CEV to be made commercially available

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Jim Davis wrote:


Scott, this is an incredible statement, indeed it is an admission of
sorts. It's hard to escape the conclusion that you do not care if
ESAS enriches or impoverishes the nation; you just want to see
Americans on the moon, consequences be damned.


Utter rubbish.Again, point to a government agency or project that *is*
profitable. ESAS plans to spend about what Shuttle does annually.
Shuttle has not impoverished the nation.



Again, government agencies and projects all have cost/benefit ratios, even
if they are never allowed to turn a profit. You like to bring up DOD as a
government agency that doesn't produce a profit. It's actually a great
example, because US citizens benefit greatly from a strong defense
department.


Well, now we've gone from "impoverishing/enriching the nation" to "being
of benefit." This is something of a massive change in perspective, yes?

When was the last time another nation tried to mount an attack
on the US mainland?



Mexican military forces fire on US border patrol agents with some
regularity.



--
"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

Scott Lowther wrote:
When was the last time another nation tried to mount an attack
on the US mainland?

Mexican military forces fire on US border patrol agents with some
regularity.

And this counts as an invasion how?

And this counts as showing that there is no benefit to the US military
how?

/dps

Scott Lowther wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:

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

Scott, this is an incredible statement, indeed it is an admission of
sorts. It's hard to escape the conclusion that you do not care if
ESAS enriches or impoverishes the nation; you just want to see
Americans on the moon, consequences be damned.

Utter rubbish.Again, point to a government agency or project that *is*
profitable. ESAS plans to spend about what Shuttle does annually.
Shuttle has not impoverished the nation.

It isn't the source of the incredible deficits and foriegn debt, no.
But there are many who feel it has done much towards bankrupting the
budget for *all science spending*, and indeed we are seeing important
research programs and desirable satellites being cut *at NASA itself*
as we speak, in order to do ESAS.

/dps

snidely wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote:
When was the last time another nation tried to mount an attack
on the US mainland?

Mexican military forces fire on US border patrol agents with some
regularity.

And this counts as an invasion how?

Non sequitur. Read it again: "mount an attack." Do you see "invasion"
in there?

And this counts as showing that there is no benefit to the US military
how?

How much money has the Army made? That's the claim being made against
ESAS, that it won't pay.

snidely wrote:

It isn't the source of the incredible deficits and foriegn debt, no.
But there are many who feel it has done much towards bankrupting the
budget for *all science spending*,

NASA sucks up all the science spending in the US? Wow. You'd think that
other organizations and corporations would do a little on their own.

and indeed we are seeing important
research programs and desirable satellites being cut *at NASA itself*
as we speak, in order to do ESAS.

Keep in mind: many of those who want ESAS trashed want NASA to revert
to NACA-esque "assitance only." Which means NASA wouldn't be doing
*any* such space probes. Only a small amount of research to help
companies that wanted to make their own probes.

wrote:
Keep in mind: many of those who want ESAS trashed want NASA to revert
to NACA-esque "assitance only." Which means NASA wouldn't be doing
*any* such space probes. Only a small amount of research to help
companies that wanted to make their own probes.

Yes, there is that extreme...just as there is also a range of Christian
views with Pat Robertson off on one edge, and different Republican
viewpoints, and Maoists that the PRC considers extreme.

But if you want NASA to contribute solid science of any sort, then ESAS
is a threat. If you want also NASA to develop ways of working in
space, or figuring out what can be done with moondust, then using its
limited money developing Yet Another Launcher seems to hinder those
goals.

Many people who think that CEV is a step forward also think SDHLV is 2
steps back.

/dps

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

We've been fooled enough, and this new
scheme has all the hallmarks of another con.

I'll be dissecting a variety of cons (about NASA, alt.space, and our
own hearts' desires) on the Space Show this Sunday the 13th,
12:00-1:30 PST. Webcast via the "listen live" button at

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

All are invited to chime in by phone or IM/ICQ; scroll for details at

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

Paul F. Dietz wrote:


I object to massively expensive government entertainment programs
for space fans.


Well, actually they are massively expensive government public works
programs for the aerospace industry.
That's why it doesn't matter if it's completely uneconomical...it's
intended to be uneconomical. :-D

Pat

snidely wrote:

wrote:


Keep in mind: many of those who want ESAS trashed want NASA to revert
to NACA-esque "assitance only." Which means NASA wouldn't be doing
*any* such space probes. Only a small amount of research to help
companies that wanted to make their own probes.



Yes, there is that extreme...just as there is also a range of Christian
views with Pat Robertson off on one edge, and different Republican
viewpoints, and Maoists that the PRC considers extreme.

But if you want NASA to contribute solid science of any sort, then ESAS
is a threat.


In much the same way that Apollo threatened science?


--
"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