Orion (poor man's Saturn V and capsule) won't be ready until at least 2023

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 2:13:16 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 06:26:44 UTC+2, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations. After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

The Moon only has value where a profit can be made.

And we can't have THAT, now can we?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

Spaceflight = beneficial. Pork barrel rail lines = not beneficial. Do the math.

Non sequitur.

Really? How so?

Actually, it's a non sequitur and a straw man, as well.
Congratulations.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:26:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations.

Example?

The Apollo program.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:48:48 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

Spaceflight = beneficial. Pork barrel rail lines = not beneficial. Do the math.

Non sequitur.

Really? How so?

Actually, it's a non sequitur and a straw man, as well.
Congratulations.

It's actually NEITHER. You need to review this thread, consider your position on the high speed rail boondoggle, and then clarify your thinking.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:26:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations.

Example?

The Apollo program.

Incorrect. Before, after and during the Apollo Program, there were various ongoing proxy wars, the Cold War, and intense development and testing of numerous weapons systems. The Apollo Program changed nothing in those regards.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military
power
demonstrations.

Example?

The race to the Moon in the 1960's


After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

The Nazis used rockets to terrorize, the USSR used them for
propaganda, whereas the US led the way in using them for exploration.

With no propaganda whatsoever? You seen pretty brainwashed...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:08:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military
power
demonstrations.

Example?

The Apollo program.

Incorrect. Before, after and during the Apollo Program, there
were various ongoing proxy wars, the Cold War, and intense
development and testing of numerous weapons systems. The Apollo
Program changed nothing in those regards.

The Apollo program wasn't for free, it was horribly expensive. That
money had to be taken from somewhere.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:53:07 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:
We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military
power
demonstrations.

Example?

The race to the Moon in the 1960's


The Cold War, and its proxy wars, were going on before, during and after the so-called "space race." You'll have to show what " military power demonstrations" it "replaced" if you wish to be taken seriously.


After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

The Nazis used rockets to terrorize, the USSR used them for
propaganda, whereas the US led the way in using them for exploration.

With no propaganda whatsoever? You seen pretty brainwashed...

Hey, that's an insult (are you reading this, palsing?)

The US space program was open and forthright about its goals and progress, whereas the USSR program was cloaked in secrecy and deception.

The USSR tended to go for propaganda-related firsts such as the first woman in space, first craft to carry two or three people at a time, first "spacewalk", etc., none of which led to anything substantive until the Americans demonstrated how to do those things better.

The US had a plan from the beginning and it did not include propaganda, just solid achievements toward a laudable goal.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:56:44 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:08:16 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:
Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military
power
demonstrations.

Example?

The Apollo program.

Incorrect. Before, after and during the Apollo Program, there
were various ongoing proxy wars, the Cold War, and intense
development and testing of numerous weapons systems. The Apollo
Program changed nothing in those regards.

The Apollo program wasn't for free, it was horribly expensive.

No, it wasn't really, it was just a small portion of federal spending and a smaller portion of the GDP.

That
money had to be taken from somewhere.

It came out of tax dollars, and not very many dollars on a per capita basis.. Of course Sweden was simply not large enough to even attempt a satellite launch, much less a mission of any sort to the Moon or beyond, so the program is bound to seem expensive to a Swede.

(Hey, palsing, are you going to count that as an insult? Are you keeping score, liar?)

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:25:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:56:44 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:08:16 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:
Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military
power
demonstrations.

Example?

The Apollo program.

Incorrect. Before, after and during the Apollo Program, there
were various ongoing proxy wars, the Cold War, and intense
development and testing of numerous weapons systems. The Apollo
Program changed nothing in those regards.

The Apollo program wasn't for free, it was horribly expensive.

No, it wasn't really, it was just a small portion of federal spending and a smaller portion of the GDP.

That
money had to be taken from somewhere.

It came out of tax dollars, and not very many dollars on a per capita basis. Of course Sweden was simply not large enough to even attempt a satellite launch, much less a mission of any sort to the Moon or beyond, so the program is bound to seem expensive to a Swede.

(Hey, palsing, are you going to count that as an insult? Are you keeping score, liar?)

In this post, no insult, except to me... in the previous post, definite insult. Like I said, eventually you insult everyone...