A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The end of Constellation?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 22nd 09, 02:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default The end of Constellation?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:59:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On 22 Jan, 07:32, William Elliot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:
William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. *Which will cost US more?
* * Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?


I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...


Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not
caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs?

Real rockets have been fired at Israel at least. What did Iraq do?
Precisely nothing.


Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide
bombers against Israel.

rest of lunacy about Iraq snipped
  #12  
Old January 22nd 09, 02:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default The end of Constellation?

There is one additional remark I would like to make and it is this. If
posters are cofusing Iraq with Palestine one wonders how competant
they are in general. What about the costs for a manned expedition to
Mars? $80 billion? No sir more like $300 billlion.

The operation in Gaza was called "Cast Lead". I can't help remembering
that the Shuttle carries 2 tons of the stuff! The issue to be is one
of credibility quite apart from anything else.

You can look at Mars in two ways. You ask yourself the question as to
whether a manned expedition is sound Physics. Even if you think it is
two questions remain. Is it worthwhile? Can it be delivered within
cost. At some point ad hominem arguments enter. We know that virtually
no space program has been delivered on time and on budget. We were
told that the Shuttle would reduce the cost of spaceflight. It hasn't.

Talking about the Middle East is both off topic and not off topic. As
I say there must in any project be the ad hominem issue of confidence.
Can we have confidence with the record shown. If a total incapacity to
put forward logical and coherent arguments has been demonstrated, can
they be trusted with billions of dollars? The answer must surely be
"no".

Now the stated goal of Constellation/Ares is for men to spend 4 days
on the Moon. Big deal! Not even a credible Moon base is on the drawing
board. To me it is abunantly clear that all the scientific informaton
and more could be gained at much lower cost by sending things like
Spirit and Opportunity to the Moon. Of course they could be made a lot
more sophisticated as these designs are by now quite old.

Do we have confidence that they can do it? - NO. Already the budget
seems to have been stretched.

To me the only rational decision is to pull the plug.


- Ian Parker
  #13  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default The end of Constellation?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:35:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

There is one additional remark I would like to make and it is this. If
posters are cofusing Iraq with Palestine one wonders how competant
they are in general.


People aren't doing that, you loon.
  #14  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default The end of Constellation?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide
bombers against Israel.


This is a lie.

Like the WMD lie.

Like all republican lies, this one looks plausible to republicans
only.

And, even if this lie was true. Why should the PEOPLE
of Irak be destroyed because of a bad decision of their leader?

Now, Simberg, where you have this lie from?
The same WMD sources ?

And this justifies the killing of 100 THOUSAND
Irakis?

(http://www.iraqbodycount.org/: 90-98 thousand iraqis dead)


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
  #15  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default The end of Constellation?

On Jan 20, 6:00*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
Mr Obama's speechhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Inaugural_Address

" We will restore science to its rightful place..."

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath
them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long
no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is
too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find
jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no,
programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be
held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in
the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between
a people and their government."


Science and especially of our public funded science needs to be given
the green light. We need to exploit science via full access to all of
our public funded and otherwise intellectually invested science, with
no more of this need-to-know or exclusion of evidence as policy.

Even 50/50 (public match funded) science simply has to become publicly
accessible unless specific national security (other than embarrassment
or humility) is at risk. Only when and if the private sector has
funded more than 50% is when secrecy or proprietary license on behalf
of nondisclosure should be allowed.

There should no longer be any significant truth lag, especially of
whatever is 50% or more public funded. Let us hope and prey that BHO
as our resident wizard of Oz agrees with this.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #16  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default The end of Constellation?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:05:54 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide
bombers against Israel.


This is a lie.


No, it's true. He not only offered them, he paid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Like the WMD lie.


That wasn't a lie, either.

As usual, when I'm being called a liar by a leftist, it's probably
projection.
  #17  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default The end of Constellation?

On Jan 21, 6:29*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


...


I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...


I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.


The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is
going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation.
Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on
to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will.

What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really
a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan
for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars
with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA
has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have
its budget slashed.

Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has
to show either :-

1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the
dependency on forein oil etc.

2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent.

This is what minds should be concentrating on.

* - Ian Parker


I fully agree, that we need to focus upon obtainable goals that will
yield the most return for the greater good of humanity, not to mention
the salvation of our frail environment that’s otherwise going to have
a tough time at sustaining ten billion humans, especially with fossil
and biological resources showing their stress and trauma as is.

Science and especially of our public funded science needs to be given
the green light. We as supposedly free Americans need to exploit
science via having full access to all of our public funded and
otherwise intellectually invested science, with no more of this need-
to-know or exclusion of evidence as policy.

Even 50/50 (public match funded) science simply has to become publicly
accessible unless specific national security (other than embarrassment
or humility) is at risk. Only when and if the private sector has
funded more than 50% is when secrecy or proprietary license on behalf
of nondisclosure should be allowed.

There should no longer be any significant truth lag, especially of
whatever is 50% or more public funded. Let us hope and prey that BHO
as our resident wizard of Oz agrees with this. " We will restore
science to its rightful place..." / BHO

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #18  
Old January 22nd 09, 03:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default The end of Constellation?

On Jan 21, 7:34*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...


I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote]


Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo.

That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair)


If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie
mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build
mission, it's going to be a big lander.


On your private nickle (meaning fully taxed private loot) there's no
problem. Go right ahead.

At best this spendy moon thing should become a 50/50 deal, of private
and public loot. If you can't get at least 50% in private sponsors,
then perhaps there's something wrong with the plan.

~ BG
  #19  
Old January 22nd 09, 05:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default The end of Constellation?

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:To me the only rational decision is to pull the plug.
:

The sane among us wish that you would.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #20  
Old January 22nd 09, 05:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default The end of Constellation?

jacob navia wrote:

:Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide
: bombers against Israel.
:
:
:This is a lie.
:

No, this is a fact.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I wonder what will happen to Constellation Alan Erskine[_2_] Policy 11 October 19th 08 02:52 PM
Extracting Constellation from RA/Dec Anthony Ayiomamitis[_3_] Amateur Astronomy 17 September 28th 08 11:40 AM
P.Constellation will be cancelled Jörg Space Shuttle 3 August 14th 08 07:59 PM
How About Some New Constellation Boundaries? Mark Lepkowski Amateur Astronomy 9 December 2nd 04 04:54 AM
Favorite constellation? scroob Amateur Astronomy 42 June 17th 04 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.