CEV to be made commercially available

snidely wrote:


Yes, there is that extreme...just as there is also a range of Christian
views with Pat Robertson off on one edge,


Speaking of being off the edge: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

Pat

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

The 1960s.

The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Manfred Mann, Donovan, The Troggs, Herman's
Hermits, The Animals, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, I
mean it's never really stopped

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
: ...
: :Because I used to think like you, up until I started getting my
: :aerospace engineering degree and started looking at why launch costs are
:so
: :high.
:
: And just why is that, other than that there's been no real commercial
: driver to get them down?
:
: :Sending a few NASA astronauts to the moon won't make us any more of a
: :spacefaring nation than Apollo did, so what's the point of Apollo 2.0?
:
: Well, as you pointed out, right now most of the American people could
: give a fig about space. Not sending people isn't the way to get or
: keep their interest. When we were going someplace (before NASA got
: boring) a lot more people were interested.
:
:Interest in Apollo dropped rapidly after the successful return of Apollo 11.
:The same drop in interest also happened for shuttle, shuttle/Mir, and
:shuttle/ISS. What's to stop that same drop for Apollo 2.0? What will be
:fundamentally different so that interest will be retained for longer than
:the first few flights?

The fact that it will be an ongoing program. You get a few flights to
the Moon, then you start putting in a base. Along there somewhere you
start working toward going to Mars. The idea is to keep pushing
outward, not do the same thing over and over again.

People lost interest because the whole goal was wrong - 'routine
access to space'. People aren't interested in 'routine' things.

: There's your point. Or do you think we'll somehow become "more of a
: spacefaring nation" by killing human access to space outright?
:
:Human access to space does not necessarily equal NASA human access to space.
:I'd like to see NASA start pulling back from taking control of all aspects
f human access to space and see them start to utilize commercial resources.

Of which there aren't any. End of human space flight.

:Unfortunately, Apollo 2.0 does none of that. There is some lip service
:being paid to commercial resupply of ISS, but the entire foundation of
:Apollo 2.0 is NASA, right down to the launch vehicles and launch facilities.

Nothing stops anyone else from buying the same (or other) vehicles and
sending people.

:I'm not against NASA returning to the moon, but I am against the current
lan which lets NASA retain control of everything. Specifically, launch
:services can be purchased from US providers.

And how many of them have vehicles capable of putting in a Moon base
in the works? How many of them have vehicles capable of a Mars
mission in the works?

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

"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

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :The general populace's apathy is a rational response to the situation.
: :What, exactly, is the manned space program doing for them or their
: :descendants?
:
: It wasn't doing anything before and lots of people were excited about
: it, Paul.
:
:Ah, and because people were doing that, it couldn't be irrational.
:As we all know, people are never irrational.

Well, most people most of the time. You seem to be pretty irrational
on this particular topic.

: :The only complaint I have about the apathy is that it's allowing
: :the charade to continue.
:
: As opposed to killing human access to space (and any interest in same
: by most folks) outright?
:
:I object to massively expensive government entertainment programs
:for space fans. I reject that notion that 'getting people interested
:in space' is a worthwhile goal.

Then we really have nothing further to say to each other. I'm
interested in seeing people interested in space so that space industry
goes somewhere. You've just stated that you don't think this is a
worthwhile goal.

:A manned space program, IMO, must
:be justified by the objective good it does for the country, and
:by its cost. IMO, ESAS fails to measure up.

So you are against all manned space.

: Except that's not going to happen because you'll never get over the
: 'hump'. You're basically stuck at COMSAT sorts of applications. No
: need for people there.
:
:Well, at least you're off the 'getting people interested' thing here.

Not really, no. You just don't understand why that is a valuable
thing to be doing.

:The problem is, ESAS doesn't 'get over the hump' either.

Certainly not by itself. Nothing does, so we should all retire to our
nice boxes full of cotton batting. Everything is forever undoable.

:What it does
:is, at enormous cost and over an extended period, do nothing much
n which anything further can be built.

Well, except for a base (where lunar construction techniques can be
experimented with) and that very "extended period", itself. Get
people interested for "an extended period" and at the end of it we'll
have a lot more scientists and engineers.

: :Since ESAS won't do anything significant to advance that goal,
: :killing NASA would be no worse, and would save money.
:
: No, it would be worse because even fewer people would be interested in
: the future. The money saved would go where, do you think, Paul?
:
:Lots of people would remain interested in the future. They would
:be less interested in your particular flawed view of the future.

Yes, lots of people aren't interesting in seeing people in space. Of
course, YOU wouldn't have the toys YOU like without government space
programs that, at the time, were seen as 'pointless', either.

Hey, I know. Let's just spend it on welfare....

on't be so self centered.

Ah, can't argue the merits, can we, Paul?

:As for where the money could go... gosh, maybe the government
:could just NOT SPEND IT? If you claim that's impossible, that the
:government will continue to spend far beyond its means, then
:the country is doomed anyway, ESAS or not.

And not spending it does what? Other than kill space, I mean.

: :Avoiding the shuttle fiasco would have been a huge benefit,
:
: To who? Terminating space, remember? Contrary to what your sort
: generally think, cutting manned space does NOT lead to more money for
: non-manned space. It leads to a cut in ALL space.
:
:But in this case, remember that US expendable launcher programs
:were explicitly targeted for termination so shuttle would have
:more customers. Had shuttle not been developed, this wouldn't
:have happened. As it stands, the expendable programs were restarted,
:at considerable cost, when it became clear how disastrous the
:shuttle program would be. But by that time a decade or more
:had been wasted.

That doesn't seem to follow, Paul.

:Expenables in the US would be far ahead of where they were had
:shuttle not been built. We might have had the equivalent of
:the Atlas 5 a decade earlier, or perhaps even sooner. We might
:even have started designing the first stages of these vehicles
:for recovery and reuse.

You can't 'railroad' until it's time to 'railroad', Paul. You have to
wait for all the supporting technologies. We've been using the same
old boosters right along.

In fact, you would have been one of the folks arguing against the
change. After all, what do we need those new expendables for? The
ones we have are putting up everything there's a commercial interest
in putting up. How does investing a bunch of money in new hardware
turn a profit?

: :and US expendable launchers would be much better than they now are.
:
: I can't find a single reason to believe that.
:
:Sucks to be you, I guess.

Not really, no. However, your vision seems to be mighty selective....

--
"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

"Jeff Findley" 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.
:
: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.

And just where are the commercial launch services that can deliver
what NASA is looking for?

They don't exist. How do you propose they come into existence?

--
"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

"snidely" wrote:

:
: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.

And this is where the planetary science types always screw up.

Look at the numbers historically. When manned space funding declines
so does planetary science funding. When manned space funding
increases so does planetary science funding.

Science folks who want to kill manned space in the mistaken belief
that this will someone transfer THAT money to THEIR budgets are peeing
in their own punch bowl over anything except the very shortest of
terms.

--
"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:

:Ah, and because people were doing that, it couldn't be irrational.
:As we all know, people are never irrational.

Well, most people most of the time. You seem to be pretty irrational
on this particular topic.

Actually, the opposite is the case. You are the producing the strained
rationalizations.


:I object to massively expensive government entertainment programs
:for space fans. I reject that notion that 'getting people interested
:in space' is a worthwhile goal.

Then we really have nothing further to say to each other.
I'm interested in seeing people interested in space so that space industry
goes somewhere. You've just stated that you don't think this is a
worthwhile goal.

The flaw in your thinking is the idea that getting people interested
in space will lead to the space industry going somewhere. Lack of
interest hasn't been the roadblock. Lack of worthwhile application
of space is the roadblock. All the excited elementary school
students in the world won't change that.

:A manned space program, IMO, must
:be justified by the objective good it does for the country, and
:by its cost. IMO, ESAS fails to measure up.

So you are against all manned space.

If all manned space is a net wealth-destroyer then, yes, I am
against manned space. If there are manned space activities that
produce net wealth, then I am not opposed to them.


:Well, at least you're off the 'getting people interested' thing here.

Not really, no. You just don't understand why that is a valuable
thing to be doing.

I usually try to not agree with falsehoods. You don't understand why
it's *not* a valuable thing.

:The problem is, ESAS doesn't 'get over the hump' either.

Certainly not by itself. Nothing does, so we should all retire to our
nice boxes full of cotton batting. Everything is forever undoable.

Tell me, how bad would ESAS have to be for you to not like it?
Is there any limit to your boosterism?


:Lots of people would remain interested in the future. They would
:be less interested in your particular flawed view of the future.

Yes, lots of people aren't interesting in seeing people in space. Of
course, YOU wouldn't have the toys YOU like without government space
programs that, at the time, were seen as 'pointless', either.

What toys are those? Are you repeating the old, tired 'integrated
circuits are space spinoffs' claim?

on't be so self centered.

Ah, can't argue the merits, can we, Paul?

I do, but, alas, like any good ideologue, you seem to be
impervious to them.


:As for where the money could go... gosh, maybe the government
:could just NOT SPEND IT?

And not spending it does what? Other than kill space, I mean.

It reduces the debt burden on our descendants. It allows reduction
in taxes. It allows us to spend the wealth created by our labor
as we see fit, not as the government sees fit.

But maybe all that's meaningless to you.



:But in this case, remember that US expendable launcher programs
:were explicitly targeted for termination so shuttle would have
:more customers. Had shuttle not been developed, this wouldn't
:have happened. As it stands, the expendable programs were restarted,
:at considerable cost, when it became clear how disastrous the
:shuttle program would be. But by that time a decade or more
:had been wasted.

That doesn't seem to follow, Paul.

Hey, I'm sorry you're disconnected from reality, Fred.
Maybe this article will jar your out of your foolish delusions:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/470/1

In fact, you would have been one of the folks arguing against the
change. After all, what do we need those new expendables for?

To launch those unmanned satellites that are producing actual
benefits, commercial, scientificm, and military.

: I can't find a single reason to believe that.
:
:Sucks to be you, I guess.

Not really, no. However, your vision seems to be mighty selective....

See the above link, and stop spewing crap, please.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

So you are against all manned space.


If all manned space is a net wealth-destroyer then, yes, I am
against manned space. If there are manned space activities that
produce net wealth, then I am not opposed to them.


Irrational logic, as any investor in a new technology, process,
industry, whatever, will tell you. Producing wealth requires the
expenditure of wealth. Just as there is no manned space activity that
produces wealth, neither is there a stem cell activity that produces
wealth or aquantum computer that produces wealth or a supersonic
aircraft that produces wealth or an unmanned scientific space probe that
produces wealth.






:As for where the money could go... gosh, maybe the government
:could just NOT SPEND IT?

And not spending it does what? Other than kill space, I mean.


It reduces the debt burden on our descendants. It allows reduction
in taxes. It allows us to spend the wealth created by our labor
as we see fit, not as the government sees fit.


Greeeeaaaat. Cut, what, six or eight billion dollars per year out of a
two-trillion dollar budget? That'll help.


But maybe all that's meaningless to you.


A budget cut of 0.3%, while forfeiting the future? Yeah. That's *worse*
than meaningless.



--
"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

"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.