A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 17th 06, 03:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Eric Chomko wrote:

: And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people
: who agree with your world view'.

: That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that
: you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a
: non-sensible person.

You say that about a lot of people and the list appears to
be growing.


No, not many.

Is Derek next, because he isn't another yes-man to you?

No, he's just a curmudgeon.
Ads
  #52  
Old May 17th 06, 03:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Eric Chomko wrote:

How does state government money end up backing commercial spaceflight?


New Mexico is investing over $200M in a commercial spaceport.
  #53  
Old May 17th 06, 03:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Derek Lyons wrote:

And I find it fascinating how you define 'sensible people' as 'people
who agree with your world view'.


That is not how I define 'sensible people. I find it fascinating that
you think that it is. Ordover has a long history of being a
non-sensible person.



I think it is, because you said so in plain black and white (at least
those are the colors on my monitor). Or, you may be playing word
games again.


You're entitled to misinterpret whatever you want. I certainly can do
nothing to stop you.
  #54  
Old May 17th 06, 03:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


Rand Simberg wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

How does state government money end up backing commercial spaceflight?


New Mexico is investing over $200M in a commercial spaceport.


Please source this, including the specific tracking data on the bill
passed by the NM legislature investing this money, or the official
goverment department that cut the check or is planning to do so.

In fact, Rand, there's really no point in you posting anything without
sourcing it.

  #56  
Old May 17th 06, 03:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

How does state government money end up backing commercial spaceflight?


New Mexico is investing over $200M in a commercial spaceport.


Please source this, including the specific tracking data on the bill
passed by the NM legislature investing this money, or the official
goverment department that cut the check or is planning to do so.

In fact, Rand, there's really no point in you posting anything without
sourcing it.


Never mind - if this is the source of your claim

http://www.space.com/news/060102_nm_spaceport.html

then please note that as yet the state of NM has not appropriated any
such sum of money for a spaceport. At this moment it's all possible
proposals, and relies on -adding a tax burden to the residents of New
Mexico- to support the project that is already spending taxpayers
money.


From the above article:


"New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced on December 14 that he
will work with the state legislature to secure a three-year commitment
for a total of $100 million for the state's share of the funding to
build the world's first commercial spaceport to be built in southern
New Mexico.

Richardson's funding package will be the keystone of a larger $225
million financial construction package that includes local, state and
federal funding to build New Mexico's spaceport in Upham.

Homans said the additional funding is expected to come from a
combination of sources, including: Federal earmarks and appropriations
over the next three fiscal years; Southern New Mexico cities and
counties, by a proposed local option gross receipts tax that will be
decided by the voters; and other state sources, including future
transportation funding and money that has already been approved by the
state legislature for construction of the spaceport."

  #58  
Old May 17th 06, 03:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
New Mexico is investing over $200M in a commercial spaceport.


Please source this, including the specific tracking data on the bill
passed by the NM legislature investing this money,


NM House Bill 835, signed into law on February 24, 2006.

http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/BillFin...er.asp?year=06 will let you
find it.

or the official
goverment department that cut the check or is planning to do so.


Try the New Mexico Economic Development Department, and the newly
created New Mexico Spaceport Authority.

In fact, Rand, there's really no point in you posting anything without
sourcing it.


John, whatever time had done to temper my beliefs that you usually speak
out against things you don't understand has just been undone. Rand
overstated the amount -- New Mexico's legislature actually only
appropriated $100 million of the expected $225M cost of the spaceport's
construction -- but what he says is based solidly in reality (as usual).

A brief web search on "New Mexico spaceport" gives plenty of
information. You might want to start he

http://ww1.edd.state.nm.us/index.php...20Commercializ
ation/
  #59  
Old May 17th 06, 11:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
. ..

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..
Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.


Obviously. If it's as easy as you say, why aren't *you* doing it?



I'm doing what I can. Ya know, in the next Presidential election
the issues of gas prices, oil dependency and especially global
warming should all be key issues. And Hillary doesn't seem to
have any policy on Nasa. Maybe a letter writing campaign
to convince her SPS should be revived might have an effect.

After all, SPS could be a potential long term solution to three
of the most heated issues of the day. Oil, global warming
and wars over oil.

Maybe an open letter with some Nasa 'titles' attached to it
would get her ear? Sometimes convincing everyone is not
needed to create change, but convincing just the right person
can be enough.








  #60  
Old May 17th 06, 11:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
wrote:

If space can provide
something else cheaper and better than you can get it on Earth, that
will attract investment too. What it might be I can't imagine, but
where you need to focus energy on is imagining it.

That says much more about the paucity of your imagination than about the
nature or reality of space markets.


Lacking anything valid to say, you just hurl insults.


No, while I occasionally insult when I think it appropriate, I rarely
"just" do so. And in this case, I simply describe reality, logically
derived from your own statement.



But he is absolutely correct in that the solution to our greatest
problems will flow from our imagination. Which is what is
entirely lacking in our current space vision. They failed to
imagine how Nasa's goal would inspire public support, they
failed to imagine how it would create a space industry.
Or how the vision would generate tangible benefits to
society.

The vision does very little on any of these counts.

But imagining the future, a future where solar power, not oil
is our primary energy source leads to a solution that accomplishes
all of the above in boatloads.

As SPS could hold the long term solution to three of our greatest
most pressing issues today. Our dependence on oil, the global
warming that results. And the wars over oil that could dominate
our future. Not to mention the present.

It's through these tremendous possible benefits to society that
brings public and Congressional support. The kind of support
that could transform Nasa into more than just an agency of
pure science.

But turn Nasa into the agency that could save our future
and our planet.

Isn't that what the high frontier is all about, the future?



Jonathan

s







 




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 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.