CEV to be made commercially available

Alan Anderson ) wrote:
: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: You're never clear on what you're saying. You choose to be vague.
:
: I'm crystal clear in my statements. You just have serious problems
: reading and understanding.

: Though I am not necessarily in full agreement with Paul's arguments,
: I'll chime in here to affirm that his posting style is a model of
: clarity. I suspect that Eric's problems with him are mostly from
: assuming a context which does not apply. Apparently, paranoia is not
: conducive to comprehension.

You lack the credentials, intellect and wit to call me paranoid.

: As for public funds, I'm not against support of manned spaceflight
: in principle, but in practice there doesn't seem to have been
: a situation where it has made sense.

: As it happens, this is one of those "not in full agreement" bits. I
: think flights of United States astronauts made plenty of sense in the
: context of the Space Race, which itself was reasonable in the larger
: context of the Cold War.

Good, you are what we peaceniks for space, refer to as useful idiots in
selling the notion to the politicians.

: But those contexts are gone, and manned spaceflight as a government
: project no longer has that justification. As in any race, once someone
: has won, it makes little sense to keep running. It should have been
: industry's turn to drive a long time ago.

So, you can't be convinced that the Chinese mean business with their two
flights to the point we need another space race? They're calling us out,
man! I think you need a lesson from Satchel Page and looking over one's
shoulder.

Eric

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Alan Anderson wrote:

: As it happens, this is one of those "not in full agreement" bits. I
: think flights of United States astronauts made plenty of sense in the
: context of the Space Race, which itself was reasonable in the larger
: context of the Cold War.

: I think it's illuminating to ask 'how would the Cold War have gone
: differently if the space race hadn't happened'? I doubt much would
: have changed. It eventually became clear to all that communism was
: seriously flawed, so it wasn't necessary to demonstrate first
: world superiority by means of large government programs.

Are you saying the DOD budget during the Cold War should have either
stayed the same or actually have gone down? Explain to me why you think
that the DOD isn't a "large government program".

Eric

: Paul

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Pete Lynn wrote:


What is the official estimate for intangible benefits
from ESAS? Breakdown?

In perpetuating the position that space is slow,
complicated and expensive, I expect that ESAS will
do more to crush the spirit of the next generation
than inspire it to greater levels of achievement.

I don;t see that. Again, Shuttle is all we've had for a
quarter century, and it has been infinitely slower, more
complicated and more expensive, for the simple fact
that it went *nowhere.* And yet, during the Shuttle
era people ahve been interested enough in space to
actively participate in the X-Prize.

I had been wondering about this argument - NASA acts as an oppressive
regime which consequently fosters a rebel movement intent on revolution.
Hence NASA 'inspires' that rebel movement.

I am not sure how significant this argument is, though anecdotal
evidence would suggest that frustration with NASA can be a strong
motivating force for many start ups. Would their motivation be as strong
in the absence of NASA? Should this be accounted for as an intangible
wealth benefit of NASA?

Pete.

Pete Lynn wrote:

I am not sure how significant this argument is, though anecdotal
evidence would suggest that frustration with NASA can be a strong
motivating force for many start ups. Would their motivation be as strong
in the absence of NASA?


Difficult to say, of course. The only data we have is on *this* reality
and, as it has turned out, a number of the alt.space companies *are*
playing along with ESAS. The idea that they're being shut out is rather
ludicrous, given what I'm seeing going on.



--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
.net...
The old, "Communism really IS good if it's just given a chance." Sorry,
how
many chances does it need.

I was pointing out that the USSR never actually achieved communism.

I know.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: The only blather here is in your brain! You can't grasp that the
leaders
: of your party are exactly who to blame based upon keeping the status
quo
: WRT funding of an inefficient manned space program. IOW, a blue state
NASA
: would never get away with running a manned space program like red
state
: NASA is currently doing. Where is Congress on this?

: 'My party'? Are you laboring under the misapprehension that I voted
: for W? (Not that this has any relevance to whether NASA manned space
: efforts are wasteful.)

So you voted for Kerry and Gore? You, a flat-earth liberal? What a joke!

Gee, those were the only alternatives in your state? You may want to work
on opening up the access laws.

Eric Chomko wrote:

: 'My party'? Are you laboring under the misapprehension that I voted
: for W? (Not that this has any relevance to whether NASA manned space
: efforts are wasteful.)

So you voted for Kerry and Gore? You, a flat-earth liberal? What a joke!

I voted for Nader in 2000 and whomever-the-hell the libertarian
candidate was in 2004.

I didn't vote for W because he struck me from the start as
intellectually insufficient to be president (an impression
that has not since been contradicted); also, he's socially
conservative and economically non-conservative, which is about 180
degrees away from my position.

None of this was all that significant to the outcome, since my
state (Illinois) will be won by the Democrat candidate by a wide
margin in a nationally-close presidential election.

: I'm crystal clear in my statements. You just have serious problems
: reading and understanding.

Then state what you do. Heck I told you that I once worked on the Spacelab
project and you almost soiled your shorts ridiculing me for it. The only
neurotic tick is yours WRT manned spaceflight.

Just a bit defensive there, eh?

Spacelab's main purpose was to pad the shuttle manifest to help maintain
the fiction that the absurdly large flight rate they had promised
would actually have enough demand to be sustained (never mind that
the shuttle itself couldn't sustain that flight rate).

: : The military has space applications that are cost-justified. Recon
: : sats, weather sats, communications, early warning, navigation, to name
: : a few. Why should I consider space 'off-limits' to the military?
:
: Perhaps because NASA was set up to be non-military by its very nature. Or
: did you miss that part?

: Um... what? Bizarre non sequitur there, Chomko.

No it isn't. You have a problem with the manned spaceflight budget and I
have a problem with the DOD budget. Given that, my comment is relevant

No, since I asked why should *I* consider space off-limits to the
military (and that doesn't involve NASA at all). Need I point out that
*I* give zero weight to your personal neurotic prejudices?

: At least not yet. So because there is no manned military application of
: space, you're against manned spaceflight?

: No.

Just the cost? What percentage of what it is would make you happy?

Whatever is justified by adequate return, just like any other
investment. I don't play the game of trying to retro-justify
some predetermined percentage.

I have to say, the justifications I've seen so far would not
leave much of a manned space program, by that criterion.

: As for public funds, I'm not against support of manned spaceflight
: in principle, but in practice there doesn't seem to have been
: a situation where it has made sense.

Art, in an of itself, doesn't make sense. When are you going to get that
manned spaceflight is more of an artform than it is science?! Are you
really that much of a "think-inside-the-box" sort of guy?

Ah, so NASA is in the same category as the National Endowment for the
Humanities, '**** Christ', and all that. Gotcha.

The 2006 budget for NEH is $138 million. Gosh, I guess that there
'Space Art' is more than 100x more popular than all other art combined!

Needless to say, I find your argument here completely ludicrous.

Better than being an angry little man, such as you are...

Anger is empowering. Stupidity is just pathetic.

Paul

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
news
Pete Lynn wrote:

I am not sure how significant this argument is,
though anecdotal evidence would suggest that
frustration with NASA can be a strong motivating
force for many start ups. Would their motivation be
as strong in the absence of NASA?

Difficult to say, of course. The only data we have is
on *this* reality and, as it has turned out, a number of
the alt.space companies *are* playing along with
ESAS. The idea that they're being shut out is rather
ludicrous, given what I'm seeing going on.

Almost by definition, loosing their alt.space status in the process, but
that is beside the point. It is low cost space development which is
being shut out of government funding, not those willing to cross over.

Pete.

Eric Chomko wrote:

Mission Planning - MSFC - Alabama
Mission Control - JSC - Texas
Launch Facility - KSC - Florida

There is manned spaceflight in a nutshell. Last I checked, they are all
red states.

I wonder if, since 1994 and the GOP takeover of Congress, if manned
spaceflight accountability -as you yourself are bitching about- doesn't
coincide. Pure coincidence?

Chomko, if you find a clue, please post it. Your paragraphs
there don't appear to be making any kind of rational argument,
and certainly not one that has anything to do with what I've
been claiming.



: I do not agree that that is an end in itself. It may be a means to
: an end, but colonies need an economic base. ESAS will do little to
: bring lunar colonization closer, because it doesn't address the economic
: barriers.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Exploration leads to discovery.
You can't have colonization before discovery. Columbus proved that.

Columbus disproved it -- or are the American Indians somehow
non-existent now? Their ancestors came to N.A. in a process
that did not involve precursor exploration by governments, but
rather diffusion and settlement by small groups. In other
words, colonization without separate exploration.

But, regardless, even if one is to agree that exploration must
precede colonization, it does not follow that anything that we
happen to call exploration will do the trick. As, for example,
the abortive Viking foray to N.A. demonstrates.



: But the idea that ESAS is that next step is a fallacy of linear
: thinking. Kind of like the idea that the first step to reaching
: the moon is climbing trees.

No the first step to reaching the moon was putting Alan Shepard into
space.

That whizzing sound is the point going entirely over your head.


: Right. Going to burn me at the stake now?

No. You're entitled to your own opinion, despite how flawed I think it is.

It's clear that your opinions on intellectual matters are not
to be given much weight at all.

I suspect that we both agree that the crowning achievement of the first
half of the 20th century was the allied victory of WWII. What is the
second half's major moment? I say it was Apollo. What do you say?

The Green Revolution. Compared to that, Apollo was a trivial footnote.

In fact, I'd place Apollo well down the list of important events.
Any number of technological, political, and social changes were more
important.

Paul

Eric Chomko wrote:

Are you saying the DOD budget during the Cold War should have either
stayed the same or actually have gone down?

In 20/20 hindsight, it could have been smaller. Avoiding
Vietnam would probably have saved a lot of money, for example.
And we had many more nuclear weapons than we really needed.

Explain to me why you think
that the DOD isn't a "large government program".

Sorry, that's your hallucinations talking to you again, not me.
Anyway, the DOD budget wasn't an exercise in national potlatch
like NASA's was.

Paul