Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

kT wrote:

In addition to that, he doesn't judge scientific projects. He
appoints other people (e.g., Mike Griffin) to do that for him.

George is the deciderizer. He gave the VSE speech. It's his problem.

Here's The Great Decider at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ff2...eature=related

Pat

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:21:26 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Leopold Stotch wrote:

I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous
and given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a
good chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.

Actually, he described himself as a "Reborn" Christian...which left
everyone wondering how he could tell lies constantly, start wars, and
have people tortured, while somehow supporting "The Prince Of Peace" and
the concept of "turn the other cheek".

It only leaves loons who believe that wondering such nonsense.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:21:26 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Leopold Stotch wrote:
I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous
and given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a
good chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.
Actually, he described himself as a "Reborn" Christian...which left
everyone wondering how he could tell lies constantly, start wars, and
have people tortured, while somehow supporting "The Prince Of Peace" and
the concept of "turn the other cheek".

It only leaves loons who believe that wondering such nonsense.

I can parse that, I think. Ok. I can't parse it. I tried, though.

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:There is delegation and delegation. Who do you ask? To take a simple
:example none of the people who made the Iraq decision spoke Arabic -
:

Probably true.

:
r indeed knew anything about the Middle East.
:

Almost certainly false, and stupidly so into the bargain.

:
:A manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars involve big bucks.
:It is some $60bn even if you can produce methane from CO2 and
:hydrogen.
:

Pretty much the same price tag even if you can't, too.

:
:Mind this technology would come in handy on Earth too.
:Suppose we burn coal and sequester the CO2. Suppose too that we cover
:the South West with photovoltaic panels.
:

Suppose we don't. If you want to junk up someone's home, junk up your
own.

:
:The latest technology will
:recover its cost in about a year in a sunny environment.
:

Apparently nobody with sense and money believes that or they'd be
building facilities.

:
:Suppose too
:that we obtain hydrogen by electrolysing water. The ability to produce
:methane will be pretty handy.
:

Why? It makes more sense to just skip the 'making methane' stage and
go to a hydrogen economy at that point.

:
:One word about timescales and technology. Technology in the year 2121
:is irrelevant since we are not comparing it with anything. 2020 and
:2031 are relevant dates as they refer (perhaps optimistically) to a
:manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars.
:

But since you can't know the answer to "what's technology A look like
20 years out", why does it make any difference what year you pick? If
you're always betting your billions on future technology you never get
anything done.

:
:To my way of thinking if you are making a $60bn+ decision you should
:be consulting experts in all fields, not just heavy rocketry. I
:believe myself that the whole strategy of heavy rockets, heavy
:indivisible loads and an emphasis on manned space flight is
:fundamentally flawed.
:

Yes, but what you believe is irrelevant, since you have no experience
or knowledge about making multi-billion dollar decisions, managing
multi-billion dollar programs, rocketry (either heavy or light), space
flight (either manned or unmanned), or much of anything else anyone
has been able to discern.

The only place we've seen you demonstrate any sort of skill at all is
in being fundamentally flawed.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
:
:There is delegation and delegation. Who do you ask? To take a simple
:example none of the people who made the Iraq decision spoke Arabic -
:

Probably true.

:
r indeed knew anything about the Middle East.
:

Almost certainly false, and stupidly so into the bargain.

:
:A manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars involve big bucks.
:It is some $60bn even if you can produce methane from CO2 and
:hydrogen.
:

Pretty much the same price tag even if you can't, too.

:
:Mind this technology would come in handy on Earth too.
:Suppose we burn coal and sequester the CO2. Suppose too that we cover
:the South West with photovoltaic panels.
:

Suppose we don't. If you want to junk up someone's home, junk up your
own.

:
:The latest technology will
:recover its cost in about a year in a sunny environment.
:

Apparently nobody with sense and money believes that or they'd be
building facilities.

:
:Suppose too
:that we obtain hydrogen by electrolysing water. The ability to produce
:methane will be pretty handy.
:

Why? It makes more sense to just skip the 'making methane' stage and
go to a hydrogen economy at that point.

:
:One word about timescales and technology. Technology in the year 2121
:is irrelevant since we are not comparing it with anything. 2020 and
:2031 are relevant dates as they refer (perhaps optimistically) to a
:manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars.
:

But since you can't know the answer to "what's technology A look like
20 years out", why does it make any difference what year you pick? If
you're always betting your billions on future technology you never get
anything done.

:
:To my way of thinking if you are making a $60bn+ decision you should
:be consulting experts in all fields, not just heavy rocketry. I
:believe myself that the whole strategy of heavy rockets, heavy
:indivisible loads and an emphasis on manned space flight is
:fundamentally flawed.
:

Yes, but what you believe is irrelevant, since you have no experience
or knowledge about making multi-billion dollar decisions, managing
multi-billion dollar programs, rocketry (either heavy or light), space
flight (either manned or unmanned), or much of anything else anyone
has been able to discern.

The only place we've seen you demonstrate any sort of skill at all is
in being fundamentally flawed.

Your fundamental flaw :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:22:21 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Jan 7, 9:32*am, kT wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:21:26 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Leopold Stotch wrote:
I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. *The two are not synonymous
and given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a
good chance that he is not a creationist. *Of course, I might be wrong.
Actually, he described himself as a "Reborn" Christian...which left
everyone wondering how he could tell lies constantly, start wars, *and
have people tortured, while somehow supporting "The Prince Of Peace" and
the concept of "turn the other cheek".

It only leaves loons who believe that wondering such nonsense.

I can parse that, I think. Ok. I can't parse it. I tried, though.

Rand claims to be a "recovering" engineer from the aerospace industry.
The key word being 'recovering'. Perhaps not being fully recovered has
him produce sentences that are unable to be parsed? It would explain a
lot more about his behavior as well.

My sentences are quite capable of being parsed, by non-idiots and
non-trolls.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.


Huh?

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Um, using established technologies and manufacturing techniques that
will also be used on Ares V, ie five segment solids, J2-X engines, and
making the tanks in LA?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Eric Chomko wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:32 am, kT wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:21:26 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Leopold Stotch wrote:
I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous
and given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a
good chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.
Actually, he described himself as a "Reborn" Christian...which left
everyone wondering how he could tell lies constantly, start wars, and
have people tortured, while somehow supporting "The Prince Of Peace" and
the concept of "turn the other cheek".
It only leaves loons who believe that wondering such nonsense.

I can parse that, I think. Ok. I can't parse it. I tried, though.

Rand claims to be a "recovering" engineer from the aerospace industry.
The key word being 'recovering'. Perhaps not being fully recovered has
him produce sentences that are unable to be parsed? It would explain a
lot more about his behavior as well.

Usually my quantum neuralizer is able to grok those things, but this one
is one of the more challenging examples of ungrokkable grammar errors.

Most of these things are the result of fast look ahead speed reading and
typing, so we really can't blame him for that. We all do it regularly.
How much time do we want to invest in usenet nuts with nothing to offer.

In fact, a really bad grammar error like that crept into the very first
paragraph of my COTS proposal, do you know how embarrassing that is?

I was so rushed to get that thing into the Fed-Ex at the last minute,
that I missed it. That alone is enough to disqualify me, for sure.

I think it was 'the' instead of 'of'.

Ian Parker wrote:
On 7 Jan, 15:34, kT wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
:
:There is delegation and delegation. Who do you ask? To take a simple
:example none of the people who made the Iraq decision spoke Arabic -
:
Probably true.
:
r indeed knew anything about the Middle East.
:
Almost certainly false, and stupidly so into the bargain.
:
:A manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars involve big bucks.
:It is some $60bn even if you can produce methane from CO2 and
:hydrogen.
:
Pretty much the same price tag even if you can't, too.
:
:Mind this technology would come in handy on Earth too.
:Suppose we burn coal and sequester the CO2. Suppose too that we cover
:the South West with photovoltaic panels.
:
Suppose we don't. If you want to junk up someone's home, junk up your
own.
:
:The latest technology will
:recover its cost in about a year in a sunny environment.
:
Apparently nobody with sense and money believes that or they'd be
building facilities.
:
:Suppose too
:that we obtain hydrogen by electrolysing water. The ability to produce
:methane will be pretty handy.
:
Why? It makes more sense to just skip the 'making methane' stage and
go to a hydrogen economy at that point.
:
:One word about timescales and technology. Technology in the year 2121
:is irrelevant since we are not comparing it with anything. 2020 and
:2031 are relevant dates as they refer (perhaps optimistically) to a
:manned lunar base and a manned expedition to Mars.
:
But since you can't know the answer to "what's technology A look like
20 years out", why does it make any difference what year you pick? If
you're always betting your billions on future technology you never get
anything done.
:
:To my way of thinking if you are making a $60bn+ decision you should
:be consulting experts in all fields, not just heavy rocketry. I
:believe myself that the whole strategy of heavy rockets, heavy
:indivisible loads and an emphasis on manned space flight is
:fundamentally flawed.
:
Yes, but what you believe is irrelevant, since you have no experience
or knowledge about making multi-billion dollar decisions, managing
multi-billion dollar programs, rocketry (either heavy or light), space
flight (either manned or unmanned), or much of anything else anyone
has been able to discern.
The only place we've seen you demonstrate any sort of skill at all is
in being fundamentally flawed.
Your fundamental flaw :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/- Hide quoted text -

The question of debt is quite complex.

Not really, George W. Bush destroyed America, thus by simple logical
deduction, Americans destroyed America, that's you and me and everyone
else for that matter. The big question is, what can we do about it.

The dollar is a reserve
currency, this means that the countries (like China) that have
surpluses tend to hold dollars. This means, in effect, that you can
print dollars - at least some. As soon as your deficit gets to a
certain critical level people will no longer have confidence, they
will start to hold Euros. A loss of confidence tends to be rapid.

The fact of the matter is that China is holding up the dollar. China
is in fact the big one, countries in the Middle East hold smaller
reserves and conversion to the Euro would be less catastrophic.

Another worrying trend is sovereign funds. These are held by countries
like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Sovereign funds are owned by
Arab governments, are invested (largely) in Wesern countries and are a
means of recycling petrodollars. Up to now sovereign investment has
been non political, although potentially sovereign investment could be
used politically.

Have these funds been used politically? Well the US rates secular
Syria as being an "axis of evil" whilst Wahabbi Saudi is given the red
carpet treatment. Don't tell me that SF are not being used
politically.

There is debate about Global Warming is it real or not? To me it is
clear that the consumption of oil must be drastically curbed - not
because of Global Warming, but because of the threat that the oil
producing countries pose financially. Steps should also be taken to
make sovereign funds difficult to transfer between one country and
another. One possibility would be a system of Sovereign credits
whereby countries receiving Sovereign investments undertake to
reimburse countries not receiving the same level of investment.
Credits could be used as part of foreign exchange reserves.

You are indeed correct if you are implying that large expenditures of
public money for space, or indeed for anything else not commanding a
foreseeable return is to be avoided.

I am of the opinion that we are in such a deep dark hole now, the only
thing that can save us is large expenditures in space. I would rather
have them be rational expenditures, instead of irrational expenditures.

Thus my COTS proposal.

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.


Huh?

Please spare us.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Um, using established technologies and manufacturing techniques that
will also be used on Ares V, ie five segment solids, J2-X engines, and
making the tanks in LA?

No, investing in a extraterrestrial space exploration program that sucks
most of the money away from rational Earth centric observation and
space transportation infrastructure. If you don't think that both VSE
and ESAS have been disastrous for America there is no use discussing it
with you.

I intend to make tanks in LA, that's the only thing I can salvage here.

If you need to get up to speed on the ramifications of the disaster :

http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com