Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
I don't know if I'd go quite THAT far; I'm a bit of a guitar snob and I
will tell you that $2,000 buys you a hell of a lot more than $1,000 in
terms of materials, workmanship, playability and sound. I will say
that after about $3,000 the price/performance curve really drops into
the tank in terms of new guitars however.

I mostly prepare legal documents. A $400 laptop can run MS Office
adequately. A $700 laptop can run it fine. It just doesn't run much better
by spending more money.

Right, for you that's a decent trade off.

For others, neither laptop would be adequate.

Given the way I paly a guitar, if I spent $50 on a guitar it would be $60
too much. :-)



The better is often the enemy of the good enough.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:44 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
:Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
:glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:58:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: :Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: n my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: :We don't care about who can or has done worse. We care about those who
: have
: :done better which is exactly who in the past 40 years/
: :
: :Who has been given money to try?
:
: So private industry could do better, if only it wasn't private
: industry at all but was just another baby on the national teat?
:
:Was the airline industry a "baby on the national teat" when it got the
:airmail subsidy?

Did we really want email and was it useful?

:But I only stated that private entities hadn't gotten the money so
:far. I didn't specify where it should come from, or complain that it
:didn't come from the taxpayers. Guess it's that reading comprehension
:thing again.

As your usual bleat about how "if only they got the money instead of
NASA". Guess it's that writing and cognition thing again.

: Sometimes you make very little sense, Rand...
:
:Only to unsensible people, Fred.

Just keep primping that ego, Rand. It seems like it's all you have
going for you.

--
"A brain of feathers, and a heart of lead."
-- Alexander Pope

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
6. Demonstrator with all electric (no hydraulics) actuators for engine
gimballing, aero surfaces, and etc.

The Germans tried a bomber on this concept during WW II; it came out
very heavy in comparison to a normally designed one. I think the same
might apply to a modern aircraft or rocket.

People have been moving in this direction for both missiles and aircraft,
although my impression is that the technology isn't yet entirely
satisfactory for the fast, strong actuators needed to deal with air loads.

It's been done for some in-space applications; notably, if memory serves,
the Centaur on the current Atlases is all-electric.

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

richard schumacher wrote:

This is what NASA should be doing, but it will not happen. Lots of
relatively small research programs do not employ tens of thousands of
high-school-grad voters.

What's the relevance of "high-school grad" here?

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jeff Findley wrote:
Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the
door when they designed, built, and ran that abomination. It was a big
disappointment to those of us who actually expected it to produce some
sort of usable scientific data which would apply to the earth.


I was half expecting it to have dolphins in it. :-)

Nah, they knew all along it wasn't going to work

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
People have been moving in this direction for both missiles and aircraft,
although my impression is that the technology isn't yet entirely
satisfactory for the fast, strong actuators needed to deal with air loads.

It's been done for some in-space applications; notably, if memory serves,
the Centaur on the current Atlases is all-electric.

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

It may very well be that all electric actuators simply aren't appropriate
for most aerospace applications, but that's why they call it R&D. Sometimes
new technology just doesn't pan out.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:19:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

It may very well be that all electric actuators simply aren't appropriate
for most aerospace applications, but that's why they call it R&D. Sometimes
new technology just doesn't pan out.

I suspect that Moog spent quite a bit of IR&D on this, back in the
eighties and nineties, in hope of getting an EMA contract for a
Shuttle upgrade. They probably still attempt to market it to people
contemplating building new vehicles.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:35:31 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, give me some figures on how the economic math of this all works;
last time you did that you showed a nice little study that was financed
by a space advocacy group (The Futron Study), which wasn't exactly
unbiased in my opinion.

Futron is not a "space advocacy group."

rest of nonsense snipped

You still haven't explained why you're so invested in the notion that
there is no market for space tourists that you indulge in nonsensical
and narcissistic arguments about it.



When I look at a company like spacedev, I see a company
that would go into the red if they hired another three or
four people.

How in the world would you "see that"?

PMJI, but paying their salaries based upon loans and not generating any
revenue before they quit and therefore defaulting on the loans. That
would put the company in the red.

Rand, why don't you see how many banks, lending companies and venture
capitalists are willing to loan money for commercial spaceflight as a
barometer to the industry.


I see a stock that defines the notion of
high risk. Those that invest in such stocks had better
be well practiced at the old pump-and-dump.

Many high-risk stocks have turned into economic powerhouses, making
great amounts of money for their owners. Thanks for displaying once
again you economic and financial ignorance.

But how many more Nukos are there than Apples?


As such stocks are all about making a fast buck
after some cheap hype.

Nonsense.

Here Rand is stating that the Dot Com boom didn't precede a Dot Com
bust.


rest of nonsense snipped unread.

I sure as hell wouldn't lend you a dime, Rand, as you clearly are a
financial idiot when it comes to managing more than your checkbook,
though you probably need help with it too.

Eric

Fred J. McCall wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:58:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
:Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
n my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:We don't care about who can or has done worse. We care about those who have
:done better which is exactly who in the past 40 years/
:
:Who has been given money to try?

So private industry could do better, if only it wasn't private
industry at all but was just another baby on the national teat?

Sometimes you make very little sense, Rand...

Yes, it takes one to know on in this case. Fred, you are more like Rand
than you know.

Eric


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

Terrell Miller wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination.

that and no Jenny Aggutter...

....the girl from the 'Logan's Run' film?


--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com