NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On Oct 12, 2:57*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article e3b57a56-8d13-4f7b-b633-
, says....

On Oct 6, 2:12*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article a3e99247-88ec-43eb-b5e9-2a769350a948
@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com, says...

At least if Mook were in charge, there'd be lots of surprises and
loads of fly-by-rocket and clean energy advancements taking place, as
opposed to the mainstream status-quo where we all get to die of old
age and flat broke, all because our nation has delayed and bankrupted
itself past the point of no return.

Firstly, what's up with the top posting?

Secondly, Mook's design for a launch vehicle is nuts. *

Jeff, your objections to my design are nuts.

I'm not qualified
to comment on his "clean energy" stuff,

You're not qualified to comment on my rocket stuff either.

Yes, I believe I am.

The quality of your commentary here belies that belief.

*I've got enough of an engineering background that
I could comment on your energy related "stuff", but that's just not a
field I follow. *

shrug *I can't say anything about that since I have nothing to judge
you by then.



I'm of the opinion that free market forces will solve our "energy
problem"

Well, the market will certainly operate and other things emerge.

since non-renewable sources (oil, coal, natural gas, and etc.)
will continue to become increasingly difficult to extract and will
therefore have increasing costs over time. *We'll never "run out" of
them, they'll just become so expensive that they'll fall from favor.

That's certainly true! *It misses the major issue. *From 1850 through
1950 the price of energy declined continuously at an averaged 5% per
year and our economy grew at 8% per year. *From 1950 through 1970 the
price of energy remained largely constant and our economy grew at 4%
per year. *From 1970 through 2010 the cost of energy rose by 8% per
year and our economy in real terms declined by 2% per year.



Exactly what renewable energy sources will become popular will be
decided by the free market, not by you.

That's an odd statement. *You seem to think we're at the mercy of
implacable forces and that there's no role for a creative individual
to play in fundamental innovation.

Fact is, the free market is an emergent process. The market has no
innate capabilities to do anything. *People do things other people
decide if what is being done is worthwhile.

We call this interaction, the market. *The market may reward or not
reward any particular individual's activity. *In that sense the market
decides something about the activities of creative individuals based
on rational utility.

There is a proper role of government to create conditions that promote
and reward the creative acts that make a real difference in the
marketplace.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/T...-of-Representa...

http://podcast.talktainmentradio.com/talk/2565604.mp3

but I'm guessing it's just as
hair-brained.

No, its you who are hare-brained.

Your launch vehicle's flight profile is one of the most complex I've
seen when compared to serious proposals which are much more openly
documented. *I'm justified when I call it hare-brained.

Jeff
--
42

Notice Fred's oprning pretense; "The author of this message requested
that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in
5 days"

Sounds pretty much just like the sort of thing any redneck GOP/ZNR
would do, don't you think?

~ BG