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

Cheap Access to Space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old December 22nd 07, 05:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Dec 21, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote:

You have posted several times on Venus. That is bye and bye.


So, you don't believe in the regular laws of physics, or much less in
those 36 confirming looks per radar obtained pixel, especially if it
has anything to do with whatever's off-world. How about the best
available science that's easily replicated; is all of it taboo?


I think the real question about NASA is what it is being asked to do
and the evvironment in which it works. NASA was set up in the cold war
for nationalistic reasons. The mission given by President Kennedy was
to get to the Moon first. reason - National Prestige. My main beef
with Rand and to some extent with Fred McCall is that they don't
answer straight questions.


And yet you still don't believe a word of whatever I've had to say
about our hocus-pocus NASA and of their Third Reich partners in crimes
against humanity. Would you even believe if it came from the likes of
Einstein?
- Brad Guth -
  #72  
Old December 22nd 07, 05:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy
rhw007
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Dec 21, 2:41*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
(snip)
You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/9...

we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a
feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best,
a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact.

(snip again -though I agree with your sentiments on the snipped part of your response )
* - Ian Parker-


I went to the Library today to try and get Nick Pope's "Jane" article
written in their Feruary 29,2002 titled "Anti-gravity propulsions
comes 'out of the closet'. The previous place where I had seen the
link there was only a 5-6 sentence part of the abstract. The library
at least gave me 499 of the full 873 word artile that as I recall came
WITH images and illustrations of the B2 Bomber which admittedly heats
the front wing so that postive ions are created and that negative ions
are jetted out the engines...thus causing a "electromagnetic lifting/
pushing" effect...depending on voltage and center of gravity
directions of the magnetic field placement. I likely savedthe article
back in 2002 but finding it again in the 100's cds n dvds would be a
night mare...I thought it would be easier to go the library and pay to
have copies made of the article....now I'll have to try the University
Library...or hunt it down in the mnay boxes have.

But again this "electro-gravitic anti gravity propulsion" HAS been out
there in mainstream before...but...never FULLY covered....why?

The DOD...NASA IS a DOD agency.

From a FOIA I tried filling with NASA:

R4. I hereby request any documents, images, memos or other items
that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or
external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data from any spacecraft.

R5. I hereby request that any documents, images, memos or other
items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal
or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data, requested in R1 through R4 of
this request that are ruled to be exempt under Sec 1206.300; be so
noted in the reply and which sub-part and paragraphs are used to
justify the exemption from disclosure be set forth in the reply to
this request.

R6. I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images,
memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any
source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded
from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that
deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and
reasons such exclusions were made.


Notice that these last 3 requests were for "NON-EARTH DATA"...i.e if
there's "nothing of military or national security interests" on the
Moon, Mars, or any other celestial object...then WHY would NASA
classify such data UNDER that rule? Why would NASA even NEED such a
rule if our thinking is along the DarkAges Where Humanity is:

1. All alone
2. On a flat Earth
3. At the center of the Universe
4. As it revolves around us
5. Riding on the back of a giant turtle

We are beyond ready to move past the Brookings Report and EMBRACE the
entities out there and it's time for someone to either:

http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...e-are-you.html

http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-starship.html

And then there's the MONEY to get the COMMERCIAL parts going already
in place with the Undroit Treaty:

http://commonsensecentral.net/how_to_achieve_cats.htm

We have HAD the technology...only it was available only to the DOD
folks...

It's the Holiday Season...Spread the Good Cheer and Good Word...

We were NEVER alone in the Universe...and we had, and have
neighbors...close ones.



Bob...
http://commonsensecentral.net/

  #73  
Old December 22nd 07, 12:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Cheap Access to Space

On 22 Dec, 04:48, rhw007 wrote:
On Dec 21, 2:41*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

(snip)
You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/9...


we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a
feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best,
a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact.


(snip again -though I agree with your sentiments on the snipped part of your response )
* - Ian Parker-


I went to the Library today to try and get Nick Pope's "Jane" article
written in their Feruary 29,2002 titled "Anti-gravity propulsions
comes 'out of the closet'. *The previous place where I had seen the
link there was only a 5-6 sentence part of the abstract. *The library
at least gave me 499 of the full 873 word artile that as I recall came
WITH images and illustrations of the B2 Bomber which admittedly heats
the front wing so that postive ions are created and that negative ions
are jetted out the engines...thus causing a "electromagnetic lifting/
pushing" effect...depending on voltage and center of gravity
directions of the magnetic field placement. *I likely savedthe article
back in 2002 but finding it again in the 100's cds n dvds would be a
night mare...I thought it would be easier to go the library and pay to
have copies made of the article....now I'll have to try the University
Library...or hunt it down in the mnay boxes have.

But again this "electro-gravitic anti gravity propulsion" HAS been out
there in mainstream before...but...never FULLY covered....why?

The DOD...NASA IS a DOD agency.

From a FOIA I tried filling with NASA:

R4. * * * I hereby request any documents, images, memos or other items
that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or
external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data from any spacecraft.

R5. * * * I hereby request that any documents, images, memos or other
items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal
or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data, requested in R1 through R4 of
this request that are ruled to be exempt under Sec 1206.300; be so
noted in the reply and which sub-part and paragraphs are used to
justify the exemption from disclosure be set forth in the reply to
this request.

R6. * * * I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images,
memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any
source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded
from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that
deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and
reasons such exclusions were made.

Notice that these last 3 requests were for "NON-EARTH DATA"...i.e if
there's "nothing of military or national security interests" on the
Moon, Mars, or any other celestial object...then WHY would NASA
classify such data UNDER that rule? * Why would NASA even NEED such a
rule if our thinking is along the DarkAges Where Humanity is:

1. * * *All alone
2. * * *On a flat Earth
3. * * *At the center of the Universe
4. * * *As it revolves around us
5. * * *Riding on the back of a giant turtle

We are beyond ready to move past the Brookings Report and EMBRACE the
entities out there and it's time for someone to either:

http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-where-are-you....

http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-to-hijack-sta...

And then there's the MONEY to get the COMMERCIAL parts going already
in place with the Undroit Treaty:

http://commonsensecentral.net/how_to_achieve_cats.htm

We have HAD the technology...only it was available only to the DOD
folks...

It's the Holiday Season...Spread the Good Cheer and Good Word...

We were NEVER alone in the Universe...and we had, and have
neighbors...close ones.



Bob...http://commonsensecentral.net/


There are a number of points I would like to make. The first is one of
fundamental Physics. There is a theory called "General Relativity"
this describes how gravity arises and how it is linked with the 4
dimensional geometry of space. OK there are Grand Unified Theories and
supersymmeric theories which generalise and posulate a Fermion a
Gravitino which has finite mass, but we need to really concern
ourselves with this.

The fact of the matter is that there is an experiment called LIGO.
This is concerned with the terrestrial detection of gravitational
waves. If there REALLY was an antigravity devive in Area 51 (just
about 2000km from Hanford) LIGO would have gone off the scales. Look,
at Hanford the mirrors are suspended on a glass fibre in an evacuated
tube. There is even cooling to cut down on the Brownian motion.
Antigravity? How ridiculous!

It is perfectly true that you can push against the Earth's magnetic
field, it is not a terrible efficient method of propulsion, but it
works (just) for small objects.

The B2 bomber works purely by aerodynamics. There is no other source
of lift. The "stealth" is obtained by angling the surfaces and
covering the surface with radar absorbant material. There is complex
technology involved but no exotic Physics.

BTW - Stealth does not exist at 50cm and below. When I was visiting
Palmyra I saw what might be described as an "intelligent boulder". It
was a radar at 50cm to 1m and it had a dipole array to enable it to
communicate with other boulders, thereby getting round the Raleigh
criterion. Stealth it would seem has got a limited life.

The Military would like you to believe that its technology was
superior to civil and that it has these marvellous (totally
unphysical) things. The fact of the matter is that when it is up
against civil technology it is usually behing. The most advanced
technology in the world today is probably Google. The best
translations are dome by Google despite the effort that the military
have put in.

Blair and Brown were determined to introduce identity cards, yet
Google has rendered the technology completly obsolete anyway.

Can we learn anything from Google? Yes I think we can, we are talking
about "low cost access", yet equally important is low cost spacecraft
- a standard smart pebble. Google uses networked PCs rather than
specialist servers. This explains why they can afford to be so
generaous with such things as disc space.


- Ian Parker
  #74  
Old December 23rd 07, 03:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
rhw007
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Cheap Access to Space

To causually dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of Anti-Gravity flies in the
face of some FUNDAMENTAL holes in "modern" physics that were
orginially based on James Clark Maxwell's work which he had repeatedly
said certain phenomen could only be explained as 3D "reflections" from
objects existing in higher spatial dimensions. H.S.M. Coexeter has
published simliar work on these hyper-dimensional effects operating in
"hyperspace". Somoe of this work is the only way to explain why the
outer planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun and
from "traditional" physic models.

I would suggest one watch the FULL 3 DVD version of "What the bleep do
we know? How far down does the rabbit hole go?"

Quantum physics leaves open the possibilities of real hardware and
electrogravitic gravity...if this "LIGO" experimient may not observe
any 'gravity waves' if the effect was produced in an different
manner. Would LIGO detect 'sounds waves' from the Sun? They are
there...they remained 'invisable' until only recently.

To say we KNOW everything with absolute certainty is just setting you
up to be certainly wrong at 'some' future point.

Remeber the law of fives I stated above...the "leaders" of our time
only a few hundred years ago believed these were true and HANGED
people who thought otherwise.

Now...our leaders just don't publish their papers if they are outside
the "mainstream" box.

Bob...
  #75  
Old December 23rd 07, 11:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Cheap Access to Space

On 23 Dec, 02:00, rhw007 wrote:
To causually dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of Anti-Gravity flies in the
face of some FUNDAMENTAL holes in "modern" physics that were
orginially based on James Clark Maxwell's work which he had repeatedly
said certain phenomen could only be explained as 3D "reflections" from
objects existing in higher spatial dimensions. *H.S.M. Coexeter has
published simliar work on these hyper-dimensional effects operating in
"hyperspace". *Somoe of this work is the only way to explain why the
outer planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun and
from "traditional" physic models.

Jupiter itself is a source of energy. It is contracting, there is no
need to postulate exotic sources to explain this. As far as
multidimensional space is concerned and shortcuts I have tried not to
dismiss things "out of hand". In the theory of relativity you have the
postulate that all frames of reference are equivalent. If you were to
postulate a "short cut", this would contradict this assertion.

All the evidence we have indicates :-

1) That the Universe has a fairly flat geometry. The COBE images tell
us that there is no repeating structure.

2) There have been a number of assertions made about the nature of
black hole singularities. viz It is possible to pass into another
Universe. This could in theory be true but there is no evidence of
matter entering our Universe from another by this, or any other route.

All FTL proposals either postulate some implicit fixed Frame of
Reference or else time travel. Nobody has explained, for example, what
happens in a moving wormhole. A - you would expect to go back in time.

It is possible mathematically to reference a fixed frame of reference
in our 4 dimensions by invoking a 5th dimension. It is theoretically
possible - but is it true?

I would suggest one watch the FULL 3 DVD version of "What the bleep do
we know? How far down does the rabbit hole go?"

Quantum physics leaves open the possibilities of real hardware and
electrogravitic gravity...if this "LIGO" experimient may not observe
any 'gravity waves' if the effect was produced in an different
manner. *Would LIGO detect 'sounds waves' from the Sun? *They are
there...they remained 'invisable' until only recently.

There is a faint theoretical possibility, but only, as stated, by
referencing a 5th dimension. LIGO detects gravitational waves. Any
gravitational disturbance produces gravitatoional waves. Antigravity
(if real) will produce copious gravitational waves.

I feel I ought to say something about the history of antigravity. At
the end of WW2 the CIA soued Germany for military scientists. There
was a Nazi "Society of the Blak Sun " which promoted bogus science.

http://sungaya.de/schwarz/allmende/schwarzesonne.htm

This is in German. If you have difficultuies there is always Google
Translate. Apparently the Black Sun was not a supernova remnnt (that
really might affect LIGO) but was in the center of the Earth. It
appears to have originally been a Babylonian concept.

Antigravity arose when the CIA swallowed all this nonsense whole. Rand
critices me regularly, but really just look at the facts. Nothing of
any value stemed from this research. Antigravity research starts up
and is never heard of again.

To say we KNOW everything with absolute certainty is just setting you
up to be certainly wrong at 'some' future point.

Remeber the law of fives I stated above...the "leaders" of our time
only a few hundred years ago believed these were true and HANGED
people who thought otherwise.

You get hung for putting people in gas chambers. Science is open
minded about new ideas. Indeed you can look at some of the stuff that
mainstream scientists are producing to see what I mean. If you clain
antigravity, let me see a small scale demonstration. By small scale I
will even accept an accelerator experiment.

Now...our leaders just don't publish their papers if they are outside
the "mainstream" box.

They most certainly do! In fact going "outside the box" is a way of
drawing attention to yourself.


- Ian Parker

  #76  
Old December 26th 07, 10:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Dec 16, 4:50 pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message

, Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:46:00, Jim Relsh posted:
If we can make a anti-gravitic drive which is relatively cheap to build,
small and uses a safe nuclear power source will mass-transportation into
space be possible. But this first requires full-understanding of the laws of
physics which we, at the moment, don't have and could be decades or hundreds
of years away.


We have as yet no reliable cause to believe that the laws of physics
permit such a drive. The energy actually imparted to, say, the STS
orbiter is substantially less than that which is pumped into the tanks /
poured into the SRBs before launch; a nuclear source as at present
understood would not necessarily be needed.

Another possibillity would be the construction of a space-elevator. The
chances of this succeeding are much higher, but this will only get us into
orbit.


An elevator consisting of a large compact mass in GSO and a
comparatively light cable can lift no higher than to GSO.

But an elevator of minimum mass for its capacity would IIRC consist of a
cable getting more-or-less exponentially bigger as height initially
increases, with the rate of enlargement falling off to none at GSO and a
similar dwindling to a thin cable high above GSO. It would resemble a
Gaussian curve asymmetrically stretched. In principle, it would stretch
to infinity (neglecting relativity, the Moon, etc.).

If one slides along the outer portion of the cable, impelled both by the
movement of the cable and by centrifugal pseudo-effects, one can at the
end be thrown off with in excess of Earth escape velocity; one only
needs the cable to extend to GSO * 1.225, it seems (if the projectile's
mass is not enough to deflect the cable much).

URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#TB & above refers,
currently.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.


Hello,

a very reasonable reply. In 1950, nobody had either made anty matter,
now that is possible in tiny amounts.

I wonder what will happen, if they really achieve obervations of the
Higgs, in that big European collider, which is going on line somtime
next year...the Big Hadron Collider.

Presumably, the Higgs Boson creates the Higgs field, which permeates
all of space, and all other particles interact with it causing them to
have mass. Now, I donīt really have an hones clue about the precise
mecanics behind that interaction.

But letīs presume that like was the case when antimatter particles
began to be observed in past work on particle colliders, it will be
found possible to capture and confine for brief moments the Higgs
Boson.

If that comes to be true, I wonder if that would cause a measurable
concentration of the Higgs field in that particular locality, hence of
gravity in that locality.

What do you think? Any chance of that happening? A gravity generator
would be extremelly nifty Well, the Enterprice in kaftain Kirkīs
world does clearly have got it

Regards, Einar
  #77  
Old December 26th 07, 10:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Dec 18, 9:41 pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
John Schilling wrote:
If a rocket crashes, it will probably "explode". Big-ass fireball, at
very least. But the same tends to be true of jet airplanes, and in
either case the explosion is almost always A: the result, not the cause,
of the crash, and B: irrelevant because the vehicle and payload were
already lost on account of being smashed into the ground at high speed
or something like that.


The rest of your post is all true, but the fire after an airplane crash
is not at all irrelevant. The vast majority of passengers in airplane
crashes survive the crash, many of them do not survive the fire. For
rocket rides the odds are very different.

Alain Fournier


That will be only true in case of a controlled crash landing. In an
uncontrolled crash, there will not have been any successful attempts
at redusing the speed of the impact, if as sometimes has been the case
the plane has fallen from the sky from several thousand feet up, the
impact with the ground fill most likely kill everyone on board. The
same will probably be true when a plane impacts the ground, due to
pilot error - say flying into a mountain, when flying at high speed. A
jetliner impacting a mountain at say 880 km/h. will very likely result
in the immediate death of most onboard from the force of the impact
alone.

I recall an accident in Japan when a B-747 impacted a mountain killing
500 or so onboard, leaving only a single survivor.

Einar
  #78  
Old December 26th 07, 03:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Cheap Access to Space

On 26 Dec, 09:31, Einar wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:50 pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:





In sci.space.policy message


, Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:46:00, Jim Relsh posted:
If we can make a anti-gravitic drive which is relatively cheap to build,
small and uses a safe nuclear power source will mass-transportation into
space be possible. But this first requires full-understanding of the laws of
physics which we, at the moment, don't have and could be decades or hundreds
of years away.


We have as yet no reliable cause to believe that the laws of physics
permit such a drive. *The energy actually imparted to, say, the STS
orbiter is substantially less than that which is pumped into the tanks /
poured into the SRBs before launch; a nuclear source as at present
understood would not necessarily be needed.


Another possibillity would be the construction of a space-elevator. The
chances of this succeeding are much higher, but this will only get us into
orbit.


An elevator consisting of a large compact mass in GSO and a
comparatively light cable can lift no higher than to GSO.


But an elevator of minimum mass for its capacity would IIRC consist of a
cable getting more-or-less exponentially bigger as height initially
increases, with the rate of enlargement falling off to none at GSO and a
similar dwindling to a thin cable high above GSO. *It would resemble a
Gaussian curve asymmetrically stretched. *In principle, it would stretch
to infinity (neglecting relativity, the Moon, etc.).


If one slides along the outer portion of the cable, impelled both by the
movement of the cable and by centrifugal pseudo-effects, one can at the
end be thrown off with in excess of Earth escape velocity; one only
needs the cable to extend to GSO * 1.225, it seems (if the projectile's
mass is not enough to deflect the cable much).


URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#TB & above refers,
currently.


--
*(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.


Hello,

a very reasonable reply. In 1950, nobody had either made anty matter,
now that is possible in tiny amounts.

I wonder what will happen, if they really achieve obervations of the
Higgs, in that big European collider, which is going on line somtime
next year...the Big Hadron Collider.

Presumably, the Higgs Boson creates the Higgs field, which permeates
all of space, and all other particles interact with it causing them to
have mass. Now, I donīt really have an hones clue about the precise
mecanics behind that interaction.

But letīs presume that like was the case when antimatter particles
began to be observed in past work on particle colliders, it will be
found possible to capture and confine for brief moments the Higgs
Boson.

If that comes to be true, I wonder if that would cause a measurable
concentration of the Higgs field in that particular locality, hence of
gravity in that locality.

What do you think? Any chance of that happening? A gravity generator
would be extremelly nifty Well, the Enterprice in kaftain Kirkīs
world does clearly have got it

Lets be quite clear about this. The Higgs boson, if produced, would be
a highly unstable particle. It is a little bit misleading to say it is
the origin of mass. Elementary particle Physics (and theories of
everything) is very much based on a bootstrap principle. Masses occur
because of the enerrgies of interaction (E=Mc^2). Matrix equations can
be extremely complex.

I think that the paradoxes of FTL are valid whatever is found in Grand
Unified Theories.


- Ian Parker
  #79  
Old December 26th 07, 06:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Dec 18, 2:37*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -


I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.


Safe and cheap compared to what? Apollo? 17 missions, 1 disaster and a
failed mission with all astronauts surviving. In my book that is 1 in
17. The shuttle has had 2 disasters, period. According to wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle, the shuttle has had 120
launches. So, that is 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 17 with Apollo. The shuttle is
more safe than was Apollo.

Cost? Again, compared to what?

Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

Eric


  #80  
Old December 26th 07, 07:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Cheap Access to Space

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 2:37 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -


I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.


Cost? Again, compared to what?


Compared to what was promised.


Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...


Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg, is
crash proof and costs $10K.

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.




Eric





 




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
Space Access Update #110 3/31/05 Henry Vanderbilt Policy 0 April 1st 05 12:47 AM
Cheap access to space Bootstrap Bill Space Station 6 October 18th 04 03:49 PM
Cheap access to space Andrew Nowicki Policy 26 August 11th 04 06:55 PM
How to access sci.space.history? rafael History 4 July 10th 04 08:33 PM
cheap access to space - majority opinion Cameron Dorrough Technology 15 June 27th 04 03:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.