CEV to be made commercially available

wrote:

And the B-47 was used by no one but the USAF. Yet it led the
way to successful commercial jet travel.

And the Saturn V was used by no one except NASA and it
led...nowhere.

So will the SDHLV be more like the B-47 or more like the Saturn V?
What do you think, Scott?

Jim Davis

John Schilling ) wrote:
: In article , Eric Chomko says...
:
: Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: : Scott Lowther wrote:

: : I think he's wrong, and he's wrong because he's rather wrapped up in his
: : own pseudo-religious ideology.

: : No, Scott. I'm being realistic and hard headed. You're the one
: : squirming here. Notice that folks are agreeing with me, not you?
:
: Wrong-O, I agree with Scott on this one.

: I'm not sure Scott is going to thank you for that...

Not looking for thanks.

: --
: *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
: *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
: *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
: *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
: * for success" *
: *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: John Schilling wrote:

: In article , Eric Chomko says...
:
:
: Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: : Scott Lowther wrote:
:
:
:
:
:
: : I think he's wrong, and he's wrong because he's rather wrapped up in his
: : own pseudo-religious ideology.
:
:
:
:
:
: : No, Scott. I'm being realistic and hard headed. You're the one
: : squirming here. Notice that folks are agreeing with me, not you?
:
: Wrong-O, I agree with Scott on this one.
:
:
:
: I'm not sure Scott is going to thank you for that...
:
:

: Got it in one.

: However, the fact that on occaision loons take the same position I do
: neither surprises nor disturbs me. As they say, even a broken clock is
: right twice a day.

And that works both ways loon...

: --
: "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 a
nd 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

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

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

: No, but thank you for sharing your delusion.

Yes, I take it that you are tired of being the only one sharing his!

Eric

: Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: 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.

: Nonsense. A clear case can be made that we need a government,
: and that a democracy is a good form for a government.

But you would still be arguing over the artilces and the amendments,
despite that you actually got what we needed.

: No such clear case has been made that we need a manned space program,
: or that the plan being proposed is worth the effort.

Nor against it either.

Eric

: Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

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

: 'Thriving' as in 'being laid off', right? You are following
: the news from JPL, yes?

CA as a whole is in trouble moreso that is JPL.

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

: Of course I didn't say that. What gives me the sense of small
: satisfaction is seeing my strategic view reinforced, not in seeing
: astronauts die.

You sound like W when a dead soldier comes home and his vision for Iraq.
Sorry most of us tend to see more than your "strategic view". Speaking of
which, do you support the military in space or is that off limits for them
as well?

: 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?!

: Perhaps they could help you with your problems, Eric. Your misreading
: display a serious dissociation from reality.

Well anyone garnering satisfaction from failure is a little warped in my
book. You seem to view politics as sport. Typical dumb, educated
American...

Eric

: Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : 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?

: Unmanned is... not what I was talking about. You'll notice
: I was talking about terminating the *manned* space program.

Yet, you don't have the guts to single out red-state NASA for it. Hell, I
see NASA red-states wasting money and getting away with it like no NASA
blue-state could. Yet, you want something, but have no idea of what it
would entail politically.

: There are unmanned space activities that clearly do deliver
: value justifying their cost.

Check it out, everyone of them is in a blue-state. Don't believe me? Check
it out!

: : 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.

: I will readily admit war, overall, has been very wasteful. The cold war
: consumed, what, $20 trillion in current dollars? In many cases not
: fighting would be even more costly, however. Do you think, for example,
: that we should not have used bombers and carriers in WW2? That we
: should not have gone to war with Afghanistan after 9/11?

I agree with WWII and Afghanistan, but disagree with Iraq, as it was a
ruse. Which we are beginning to find out with leaks of CIA agent's names,
etc. But with advent of the bomb war has changed. Do you not agree?

: There are objective goals in war separate from the goals of those
: building weapons systems. The bombers and carriers did clearly
: successfully meet those objective criteria by which we can call
: them 'successes'.

NASA contractors do the same regardless of what you think about manned
spaceflight.

: The 'success' of manned spaceflight has been largely one of meeting
: arbitrary, self-defined goals.

Which is typical in a prototypical environment such as manned spaceflight.

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

: Risible nonsense, Chomko. A war to defeat a genocidal dictator bent
: on world conquest, for example, is incomparably more valuable and
: worthwhile than a program that, at enormous cost, sent 12 people
: to the moon. A war to eliminate slavery, for example, is more valuable.
: A war to replace autocracy with democracy, as fought here in
: the 18th century, is clealy more valuable.

So you admit that no war since WWII other than the brief stint in
Afghanistan was worth fighting? That would leave going to the moon as more
useful than war during the same time. Okay, I overspoke when I said from
day 1, but certainly true since WWII.

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

: You're obviously more than slightly nuts on the war subject, Chomko.
: But thanks for the entertainment.

No, we can spend money on needless wars or space exploration. I opt for
space. You show me a useful war and I'l reconsider, but if you want me to
say that Iraq is more important than space, forget it.

Eric

: Paul

wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

If you look back at Apollo, public interest was dropping like a stone once
Apollo 11 made it home safely. Only the chance of astronauts dying in space
made the public wake up during Apollo 13. The same thing will happen with
Apollo 2.0. After a couple of missions, the public will quickly lose
interest.

Then you should get on the phone *right* *now* to Virgin Galactic,
XCOR, Bigelow, etc. and tell them that the public won't be interested
in spaceflight.

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.

/dps

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : The general populace's apathy is a rational response to the situation.
:
: Human apathy is never rational. Emotional at best.

: Nonsense, Eric. Each of us has limited time and mental energy.

100% is possible 100% of the time, your self-limiting beliefs
notwitstanding. Sorry, I simply don't agree with you.

: We ignore the vast majority of the information that bombards us.
: Human apathy is not only rational, it's essential.

You confuse choice with apathy. If you choose to be apathetic, then so be
it. I won't follow you.

In socialogical terms, what you are saying is tha the so-called "drift" is
more powerful than any or all of us. I doubt you are even aware of it
either. It is THAT ignorance (no offense) that creates apathy.

You really ought to try and challenge your strong self-limiting
beliefs. The irony is that they tend to be stronger in a manner parallel
their self-limitation.

: : What, exactly, is the manned space program doing for them or their
: : descendants?
:
: Allowing technology to advance, which is the only argument for war these
: days. Paul, you have one of two choices, war of space, which is it? W
: wants both, but that is another story.

: The advances in technology from ESAS don't appear to lead anywhere,
: any more than the advances in technology in STS and ISS led anywhere.

There have been no major breakthroughs, but that is the nature of science
sometimes. Does that mean we should simply stop? Enter a dark age period,
self imposed?

: War vs. space is a false dichotomy. If space were so valuable,
: it would be funded, even with the current war (which is consuming
: a small fraction of the federal budget).

Both are being funded! Check out this page before you use terms like
"small fraction":
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

: Space is a luxury that we want to be able to aford.

: 'We can afford it' is the weakest justification for an action.
: How about explaining why we'd *want* to spend money on it?

Mostly because we want to expand our domain. The earth at 7927 miles
in diameter isn't getting any bigger. Here while you're looking at dollars
flip (do your own 1 minute stopwatch check), check out this running
total: http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

: : More people were interested, until after the first landing or two.
: : ISS on the moon is not going to be any more interesting than ISS
: : in LEO, except perhaps if astronauts start dying there.
:
: Will you actually cheer the latter? You know your smug satisfaction for
: being right...

: I've stated here before that a real space program would be killing
: many more astronauts, simply because so many would be in space.

And then you'd feel right about in a sense of progress? Exactly what sort
of military brat were you?

: A real space program would survive public apathy, just like most
: government programs that deliver value don't excite the public.

Well which is it?

: But without NASA paving the way, how do you think that will happen? Do you
: think we'd have an internet without ARPAnet having paved the way?

: But ESAS *isn't* paving the way, any more than Apollo, STS, or ISS have.

Sure they have. Do you think SpaceShip One was going to happen whether
NASA existed or not?

: It's more expensive dead-end makework. As I've said, show me
: a manned space program that makes sense, that really does have
: a plausible path to the self-sustaining, self-funding expansion
: into space, and I would support it. No one has done that. ESAS
: is so very far from that it's ridiculous.

It may not happen for awhile. If the same were said about the ARPAnet in
1985 as you are saying about space, then we might not even have the
Inetrnet as we do today. Instant gratification, the rampant disease of
youth, doesn't work for science anymore than it does for entertainment, in
any fulfilling way. The point is that the break even point in space may
not occur until we are dead. Does that mean we should stop now?

: : Since ESAS won't do anything significant to advance that goal,
: : killing NASA would be no worse, and would save money.
:
: Says you, that has an emotional hatred for NASA. Is it tied to your
: father? The hatred I mean?

: I realize you react negatively to criticism of your love object,
: but don't project your own irrationality onto me.

Hey, you yourself said that your father worked in the military end of
aerospace and you knew you wanted no part of it. My dad was in
military intel, which I could take or leave, but prefer space. It is YOU
that has the strong emotion against your father's field. Not me.

Eric

: Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Tom Cuddihy wrote:

: But you have to start somewhere. ESAS is what you call a 'baseline.'
: It's the fallback. If all the other budding space projects fall through
: completely, if SpaceX stalls after launching one or two Falcon 1s, if
: all of AirLaunch's test engines blow up and Blue Origin kills a family
: of 5 on their first suborbital joy ride, at least the ESAS will still
: be in progress, keeping the public interested in man's outward destiny,
: keeping at least a cadre of personnel knowledgeable in the issues of
: manned space launch, hopefully beyond LEO.

: Your argument makes no mention of the benefits of ESAS, or the costs.
: Your argument would apply no matter how high the costs, and no matter
: how meager the benefits. This is obviously nonsensical. Your argument
: proves too much to be valid.

: I take as proof #1 that NASA is not designing ESAS as a way to keep the
: commercial market out of the business:
:
: http://www.space.com/spacenews/busin...ay_051107.html

: I'm not claiming they are. What I am doubting is the worthiness of
: ESAS even in the absence of putative future alt.space capabilities.

: Don't forget Ferdinand and Isabella sent Columbus out to the Spice
: Islands by sailing west in 1492.

: Don't forget Columbus is an utterly bogus analogy for space exploration.

Bull****! It works just fine. Was there a commercial fishing industry in
Portugal in 1492? THAT is your commercial space program! What Columbus was
beyond the shores of Europe. The only thing bogus is your inability to see
the viability of the analogy.

Eric



: Paul