a quarter century.

: Are you suggesting that Apollo 2.0 might be similar in equipment,
: infrastructure and sustainability to the Shuttle? The same Shuttle that
: did not live up to expectations...

Yeah, that 25 year track record must be written off as a failure. Despite
the bad design, we managed to fly it for 25 years. Now THAT is something!

: And it is hard to invoke a political or inspirational
: justification for Apollo 2.0,

: I dunno... it's worked well for a lot of people I know.
: And it hasn't even really gotten into the public
: consciousness yet.

: So did the Shuttle in its time...

It ain't over yet...

Eric

: Pete.

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Scott Lowther" wrote in message
: ...
: Pete Lynn wrote:
: And it is hard
: to invoke a political or inspirational justification for Apollo 2.0,
:
:
:
: I dunno... it's worked well for a lot of people I know. And it hasn;t
: even really gotten into the public consciousness yet.

: Because the American public, in general, doesn't care about manned
: spaceflight. More people are likely aware about how high the oil industries
: profits were last quarter than are aware of how many people are on ISS at
: this moment.

Agree with the latter, but I think you give the people too much credit. We
are slaves to the pump and just keep giving and giving.

Hey, why don't we get the oil industry to fund space exploration? In a
perfect world...

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Scott Lowther" wrote in message
: ...
: Paul F. Dietz wrote:
:
: No, terminating the manned space program is clearly a better approach.
:
:
:
: boggle
:
: Yeah. Right.
:
:
: See, Scott, there's your problem. When otherwise intelligent people
: such as yourself go so astray, it's often because their belief systems
: have some latent falsehoods. You take the worthiness of the manned
: space program as an item of almost religious dogma.
:
:
: Astonishing.

: So you agree or disagree with Paul's assessment? I tend to think he's
: right. Because I used to think like you, up until I started getting my
: aerospace engineering degree and started looking at why launch costs are so
: high.

: Sending a few NASA astronauts to the moon won't make us any more of a
: spacefaring nation than Apollo did, so what's the point of Apollo 2.0?

Well we were in Vietnam when Apollo occurred and were in Iraq when were
discussing Apollo 2. Why not? You justify this war and then I'll justify
going back to the moon. Deal?

Maybe there isn't any logic in either one, but I sure as hell like one
better than the other. How about you?

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Scott Lowther" wrote in message
: ...
: Alan Anderson wrote:
: If the goal is more affordable spaceflight for people, there is a
: compelling argument to be made for returning NASA to its NACA roots and
: getting it out of the spaceflight operations business.
:
: You go right ahead and propose that to your Congresscritter. If there
: was an *actual* space industry, it'd make sense. The NACA didn't form
: before peopel needed it to improve airplanes... it formed *after* there
: were already airplanes buzzing around. A NACA-fied NASA would have no
: customers and no reason to be.

: No customers? What about all the startup companies looking to create low
: cost reusable (and semi-reusable) launch vehicles? What about the companies
: looking into providing commercial cargo delivery services to ISS?

: It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle business.

Here is a question for you. If NASA were to pull out of the launch payload
business, then would there be enough customer revenue to sustain a
commercial launch vehicle business? I'm not saying I like the answer. All
I am saying is tha the answer reflects the current reality.

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.