From the National Review Online...

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...0506160749.asp

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...0506160749.asp

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.



I completely disagree with his statement that:
"the space shuttle is back on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal
white elephant http://www.21cep.com/thai/eleph.htm — 14 deaths in 113
flights — is the grandest, grossest technological folly of our age."
That would be the ISS, not the Shuttle.
the Shuttle is the _second_ grandest, grossest technological folly of
our time. :-)

Pat

On 16 Jun 2005 23:09:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...0506160749.asp

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.

Gee, ya think?

He comes to the right conclusion (about the Shuttle) from wrong
premises about much else.

Jim Davis wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...0506160749.asp

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.

Jim Davis
Actually he doesn't like space exploration period.

On 17 Jun 2005 04:17:22 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark R.
Whittington" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Jim Davis wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...0506160749.asp

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.

Jim Davis
Actually he doesn't like space exploration period.

No, he just doesn't like government-funded human space exploration.
He did say he'd like to go himself--he just doesn't think that the
taxpayers should pick up the bill. That's my read, anyway.

I don't think this guy likes the shuttle.

What's to like?



Actually he doesn't like space exploration period.

No, he just doesn't like government-funded human space exploration.
He did say he'd like to go himself--he just doesn't think that the
taxpayers should pick up the bill. That's my read, anyway.


Exactly. And his comments about the truly astounding scope of utter folly
represented by the shuttle's continued flights and existence are right on
target. Believe it or not, there are lots of people who love space
development but hate NASA (
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2000/libe76-20000612-07.html ). With good
reason. NASA is evil. NASA must die.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Actually, Rand, his statements on the folly of space exploration and
his robots being better than humans argument and several other things
would apply to all forms of space exploration, whether done by NASA,
the military, or a private company. Derbyshire takes the known problems
concerning the shuttle (which even NASA has long admitted) and has
reached the conclusion than any sort of space exploration is not only
ill advised, but downright evil.

Rand, no I'm not. The key paragraph to understanding Derb's view on
space exploration in general is this one:

"The gross glutted wealth of the federal government; the venality and
stupidity of our representatives; the lobbying power of big
rent-seeking corporations; the romantic enthusiasms of millions of
citizens; these are the things that 14 astronauts died for. To abandon
all euphemism and pretense, they died for pork, for votes, for share
prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in
ours)."
Venality? Stupidity? They died for pork? For thrills? I think the
term"evil" fits rather nicely.

Mark R. Whittington wrote:
Rand, no I'm not. The key paragraph to understanding Derb's view on
space exploration in general is this one:

"The gross glutted wealth of the federal government; the venality and
stupidity of our representatives; the lobbying power of big
rent-seeking corporations; the romantic enthusiasms of millions of
citizens; these are the things that 14 astronauts died for. To abandon
all euphemism and pretense, they died for pork, for votes, for share
prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in
ours)."
Venality? Stupidity? They died for pork? For thrills? I think the
term"evil" fits rather nicely.

Mark, Mark, Mark...

You claimed he was stating that "any sort of space exploration is
[...] downright evil."

But this paragraph is refering to a *specific* form of space
exploration, the government-funded shuttle program. Other forms
may lack many of these deplorable features.

I thik Derbyshire's hit a nerve here. It's gotta be disconcerting
to be rhetorically pounded from the left AND the right.

Paul

On 17 Jun 2005 19:08:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark R.
Whittington" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Actually, Rand, his statements on the folly of space exploration and
his robots being better than humans argument and several other things
would apply to all forms of space exploration, whether done by NASA,
the military, or a private company. Derbyshire takes the known problems
concerning the shuttle (which even NASA has long admitted) and has
reached the conclusion than any sort of space exploration is not only
ill advised, but downright evil.

Not evil, just ill advised. You're being as hyperbolic as he is.