A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

For Want Of A Bolt



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 28th 03, 10:28 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default For Want Of A Bolt

"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of
satellites:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html


"But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the
absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in
the loss of over two hundred million dollars."

Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss
is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a
few cheap parts caused its loss.

"Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain.
It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting.

Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that
are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction
(Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)...

  #22  
Old October 28th 03, 04:37 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default For Want Of A Bolt

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:28:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Paul Blay" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of
satellites:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html


"But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the
absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in
the loss of over two hundred million dollars."

Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss
is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a
few cheap parts caused its loss.


The latter is obvious. The question was why the loss was so large,
not what caused it.

"Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain.
It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting.


It's not news to you, perhaps. To many readers of Fox News, it may
be.

Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that
are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction
(Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)...


I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil."

--
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:

  #23  
Old October 28th 03, 04:44 PM
John Penta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default For Want Of A Bolt

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:37:12 -0800 (PST),
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil."


No, but somehow it drips from your columns such as to cause a flood.

  #24  
Old October 28th 03, 04:53 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default For Want Of A Bolt

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:44:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
John Penta made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:37:12 -0800 (PST),
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil."


No, but somehow it drips from your columns such as to cause a flood.


Just because you mistakenly choose to infer something doesn't mean
that I imply 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:

  #25  
Old October 28th 03, 05:22 PM
Pascal Bourguignon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default For Want Of A Bolt

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

"Paul Blay" writes:

"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of
satellites:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html


"But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the
absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in
the loss of over two hundred million dollars."

Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss
is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a
few cheap parts caused its loss.

"Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain.
It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting.

Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that
are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction
(Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)...


Of course. The problem is not the bolts or the NASA. It's that we're
still holding stuff in the air with bolts instead of doing it with
antigrav. Or more realistically, it's because we're still building
this stuff down here instead of doing it in orbit.

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.