U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan" wrote:

Like deaths have killed the mountain climbing business, no doubt. Oh,
wait just a moment, that hasn't happened at all!


Maybe you're correct, the United States of America should convert
it's flagship scientific research goal to well-heeled thrill seekers.


Since I said nothing remotely resembling that, maybe you're nuts?

You didn't but I will. "Hey, if it pays the bills... I'm not entirely
against it."

Science is great, but at some point, folks want to know what value they get
of it.

And I don't see a problem if rich thrill-seekers want to pay a lot to go
into space. It increases the odds that I'll be able to afford it some day
far more than any other alternative I see on the horizon.



Why did I just get a mental image of Louis XVI playing croquet
and in between bites of Haute Cuisine, turning to Marie and asking
"what's that noise in the distance?"


Because you're nuts?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Apr 1, 12:07*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:







"Fred J. McCall" *wrote in message
. ..

"Jonathan" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:

Like deaths have killed the mountain climbing business, no doubt. *Oh,
wait just a moment, that hasn't happened at all!

Maybe you're correct, the United States of America should convert
it's flagship scientific research goal to well-heeled thrill seekers.

Since I said nothing remotely resembling that, maybe you're nuts?

You didn't but I will. *"Hey, if it pays the bills... I'm not entirely
against it."

Science is great, but at some point, folks want to know what value they get
of it.

And I don't see a problem if rich thrill-seekers want to pay a lot to go
into space. *It increases the odds that I'll be able to afford it some day
far more than any other alternative I see on the horizon.

I just wish Jonathan would do his household budget and see what
happens when his electric bill goes up to 10x what it is now. *A
$2000-$3000 per month electric bill (what it takes to turn a profit on
beamed power from space) will destroy most household budgets.

And that's not counting how the cost of everything else goes up
because of the cost of that electricity.


Although the capital costs are astronomical the fuel costs are zero,
as long as the sun keeps shining

now global warming appears real. if thats the case, what the cost of
inaction?

super storms, global famine, super storms and tornadoes, flooding
along all coasts nationwide?

this may make space solar power look cheap.......

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:


I just wish Jonathan would do his household budget and see what
happens when his electric bill goes up to 10x what it is now. A
$2000-$3000 per month electric bill (what it takes to turn a profit on
beamed power from space) will destroy most household budgets.

And that's not counting how the cost of everything else goes up
because of the cost of that electricity.


Agreed. Though I do think someday SPS will be deployed, I think we're a FAR
way from it and I'll probably never see it in my lifetime. (well not unless
booster spice is discovered ;-)

Right now except for a few key situations (such as what the military has
looked it for forward deployments) it just makes no economic sense, even if
a harsh carbon tax was imposed.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

I just wish Jonathan would do his household budget and see what
happens when his electric bill goes up to 10x what it is now. A
$2000-$3000 per month electric bill (what it takes to turn a profit on
beamed power from space) will destroy most household budgets.

And that's not counting how the cost of everything else goes up
because of the cost of that electricity.


Perhaps you can show me your supporting research
for those statements? I should immediately accept your
provocative rebuttal, since it's so persuasive and logical.
Your timeless and absolutely bulletproof responses
should be a source of inspiration for just about any
topic at all. If I remember correctly, it goes something
like this....

"You're full of ****"

I mean what was I thinking? Of course, that makes
me completely rethink all what I've read and learned
about SSP.

So, one one side of the argument is ...you..and your
brilliant dismantling of my position with so many
and well researched and articulated replies
such as...

"Your an idiot" and...."Moron"

Which of course would make even Stephen Hawking
reverse his opinion on a dime. And I'm sure all of the
following people that have openly advocated for SSP
below would also slap their heads in shame upon
hearing your arguments, supporters of SSP such as
this partial list....


Dr William Gaubatz, Founder X Prixe Foundation
and designer of the McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper
President of SpaceClipper International and
Chairman of the Space Tourism Society.

Ralph Nansen, Founder of Solar Space Industries
and former head of Boeing Solar Satellite Division

Dr Larry DeLucas, former shuttle astronaut and Chief
Scientist for the International Space Station, currently
head of the CBSE and it's 115 scientists.

Neville Maxville, former manager of Advanced Concepts
and Technology at NASA JPL. And former manager
of advanced technology at Rocketdyne

Dr Hsu, former head of NASA risk management GSFC

Martin Hoffert, former Chair of the Dept of Applied
Science at NY Univ.

Mike Snead, Lead engineer for the National Aerospace
Plane, the X-30. And project engineer for the Air Force
Transatmospheric Vehicle.

Dr. Gustav Grob, VP of Hymobil AG and President
of the International Clean Energy Consortium.

Peter Thomas, founder of Century 21 with it's $9 billion
in yearly sales.

Robert Richter, former Deputy Director of Operations, CIA

Steve Harper, Manager of Bipropellant rocket engines at
Aerojet.

http://spaceenergy.com/About/Management.htm

Oh and I forgot to mention those morons over
at the Japanese Space Agency JAXA.

JAXA Practical Application of SSP
http://www.jaxa.jp/article/interview/vol53/index_e.html



But maybe you're right, they're all "full of ****" and
I should listen to you instead.



s



--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 12:07 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


this may make space solar power look cheap.......


No no no, we should do what NASA wanted and
spend the next 30 years putting a few people on Mars.
The eleventy hundred billion dollars would be money
well spent, I mean you can't place a dollar figure on a
magnificently feel good flag-planting ceremony.

Or we could just spend a minute to think of
how many market niches SSP could fill that
nothing else can. For instance, post earthquake
Japan, or remote areas where the choice can
become SSP or the stone age.

SSP doesn't have to compete with anything, it can
charge what it needs to. They'll find customers.

But the most important and indisputable fact of
SSP of all, is we would be...reversing the current
disastrous energy trend, where fossil fuels only get
more scarce and expensive over time.

SSP would start out expensive and scarce at first, but
just get more plentiful and cheaper every day.

Initial costs are unimportant, the growth potential
is everything.


s

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..


Your timeless and absolutely bulletproof responses
should be a source of inspiration for just about any
topic at all. If I remember correctly, it goes something
like this....

"You're full of ****"



Well, you are, but that's neither here nor there.


Got me again! What's your secret? Have you thought
about turning your polished debating skills into a
profession?



I mean what was I thinking? Of course, that makes
me completely rethink all what I've read and learned
about SSP.



You apparently haven't 'learned' ANYTHING, given that the $1-$2 per
kilowatt-hour figure came from a USAF study that ***YOU*** cited.


So your opinions on SSP come from me? Could you do me a favor
and not tell anyone that again?




So, one one side of the argument is ...you..and your
brilliant dismantling of my position with so many
and well researched and articulated replies
such as...

"Your an idiot" and...."Moron"



http://spaceenergy.com/About/Management.htm



If I go read this,


That comment speaks for itself~


"... aiming for practical use in the 2030s."

I'll note that he doesn't say much about just what those are or how
much the power will cost. One of the applications mentioned is
'disaster relief', which would be one situation where paying $2 per
kilowatt-hour might make some sense.

You should listen to SOMEONE, son, because so far you've managed to
demonstrate you're pretty much helpless when it comes to actually
thinking.


When I first started ranting about SSP, there were no start-up
corporations trying to get funding, the Pentagon had never heard
of SSP, the Japanese Space Agency didn't have an SSP research
program, NASA had yet to start it's Fresh Look study.

I'm going to keep pushing for it until my last breath.
I can guarantee you I'll be here the day SSP becomes
a reality. Some things are worth the effort.

And your unrelenting hostility over the years deserves
some payback. But I'll get over it soon enough and
return to more civilized responses.






--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn