|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
On or about Tue, 4 May 2004 22:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Scott Lowther
made the sensational claim that: Rodney Kelp wrote: Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer. And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there. Using what? Sharpened rocks? Well duh. How else do you think we're gonna get the zeros? -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
Am Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:27 -0700 (PDT) schrieb "Rodney Kelp":
Why not just build everything on the moon? Mine and Smelt the ore, make the metals and build the ships. First build specialized ships to shuttle people to and from the moon. build a large moonbase and get things going. We can do it with nuclear powered aircraft. Screw the environmentalists. Let them suck swamp water. 'They' use enviromentalists to slow down projects that 'they' don't approve, and also to make people fight each other. "Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" wrote in message ... ...because it makes no sense for a "single shot" enterprise. Well... To build stuff on the moon, you also need equipments from Earth, LOTS of equipments and some of them are quite big. There _IS_ a huge difference between exploration and colonization. And the actual goal is exploration. That, and... I think that maybe they only managed to get Moon Visas, without any building permits. None of the real deciders even think about colonization - as long as there is no prove of huge economic advantages, that pay off the efforts... Actually, now you mention it, the whole space program is always about spend spend spend, it's doubtful that there were any big economic return in the last half century. cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
Ain't that how we started on this planet?
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message ... Rodney Kelp wrote: Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer. And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there. Using what? Sharpened rocks? -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
"Rodney Kelp" wrote ...
Ain't that how we started on this planet? Worker1: ... (suffocating) Line Boss: Jeez! Do I have to do everything for you? Here are some sharpened rocks - now fix your spacesuit! "Scott Lowther" wrote ... Rodney Kelp wrote: Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer. And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there. Using what? Sharpened rocks? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there
owing to very high labor costs. So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of events? I think "exploration" vs "settlement" is a critical choice here. And that what our future needs, perhaps what we need as a species, is to start settlement on Luna asap. Because, who knows what the future holds? Those of us who look out into space know we occupy a tiny, vulnerable, and definitely temporary Garden of Eden in an unfriendly universe. But many faith-based ideologists "know" this world's surface is all reality there is and, having little awareness beyond their Book, they get off on fantasies like millennialism and that most-remarkable Christian Rapture idea. Two outlooks: which wins, which reality? But while we have a choice, it's off-world settlement, and we need to turn that way. However. Apollo is long gone, its physical plant discarded, its people retired or died of old age. I see hundreds of billions of dollars going to war after war after war; and I wonder if down under the surface it's simply a matter of whose Washington lobby is strongest and the munitions makers and the military win it. I hear loud objections to the oh-so-questionable expenditure of maybe a billion dollars on off-Terra exploration. Maybe the space people haven't enough lobby power. And I see next to nothing at all about off-world settlement, which in my view, is what we really need to be doing. Sorrows -- Martha Adams |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
Martha H Adams wrote:
Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there owing to very high labor costs. So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of events? Ignoring reality because you don't like the outcome is not likely to be productive. Economic constraints are as real as physical constraints. They don't go away just because you consider some particular outcome to be desirable. Paul |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
I agree with you. We could spend what we spend on Iraq on space colonization
we might get somewhere. But everyone seems to only be able to come up with excuses why it can't or shouldn't be done; even those in this news group. "Martha H Adams" wrote in message ... Let's think about this. We don't settle Luna and build ships there owing to very high labor costs. So at last, nothing gets done there. Isn't this the wrong chain of events? I think "exploration" vs "settlement" is a critical choice here. And that what our future needs, perhaps what we need as a species, is to start settlement on Luna asap. Because, who knows what the future holds? Those of us who look out into space know we occupy a tiny, vulnerable, and definitely temporary Garden of Eden in an unfriendly universe. But many faith-based ideologists "know" this world's surface is all reality there is and, having little awareness beyond their Book, they get off on fantasies like millennialism and that most-remarkable Christian Rapture idea. Two outlooks: which wins, which reality? But while we have a choice, it's off-world settlement, and we need to turn that way. However. Apollo is long gone, its physical plant discarded, its people retired or died of old age. I see hundreds of billions of dollars going to war after war after war; and I wonder if down under the surface it's simply a matter of whose Washington lobby is strongest and the munitions makers and the military win it. I hear loud objections to the oh-so-questionable expenditure of maybe a billion dollars on off-Terra exploration. Maybe the space people haven't enough lobby power. And I see next to nothing at all about off-world settlement, which in my view, is what we really need to be doing. Sorrows -- Martha Adams --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Atlas - Delta Very Heavy
Rodney Kelp wrote:
But everyone seems to only be able to come up with excuses why it can't or shouldn't be done; even those in this news group. You include yourself in the above, right? Jim Davis |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atlas SRBs | LooseChanj | Space Science Misc | 17 | February 27th 04 12:03 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Atlas Launch Tonight | LooseChanj | Space Science Misc | 1 | December 20th 03 03:57 AM |