Bigelow Aerospace to offer $760 million for spaceship

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:26:51 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Nov 2, 7:44 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:14:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That's much too small a sample from which to draw any broad
conclusions, which you'd know if you had an IQ of more than a digit.

Rand, Clinton balanced the budget every year while he had a GOP
Congress. Bush never has. The sample is fine and the results are
definitive.

No, they're not, you idiot. That sample tells us about Bush and
Clinton, not about Republicans and Democrats.

I'll leave the generalizations to you. I was speaking about specific
presidents and how Joe's statement is correct based upon results.

In other words, you were being an idiot, and unable to follow the
conversation, as usual.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:22:17 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


The Republicans often make noise about tax cuts "stimulating the
economy" and stating or implying that the initial loss of tax revenue
will be more than offset by an increase in the national productivity.
If this were true, then the debt would decrease relative to the GDP.

Only if one ignores the spending side of the ledger, which is
necessary to defend Democrats in general.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:29:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So why DID you vote for Nader, then?

To try to get him to one percent of the vote nationwide, so that he
could get federal funding for his campaign in 2004, and continue to
take votes away from the Democrats.

I see, you're not a Republican, you just hate Democrats.

I don't "hate" Democrats, you moron. I just don't want them to have
political power.

Of course,
you are defined by what you hate rather than what you like, which is
probably nothing. That goes a long way explaining your miserable
personality.

My personality is just fine, and quite congenial, thank you.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:29:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So why DID you vote for Nader, then?
To try to get him to one percent of the vote nationwide, so that he
could get federal funding for his campaign in 2004, and continue to
take votes away from the Democrats.

I see, you're not a Republican, you just hate Democrats.

I don't "hate" Democrats, you moron. I just don't want them to have
political power.

You realize that make you a fascist, right?

My personality is just fine, and quite congenial, thank you.

Fascists always smile when they lie.

In article . com,
Len wrote:

With respect to civilian space, I think that JPL's
and Goddard's work in planetary and Earth sciences
--along with basic aeronautical research--is perphaps
the most legitimate part of NASA at this time. Manned
space exploration is fine, but it shouldn't be a goal in
itself--and certainly not the main goal of NASA. Whether
or a particular mission is manned or unmanned should
be decided on the merits or each at any particular time.
Manned space flight should probably never have been a
goal in itself. This is mainly an Apollo legacy.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but: if you don't maintain the
ability to put people into space, then when there happens to be a
mission that would best be done manned, you'd find yourself without a
reasonable capability to do it that way.

It's a bit like: when I need to run an errand, I may walk, or I may take
the car. But if I don't maintain the car, even in times when I could do
more walking, then one day I'll find myself without a car, and unable to
justify buying a new one for the one long errand I need to do that day
-- even though if I had a car, the errand would clearly be done much
better with it.

As for space tranports and other means for
accessing space, it should never have been a NASA
function in the first place; this is just leftover baggage
from Apollo that has been incredibly destructive to
the normal progress of space transportation.

I certainly can't argue with that.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Nov 5, 1:52 pm, Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,

Len wrote:
With respect to civilian space, I think that JPL's
and Goddard's work in planetary and Earth sciences
--along with basic aeronautical research--is perphaps
the most legitimate part of NASA at this time. Manned
space exploration is fine, but it shouldn't be a goal in
itself--and certainly not the main goal of NASA. Whether
or a particular mission is manned or unmanned should
be decided on the merits or each at any particular time.
Manned space flight should probably never have been a
goal in itself. This is mainly an Apollo legacy.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but: if you don't maintain the
ability to put people into space, then when there happens to be a
mission that would best be done manned, you'd find yourself without a
reasonable capability to do it that way.

If NASA had stayed true to its NACA roots,
then I think the private sector would long ago
have provided a capabillity for putting people into
space. Moreover, IMO, this capability would have
been far superior to the Shuttle capability.

Len


It's a bit like: when I need to run an errand, I may walk, or I may take
the car. But if I don't maintain the car, even in times when I could do
more walking, then one day I'll find myself without a car, and unable to
justify buying a new one for the one long errand I need to do that day
-- even though if I had a car, the errand would clearly be done much
better with it.

As for space tranports and other means for
accessing space, it should never have been a NASA
function in the first place; this is just leftover baggage
from Apollo that has been incredibly destructive to
the normal progress of space transportation.

I certainly can't argue with that.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Len wrote:

If NASA had stayed true to its NACA roots, then I think the private sector
would long ago have provided a capabillity for putting people into space.

Sure, the same way the private sector currently provides aircraft with
supersonic combat capabilities and nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarines. Their customer list is a bit restricted however.

Remember that the (very/fairly) early projection of how space
transport would grow were made before it was clear just how much could
be done with unattended electronics and how little would require human
intervention. Once that became clear, space proponents retreated to
the fantasy universe they've inhabited ever since - where manned
spaceflight is a goal in it's own right, economic considerations need
not apply. The dream uber alles.

It's only the very recently (in the last decade) growth of a upper
middle class with very large quantities of disposable income (a
product of the same electronic revolution that changed the path of
space development) and a taste for extreme adventure appeared in
numbers [possibly] significant enough to change the terms of the
economic equations. It still remains uncertain whether they exist in
large enough numbers for the change to be lasting and prices be
brought down (through experience) to the point where the space travel
market grows in the same fashion as other modes of travel. Mitigating
against this is the lack of destinations, which in the reverse (a
richness of destinations) is what drove other modes.

Moreover, IMO, this capability would have been far superior to the Shuttle
capability.

In some scenario where there was a demand for such performance.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Nov 5, 3:30 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Len wrote:
If NASA had stayed true to its NACA roots, then I think the private sector
would long ago have provided a capabillity for putting people into space.

Sure, the same way the private sector currently provides aircraft with
supersonic combat capabilities and nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarines. Their customer list is a bit restricted however.

Boeing invests billions in a new airliner.
IMO, a new airliner is economically more
challenging than a space transport--in view
of the relative competition. I'll concede that
the chicken-and-egg market situation is more
dicey.

Remember that the (very/fairly) early projection of how space
transport would grow were made before it was clear just how much could
be done with unattended electronics and how little would require human
intervention. Once that became clear, space proponents retreated to
the fantasy universe they've inhabited ever since - where manned
spaceflight is a goal in it's own right, economic considerations need
not apply. The dream uber alles.

Having worked for Van Allen as the secretary
to his IGY Working Group on Satellite Internal
Instrumentation, I actually have a bias toward
what unmanned satellites and probes can do.
That having been said, I think there is a justified
place for people in space--but, I agree, it should
not be a goal in its own right. Being a goal in
itself has greatly distorted the normal development
of space transportation.

It's only the very recently (in the last decade) growth of a upper
middle class with very large quantities of disposable income (a
product of the same electronic revolution that changed the path of
space development) and a taste for extreme adventure appeared in
numbers [possibly] significant enough to change the terms of the
economic equations. It still remains uncertain whether they exist in
large enough numbers for the change to be lasting and prices be
brought down (through experience) to the point where the space travel
market grows in the same fashion as other modes of travel. Mitigating
against this is the lack of destinations, which in the reverse (a
richness of destinations) is what drove other modes.

IMO, space tourism is only one of a number of
applications that are enabled by a one- or two-
order-of-magnitude in space access costs.
For example, I believe that 5 cents per minute is
economically viable in remote and ocean areas
with ordinary hand-held cell phones. This type
of service is not viable with current space access
costs.

Moreover, IMO, this capability would have been far superior to the Shuttle
capability.

In some scenario where there was a demand for such performance.

As I have said many times, I am painfully aware
of the chicken-and-egg marketing problem for a
space transport. However, with a leap of faith
into the parallel universe, I firmly believe that
there is a more than adequate demand based
upon greatly improved economics--not to mention
reliability and safety.

Len

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:51:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
John Schilling wrote:

No, just a oversimplification. The fiscally conservative candidate is
and always has been the one from whichever party is otherwise out of
power. For most of the past fifteen years, that's been the Democrats.

Hmm, I don't see how that fits. Do you mean the non-incumbent (in the
White House) party? Or the party which is not in control of Congress at
the time of the election?

You and Rand spurred me to check the hypothesis that it's the party in
control of Congress that matters more than the President. But nope,
there's no correlation. Here's the data for the last 30 years:

President: Carter (D) 1977-1981
Senate: D
House: D
Debt: decreased

President: Regan (R) 1981-1989
Senate: R (1981-1987), D (1987-1989)
House: D
Debt: increased

President: Bush (R) 1989-1993
Senate: D
House: D
Debt: increased

President: Clinton (D) 1993-2001
Senate: D (1993-1995), R (1995-2001)
House: D (1993-1997), R (1997-2001)
Debt: decreased

President: Bush II (R) 2001-present
Senate: R (2001-2007), D (2007-)
House: R (2001-2007), D (2007-)
Debt: increased

Note that Carter and Clinton both had Democratic Congresses, and
decreased the debt. Bush (the younger) had a Republican congress until
just this year, and has greatly increased the debt.

You know, if the hypothesis under discussion is whether the party that
controls Congress has more of an influence over the national debt than
does the President, you'd at least affect the *appearance* of unbiased
inquiry if you avoided phrasing your assertions in the form, "President
X did/did not increase the debt".

You might also want to parse the budgetary data in some form other than
an erratically-varying four- to eight-year cycle that happens to exactly
correspond to Presidential administrations, and you definitely want to
avoid treating radical shifts in the partisan makeup of Congress as
mere parenthetical afterthoughts.

That is, if you want to appear objective and all that. If you're just
preaching to the choir, your way probably works just fine. But you're
not actually in church here, so I'd recommed exiting the newsgroup and
taking the first left.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:38:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
John Schilling wrote:

You know, if the hypothesis under discussion is whether the party that
controls Congress has more of an influence over the national debt than
does the President, you'd at least affect the *appearance* of unbiased
inquiry if you avoided phrasing your assertions in the form, "President
X did/did not increase the debt".

Data is data -- please excuse my linguistic shorthand, which I believed
to be clear, in describing it.

And mis/malinterpretation of the data is that, too. Even assuming
that the data is valid.

The chief does not make the rain fall, the sun shine, and the crops
grow, despite your apparently primitive belief system.