New Essay On Space Policy

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:23:52 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
I've have a long essay in this quarter's issue of The New
Atlantis,
in
which I discuss the myths of the old space age.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm

There is absolutely nor reason denigrate Alan Shepard's
achievements.

In what universe did I do that?

By comparing to such a relatively minor feat as SS1 as roughly
equivalent.

I also note that you make the assumption that reusable vehicles are
the
way to go based on your opinions. Please be aware that these things
can
be mathematically evaluated much more closely, and as such there is
no
need for your uninformed opinions on the matter.

Do you have a "mathematical evaluation" to back up your opinion? Or
one that would indicate that mine is "uninformed"?

I didnt offer an opinion, you did without evidence. However, I will
pass on one, refer to Nishimatu analysis, in particular market
segmentation sections and "Costs of Operation" (loose translation).
These are spread over a long term position leading up to tourism on the
Lunar surface incorporating various options from completely reusable to
completely disposable.

Your turn, you've repeatedly claimed to have the evidence, supply the
reference.

The same can be said
for your opinion poll reference especially when Market Analysis
contradicts your statemetns.

What "Market Analysis" contradicts my statements?

Just about everyone I have read including the above. So again provide
any alternative assuimg you know what one is, your comments on your
site appear to indicate your ignorant of these matters.


It's a shame you didnt take the time to actually research the
subject
before writing a bunch or personal opinion fradulantly passed off as
an
analysis. But then again, that would have made much of your
statement a
bnuch or horse hockey.

Do you have any basis for this idiotic and laughable paragraph?

I think your article provides all the support I need. Perhaps you
should see if Fox is interested in your articles, it's just the right
amount of invented facts, and opinionated gibberish that shines over
there.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:20:17 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is absolutely nor reason denigrate Alan Shepard's
achievements.

In what universe did I do that?

By comparing to such a relatively minor feat as SS1 as roughly
equivalent.

In what way was SS1 "minor" relative to a Redstone launch?

I also note that you make the assumption that reusable vehicles are
the
way to go based on your opinions. Please be aware that these things
can
be mathematically evaluated much more closely, and as such there is
no
need for your uninformed opinions on the matter.

Do you have a "mathematical evaluation" to back up your opinion? Or
one that would indicate that mine is "uninformed"?

I didnt offer an opinion, you did without evidence.

I offered a great deal of evidence. That you didn't understand it is
your problem, not mine.

However, I will
pass on one, refer to Nishimatu analysis, in particular market
segmentation sections and "Costs of Operation" (loose translation).
These are spread over a long term position leading up to tourism on the
Lunar surface incorporating various options from completely reusable to
completely disposable.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

rest of pot calling kettle obsidian nonsense ignored

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:20:17 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is absolutely nor reason denigrate Alan Shepard's
achievements.

In what universe did I do that?

By comparing to such a relatively minor feat as SS1 as roughly
equivalent.

In what way was SS1 "minor" relative to a Redstone launch?

In what way are they comparable. Not in technical ability, capability,
risk, achievement.

I also note that you make the assumption that reusable vehicles
are
the
way to go based on your opinions. Please be aware that these
things
can
be mathematically evaluated much more closely, and as such there
is
no
need for your uninformed opinions on the matter.

Do you have a "mathematical evaluation" to back up your opinion?
Or
one that would indicate that mine is "uninformed"?

I didnt offer an opinion, you did without evidence.

I offered a great deal of evidence. That you didn't understand it is
your problem, not mine.

You offered zero evidence, just personel opinion.

However, I will
pass on one, refer to Nishimatu analysis, in particular market
segmentation sections and "Costs of Operation" (loose translation).
These are spread over a long term position leading up to tourism on
the
Lunar surface incorporating various options from completely reusable
to
completely disposable.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

Argh so market analysis and operation costing are not relevant. THe
fact you do not know what I'm talking about also confirms that you are
fraud, how can you be a supposed space tourism expert, yet have not
read any of the studies or Business costings analysis involving Space
Tourism.

rest of pot calling kettle obsidian nonsense ignored

Actually, it was me asking you to provide evidence, and we are still
waiting. Come on Mr Supposed SPace Tourism expert, give us references
to the Business Plans, market analysis or other business information
which you have access to that supports your position.

Surely you have actually, researched the topic, or is the title Space
Tourism Expert "in your own mind". It's interesting, there is a
repeating theme here in going over your past months communications.

Namely,

You make statements without evidence.
People call you on your false statements.
You demand evidence.
Evidence is supplied.
You respond by altering the message and not responding to the evidence
but attacking the poster.

Well we are still waiting, as stated in the parts of the messsage you
so conveniently deleted. I've provided a reference to an analysis that
supports my position, but you have stated that a long term costed plan
for space tourism by a major corporation incorporating in depth market
analysis in not relevant. So please state why it's not relevant and
provide a reference to back up your claims.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:05:39 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

Argh so market analysis and operation costing are not relevant.

No. Learn to read.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..

In what way was SS1 "minor" relative to a Redstone launch?

Cost?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .

Sure, but my opinion is that we won't get costs low enough for
tourists if we throw the vehicle away. If we don't get them low
enough for tourists, we won't get them low enough to open up space (or
have an "affordable" and "sustainable" VSE).

IMHO the major advantage of reusability is reduced testing costs and
that is about it. If in addition the vehicle can non-destructively be
recovered in most fault conditions, you can also do incremental testing
and development. Material costs are a very small part of the equation.
Aluminum is cheap.

Mass production of vehicles would also reduce costs, since you could test
a small sample per lot instead of testing every simple part and vehicle.
It would also justify expending more resources on machinery, etc.
This applies to both expendable (e.g. missiles) and reusable (e.g. cars)
vehicles.

Launcher
growth prevents high flight rates. I suspect CATS might only grow from
a market that discourages launcher growth.

That may be the case, which is another reason I oppose heavy lift.

I 100% agree on this point.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:54:16 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(quasarstrider) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .

Sure, but my opinion is that we won't get costs low enough for
tourists if we throw the vehicle away. If we don't get them low
enough for tourists, we won't get them low enough to open up space (or
have an "affordable" and "sustainable" VSE).

IMHO the major advantage of reusability is reduced testing costs and
that is about it.

No, there's much more advantage than that. Like not having to build a
new vehicle for each flight...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:05:39 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

Argh so market analysis and operation costing are not relevant.

No. Learn to read.

SO you are a fraud.

Bottom line. You claim to be a expert on space tourism, yet are unaware
of certainly one of the largest studies I've seen on the subject. Of
all the studies I've seen, they contradict your claims yet you refuse
to back up your statements.

It's a very simple request. You claim to be a space tourism expert.
What studies or analyses support your "opinions" on space tourism.
Sure, you cant publish the actual analyses here, at least many of the
ones I've seen are company confidential.

However, I'm not asking you to publish them, I'm simply asking for any
reference at all to a study or analyses that supports your position as
you claim. Your incapable of producing the analysis yourself as you
have no knowledge of business at that depth, and such a an analysis
would be reflected in your articles on your site.

Surely it's not much to expect you to provide a reference to back up
your statements.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:03:13 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:05:39 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

Argh so market analysis and operation costing are not relevant.

No. Learn to read.

SO you are a fraud.

No, you're a troll, and unable to comprehend simple English. Please
provide me with a quote of mine in which I claimed that "market
analysis and operation costing are not relevant."

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:03:13 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:05:39 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christian Ramos" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it should be
considered a credible or useful source.

Argh so market analysis and operation costing are not relevant.

No. Learn to read.

SO you are a fraud.

No, you're a troll, and unable to comprehend simple English. Please
provide me with a quote of mine in which I claimed that "market
analysis and operation costing are not relevant."

The fact that they contradict what you say. But yet again you supply more
personel abuse, but still no answer to the request.

It's a very simple question.
What analysis or studies can you provide a reference to that backs up any of
your statements in regards to Space Tourism.