A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Atlas - Delta Very Heavy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 04, 09:31 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

On or about Tue, 4 May 2004 22:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Scott Lowther
made the sensational claim that:
Rodney Kelp wrote:

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.


Using what? Sharpened rocks?


Well duh. How else do you think we're gonna get the zeros?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

  #12  
Old May 5th 04, 06:01 PM
EAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

Am Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:27 -0700 (PDT) schrieb "Rodney Kelp":
Why not just build everything on the moon? Mine and Smelt the ore, make the
metals and build the ships. First build specialized ships to shuttle people
to and from the moon. build a large moonbase and get things going. We can do
it with nuclear powered aircraft. Screw the environmentalists. Let them
suck swamp water.


'They' use enviromentalists to slow down projects that 'they' don't
approve, and also to make people fight each other.

"Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" wrote in message ...
...because it makes no sense for a "single shot" enterprise.


Well... To build stuff on the moon, you also need equipments from
Earth, LOTS of equipments and some of them are quite big.

There _IS_ a huge difference between exploration and colonization. And
the actual goal is exploration.


That, and... I think that maybe they only managed to get Moon Visas,
without any building permits.

None of the real deciders even think
about colonization - as long as there is no prove of huge economic
advantages, that pay off the efforts...


Actually, now you mention it, the whole space program is always about
spend spend spend, it's doubtful that there were any big economic
return in the last half century.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)


  #13  
Old May 7th 04, 01:41 AM
Rodney Kelp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

Ain't that how we started on this planet?

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Rodney Kelp wrote:

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.


Using what? Sharpened rocks?


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004

  #14  
Old May 7th 04, 09:37 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

"Rodney Kelp" wrote ...
Ain't that how we started on this planet?


Worker1: ...
(suffocating)

Line Boss: Jeez! Do I have to do everything for you? Here are some sharpened rocks
- now fix your spacesuit!

"Scott Lowther" wrote ...
Rodney Kelp wrote:

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.


Using what? Sharpened rocks?


  #15  
Old May 7th 04, 01:59 PM
Martha H Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there
owing to very high labor costs.

So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of
events?

I think "exploration" vs "settlement" is a critical choice here. And
that what our future needs, perhaps what we need as a species, is to
start settlement on Luna asap. Because, who knows what the future
holds?

Those of us who look out into space know we occupy a tiny, vulnerable,
and definitely temporary Garden of Eden in an unfriendly universe.
But many faith-based ideologists "know" this world's surface is all
reality there is and, having little awareness beyond their Book, they
get off on fantasies like millennialism and that most-remarkable
Christian Rapture idea. Two outlooks: which wins, which reality?
But while we have a choice, it's off-world settlement, and we need to
turn that way.

However. Apollo is long gone, its physical plant discarded, its
people retired or died of old age. I see hundreds of billions of
dollars going to war after war after war; and I wonder if down under
the surface it's simply a matter of whose Washington lobby is
strongest and the munitions makers and the military win it. I hear
loud objections to the oh-so-questionable expenditure of maybe a
billion dollars on off-Terra exploration. Maybe the space people
haven't enough lobby power. And I see next to nothing at all about
off-world settlement, which in my view, is what we really need to be
doing.

Sorrows -- Martha Adams

  #16  
Old May 7th 04, 02:39 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

Martha H Adams wrote:

Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there
owing to very high labor costs.

So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of
events?


Ignoring reality because you don't like the outcome is not likely
to be productive.

Economic constraints are as real as physical constraints. They
don't go away just because you consider some particular outcome
to be desirable.

Paul

  #17  
Old May 8th 04, 12:39 AM
Rodney Kelp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

I agree with you. We could spend what we spend on Iraq on space colonization
we might get somewhere. But everyone seems to only be able to come up with
excuses why it can't or shouldn't be done; even those in this news group.


"Martha H Adams" wrote in message
...
Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there
owing to very high labor costs.

So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of
events?

I think "exploration" vs "settlement" is a critical choice here. And
that what our future needs, perhaps what we need as a species, is to
start settlement on Luna asap. Because, who knows what the future
holds?

Those of us who look out into space know we occupy a tiny, vulnerable,
and definitely temporary Garden of Eden in an unfriendly universe.
But many faith-based ideologists "know" this world's surface is all
reality there is and, having little awareness beyond their Book, they
get off on fantasies like millennialism and that most-remarkable
Christian Rapture idea. Two outlooks: which wins, which reality?
But while we have a choice, it's off-world settlement, and we need to
turn that way.

However. Apollo is long gone, its physical plant discarded, its
people retired or died of old age. I see hundreds of billions of
dollars going to war after war after war; and I wonder if down under
the surface it's simply a matter of whose Washington lobby is
strongest and the munitions makers and the military win it. I hear
loud objections to the oh-so-questionable expenditure of maybe a
billion dollars on off-Terra exploration. Maybe the space people
haven't enough lobby power. And I see next to nothing at all about
off-world settlement, which in my view, is what we really need to be
doing.

Sorrows -- Martha Adams



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004

  #18  
Old May 8th 04, 01:03 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

Rodney Kelp wrote:

But everyone seems to only be able to come up with
excuses why it can't or shouldn't be done; even those in this
news group.


You include yourself in the above, right?

Jim Davis

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Atlas SRBs LooseChanj Space Science Misc 17 February 27th 04 01:03 AM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
Atlas Launch Tonight LooseChanj Space Science Misc 1 December 20th 03 04:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.