Lunar Architecture Poll

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

The problem is that NASA's objectives aren't mine...

I read your vote as "oppose" not "support."

OK, in the universe of all conceivable approaches to public spending
on space, I oppose it.

In the universe of approaches that this NASA could have put forward,
constrained by this president's VSE marching orders and this
legislature's attachment to assorted NASA and contractor fiefdoms, I
support it.

Now can I get off the fence? There seem to be splinters in the top
rail...

"dasun" wrote:

ESAS has started to open one
possible future door, let us not slam it shut so cavalierly...

You need to track down Kim Stanley Robinson's 1999 talk to the Mars
Society about the "narcissism of small differences" -- originally
Freud's phrase, describing the human tendency to fight more fiercely
with our allies about small issues than with our opponents about
larger ones.

Since Marxism began to fade, I've missed the entertainment of watching
its two great arts: the feuding that divided them into smaller and
smaller groupuscules, and the ****ing & moaning about the "false
consciousness" that kept the masses from seeing that their *real*
interests were those of the revolutionary vanguard.

So I've had to make do with space advocates instead -- not bad, but
not up to the old standard.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)

Support: Ed Kyle

Oppose: ??

Oppose. I also think it's likely this program will be canceled or trimmed
back significantly before 2010.

On 22 Sep 2005 14:00:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark R.
Whittington" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I concurr. The internet rocketeers that have been complaining about
this plan have got nothing credible as an alternative.

"Credible" to you doesn't mean incredible. Maybe if the "internet
rocketeers" had been given the hundreds of billions of dollars that
NASA has over the past half century, they'd have something to show for
it too.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)

Support: Ed Kyle

Oppose: ??


Support.

I like the lunar focus - easier to exploit resources, much more convenient
travel times for these learning-to-crawl years.
I like SDHLV, because it puts some muscle back in our launch capability.
Don't care much for the Potato Masher - keep the people movers as small as
necessary. I'd almost rather see us join the Kliper program, but I'm loyal
to the Military/Industrial complex. (USA! USA!).
Keep out international cooperation or it will cost twice as much and we'll
have to orbit the moon at an 89.9 degree inclination.
Keep the expenses low enough to extend the program past 2018. We're not
interested in one-time photo-opportunities.

Monte Davis wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

The problem is that NASA's objectives aren't mine...

I read your vote as "oppose" not "support."

OK, in the universe of all conceivable approaches to public spending
on space, I oppose it.

In the universe of approaches that this NASA could have put forward,
constrained by this president's VSE marching orders and this
legislature's attachment to assorted NASA and contractor fiefdoms, I
support it.



What he said. In the universe of politically practical architectures,
Griffin's plan is about the best we can expect.

Will McLean

For those that oppose NASA's architecture, I would be interested to
read what they think is the best alternative that has a realistic
chance of being approved by this President and Congress.

Will McLean

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 14:52:09 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The problem is that NASA's objectives aren't mine...

Ain't that a damend shame. I've been saying for years that the USAF
needs to carpet bomb Paris*, but do they do it? Nope. Thus I guess I
should be calling for the defunding of all current and projected USAF
programs.

The difference, of course, is that my objectives (as opposed to
NASA's) would actually open up space, while yours, as laudable as they
may be, would only bomb Paris.


On the contrary. Carpet bombing Paris would open up a great deal of
space.

Will McLean

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:33:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Support, despite the political/fiscal doom that I believe awaits it.
Hey, the horse *could* learn to sing.

Actually, I'd give it better chances than singing horses, at least in
accomplishing the minimum stated objectives. Not a lot better, but I
do think you're being a little unfair...

The problem is that NASA's objectives aren't mine...

If I thought a "put the same money into X-prizes" approach a la
Simberg & Dinkin had a chance in hell, I'd prefer that... but it's not
on offer.

Well, nothing's on offer other than this, so I'm not sure what your
point is. The question is whether or not you intrinsically think it's
a good idea, not which option you'd choose, since we have no others.
I read your vote as "oppose" not "support."

If NASA plans for 13 years and $104 billion, then my guess is it will
take them 20 years and $300 billion.

Using solid rockets to get people into space is a very bad idea. The
odds of a fatal failure might be less than 1 in 200, but a well
designed liquid rocket should be able to do much better, since you can
turn liquids off.

I think some private company will get tourists to the moon before NASA
gets men back there. The private company will charge $100 million or
less per ticket. Someone will notice that NASA could have bought 10
tickets and saved $299 billion. At this point it will be very hard to
justifying giving billions to NASA. Could well lead to funding cuts
that come close to ending NASA.

I think rotating space tethers can be in operation sending things to
and from the moon in less than 20 years for small amounts of money
compared to what NASA is talking about. See spacetethers.com.