CEV to be made commercially available

Rand Simberg wrote:

Again, so what? People do care about personal space travel, if
they're the ones personally space traveling.

And they won;t be.

Those who can afford it
will do so and build the industry, and it doesn't matter what the rest
of them think.


WRONG. The point under discussion here was not whether the space
tourism industry will get going, but whether the voters will get bored
with ESAS. So it matters greatly what "the rest of them" - which
almost certainly includes YOU, Rand - think.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Because you have tiny ambitions, and an indifference to the taxpayer.


Wrong, and needlessly insultingly so, on both counts Rand.

You're a jackass unworthy of being read, as you have nothing to offer
but vitriol. Not even a good arguement or a decent one-liner anymore.

Have fun talking to yourself.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 13:12:06 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are
selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested
in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires.

What difference does it make whether or not the public identifies with
bajillionaires?

Simple: the claim here was that people don't care about astronauts,
they care about "personal space travel." "PST" is all about
bajillionaires, and will be for a while. But astronauts... people like.

I'll bet the typical US taxpayer could name more bajillionares than they
could astronauts. There are countless TV shows and magazines devoted to
famous people. Precious few astronauts show up in those rags.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:51:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US
Air
Force.


And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?

None worth the high cost of this architecture, given the trivial
amount of activity that it will allow us to afford.

Landing twenty or more times as much stuff on the lunar surface than a
Saturn/Apollo could do at less cost... and in fact at no great increase
in the NASA budget over the current do-nothing Shuttle, sounds pretty
damned good to me.

Typical aerospace engineer. Fixated on mass. ;-)

Seriously though, it's not the mass that counts, but what you do with it.
:-)

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in news:4389c0c5.2238188
@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:

On 14 Nov 2005 07:55:29 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Pete Lynn wrote:
We have to
reasonably estimate a dollar value for this intangible wealth return if
we are to make rational investment decisions.

Really? What's the dollar value of the return from, say, the NEA

If you mean National Education Association, it's a net negative.

He could mean the National Endowment for the Arts (the answer is the same,
IMO).

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On 10 Nov 2005 09:22:33 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Jeff Findley wrote:

If you look back at Apollo, public interest was dropping like a stone once
Apollo 11 made it home safely. Only the chance of astronauts dying in space
made the public wake up during Apollo 13. The same thing will happen with
Apollo 2.0. After a couple of missions, the public will quickly lose
interest.

Then you should get on the phone *right* *now* to Virgin Galactic,
XCOR, Bigelow, etc. and tell them that the public won't be interested
in spaceflight.

If the public (other than the public that is actually participating in
it) doesn't have to pay for it, it doesn't matter.

On 10 Nov 2005 13:12:06 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires.

What difference does it make whether or not the public identifies with
bajillionaires? That doesn't keep them from buying yachts.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:29:32 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Scott Lowther wrote:

: I think he's wrong, and he's wrong because he's rather wrapped up in his
: own pseudo-religious ideology.

: No, Scott. I'm being realistic and hard headed. You're the one
: squirming here. Notice that folks are agreeing with me, not you?

Wrong-O, I agree with Scott on this one.

Well, Scott's in great company then (holding my sides with hilarity).

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:51:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.


And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?

None worth the high cost of this architecture, given the trivial
amount of activity that it will allow us to afford.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:56:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I'm
interested in seeing people interested in space so that space industry
goes somewhere.

I think you're confusing cause and effect here.