Reconsideration

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:55:36 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
: post.

Yep, the most sense he's made ever and it turns out to be a joke.

The fact that you think it's the most sense I've ever made makes the
joke all the more hilarious.

All I did was repeat all of the (to me, silly) space policy arguments
that I've heard over the years, and many people took it as a serious
post.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:21:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Actually, I am making my living right now off a major aerospace firm,
: though as a consultant. It's in fact not in my financial interest for
: CEV to die, but I still think that it's a misbegotten program.

Yeah, you're a consultant to a program you don't believe in. Sort of
reminds me of a prude that turns to prostitution.

Consultants aren't paid to "believe in" programs. They're paid for
sound technical advice and services. In fact, what often makes a
consultant valuable is their ability to be more objective about a
program than those who have a deep stake in it.

Jim Davis wrote in
. 160.156:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's
April Fools post.

Pat's always been a little slow on the uptake, albeit amusingly
so...

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

That long, huh? I was onto him by the third paragraph, where he was writing
nice things about the shuttle. :-) I bought the disappointment with SpaceX
and his turn of heart on ISS, if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed. I think I started skimming once I got to the part about Griffin
being a "real rocket scientist" - re-reading the original post now, I'm
just now spotting some of the howlers below that point that I missed the
first time around.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Lawrence Gales wrote in
:

Well, one failure should not be cause for that much dismay, although I
too was very much looking forward to a successful launch. The one
major thing that really bothered me about SpaceX, however, was their
developing a new engine. Why in God's green earth did Elon do that?
A Russian NK-39 is not all that much bigger and has far higher
performance (Isp of 349 vs 305). He could have come twice as far for
half the money had he chosen to use a Russian engine, and then could
make the structure much heavier and more robust leading to easier
reusability.

Perhaps he's thinking long-term? That it's dangerous to leave Russia as a
sole-source supplier of rocket engines?

Perhaps he wants to sell launches to the DoD? Witness the problems with
Atlas V and domestic production of the RD-180.

Perhaps he thinks he can do better than the Russians in the long term, but
realizes that the only way to get good at building rocket engines is, well,
to *build* them, and lots of them, and accept the fact that the early
attempts won't perform as well?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:18:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I was buying it hook, line, and sinker until I got to the part where
he realized Mark Whittington has been right all along. :-)

That long, huh? I was onto him by the third paragraph, where he was writing
nice things about the shuttle. :-) I bought the disappointment with SpaceX
and his turn of heart on ISS, if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed. I think I started skimming once I got to the part about Griffin
being a "real rocket scientist" - re-reading the original post now, I'm
just now spotting some of the howlers below that point that I missed the
first time around.

Another one that's really inside baseball is the fact that I don't
have any (and on my current life trajectory, am unlikely to have any)
children, which makes for pretty dismal prospects for my grand and
great-grandchildren...

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:00:55 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Let me reiterate. I want to be wrong, proven wrong.

That's good, since you get your stated heart's desire every day,
multiple times, often in hilarious ways.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:55:36 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
:monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:: Umm, maybe you haven't realized it yet, but that was Rand's April Fools
:: post.
:
:Yep, the most sense he's made ever and it turns out to be a joke.
:
:The fact that you think it's the most sense I've ever made makes the
:joke all the more hilarious.
:
:All I did was repeat all of the (to me, silly) space policy arguments
:that I've heard over the years, and many people took it as a serious
ost.

Hell, I just thought you were being sarcastic. Never even occurred to
me that it was April 1.

--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed

What a concept!

ISS has been such a fine whipping boy for dissatisfaction with NASA,
Clinton, Congress, Russia, international space efforts in general, and
high-inclination orbits, that one could easily forget it is the only
(and will remain for some time the largest) DESTINATION for manned
orbital flight and cargo.

One might suggest that if your goal is "airline-like" transportation
between earth and destinations in LEO, it's kind of stupid -- cutting
off your nose to spite your face -- to ignore or verbally trash the
destination that exists in favor of Bigelow Hiltons to come. But it's
hard to hear such suggestions when so many axes are being ground.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:13:29 -0400, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

if only because a lot of alt.space advocates
are realizing that COTS will have a much smaller market if ISS isn't
completed

What a concept!

ISS has been such a fine whipping boy for dissatisfaction with NASA,
Clinton, Congress, Russia, international space efforts in general, and
high-inclination orbits, that one could easily forget it is the only
(and will remain for some time the largest) DESTINATION for manned
orbital flight and cargo.

For some values of "some time."

Bigelow and Branson have been talking hotels...

One might suggest that if your goal is "airline-like" transportation
between earth and destinations in LEO, it's kind of stupid -- cutting
off your nose to spite your face -- to ignore or verbally trash the
destination that exists in favor of Bigelow Hiltons to come. But it's
hard to hear such suggestions when so many axes are being ground.

The problem is that the market for ISS is so trivial, that it drives
to the wrong technical solutions. COTS (assuming it succeeds) is OK,
as a sideshow, but I seriously doubt that it will be seen in the
future as having played a major role in opening up space.

a lot of alt.space advocates are realizing that COTS will have a much
smaller market if ISS isn't completed

Depends on the size and nature of the market that the alt.launcher
company is aiming for. ISS could be 2x or 3x the size of the
satellite market (very roughly, and depending on all kinds of
assumptions about both what happens with ISS and with satellites).

So it isn't necessarily a bad idea to try for the ISS business, but it
is a smaller volume than what people are thinking of in terms of
tourism. And, for many startups, smaller than the volume that will be
required to make the case for the upside potential of a cheaper/more
operable new launcher.