Mega Disasters - The History Channel

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:25:42 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:22:15 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

since the '70s. This is "feverish"?

The available evidence would indicate that it's "jonathan" who is
feverish...


I could say the sky is blue and you'd respond the same way.

Well, if the sky were in fact some other color at the time, yes...

Are you still holding a grudge after I pointed out that
83 word long run-on sentence you published?

laughing

You don't think we've been in a race to build missile
defense before certain rogue countries can hit us
with a few nukes?

Not really. The Dems have hobbled it.

I use words very carefully, I destroy you each time
you take them on.

laughing again

Do you enjoy getting hammered over and over~

Never having experienced it, I wouldn't know. Do you?

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:21:35 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Outspending NASA, the dept of defense is spending over
$20 billion a year on space related activities. Under Clinton
is was a fraction of that, he put the US military on a
'procurement holiday' remember?

What fraction? 9/10?

DoD has outspent NASA in space every year since Apollo ended.

And now they announce
a very ambitious Space Solar Power plan.

They announced very ambitious plans for SDI, Blue Gemini, MOL, ALS,
SLC-6, too. DoD is 90% plans and 10% doing anything.

It may be going through another boom and bust cycle like
you've described.

The cycle I described was all 'bust'.

But since 9/11 and Bush we're decidedly
in the 'boom' part of the space military spending cycle.

Evidence? If anything, space spending is hurting because of the war in
Iraq, just like all other military procurement. And DoD is wasting a
lot its precious funding keeping two EELVs alive.

We've been in a race lately to develop missile defense before
roque states can hit us.

Missile defense is not space. It's missiles and radars on Earth and
lasers in modified 747s.

Brian

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:46:14 -0700, kT wrote:


Now it has two
mediocre EELVs that are costing them a fortune with no obvious
improvement over their predecessors, to launch the same ol' spy
satellites they've been launching since the '70s. This is "feverish"?

Both EELVs are major improvements over their predecessors.

Facts not in evidence. Delta IV-Heavy may be considered an improvement
(it has yet to fly fully succesfully, so we can't make that claim yet)
in that it is cheaper than Titan IV-Centaur, but with only one or two
more payloads in its class scheduled to fly, this is an "improvement"
we didn't really need. The EELV Mediums have not demonstrated superior
performance over the Atlas-Centaur they replaced (an Atlas V has
failed... no Atlas II or III ever did.) And now the venerable,
ultra-reliable Delta II is being put out to pasture in order to prop
up the unprofitable EELVs, forcing its customers to pay higher prices
for the same launch (unless SpaceX or Orbital offer cheaper
alternatives.)

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:21:35 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Outspending NASA, the dept of defense is spending over
$20 billion a year on space related activities. Under Clinton
is was a fraction of that, he put the US military on a
'procurement holiday' remember?

What fraction? 9/10?

DoD has outspent NASA in space every year since Apollo ended.

And now they announce
a very ambitious Space Solar Power plan.

They announced very ambitious plans for SDI, Blue Gemini, MOL, ALS,
SLC-6, too. DoD is 90% plans and 10% doing anything.

It may be going through another boom and bust cycle like
you've described.

The cycle I described was all 'bust'.

But since 9/11 and Bush we're decidedly
in the 'boom' part of the space military spending cycle.

Evidence? If anything, space spending is hurting because of the war in
Iraq, just like all other military procurement. And DoD is wasting a
lot its precious funding keeping two EELVs alive.

We've been in a race lately to develop missile defense before
roque states can hit us.

Missile defense is not space. It's missiles and radars on Earth and
lasers in modified 747s.

Brian

I like 747's with lasers in their nose. If only we could have frick'n
sharks with frick'n laser beams attached to their frick'n heads. Is
that too much to ask?

Leopold Stotch wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:21:35 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Outspending NASA, the dept of defense is spending over
$20 billion a year on space related activities. Under Clinton
is was a fraction of that, he put the US military on a
'procurement holiday' remember?

What fraction? 9/10?

DoD has outspent NASA in space every year since Apollo ended.

And now they announce
a very ambitious Space Solar Power plan.

They announced very ambitious plans for SDI, Blue Gemini, MOL, ALS,
SLC-6, too. DoD is 90% plans and 10% doing anything.

It may be going through another boom and bust cycle like
you've described.

The cycle I described was all 'bust'.

But since 9/11 and Bush we're decidedly
in the 'boom' part of the space military spending cycle.

Evidence? If anything, space spending is hurting because of the war in
Iraq, just like all other military procurement. And DoD is wasting a
lot its precious funding keeping two EELVs alive.

We've been in a race lately to develop missile defense before
roque states can hit us.

Missile defense is not space. It's missiles and radars on Earth and
lasers in modified 747s.

Brian

I like 747's with lasers in their nose. If only we could have frick'n
sharks with frick'n laser beams attached to their frick'n heads. Is
that too much to ask?

I have some pet nurse sharks. I can do that!

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:46:14 -0700, kT wrote:


Now it has two
mediocre EELVs that are costing them a fortune with no obvious
improvement over their predecessors, to launch the same ol' spy
satellites they've been launching since the '70s. This is "feverish"?
Both EELVs are major improvements over their predecessors.

Facts not in evidence. Delta IV-Heavy

Pfffft. Ding.

Real men don't cluster **** like that.

Brian Thorn wrote:
And DoD is wasting a
lot its precious funding keeping two EELVs alive.

With the formation of BoeLockMart's Space Alliance, what's the status on
the two separate vehicles?
Are they going to drop one or the other?

We've been in a race lately to develop missile defense before
roque states can hit us.


Missile defense is not space. It's missiles and radars on Earth and
lasers in modified 747s.


Not necessarily: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/1...sses-dash.html
They're just having a hard time getting funding for the space part.

Pat

Leopold Stotch wrote:
I like 747's with lasers in their nose. If only we could have frick'n
sharks with frick'n laser beams attached to their frick'n heads. Is
that too much to ask?

Sharkadelic, baby! :-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Brian Thorn wrote:
And DoD is wasting a
lot its precious funding keeping two EELVs alive.

With the formation of BoeLockMart's Space Alliance, what's the status on
the two separate vehicles?
Are they going to drop one or the other?

We've been in a race lately to develop missile defense before
roque states can hit us.


Missile defense is not space. It's missiles and radars on Earth and
lasers in modified 747s.


Not necessarily:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/1...sses-dash.html
They're just having a hard time getting funding for the space part.


Right. But SSP is not a new weapon, it could appeal to the democrats
due to the environmental and fossil fuel issues. For once a big Pentagon
'weapon' system that can be as useful for society as the military.
Basic space infrastructure....flexible power systems.





Pat

Jonathan wrote:

For once a big Pentagon 'weapon' system that can be as useful for
society as the military.

It ranks right up there with the Interstate highway system.

--
Dave Michelson