Space review: The vision thing

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

You are now saying that SPS is "absurd" given the current space launch
capability of the world.

I'm saying that because anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge
who's studied the problem has come to that conclusion.

anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge has long since come to teh
conclusion that SPS doesn't work, Rand. Why do you find that so hard to
accept?

So now you have to assume some magic booster gets

No magic. Just intelligently designed.

so you're saying that all the current booster designs are...not
intelligently designed?

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:55:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge has long since come to teh
conclusion that SPS doesn't work, Rand. Why do you find that so hard to
accept?

Because it's not true. That's the opinion of many, but not all.

So now you have to assume some magic booster gets

No magic. Just intelligently designed.

so you're saying that all the current booster designs are...not
intelligently designed?

Yes. Not when it comes to low cost.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Terrell Miller" wrote:
Totally wrong. Rational analysis doesn't claim something is "easy" and
straightforward when it has not only never been done,

It does do so when the something is a simple and undemanding step from
what it known, involving well known techniques, and requiring only the
application of well known management and planning systems. The only
magic that needs to be invoked is a genie willing to put enough zeros
on the check.

George, Rand, Henry, and myself have all pointed this out to you.
Your only argument to date has been "it can't be done, it's never been
done, it can't be done, it's never been done". Not one single
rational answer.

but is also completely uneconomical to a staggering degree.

It's only uneconomical if you fail to understand the issues.

And you may have noticed that I have been calmly, rationally drumming this
simple point into the thick skulls of the SPS advocates here all along

No, you have yet to provide a single rational argument. Your only
argument to date has been "it can't be done, it's never been done, it
can't be done, it's never been done".

hysterical ranting that essentially amounts to Zeno's Paradox
restated snipped

From a false premise arises false conclusions, thank you for an
eloquent demonstration of what we already knew.

There's absolutely no way you can honestly get around these harsh
real-world facts, Derek.

Sorry, but the launch costs/reliability argument is a non-starter.
You've been shown that, but your response is ever the same, "it can't
be done, it's never been done, it can't be done, it's never been
done".

no, I simply tell the truth and recognize a bull**** sales pitch when I step
in one. But thanks ever so much for the kind words, sir g

Not only a fraud, but intellectually dishonest and willingly, wilfully
ignorant.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Terrell Miller" wrote:

not really, you're just avoiding the issue.

ROTFLMAO.

*This* from you?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Terrell Miller" wrote:
* first, jetliners are inherently more economical to *operate* than one-shot
boosters. For grins, assume that a Proton-sized booster takes roughly the
same capacity as a 767. But the Proton is used exactly once (actually less
if you count launch and payload failures). The 767 keeps cranking out the
revenue-passenger-miles, year in and year-out.

Agreed, but that does not mean that their are not more economical ways
available. In case you've failed to notice it's 2004 not 1964, and a
lot has been learned in the interim.

*second, how you gonna get the booster from Boeing's factory to the launch
site? It can't fly itself there like a 767 can fly to the customers's
hangar. So now you need a massive ramp-up in transportation infrastructure,

6-8 Super Guppies or their equivalent will do the job right nicely.
It'll take a year or three to get 'em, but no additional
infrastructure will be required.

or you need a massive investment in booster-production facilities closer to
the pad, which would totally engate the fungibility of Boeing's current
factories.

Probably around 250 mill to build the factory, and probably a wise
investment if you are launching that many boosters. Again, a
non-barrier.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

And you may have noticed that I have been calmly, rationally drumming this
simple point into the thick skulls of the SPS advocates here all along

No, you have yet to provide a single rational argument. Your only
argument to date has been "it can't be done, it's never been done, it
can't be done, it's never been done".

And I do admire the patience and perseverence you (and others) have
shown. This guy went into my filter set weeks ago, when he made it
obvious that not only does he not understand the most basic things about
SSP, but he also doesn't seem to recognize that he hasn't got a leg to
stand on.

I have no problem with ignorance -- that's an easily curable condition,
except when it's accompanied by such extreme arrogance. In that case, I
don't think there's anything we can do. He seems as incapable of
understanding rational arguments as he is at making them.

But I admire you for trying, long after my own patience was exhausted!

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:55:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge has long since come to teh
conclusion that SPS doesn't work, Rand. Why do you find that so hard to
accept?

Because it's not true. That's the opinion of many, but not all.

Ah me. Another thread where I have some sympathy with the basic argument,
when it is whether or not SPS is both doable and going further down the line

economic. The problem is that making claims such as "anyone with a lick of
engineering knowledge has come to the conclusion that SPS doesn't work is
demonstratably false".

However, that is not the same as the claim that the SPS works. I claim
that is unproven. There is a lack of experimental data to prove this
particular thesis. I note that the claim SPS works definitely has to
be qualified. It depends on some state of the art advancements in
things like solar collectors and building large satellite systems that have
just not been done yet.

So now you have to assume some magic booster gets

No magic. Just intelligently designed.

so you're saying that all the current booster designs are...not
intelligently designed?

Yes. Not when it comes to low cost.

Now we can get to the matter of what qualifies as intelligently
designed.

This part of the conversation where the arguments get a bit
squishy. You can make a case for saying that we don't have
low cost launchers because we don't have large projects
requiring the launch of large masses of material into orbit.

Then you can claim that we don't have the large projects
because there are no suitable low cost launchers available.

Mike Walsh

point, you probably won't even need SPS anyway,......fundamentally new
technologies that don't *need* much
electricity-generation. In that case, the power grid will not look like it
does today in the first place.

Even if *no* electricity were required, energy, in increasing amounts, will be
needed in some other form. And our only inexhaustible energy source is the
sun.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:55:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge has long since come to teh
conclusion that SPS doesn't work, Rand. Why do you find that so hard to
accept?

Because it's not true. That's the opinion of many, but not all.
So now you have to assume some magic booster gets

No magic. Just intelligently designed.

so you're saying that all the current booster designs are...not
intelligently designed?

Yes. Not when it comes to low cost.

Of course! What a great idea! What if we just switch our mentality
from building one-shot rockets based on missiles to building reusable
intelligently designed orbital space vehicles! Why with this idea
innovation, we don't need higher performance engines, stronger and
lighter structural materials, better reliability of high performance
parts, or breakthroughs in TPS design! We just use what we have lying
around in the garage! It'll be so much cheaper! I wonder why NASA
didn't think of this. Those monopolistic dinosaurs sure are silly!

My next project: making cheaper nuclear power plants that are also
failsafe reliable. I'm gonna show up those curmudgeons at Naval
Reactors and the Atomic Energy Agency.

Tom Merkle

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:12:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:55:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

anyone with a lick of engineering knowledge has long since come to teh
conclusion that SPS doesn't work, Rand. Why do you find that so hard to
accept?

Because it's not true. That's the opinion of many, but not all.

Ah me. Another thread where I have some sympathy with the basic argument,
when it is whether or not SPS is both doable and going further down the line

economic. The problem is that making claims such as "anyone with a lick of
engineering knowledge has come to the conclusion that SPS doesn't work is
demonstratably false".

However, that is not the same as the claim that the SPS works. I claim
that is unproven.

Of course. But Mr. Terrell believes otherwise, even though he
demonstrates ignorance of the basic principles.

so you're saying that all the current booster designs are...not
intelligently designed?

Yes. Not when it comes to low cost.

Now we can get to the matter of what qualifies as intelligently
designed.

Intelligently designed in the sense that they didn't start with first
principles to achieve low cost--find a large market, and satisfy it.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: