Funny, Bob Zubrin is usually pretty quick to spew on NASA Mars stuff

But it's been over a week since Scott Horowitz announced that the name
for the new launchers will be "Ares."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...06/30/850.aspx

Since Zubrin has had an exceptional amount to say about NASA's plans
for exploration, most of it kind of nutty, I'm suprised the Mars
Society never issued a statement. Do you think he's going to get a
payoff?

tom

Tom Cuddihy wrote:
But it's been over a week since Scott Horowitz announced that the name
for the new launchers will be "Ares."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...06/30/850.aspx

Since Zubrin has had an exceptional amount to say about NASA's plans
for exploration, most of it kind of nutty, I'm suprised the Mars
Society never issued a statement. Do you think he's going to get a
payoff?

Ares 1 and 5!

Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to keep Saturn 1 and 5?

The article talks about paying homage to Apollo and trademarking the
names. surely Saturn 1c and 5b would have been easier.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Alex Terrell wrote:
Tom Cuddihy wrote:

But it's been over a week since Scott Horowitz announced that the name
for the new launchers will be "Ares."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...06/30/850.aspx

Since Zubrin has had an exceptional amount to say about NASA's plans
for exploration, most of it kind of nutty, I'm surprised the Mars
Society never issued a statement. Do you think he's going to get a
payoff?

Ares 1 and 5!

Wow! The Greek God of War chosen to appease the US War President.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to keep Saturn 1 and 5?

No. Ares is cheaper propaganda minding setting US into militarizing
space.

The article talks about paying homage to Apollo and trademarking the
names. surely Saturn 1c and 5b would have been easier.

War^tm is now a trademark?
Soon to be playing in a theater near you, War^tm, brought to you by US.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 01:52:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, William
Elliot made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Alex Terrell wrote:
Tom Cuddihy wrote:

But it's been over a week since Scott Horowitz announced that the name
for the new launchers will be "Ares."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...06/30/850.aspx

Since Zubrin has had an exceptional amount to say about NASA's plans
for exploration, most of it kind of nutty, I'm surprised the Mars
Society never issued a statement. Do you think he's going to get a
payoff?

Ares 1 and 5!

Wow! The Greek God of War chosen to appease the US War President.

Yes.

Of course.

That's the reason.

(moron)

In article .com,
Alex Terrell wrote:
Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to keep Saturn 1 and 5?

No, actually. Even strictly on the technical side, you wouldn't save much
money that way, because we don't *have* the Saturn IB and Saturn V any
more. "When we dropped it, it broke." Rebuilding production and launch
capability for them would cost a bit less than a clean-slate design, but
only a bit less.

And on the political side, that would mean new competitions, new contracts,
and quite possibly large job losses for some of the existing contractors.
Which is politically very costly.

The article talks about paying homage to Apollo and trademarking the
names. surely Saturn 1c and 5b would have been easier.

Sometimes there's PR value in having a new name.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
oups.com...
But it's been over a week since Scott Horowitz announced that the name
for the new launchers will be "Ares."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...06/30/850.aspx

Maybe we should name the lunar rocket after a Martian god and the Mars
rocket after a lunar god. They have already picked a name for the Mars
rocket, but they'll be retired before it's launched, so it may end up with a
totally different name.

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Alex Terrell wrote:
Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to keep Saturn 1 and 5?

No, actually. Even strictly on the technical side, you wouldn't save
much
money that way, because we don't *have* the Saturn IB and Saturn V any
more. "When we dropped it, it broke." Rebuilding production and launch
capability for them would cost a bit less than a clean-slate design, but
only a bit less.

And on the political side, that would mean new competitions, new
contracts,
and quite possibly large job losses for some of the existing contractors.
Which is politically very costly.

The article talks about paying homage to Apollo and trademarking the
names. surely Saturn 1c and 5b would have been easier.

Sometimes there's PR value in having a new name.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |


I agree there's a lot of value in having a new name--distance from
previous missteps, etc.

I'm just suprised, since, if I recall correctly, when the newer Mars
Design Reference Mission came out, it included a lot of In Situ
Resource Utilization stuff that looked like ti came right out of "The
Case for Mars," with no reference. That made Zubrin somewhat mad.

The fact that there hasn't been a similar statement about the "Ares"
name by the Mars Society, which I think was Zubrin's idea for a name
for a Shuttle Derived Heavy lifter, makes me think that he must have
been consulted, perhaps.

Or perhaps I'm remembering it wrong, and Ares wasn't Zubrin's idea but
was mentioned a lot in the Case for Mars. I'm not sure which.

tom

Its aggressive. Means a war-like effort to get it done. Supposed to mean
sensitive, feeling, anti-aggressive panty-waist ****ers in the pants won't
stop it, won't lose this round in space for us. At least that is what it
should mean. Its a harsh frontier, as usual, as always, and warrants -- and
requires -- an all out war-like effort and drive for all its riches it has
to offer. We've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt after a half-century, risk
very little, gain very little. Risk parsimoniously, gain parsimoniously.
Risk virtually zero, gain -- indistinguishable from -- zero.

There is no such thing as a cheap frontier of either the world, in
history, or the Universe in the future. So, naturally, there is no such
thing as conquering it, gaining it, cheaply. Its riches, its rewards, boggle
the mind in thinking about them. Inevitably, implacably, its price demanded
equals in full measure the worth of its riches to be had. It couldn't care
less about any cry to bring the costs down!, bring the price down!, first.
It then just raises up the stakes [to not] play....and at once antes up the
price [to] play. A vicious game -- a vicious vise, a vicious trap -- a world
without an open [space-time] frontier, an open door out, is already caught
in. No world is a world opening up without an opening frontier. No world is
an enlarging world, enlarging in chance, enlarging in opportunity, enlarging
in overall wealth and prosperity and survival, enlarging in stability
(debtless-ness so to speak), without a [larger] frontier than that world
being at hand and in hand (occupation expanding; flows -- streaming --
expanding; [Old World / New World] exchange expanding; energy expanding).
All, just simple physics.

So think about it. Without that frontier in hand the price of war on Earth
is steadily dropping through the floor as the price of peace on Earth is
steadily rising through the roof. Just the nature of a growing instability.

GLB

WAY BETTER to use existing Delta heavy lifters or even upgrade them for
more weight capacity.

NASA flies so little, better to adapt a existing booster that already
has lots of debugging and experience behind it. besides the launch
industry is hurting, this would boost operatins.

ideally 2 SEPERATE booster familys, so a problem in one like shuttle
doesnt ground everything.

just build a killer service module with awesome launch boost escape,
use the bucks saved by not having to design new booster.

the current plan is all about appeasing the politically coinnected
existing contractors.

if thats top priority adapt shuttle for VERY HEAVY LIFTING, and build
that shuttle derived for only cargo.

the current plan for crew vehicle just adds costs, time, and is a big
distraction from going anywhere. besides as soon as bush is out the new
president will change things again