CEV to be made commercially available

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jim Davis wrote:
And you know and I know and everyone knows
there will be no such products from an SDHLV.

But you could not care less about that, I suspect.

No, I don't, because that's *ENTIRELY*
*IRRELEVANT.* The question is whether ESAS
can work, not whether it will be profitable.

Usually your statements can at least be justified in one dubious context
or another, but for this one, it is hard to go past stupid. Just because
the returns of some projects can be very long term and very distributed
does not mean that they do not have to be profitable. Such a dead end
technical object achieved purely by throwing excessive amounts of money
at the problem will again put space settlement back many years.

What I find particularly offensive is that the $100 billion wasted by
this government affiliated monopolistic power group - preaching that
they are doing this for everyone else's own good, will in effect have to
be recouped by those commercial ventures that eventually follow. There
is only a fixed amount of up front funding for space activities which is
acceptable to the people at large, NASA is again abusing its
monopolistic position to take near all of it. People make little
distinction between government and start up space spending. NASA is
again mortgaging the future of space and the public will expect the
start ups to eventually pay it back.

ESAS adds nothing to the later commercial ventures which will hopefully
still come. Existence proof that it is doable was provided by Apollo and
no commercial follow on will use HLVs or any of the other order of
magnitude too expensive hardware that will be designed for them. By the
time the commercial ventures work their way up to HLV, any ESAS
technology will long be irrelevant. ESAS is a dead end mortgage on the
future.

Pete.

Pete Lynn wrote:

" wrote in
message oups.com...


Jim Davis wrote:


And you know and I know and everyone knows
there will be no such products from an SDHLV.

But you could not care less about that, I suspect.


No, I don't, because that's *ENTIRELY*
*IRRELEVANT.* The question is whether ESAS
can work, not whether it will be profitable.



Usually your statements can at least be justified in one dubious context
or another, but for this one, it is hard to go past stupid. Just because
the returns of some projects can be very long term and very distributed
does not mean that they do not have to be profitable.


Yeah? Let us all know when the US Air Force turns a profit.


What I find particularly offensive is that the $100 billion wasted by
this government affiliated monopolistic power group


Not much point in trying to make sense of anything past this point. NASA
is not a monopoly on space power.



--
"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

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

Just because the returns of some projects can be
very long term and very distributed does not mean
that they do not have to be profitable.

Yeah? Let us all know when the US Air Force turns a
profit.

Are you suggesting that the US economy would be more profitable over the
long term without the US Air Force?

What I find particularly offensive is that the $100
billion wasted by this government affiliated
monopolistic power group

Not much point in trying to make sense of anything
past this point. NASA is not a monopoly on space
power.

No, on space funding.

I would suggest that NASA currently gets a monopolistic proportion of
total space frontier commercialisation funding, public and private. NASA
launch vehicle development funding swamps that of the start ups.

NASA has a critical supporting role to play in opening up the space
frontier, but it should not, and obviously can not, do
commercialisation, and commercialisation is the necessary next step.

Not only is NASA picking winners, but it is again picking itself as a
winner. In spite of the conflict of interest and considerable evidence
to the contrary.

Pete.

"Pete Lynn" wrote:

:"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
:
: Not much point in trying to make sense of anything
: past this point. NASA is not a monopoly on space
: power.
:
:No, on space funding.
:
:I would suggest that NASA currently gets a monopolistic proportion of
:total space frontier commercialisation funding, public and private. NASA
:launch vehicle development funding swamps that of the start ups.

Yes, but it doesn't swamp it because it 'monopolizes' funding, since
its funding isn't from the same 'market' as entrepreneurial funding
for space startups.

:NASA has a critical supporting role to play in opening up the space
:frontier, but it should not, and obviously can not, do
:commercialisation, and commercialisation is the necessary next step.
:
:Not only is NASA picking winners, but it is again picking itself as a
:winner. In spite of the conflict of interest and considerable evidence
:to the contrary.

Nope. NASA is running projects. Nothing about picking winners or
losers in private space.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Pete Lynn" wrote:

I would suggest that NASA currently gets a
monopolistic proportion of total space frontier
commercialisation funding, public and private.
NASA launch vehicle development funding swamps
that of the start ups.

Yes, but it doesn't swamp it because it 'monopolizes'
funding, since its funding isn't from the same 'market'
as entrepreneurial funding for space start-ups.

It is the same market, like government programs, start ups are currently
at the non profit end of the market - where payback is long term and
diffuse. Similar to other government areas like education, health,
defence, pure research, etcetera.

The one true market for space settlement is space settlement. The NASA
manned space budget is in effect existence proof that there is a
significant market for space settlement investment - in the few billion
per year range. Currently NASA is functioning as a singular top down
overly bureaucratic charity where only a very, very small percentage of
that funding is productively reaching the end cause of lowering the cost
of space settlement.

The NASA pork barrel alliance is maintaining a strong grip on all
government derived space settlement funding, preventing a bottom up
approach which would introduce competition into this aid program. As a
consequence start ups are having to bypass the primary government tax
base and depend upon smaller philanthropic funding sources - typically
rich angels who see space settlement more like a voluntary tax - a
charity for the greater good.

As the NASA manned space budget demonstrates, the public at large is
willing to invest a few billions towards space settlement every year.
The current difficulty is in efficiently accessing this investment
market and transferring this funding to a highly competitive
technological development environment - the start ups.

NASA is functioning as a very large leach upon that monetary flow,
unaccountable and unable to reform, it seems necessary to bypass it
completely. This requires an entirely separate tax system. For example,
rich angel investment, an additional tythe on space enthusiasts, sweet
equity, etcetera.

Not only is NASA picking winners, but it is again
picking itself as a winner. In spite of the conflict of
interest and considerable evidence to the contrary.

Nope. NASA is running projects. Nothing about
picking winners or losers in private space.

So NASA not only did not pick itself to decide the architecture, but
also did not pick the architecture to use its own Shuttle derived
systems - I had heard otherwise.

Pete.

"Pete Lynn" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Pete Lynn" wrote:
:
: I would suggest that NASA currently gets a
: monopolistic proportion of total space frontier
: commercialisation funding, public and private.
: NASA launch vehicle development funding swamps
: that of the start ups.
:
: Yes, but it doesn't swamp it because it 'monopolizes'
: funding, since its funding isn't from the same 'market'
: as entrepreneurial funding for space start-ups.
:
:It is the same market,

I quite disagree.

:... like government programs, start ups are currently
:at the non profit end of the market - where payback is long term and
:diffuse. Similar to other government areas like education, health,
:defence, pure research, etcetera.
:
:The one true market for space settlement is space settlement. The NASA
:manned space budget is in effect existence proof that there is a
:significant market for space settlement investment - in the few billion
er year range.

This is a preposterous statement! Of course, you then go on to refute
it yourself.

:Currently NASA is functioning as a singular top down
verly bureaucratic charity where only a very, very small percentage of
:that funding is productively reaching the end cause of lowering the cost
f space settlement.

But is that NASA's "end cause"? Is that what it is supposed to be
doing?

:The NASA pork barrel alliance is maintaining a strong grip on all
:government derived space settlement funding, preventing a bottom up
:approach which would introduce competition into this aid program. As a
:consequence start ups are having to bypass the primary government tax
:base and depend upon smaller philanthropic funding sources - typically
:rich angels who see space settlement more like a voluntary tax - a
:charity for the greater good.
:
:As the NASA manned space budget demonstrates, the public at large is
:willing to invest a few billions towards space settlement every year.
:The current difficulty is in efficiently accessing this investment
:market and transferring this funding to a highly competitive
:technological development environment - the start ups.
:
:NASA is functioning as a very large leach upon that monetary flow,
:unaccountable and unable to reform, it seems necessary to bypass it
:completely. This requires an entirely separate tax system. For example,
:rich angel investment, an additional tythe on space enthusiasts, sweet
:equity, etcetera.

You talk like you think the money currently going to NASA would go to
"the start ups" if NASA wasn't there. That's merely a silly idea, I'm
afraid. If there's no NASA space program, my best guess would be that
entrepreneurial funding for the start ups would also dry right up.

Again, it's not the same market or funding stream. Entrepreneurial
funds are funny. They're VERY nervous. The mere fact that the
government wasn't interested (as evidenced by cutting NASA spending)
would probably cause money to flee the space 'start up' market.

: Not only is NASA picking winners, but it is again
: picking itself as a winner. In spite of the conflict of
: interest and considerable evidence to the contrary.
:
: Nope. NASA is running projects. Nothing about
: picking winners or losers in private space.
:
:So NASA not only did not pick itself to decide the architecture, but
:also did not pick the architecture to use its own Shuttle derived
:systems - I had heard otherwise.

Now go back and read what I said again.

NASA is running projects. If you want to run a project, you can pick
your project architecture and your own systems, too.

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

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Pete Lynn wrote:
Usually your statements can at least be justified in one dubious context
or another, but for this one, it is hard to go past stupid. Just because
the returns of some projects can be very long term and very distributed
does not mean that they do not have to be profitable.


Yeah? Let us all know when the US Air Force turns a profit.

No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.

What I find particularly offensive is that the $100 billion wasted by
this government affiliated monopolistic power group

Not much point in trying to make sense of anything past this point. NASA
is not a monopoly on space power.

It sure acts like it is. Building and maintaining their own launch vehicles
and launch facilities when they could buy commercial launches strikes me as
the pinnacle of NIH syndrome.

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

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Pete Lynn wrote:


Usually your statements can at least be justified in one dubious context
or another, but for this one, it is hard to go past stupid. Just because
the returns of some projects can be very long term and very distributed
does not mean that they do not have to be profitable.



Yeah? Let us all know when the US Air Force turns a profit.



No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.


And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?



What I find particularly offensive is that the $100 billion wasted by
this government affiliated monopolistic power group


Not much point in trying to make sense of anything past this point. NASA
is not a monopoly on space power.



It sure acts like it is. Building and maintaining their own launch vehicles
and launch facilities when they could buy commercial launches strikes me as
the pinnacle of NIH syndrome.


That may be, but it does not make them a monopoly. Again, the Russians
and the Chinese can help you oput. Space-X, T/space and others are also
doign their bit. Now, if these companies cannot make a go of it without
NASA funding... then they are not an improvement.


--
"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

Scott Lowther wrote:

No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.

And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?

We're claiming that such benefits, from an ESAS-derived architecture,
would not be enough to justify the activity.

Paul

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:51:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.


And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?

None worth the high cost of this architecture, given the trivial
amount of activity that it will allow us to afford.