Reconsideration

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.



First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.
Who knows? SpaceX's next launch attempt might work, although their whole
Falcon program up to the moment has a distinctly amateurish feel to it
that I don't think bodes any too well for its ultimate success.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.

First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:36:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now realize that Mark Whittington is
right, and that there's a very real chance that the Chinese will beat
us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we
must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever
it takes.

First off, at the rate they are moving, the Chinese will be on the moon
around 2025 if at all.
Second, being up there doesn't give them the "strategic high ground" due
to the time it would take anything to reach the Earth that was fired
from the Moon. In fact, if you want to worry about the Chinese high
ground scenario, watch out for stuff in Earth orbit, not way out on the
Moon.

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly so...

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

About the only worse way he could have overplayed his hand was to
concede that Eric Chomko or Brad Guth had been right all along...

Jim Davis

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:10:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, Jim
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

Well, I did save that for the end. I didn't think it fair not to
offer *some* clues...

About the only worse way he could have overplayed his hand was to
concede that Eric Chomko or Brad Guth had been right all along...

?!

You mean they haven't been?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:10:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, Jim
: Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
: April Fools post.
:
: Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
: so...
:
: I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
: he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

: Well, I did save that for the end. I didn't think it fair not to
: offer *some* clues...

: About the only worse way he could have overplayed his hand was to
: concede that Eric Chomko or Brad Guth had been right all along...

: ?!

: You mean they haven't been?

Certainly, not according to you. But when has Brad ever said anything
sceptical about commercial spaceflight? I'm pretty sure he's a true
believer, right along with you on that one.

Eric

Certainly, not according to you. But when has Brad ever said anything
sceptical about commercial spaceflight? I'm pretty sure he's a true
believer, right along with you on that one.
Eric Chomko,
To some extent I'll even put up with the likes of William Mook's nukes
in space and that of Tomcat's massively volumetric composite spaceplane
that has got seven of those SSME's in it's butt, along with an array of
45 landing gear wheels that'll have to be rated for 50t each.

Actually, a conventional fly-by-rocket of getting the most tonnage per
ISP into the LL-1 zone is that of a terrific win-win for everything and
everyone. It's even far enough away from our extremely dark and nasty
reactive moon, enough that perhaps a 29.5 day mission seems entirely
survivable (especially if everyone has established their personal cash
of banked bone marrow as Plan-B).
-
Brad Guth

Jim Davis wrote in
. 160.156:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

That long, huh? I was onto him by the third paragraph, where he was writing
nice things about the shuttle. :-) I bought the disappointment with SpaceX
and his turn of heart on ISS, if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed. I think I started skimming once I got to the part about Griffin
being a "real rocket scientist" - re-reading the original post now, I'm
just now spotting some of the howlers below that point that I missed the
first time around.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:18:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

That long, huh? I was onto him by the third paragraph, where he was writing
nice things about the shuttle. :-) I bought the disappointment with SpaceX
and his turn of heart on ISS, if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed. I think I started skimming once I got to the part about Griffin
being a "real rocket scientist" - re-reading the original post now, I'm
just now spotting some of the howlers below that point that I missed the
first time around.

Another one that's really inside baseball is the fact that I don't
have any (and on my current life trajectory, am unlikely to have any)
children, which makes for pretty dismal prospects for my grand and
great-grandchildren...

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed

What a concept!

ISS has been such a fine whipping boy for dissatisfaction with NASA,
Clinton, Congress, Russia, international space efforts in general, and
high-inclination orbits, that one could easily forget it is the only
(and will remain for some time the largest) DESTINATION for manned
orbital flight and cargo.

One might suggest that if your goal is "airline-like" transportation
between earth and destinations in LEO, it's kind of stupid -- cutting
off your nose to spite your face -- to ignore or verbally trash the
destination that exists in favor of Bigelow Hiltons to come. But it's
hard to hear such suggestions when so many axes are being ground.