|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
November 15th 03, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Rand Simberg wrote:
Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current scheme? That's hardly an argument in your plan's (or for that matter, the whole ISS operation's) favor, is it? Pat 
|
|
#22
November 15th 03, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current scheme? That's hardly an argument in your plan's (or for that matter, the whole ISS operation's) favor, is it? No, but given that the money is going to continue to be stolen; anyway, it should at least be spent more sensibly. I'd be happy to deorbit the damned thing, myself. Absent that, I'm just trying to get some value out of it. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers:
|
|
#24
November 16th 03, 05:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:23:35 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is ludricrous. In a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, it's absurd to talk about having US space station at all. (I know that wasn't your comment, Jorge.) Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess M1s. For large values of "a few", perhaps. If Ed's figure of 322 tons is accurate (it should actually be a little low, since the Progress reboost engine has an Isp of only 302 s), that's in the neighborhood of 150 Progress M1s. I think it's 305, but who's counting? I'm not actually proposing that it come all the way down to twenty-eight degrees. Even forty would be a vast improvement, and that would be half of whatever cost it is. Ed will have to show us his calcs to determine whether or not they're right. That will cost well over your $1 billion figure. Close to ten times that, actually, if the Russians' quote to NASA of $65 million per Progress is still good. I'll bet that bulk buys would drop the price. Of course, the problem is that 1) they'll be unwilling to do it if it cuts them out of the loop in the future, which could be obviated by them closing the deal and getting serious about Kourou and 2) the fact that once the station starts to move downward, they wouldn't be able to get to it any more from Baikonur to complete the job... It's really a package. I was being a little tongue in cheek when I talked about a divorce. It's contingent on them developing Kourou capability, so they can participate as well in a sensible station location, and help get it there. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers:
|
|
#25
November 16th 03, 08:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
|
|
#26
November 16th 03, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
Am Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:03:14 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg":
I don't think this is a very good idea, as it still doesn't solve the basic problem of the ISS not being much use for anything (except in my "artificial reef near Pago-Pago" plan); It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Yes. Explain. Bit for bit. Please! Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? Probably, since there are no negative side effects other than reduced earth viewing, if the Russians launch from Kourou. ok. If you want that, then pay for the Kourou Soyuz launch facilities, too. Or build a Soyuz pad and surrounding infrastructure at Wallops or the Cape... cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news
|
|
#27
November 16th 03, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:08:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Chris Jones made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current scheme? No, but given that the money is going to continue to be stolen; Stealing something means taking contrary to law. No, it means taking something that doesn't belong to you without consent. There are many forms of legalized theft. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers:
|
|
#28
November 16th 03, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:32:00 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Yes. Explain. Bit for bit. Please! Go back and read the column again. Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? Probably, since there are no negative side effects other than reduced earth viewing, if the Russians launch from Kourou. ok. If you want that, then pay for the Kourou Soyuz launch facilities, too. Or build a Soyuz pad and surrounding infrastructure at Wallops or the Cape... If it's necessary for us to keep the Russians involved in the program for transportation robustness, we probably would, but we might come up with alternative solutions that are independent from them, in which case there'd be no point. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers:
|
|
#29
November 16th 03, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
Am Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:52:55 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg":
It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Yes. Explain. Bit for bit. Please! Go back and read the column again. I did - and I cannot see the point. There isn't any _real_ increase of _real_ usability when reducing ISS's inclination. But there would be many setbacks. IMHO. Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? Probably, since there are no negative side effects other than reduced earth viewing, if the Russians launch from Kourou. ok. If you want that, then pay for the Kourou Soyuz launch facilities, too. Or build a Soyuz pad and surrounding infrastructure at Wallops or the Cape... If it's necessary for us to keep the Russians involved in the program for transportation robustness, we probably would, but we might come up with alternative solutions that are independent from them, in which case there'd be no point. "If", "propably", "would", "might", "alternative"... How about INCREASING the inclination? I suppose You don't see the point... cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news
|
|
#30
November 16th 03, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Russia, Without Love
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:55:53 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Am Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:52:55 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg": It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Yes. Explain. Bit for bit. Please! Go back and read the column again. I did - and I cannot see the point. I'm sorry you have trouble comprehending English. Perhaps I can explain it better. What part of it didn't you understand? There isn't any _real_ increase of _real_ usability when reducing ISS's inclination. But there would be many setbacks. Like what? What is so wonderful about 51.6 degrees? If it's necessary for us to keep the Russians involved in the program for transportation robustness, we probably would, but we might come up with alternative solutions that are independent from them, in which case there'd be no point. "If", "propably", "would", "might", "alternative"... How about INCREASING the inclination? That would be insane. Why in the world would anyone want to do that? I suppose You don't see the point... I certainly don't see yours. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers:
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
