Paying for military space applications

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:37:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

This was a very minor part of the report and the author really
doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject.

I suppose one could say that it was a "minor part of the report" in
the sense that it encompassed a very small part of it (less than a
hundred words out of tens of pages), but I wouldn't be surprised if it
had a major impact on Air Force planning...

There seems to be a belief in this particular newsgroup that any
reference to the laws of physics indicates that the person making
the remark is both completely clueless and will somehow cause
great damage to the cause of low cost launch vehicles.

Stating authoritatively that we can't do better than the existing
systems with rockets technology certainly makes it more difficult to
get appropriations for attempts to do exactly that. Do you not
consider that damaging?

That is not exactly what was said. It wasn't that we can't do better
than existing systems with rocket technology, but that the gains were
limited.

It could be damaging, but I suspect that the damage from this one
report is probably minor.

In this particular case it seemed to me that the author was repeating
information given to him by other sources and that any major impact
on Air Force planning by this belief probably exists elsewhere.

No doubt it does, and of course, this report now buttresses it.

Well, I would claim it repeats it, not exactly buttresses it.

And if someone in the Air Force has a different opinion, some ignorant
Congressman can point to it now...

Does the author have any real impact on Air Force policy?

Or is this just another long winded RAND study. RAND puts out
some good studies frequently, but I have seen enough of them to
not be particularly impressed just because something originates
there.

The Air Force paid them to produce this report, presumably for the
purpose of guiding policy...

The Air Force pays for a lot of studies, not all of which seem to have
any particular purpose. The main purpose of this report seems to be
to push the claim of one segment of the Air Force that air and space are
different arenas and also claims that space systems are becoming more
and more important to national security.

It almost looks as if one segment of the Air Force commissioned this report
to give them ammunition against another segment that believes in a
continuous aerospace continium.

Mike Walsh

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:27:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


The Air Force pays for a lot of studies, not all of which seem to have
any particular purpose.

So, it's just a waste of money, and no one will pay any attention to
it? I suppose that's possible, but it wouldn't be my default
assumption.

Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just
to disagree with those who us who criticize it?

It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible
that it could be harmful, although I doubt it.

I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a
good point to express my disagreement.

Mike Walsh

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:49:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just
to disagree with those who us who criticize it?

It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible
that it could be harmful, although I doubt it.

I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a
good point to express my disagreement.

"Overreacting"?

I didn't organize people to march in the streets. I didn't start up a
web site. I didn't call for heads to roll.

I simply stated concern. How is that an "overreaction"?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:49:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just
to disagree with those who us who criticize it?

It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible
that it could be harmful, although I doubt it.

I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a
good point to express my disagreement.

"Overreacting"?

I didn't organize people to march in the streets. I didn't start up a
web site. I didn't call for heads to roll.

I simply stated concern. How is that an "overreaction"?

OK. Perhaps I was guilty of hyperbole.

Mike Walsh

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Sound about the same as Proceedings (USNI). It's read by a lot of
folks with a naval bent, within and without the Service and related
industries. It does not make policy, but it sure gets read by policy
makers and those who influence them.

Yes, much like that. Actually, in a show-down, I'd have to say the
articles in the Proceedings are generally of higher intellectual
quality (at least when I was reading both regularly). But they're
both good pubs.

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Sound about the same as Proceedings (USNI). It's read by a lot of
folks with a naval bent, within and without the Service and related
industries. It does not make policy, but it sure gets read by policy
makers and those who influence them.

Yes, much like that. Actually, in a show-down, I'd have to say the
articles in the Proceedings are generally of higher intellectual
quality (at least when I was reading both regularly). But they're
both good pubs.

The AF magazine is the equivalent of the one put out by the Navy
League I imagine, both are primarily PR/Lobbying organizations. The
USNI however is a professional association.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On 8 Aug 2003 13:47:23 -0700, (Allen Thomson)
wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Sound about the same as Proceedings (USNI). It's read by a lot of
folks with a naval bent, within and without the Service and related
industries. It does not make policy, but it sure gets read by policy
makers and those who influence them.

Yes, much like that. Actually, in a show-down, I'd have to say the
articles in the Proceedings are generally of higher intellectual
quality (at least when I was reading both regularly). But they're
both good pubs.

I find the Proc. USNI to be much less "managerial" and more
down-to-earth. In fact, I read it cover to cover, but I don't read
the USAF magazine nearly that closely.

There is a similar association, with magazine, for the Army, but I
don't know the name of either.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer