CEV PDQ

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:37:42 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
Yep. The problem is there's no money being allocated for improved
EVA
capabilities right now

Not true. I think that one of the Millenium Challenge prizes is the
development of a vastly improved high-pressure glove.

That's nice, but that doesn't mean that money is being allocated
*now*.

Actually it does.

How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task
mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task?

Because historically, prizes tend to generate much more dollars in
pursuit of them than the prizes themselves.

Fine- then *name the organizations* that are spending money *now* for
spacesuit improvements, whether or not in anticipation of a prize.


What
are the names of the organizations currently expending funds to
improve
EVA
capabilities? How much? What specific projects?

I don't know. What does it matter?

Well, if there is no answer for the questions, it's a good indicator that
no
money is being currently spent.

And yet money was being spent on SS1 with no one outside of the
principals knowing about it.

The folks behind the X-Prize knew. If someone is spending money on better
suit gloves, *they* know. So clearly, there *is* an answer to the question.
Instead of WAGing, perhaps you should do some research.

Take a logic class.

Read my book.

The
fact that they can't be named doesn't mean they don't exist,

Sure it does.

No, sorry.

Don't you think the people behind the organizations could name them? It
would be hard to be a member of an organization without being able to use a
name or a descriptor in reference to it.

Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.

There's plenty of evidence of absence of evidence to support your claims in
this newsgroup.

and the
likelihood of their existence and funding improves when there's a
prize to be won.

What prize was offered for Mercury?

None was necessary

Same as now. So prizes are irrelevant to the issue.

What history do those organizations have in
pressure suits and/or gloves? In short, how serious can they be taken?

What history had Scaled Composites had in sending men into space?

Is Scaled Composites participating in the high pressure glove contest?

No.

If not, how are they relevant?

They are an example of someone who wouldn't have been taken seriously
in their field of endeavor prior to actually developing and flying
hardware to achieve it.

In other words, *Scaled Composites and/or Burt Rutan have nothing to do with
improving spacesuits*. Now that that irrelevant red herring has been
eliminated, try naming some organizations that *are* working on improving
spacesuits.

Again, take a logic class.

Again, buy a copy of one of my books *and read it*.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:10:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Where did he get the money to make the attempt? Not from the prize.

Of course he got it (indirectly) from the prize.

What, the X-Prize folks lent him the money? How about all of the other
participants? If the X-Prize folks had that much money to lend, they
could
have raised the prize.

What you're being intentionally obtuse about, of course, is that *in
order
to get the prize money, -other- money had to be spent first*.

And what you're being obtuse about (unlike you, I won't ascribe
motivations) is that the prize represented an interesting goal in and
of itself, regardless of the P&L statement.

So, what was the prize for Mercury?

Who is currently spending money on improved spacesuit technology? How
much?

I already answered that question.

Just checked- nope, sorry, you didn't provide even one verifiable relevant
name. You just handwaved, *yet again*.

Had the prize not
occurred, he probably wouldn't have gotten the investment.

A poor investment if the money was the incentive, since he spent far more
than he got.

Money was not the incentive, obviously.

Then it's not really relevant as a prize, is it? Do you think that Rutan
would have made the attempt if the prize was a nice plaque?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:12:25 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
What evidence is there that Allen
would have invested absent the prize?

What evidence do you have that the prize was the sole or even primary
reason
for Allen's investment, considering that even the estimates were that the
attempt would (and did) cost more than the prize?

Statements by Rutan and Allen. They wanted the prestige of the prize,
which was largely the point.

Then why do you keep going on about money?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:13:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:04:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Tell that to Burt Rutan.

Tell Burt to get back to us when he's designing an orbital-capable
spacecraft with planned vacuum/micro-g EVA assembly, which is the
topic
you keep evading, Mr. Strawman.

Actually, I'd be surprised if he isn't at least working on the former.
I know of some working on the latter.

Name them, and provide verifiable references.

Why?

To support your claims, of course.

This from the guy who keeps telling *me* to take a class in logic.

I couldn't have done so for Scaled prior to their announcement,

Then you clearly don't spend a lot of time researching your claims, Stuffie.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
And you think that I don't make a living communicating?

So *that's* why you're acting the way you do here- you're not getting paid.

Perhaps you'd be better off if you spent more time making a living, then,
and less time posting. The group certainly would.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:09:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

What difference does it make? The bottom line is how to get the best
space station, not whether people working in a ground facility are
more "efficient" than those working in space.

No, it's not! Why can't you stick to the point, Rand? The bottom line
is how best to define, design and implement the best architecture for
CEV, which is the topic at hand to everyone (except, apparently, you).

Yes...?


Yes. Another fine example of your inability to remain on-topic when
on-topic is inconvenient.

And "Yes...?" takes the subject off topic how?

For a supposed lawyer, Herb, you're not doing very well here...

Of course, that's an entirely inappropriate analogy, since access to
the ocean depths is cheap for any size of vehicle, and it's actually a
much harsher environment than orbit.

Relative cost of deep-ocean engineering and orbital construction isn't
the issue.

Then you don't understand how deeply you're embedded in your mistaken
assumptions.

Nice sound bite. Wrong, as usual, but pithy and wise-sounding. Good
job. Next time, however, try making a *substantive* comment that
actually refutes or supports a point. That's how those of us who
communicate for a living do it, you see.

And you think that I don't make a living communicating?

You're going to have to do better, Herb.

Have you ever heard of the expression, "pot, kettle, black"?

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:30:50 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
The bottom line is how to get the best
space station, not whether people working in a ground facility are
more "efficient" than those working in space.

*Once again* you're changing the subject. The *specific subject* was the
claim that designing a space station which much engage in EVA assembly using
not-yet-invented techniques under the assumption that they would be
invented, even though no resources are being expended to invent them, is
superior to designing a station of the same capabilities that requires
minimal EVA assembly and only need existing EVA capabilities.

No, that's not the subject. That's the strawman that opponents of
orbital assembly have proclaimed the subject. The subject is whether
or not it's better to develop the techologies to make EVA routine, and
then use it to save money in development costs for systems that can be
assembled using minimal or zero EVA, or whether we should simply
assume that EVA will always be hard and use that as a design
assumption now and forever.

*You* are now
trying to change the subject to building space stations because it's more
convenient than admitting you're talking out of your Guth and have less
support for your claims than Stuffie.

No, sorry.

Why do you insist on speculating on matters you could easily research?
LaToya, is that you?

Sorry, but I've done research, and worked the problem over the past
two decades.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 02:27:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Dave Michelson wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:

You're just as guilty as Rand of missing the point, which is (again!)
PLANNED EVA ASSEMBLY IS A BAD IDEA!

We understand your point Herb. WE JUST DISAGREE WITH IT! And putting
it in all caps with a bang on the end doesn't make it more valid, or
more persuasive.

OTOH, some of us do agree with Herb. While it's important to have EVA
available as an assembly option if the unexpected occurs, EVA is too
time-consuming, inefficient, and dangerous to rely upon routinely.

That's correct EVA *IS* all that, we all agree with Herb on that.

Where the discussion is breaking down is Herb's insistence that we
must act as if those limits are laws of nature.

Exactly.

rk wrote:
I'll bet on a small team of experts getting it mostly right with some

increased costs down the line.

But then you can't play 'cover your ass'. The whole point of modern
political organisation is to ensure there are so many committees and
bureaucrats involved that no-one can be blamed for anything since it's
impossible even to figure out who made a decision.

The fact that it's expensive and counter-productive is irrelevant.

Mark

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:17:20 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote
(in article ):

See above and please try to keep up with the actual
topic at hand.

Yes, please do. Please note that the topic at hand is future
possibilities and future opportunities and future plans.

Only *you* keep insisting on limiting the scope of the discussion.

D.

No, it has not "moved on" except by you and a few others who insist on
moving it on with no good reason. Well, they do have a good reason:
they know it can't be done now, my comments have been strictly limited
to present-day capabilities in the context of designing a CEV
architecture, and yet they don't care because reality doesn't comport
with their fantasies. So now I guess the argumentative norm for this
thread is: "When losing, change the subject so that it's not so
apparent."

You know, for someone who never hesitates to throw around accusations
of handwaving, you're dangerously close to it.

(I'm replying to one message, rather than several, despite your various
posts to subthreads).

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/