A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA studies new booster (UPI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old May 10th 04, 05:04 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:02:21 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:47:56 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I'm saying that NASA should encourage, rather than (as has been
its effect, if not intent, since its inception) discourage the
development of such infrastructure.


I don't see any reason why NASA can't do that AND work towards
President Bush's initiative.


Neither do I, other than historically, it's had a difficult time in
doing so.
  #512  
Old May 10th 04, 05:05 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:02:25 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:48:50 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Because it's been mostly a costly failure in terms of doing anything
significant in space?


The Shuttle has not lived up to expectations, true. But that does not
mean having specialists among the crew, as to having a couple of
fighter pilots who are supposed to do anyting, is a bad one. The US
was not colonized by sailors; the sailors brought the colonists.


You miss the point. The colonists weren't goverment employees.
  #513  
Old May 11th 04, 02:00 AM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

why don't you tell us why *you*
think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or
settlement is a good idea?


I think the large scale developent, exploration, and settlement has a
better chance of success, over the long term, if is preceded by
publicly funded exploration.


Yes, I *know* you think that. I asked *why* you think it.

And why does "publicly funded exploration" have to be limited to a
miniscule handful of government employees? We have public highways,
parks, etc. all over the US, yet private citizens are allowed to
explore them. Why should space be different?

And as noted who knows how many times
now, both involve setting up bases on the Moon and Mars, which can
also serve as the initial foothold.


Yes, but the fact that you call any facility built on the Moon or Mars
a "base" does not mean they would all be similar. A NASA base on the
Moon would have no more in common with a lunar settlement than Goddard
Space Flight Center has with Greenbelt, Maryland.

You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is
better than than having hundreds.


I don't, but no one is in a position to get hundreds up there at this
time.


No one is in a position to get five or six to the Moon at this exact
time, either. If the US government can spend hundreds of billions
developing the capability to send a very small number of people to the
Moon -- as you're proposing -- why can't it take the the same money
and spend it in a way that would allow a large number of people to go
to the Moon?

And if I am correct about the large scale colonization
benefitting from publicly funded trail blazers, then getting it
bass-ackwards insures no one goes anwhere.


Nonsense. There have been publicly-funded trailblazers already. I have
no idea why you keep denying that.

..... You're
advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived
Vehicles....


Yes, when this thread began, I agreed with the Shuttle-derived option,
because it could be built relatively quickly and using exisiting
facilities. And I agreed the high costs counted against it. It has
advatanges and disadvantages.


Using existing facilities is not an advantage when existing facilities
cost more than the alternative -- and the proposed schedule belies the
claim that it would be "relatively quick."

..... that would delay the development of CATS .....


How is CATS delayed if it is pursued at the same time as other
options?


Because the systems you propose would squander resources that could be
used to develop cheaper vehicles, as well as helping to kill the
market for them.

Even as NASA brainstorms its Moon/Mars options, Falcon 1
sits on a pad, and the X-Prize contestants are getting very close to
trying for it; IIRC, at least one has an FAA liscense for its attempt.
Who's delaying whom?


The existance of Shuttle, even while grounded, is delaying NASA from
taking advantage of vehicles like Falcon 1. A new Shuttle-derived
vehicle would further delay it.
  #514  
Old May 12th 04, 05:48 AM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

Do you stand behind your words or not? You said you wanted the US to
build bases that were "akin to ...."


Hey words: "akin to," as in "similar to."

" ......modern military bases."


No, not "similar to" at all. Building a base to defend the United
States is not similar to building a base to provide you with TV
pictures of a base. It's completely different.

If you had said "akin to a TV studio," that would be different.
 




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
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 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.