Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z

(jjp) wrote:
I believe that to think that the best way to satisfy stock holders is
by shipping thousands of jobs overseas while laying off loyal workers
over here right before Christmas or shutting down entire American
companies by going with companies in Asia -- is ignorant...

There is little hope of a different option in the current American
business climate. (Unions, regulations, taxes, employee benefits...)

especially when other responsible companies have found ways to cut costs
simply by adopting more efficient practices while still keeping American
workers.

It's possible for some industries, not possible for others.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

I believe that to think that the best way to satisfy stock holders is
by shipping thousands of jobs overseas while laying off loyal workers
over here right before Christmas or shutting down entire American
companies by going with companies in Asia -- is ignorant...

This works fine if everybody in America is a stockholder and earns enough
dividends to make a living without looking for work.

especially when other responsible companies have found ways to cut costs
simply by adopting more efficient practices while still keeping American
workers.


Cheap workers slow down technological innovation. Why build an automatic fruit
picking machine when some third worlders do it cheaper. Machines need repair
and maintenance while human beings are disposable. If one dies because of poor
living and working conditions or lack of health care, there is always another
one willing to take the job. Machines aren't so disposable, if one breaks down,
it needs fixing, or the manufacturer needs to buy another one, these minimum
costs must be met. With humans, its all about supply and demand. There is
usually more supply than demand in poor countries. They'll work for less than
it costs to properly maintain themselves because the alternative is worse.

Tom

".spade." wrote in message
...

I'm not talking about who's paying who. Where are all the talented
graduates going? They didn't flock to the space sector.

Into their parents basements. Boomers are next on the corporate hit
lists. Then see how fast Hillary or Dennis! becomes president.

From: "Mike Rhino"
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:26:55 GMT

Oops, I missed this and am just seeing it now.

Suppose that we can produce aluminum fuel or some other fuel on the
moon. In that case, it would make sense to have one ship that goes
straight from Earth to Lunar orbit and a second ship that goes up and
down to the moon's surface. This would imply landing robots long
before we land humans to get the lunar fuel production up and running.

I agree with all of that except going directly from Earth's surface to
Lunar orbit in a single vehicle. We have a lot of uses for a space tug:
- Repair and move geosynch communication satellites.
- Controllably de-orbit LEO space junk.
- Boost LEO satellites, such as HST.
- Move supplies from one LEO object to another without having to change
either object's orbit.

So we might as well go ahead and develop the space tug. If we design
it to have enough fuel for several GEO missions before needing to
be refueled, it'll have plenty to act as:
- LEO/LunarOrbit transfer of small payloads such as Lunar robots.

If we enhance it to have capability of virtually unlimited strap-on
extra fuel tanks, then it might possibly serve as:
- LEO/LunarOrbit transfer of large payloads such as manned modules.

So then the only vehicle we need design specifically for Lunar use
would be the LunarOrbit/LunarGround vehicle. We could build several of
them, to make one-way trips to Luna to deliver the first robots to
perform Luna polar water extraction and hydrolysis to make rocket fuel,
then re-fuel those vehicles to make one-way trips back to orbit to
deliver themselves plus any unused fuel. After that point, they'd make
round-trips, more robots down, more fuel up, eventually other materials
up too.

".spade." wrote in message
...

IT is where it is at.

Not even there. Windows 98 crashes every 98 minutes 14 or so years
after Windows introduction. Google limits you to 10 query words,
doesn't support parentheses or NEAR. Only the Debian distro of Linux
(which is out of date even when using the "unstable" version can
handle several layers of dependencies). Also, we needed XML and
meaningful tags and elements (as in mammal Flipper /mammal years
ago.

Also, in terms of a career, IT has many other advantages. The entry
cost is lower, the financial returns possibly greater.

Investors follow good marketers who pump every half-baked
implementation of every half-baked scheme that can be rushed to market
fast enough to generate 30% returns this quarter (or they just claim
so anyway). Must be the cocaine and benzedrine. The three
generations preceding mine (Generation Jones, Boomers, and the Loud
Generation) can't tell the difference between a positive attitude and
a positive altitude. As for "Millennials," it is too soon to tell
anything. It looks to me like that generation may be a long way off.

Some started as employees of big firms and moved out on their own
after a year or two,

Must have graduated from college before 1990 or after 1996 or
something like that.

and others skipped that phase all together.

Like who?

governments are different than corporate customers

Corporations are governments http://www.afsc.net/corp-dem.htm,
http://www.poclad.org/

which we don't have enough of

Agreed. Also, we should place the numerous pre-Civil War restrictions
on them after smashing them into millions of pieces so we have
"billions and billions" of them.

The way I see it at the moment, space has lost a lot of talent, and
until the basic economy of space changes, they may not come back.

Our thinking needs to change first. Then the economic system.
National capitalist neoconmen and totalitarian "democratic" socialism
will get us no place. Definitely not space.

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...

You're fooling yourself. Your view of the current congress, in
terms
of NASA funding, is all wrong. Consider how upset they are over the
current ISS fiasco. This is a program where NASA has occasionally
"discovered" billions in overruns, not long after reassuring
congress
that costs are under control. Congress is not about to let NASA
start
another mega project.

Last I read the Pentagon can't find something like a trillion or two
$$$ cha-ching. No one gives a damn about cost overruns or
effectiveness, except when it comes to promoting the general welfare
and serving the public interest. There is plenty of money for
bureaucrats on public welfare to the tune of 30 or 40 million dollars
per year. They even get paid as much as $300 million to leave jobs
they never had to begin with.

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...

Yep, its that "damned Zionist occupation government" that's running
America
again. As we know by reliable sources in the Middle East, most US
soldiers are
Jews. Other people say that the whole Bolshevik Revolution is Russia
was
engineered by Jews and that Lenin was a Jew. So following that past
historic
pattern, its natural to assume that the Israelis are up to no good.

Excellent job -- of taking a truth and bending it beyond recognition.
Furthermore, despite being just 2.5% or so of the U.S. population, a
much more substantial portion of those with real power are jews. I am
pretty sure most or all of the following are Jews -- Perle, Wolfowitz,
Greenspan, Buffet and Soros. Many of the anti-hun, anti-Bohemian
Anglos (hate to think of what they think of a mixed breed like me) are
also Zionists who take few New Testament books seriously, except John
and the Revelations. Now we got money changers in our own temples
such as the Korean call-girl banging Liquor Officer's 700 club.
Furthermore these people were almost all Trotsky socialist or social
liberals before changing over to the "Republican" Party and making a
party almost as bad as the "Democratic" one into a party far worse
during the early '70s to early '90s timespan.

Actually the Israelis are doing things that America may have to do

Have to? I thought "Republicans" and "conservatives" believed in free
will?

depending on how much difficulty the local Arab population here
gives us

So the "Arab" population determines the behavior of "conservatives."

or how successful Al Qaeda is in recruiting more suicide bombers
from Arab
populations. I would be reluctant to criticise the Israelis when
that may
curtail our efforts to fight terrorism in the future.

George W. Bush is critical now of Israeli efforts to build a wall to
keep out Arabs terrorists

As I recall, whites in South Africa who didn't want to get hurt from
the crossfire of waring tribes made the same argument.

If Arabs want war with the US they should continue to attack
Americans

Haven't Jews been killing Arabs with something like a dozen to one
kill ratio. A few years back it took narrowing the ratio to something
like three to one to get Sharon back to the negotiating table. And
what about the King David Hotel and Menachem Begin. Jews didn't even
live there for 1,900 or so years prior to the early 1900s. How can a
"citizenry" that allows itself to be subjugated and its country to
occupied not end up having neither freedom nor liberty.

perhaps after we've killed a certain number of Arabs in this future
war, they might become pacifists like the Japanese did after World War
II. Apparently we've haven't hit that number yet as many Arabs are
still perfectly happy to die in droves.

So you admit it really is about Arabs dying and martyrdom?

A terrorist policy will only bring ruin on them in the long run unless
we reward them by giving in, perhaps by bashing a few Jews in the
process.
Europeans have a long habit of this, so for them it is quite easy
for them to
give the Arabs what they want. It makes the neo-Nazis in this
country look like
a bunch or Arab-controlled puppents and weakling capitulationists.
Jews have become an unuseful minority in the Democratic Party, and
just witness
how Al Gore responded to this by rejecting Joe Leiberman. When Gore
picked Joe
Leibermann as his running mate, he didn't know we would be going to
war with
Arabs, since Al Gore doesn't like War, this causes him to reject the
Jew and
follow the path of least resistance by endorsing Howard Dean.

Tom

This one went out just before transfering it from "Outbox" to
"Drafts."

What was I saying about half-baked implementations of half-baked ideas
in another post? The pot-smoking greaser I remind people of who is
worth $60 Billion can't even get newsgroup software straight.

A screwed up system indeed.

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...

Yep, its that "damned Zionist occupation government" that's running
America again. As we know by reliable sources in the Middle East, most
US soldiers are Jews. Other people say that the whole Bolshevik
Revolution is Russia was engineered by Jews and that Lenin was a Jew.
So following that past historic pattern, its natural to assume that
the Israelis are up to no good.

Excellent job -- of taking some truths, bending them beyond
recognition, and tossing in some lies no one (or few) would even
claim. Furthermore, despite being just 2.5% or so of the U.S.
population, a much more substantial portion of those with real power
are Jews. I am pretty sure most or all of the following are Jews --
Perle, Wolfowitz, Greenspan, Buffet and Soros. Many of the anti-Hun,
anti-Bohemian Anglos (hate to think of what they think of a mixed
breed like me) are also Zionists who take few New Testament books
seriously, except John and the Revelations and maybe a few others.
Now we got money changers in our own temples such as the Korean
call-girl banging Liquor Officer and his 700 Club. Furthermore these
people were almost all Trotsky socialist or social liberals before
changing over to the "Republican" Party and making that party almost
as bad as the "Democratic" one into a party far worse during the early
'70s to early '90s timespan.

Actually the Israelis are doing things that America may have to do

Have to? I thought "Republicans" and "conservatives" believed in free
will and making rational choices from various options. I thought they
believe everyone has options and a powerful "personal agency"
regardless of their circumstances.

depending on how much difficulty the local Arab population here
gives us or how successful Al Qaeda is in recruiting more suicide
bombers from Arab populations

So the "Arab" population and Al Qaeda determines the behavior of
"conservatives?"

. I would be reluctant to criticize the Israelis when that may
curtail our efforts to fight terrorism in the future.

Maybe criticizing Israel is a step toward reducing the need to fight
terror in the first place.

George W. Bush is critical now of Israeli efforts to build a wall to
keep out Arabs terrorists

As I recall, whites in South Africa who didn't want to get hurt from
the crossfire of waring tribes made an argument that is similar for
all practical purposes.

If Arabs want war with the US they should continue to attack
Americans

Haven't Jews been killing Arabs with something like a dozen to one
kill ratio? A few years back it took narrowing the ratio to something
like three to one to get Sharon back to the negotiating table. Also,
what about the King David Hotel and Menachem Begin in 1948? Jews
didn't even live there for 1,900 or so years prior to the early 1900s.
How can a "citizenry" that allows itself to be subjugated and its
country to be occupied not end up having neither freedom nor liberty?

perhaps after we've killed a certain number of Arabs in this future
war, they might become pacifists like the Japanese did after World War
II. Apparently we've haven't hit that number yet as many Arabs are
still perfectly happy to die in droves.

So you admit it really is about Arabs dying and martyrdom?

A terrorist policy will only bring ruin on them in the long run
unless we reward them by giving in, perhaps by bashing a few Jews in
the process. Europeans have a long habit of this, so for them it is
quite easy for them to give the Arabs what they want. It makes the
neo-Nazis in this country look like a bunch or Arab-controlled
puppents and weakling capitulationists. Jews have become an unuseful
minority in the Democratic Party, and just witness how Al Gore
responded to this by rejecting Joe Leiberman. When Gore picked Joe
Leibermann as his running mate, he didn't know we would be going to
war with Arabs, since Al Gore doesn't like War, this causes him to
reject the Jew and follow the path of least resistance by endorsing
Howard Dean.

Eisenhower was willing to go farther to protect Nasser than France and
Germany today were willing to go to protect Hussein. They haven't
slapped us with an embargo. But then "Edjucated Republicuns" and
Toerees like you don't know your hystory. Since I worry only about
correct American spelling, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
there.

"Mike Rhino" wrote in message
...


Imports can be dealt with via tariffs. Immigrants can be dealt with
by
obvious means. I'm not sure what sort of regulation would be best
for
companies that export jobs. Perhaps import tariffs can be based on
the
percentage of workers they have overseas.

Taxing imports discourages producing goods for the domestic market
outside the country levying the tax.

Now if Sea Launch uses say, cheap Russian or Indian programmers and
engineers...

Scary thought:
If China were to invade Taiwan, the US could retaliate with a trade
embargo.
This would cause world stock markets to crash. Average people who
can go a
year without buying TV's, VCR's, or toys could survive.

As long as they aren't retail sales reps.