Cheap Access to Space

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -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:


Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.

On Dec 19, 2:49 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 18 Dec, 22:48, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 18, 11:45 am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 18 Dec, 16:21, BradGuth wrote: At less than a tenth the NASA cost per LEO or GSO kg, China is CATS.

Of course China is going to charge outsiders a whole lot more than
whatever it's costing themselves.
- Brad Guth

I have stated that the key to low cost is consolidation &
globalization. There is one ingredient that is required for this and
that is transparancy. China may well be adopting the Ford Focus route
and this may well be the basis for costings.

However we do not have transparent figures for the Long March. You
might say the Long March to transparency. They do have a motive for
selling at below cost. Prestige + a possible loss leader.

- Ian Parker

Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification. As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator. NASA has to examine Long
March in terms of WTO rules. There are complications as I have
mentioned but it can be done.

Fundamentally going into space with a "Ford Focus" is legal. Dumping,
or selling below cost, is illegal.

- Ian Parker

There's no such thing as "Dumping, or selling below cost". You do
whatever it takes in order to survive, of which in our case that means
forcing global energy inflation or if need be creating WWIII.
- Brad Guth

On Dec 19, 5:34 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -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:



Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

To you folks of "we", the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science that's replicated by your own peers is worthless,
especially if such tells us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.

That's true, as other than their primary Zionist role of protecting
all of those Third Reich butts of those smart Jews, there is no other
function of our cloak and dagger NASA.
- Brad Guth

On Dec 19, 3:40 am, Ian Parker wrote:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...okP1pt8lCtBfxw

This is an article on the Chinese challenge in general terms. I think
a lot of people are far too complacent.

- Ian Parker

I 100% agree, as I have argued for the past decade, but it's all too
late for us and our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s). Now like Jews,
we have to build those spendy walls and fight to our deaths.
- Brad Guth

On 19 Dec, 13:34, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -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:





Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -
yes I will agree with you. I think the points raised here are valid
and worthy of discusion. Indeed the role of NASA at the moment is that
of being a prime developer of technology. This role will have to
change if we are ever to get cheap access. By this I don't necessarily
mean that I think NASA is incompetant. Simply that you cannot have
cheap access unless one has a proper market.

A market requires technology developments to be privately financed. If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Here am I - a left winger advocating a free market. Here are you a
right winger advocating Socialism. What is the world coming to?


- Ian Parker

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:36:16 -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:

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -
yes I will agree with you. I think the points raised here are valid
and worthy of discusion. Indeed the role of NASA at the moment is that
of being a prime developer of technology.

No, it is not. Very little of its funding goes toward that end.

This role will have to
change if we are ever to get cheap access.

No, it has to be expanded.

A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Here am I - a left winger advocating a free market. Here are you a
right winger advocating Socialism. What is the world coming to?

Not being a "right winger" at all, let alone one "advocating
Socialism," I think that once again it's come to delusions on the part
of Ian Parker. Do you get some kind of adrenelin rush telling stupid
and easily disproven lies on the Internet about people and what they
believe and advocate?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Here am I - a left winger advocating a free market. Here are you a
right winger advocating Socialism. What is the world coming to?

Not being a "right winger" at all, let alone one "advocating
Socialism,"

Rand Simberg is your typical American fascist.

He's in good company, there are a lot of them, apparently.

On 19 Dec, 16:22, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:36:16 -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:

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -
yes I will agree with you. I think the points raised here are valid
and worthy of discusion. Indeed the role of NASA at the moment is that
of being a prime developer of technology.

No, it is not. Very little of its funding goes toward that end.

This role will have to
change if we are ever to get cheap access.

No, it has to be expanded.

A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.


- Ian Parker

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:35:43 -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:


A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.

On 19 Dec, 17:53, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:35:43 -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:







A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.


- Ian Parker