High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

Rand Simberg wrote:
"Kim Keller" glowed:
I'm sure we'll give your opinions, criticism, and feelings all the respect
they're due.
I expect no more, or less.
The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual superiority.
It has nothing to do with intellect.
Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.
Pointless and baseless ad hominem noted.

Now, children.


-george william herbert

Rand Simberg wrote:

but I'd put my money of Matt Drudge being
unable to keep his mouth shut for more than one minute after hearing a
rumor. If Lehane's involved in this, it's very puzzling- as he was
Clark's press secretary, and Clark is expected to endorse Kerry later today.

Clark was the one who said that Kerry might have an intern problem a
few days ago.

And Clark is Clinton's boy.

Well, let's see.... who benefits if Kerry implodes in October? That
would be Bush. Who benefits if Kerry implodes now? Hmmm.... can you
say... "Hillary?"

Clark both endorsing and back-stabbing Kerry has all the hallmarks of a
Clinton candidacy. The LAST think Hillary wants is a successful Democrat
in '04...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Rand Simberg wrote:

Clark was the one who said that Kerry might have an intern problem a
few days ago.

Here's something interesting. It was scooped by a blogger a few days
ago.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/...es/000780.html

It turns out that this isn't just any blogger. It was on a blog run
by this guy:

http://www.camworld.com/about/

Who works for this guy:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguid...larkblog_x.htm

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser, eh?


Okay...two questions:
1.) How exactly is Rupert Murdoch involved?
2.) How exactly are the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood involved?

Pat

"Kim Keller" wrote in message m...
"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

I can only speak to the situation at KSC, where roughly 7000 people work on
Shuttle in some way, shape or form.


Here is another way to look at it. NASA's shuttle budget
is roughly $3.2 billion per year (6 flights). Roughly
$1.31 billion of that cost is attributed to the cost of
processing and upgrading the orbiters and their SSMEs.
Purchase, refurbishment, processing, and upgrade of ET
and SRB elements accounts for about $1.1 billion. Mission
and launch operations costs account for the remainder.

Taking away the orbiter costs leaves $1.92 billion. The
orbiter will have to be replaced with something roughly
the size of an EELV Medium, which costs on the order of
$0.1 billion each to build and launch. Additional cost
reductions in the "Mission and Launch Operations" category
(perhaps $0.3-0.4 billion) would also be likely, since the
new vehicle would not require human spaceflight support.

This hints at a potential non-orbiter, non-SSME shuttle-
derived vehicle (SDV) annual program cost on the order of
$2.2 billion for a program that could handle as many as
6 launches per year. Such a program would produce lower
costs than an EELV-based effort only if a 75 ton to LEO
class SDV were flown at least five times per year every
year. Note that this does not include the SDV development
costs, which would add $3-4 billion to the initial program
costs.

- Ed Kyle.

In article , Pat Flannery wrote:

Okay...two questions:
1.) How exactly is Rupert Murdoch involved?

The article about it on the front page of the Times was calm, rational,
dismissive, well-written, and didn't attempt to make a bad joke. In
this, it's possibly a first for the Murdoch stable here of recent years,
so he must be caught up in it somewhere... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

"SpaceSavant" wrote in message
om...
(George William Herbert) wrote in message
...
Paul Rezzo wrote:
Perhaps announcing that the US will stop using banned weapons of
destruction

such as...?

here's one. Depleted uranium, banned by UN convention.

Please name the convention.

I happen to, in my limited spare time, study real WMD
issues and international law related to them, war crimes,
and the like, and to the best of my and everyone else who
actually studies the field's knowledge there is no such
ban in existence.

I did a quick check in google and found many references. I think you
need more spare time to study it. Here is a reference that states it
in simplified terms,
http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/du2000.html


Again, as George said, "name the convention."

Note that the author herself doesn't mention any convention.

Honestly, her argument is somewhat suspect as it could include lead used in
weaponry, which no one has called a banned weapon.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:23:28 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/...es/000780.html

It turns out that this isn't just any blogger. It was on a blog run
by this guy:

http://www.camworld.com/about/

Who works for this guy:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguid...larkblog_x.htm

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser, eh?


Okay...two questions:
1.) How exactly is Rupert Murdoch involved?

I don't know, I haven't gotten my daily fax of Fox talking points yet,
for all of us mind-numbed Rupert minions.

But it turns out that the blog that spilled it wasn't run by the Clark
guy--he was just the owner of the server.

In article , Strider\
wrote:

I can't speak for battlefield conditions, but this past week the local
newspaper did have an article on a now closed production plant in the area
that apparently has caused gross contamination of the soil. (something like
up to 75% of weight in 1st meter of topsoil was depleted uranium.)

Wow, 75%, really? That's fantastic. 75% by weight. Imagine that.

http://www.timesunion.com though I can't seem to find the
article online at this time.

And a totally reliable source. Not just "I think I read it somewhere",
but "it was in this newspaper, but I can't find it again".

75%.

Unbelievable.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"SpaceSavant" wrote in message
om...
(George William Herbert) wrote in message
...
Paul Rezzo wrote:
Perhaps announcing that the US will stop using banned weapons of
destruction

such as...?

here's one. Depleted uranium, banned by UN convention.

Please name the convention.

I happen to, in my limited spare time, study real WMD
issues and international law related to them, war crimes,
and the like, and to the best of my and everyone else who
actually studies the field's knowledge there is no such
ban in existence.

I did a quick check in google and found many references. I think you
need more spare time to study it. Here is a reference that states it
in simplified terms,
http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/du2000.html


Again, as George said, "name the convention."

Note that the author herself doesn't mention any convention.

Honestly, her argument is somewhat suspect as it could include lead used in
weaponry, which no one has called a banned weapon.

I am a bit curious. How would old tungsten rounds hanging around on an
old battlefield affect things? Most heavy metals really aren't that desirable
environmentally. And just how much worse is depleted Uranium than an
equivalent amount of lead?

The whole argument seems to based on linking the Uranium to
nuclear radiation. The stories about widespread effects of depleted
Uranium on populations are so far fetched that they are completely
unbelievable.

Mike Walsh

(SpaceSavant) wrote in message . com...
(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
Paul Rezzo wrote:
Perhaps announcing that the US will stop using banned weapons of
destruction

such as...?

here's one. Depleted uranium, banned by UN convention.

Please name the convention.

I happen to, in my limited spare time, study real WMD
issues and international law related to them, war crimes,
and the like, and to the best of my and everyone else who
actually studies the field's knowledge there is no such
ban in existence.

I did a quick check in google and found many references. I think you
need more spare time to study it. Here is a reference that states it
in simplified terms,
http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/du2000.html

The four points are the authors opinion. Following through:

(1) Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as
legal military targets of the enemy in the war. Weapons may not have
an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. (The "territorial"
test).

Therefore, propoganda is an illegal weapon.

(2) Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A
weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates
this criterion. (The "temporal" test).

That means land mines are "naturally" illegal, and not because they're
banned by some conventions. That means any armanents are illegal,
because they effect the environment.

(3) Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. (The "humaneness" test).

Guns are therefore illegal in war. Bows and Arrows are even more
illegal, as they don't normally kill instantly.

(4) Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural
environment. (The "environmental" test).

I have trouble in thiking of weapons which don't have an undue effect
on the environment.