|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Fri, 07 May 2004 05:09:21 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote: ..... I'm proposing to do it sensibly, by developing the infrastructure that makes it affordable. If the infrastructure can be built while laying the groundwork for President Bush's initiative, I think that works great: If CATS is behind schedule, NASA is not dependent on it. On the other hand, if you are suggesting NASA should do nothing, and wiat for the infrastructure with no clue as to when it will be ready to your satisfaction, not interested. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:33:09 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Fri, 07 May 2004 05:09:21 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ..... I'm proposing to do it sensibly, by developing the infrastructure that makes it affordable. If the infrastructure can be built while laying the groundwork for President Bush's initiative, I think that works great: If CATS is behind schedule, NASA is not dependent on it. On the other hand, if you are suggesting NASA should do nothing, and wiat for the infrastructure with no clue as to when it will be ready to your satisfaction, not interested. No, I'm saying that NASA should encourage, rather than (as has been its effect, if not intent, since its inception) discourage the development of such infrastructure. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:30:44 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: ..... *Why* would sending three or four astronauts be a better way to find it than sending hundreds of scientists, engineers, and other specialists? These days, "astronaut" includes scientists, engineers, and other specialists under the headings of mission and payload specialists. They've been a regular part of Shuttle crews for about twenty years now, and I see no reason why NASA would abandon that model in building a Moon base. Because it's been mostly a costly failure in terms of doing anything significant in space? |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..
I am not calling for military bases on the Moon; Do you stand behind your words or not? You said you wanted the US to build bases that were "akin to modern military bases." Why should the US build something akin to a military base if it serves no military purpose? I was making an analogy. Your reply, therefore, is non sequitor, so I won't answer it. There is no analogy. A military base that defends against foreign enemies is not analogous to a space station that defends against no one. Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not a "non sequitor." If it makes you mad, so be it. ..... We already know the lay of the land, down to a few centimeters. Why do you keep on denying that -- and then denying that you denied it? Reread my previous messages; get a clue. I've probably addressed this before, so I will not do so again. You have a real problem with honesty, Michael. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..
No one is calling for an "endless" series of missions, Really -- you called for an end to "Lewis and Clark" missions?.... No, I didn't say that, either. Either it has an end or it is endless. Which is it? I am saying it may be premature to declare the "Lewis and Clark" phase over. Again, that's based on historical ignorance. Lewis and Clark made only one expedition, which lasted just two years. Demanding a government monopoly on exploration that lasts for decades and calling it the "Lewis and Clark phase" is slandering Lewis and Clark. Instead of defaming Lewis and Clark, why don't you tell us why *you* think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or settlement is a good idea? ..... *Why* would sending three or four astronauts be a better way to find it than sending hundreds of scientists, engineers, and other specialists? These days, "astronaut" includes scientists, engineers, and other specialists under the headings of mission and payload specialists. They've been a regular part of Shuttle crews for about twenty years now, and I see no reason why NASA would abandon that model in building a Moon base. You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is better than than having hundreds. Could you please answer just one of my questions instead of changing the subject? Furthermore, a base could have hundreds of specialists rotate through it during the years of its operation. Which is not the same as having hundreds of people living there full time. And the base could grow over time, until it has hundreds of people on it. The CATS architectures you and Rand are talking about could provide the infrastructure to expand the base and rotate crews and materials through it. So everybody wins. Um, yes, but you aren't advocating a CATS architecture. You're advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived Vehicles that would delay the development of CATS, possibly for decades. I'm still waiting for you to explain why that is a good idea. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:47:56 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote: I'm saying that NASA should encourage, rather than (as has been its effect, if not intent, since its inception) discourage the development of such infrastructure. I don't see any reason why NASA can't do that AND work towards President Bush's initiative. After all, Falcon 1 is on the pad and the X-Prize contestants are continuing their work even as NASA brainstorms on Moon/Mars and works to return the Shuttle to flight. Doesn't sound like one is delaying the other. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On 8 May 2004 15:04:44 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote: Michael Gallagher wrote in message . .. I am not calling for military bases on the Moon; Do you stand behind your words or not? You said you wanted the US to build bases that were "akin to ...." Hey words: "akin to," as in "similar to." " ......modern military bases." Yes, and then I went on to add, "a 'presence' on foriegn soil that people are rotated in and out of." I did NOT say I want military bases on the Moon; I DID say a lunar base would be comparable to a foriegn military base in some sense. I thought I had made it clear the first time, but you still grabbed the words "military bases" and erected the straw man that I want to see military bases on the Moon; since I did not say that, there is no point in continuing to discuss that issue. Feel free to reread my previous post and respond to what I did, in fact, say. .... You have a real problem with honesty, Michael. No, Ed, I have been honest in expressing my views. Perhaps not as eloquent as I should be, but I have been honest. You, on the other hand, have responded to things I did not say, and called me a liar for pointing that out. I'm not the one with a problem. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On 8 May 2004 15:32:50 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote: why don't you tell us why *you* think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or settlement is a good idea? I think the large scale developent, exploration, and settlement has a better chance of success, over the long term, if is preceded by publicly funded exploration. And as noted who knows how many times now, both involve setting up bases on the Moon and Mars, which can also serve as the initial foothold. You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is better than than having hundreds. I don't, but no one is in a position to get hundreds up there at this time. And if I am correct about the large scale colonization benefitting from publicly funded trail blazers, then getting it bass-ackwards insures no one goes anwhere. ..... You're advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived Vehicles.... Yes, when this thread began, I agreed with the Shuttle-derived option, because it could be built relatively quickly and using exisiting facilities. And I agreed the high costs counted against it. It has advatanges and disadvantages. ..... that would delay the development of CATS ..... How is CATS delayed if it is pursued at the same time as other options? Even as NASA brainstorms its Moon/Mars options, Falcon 1 sits on a pad, and the X-Prize contestants are getting very close to trying for it; IIRC, at least one has an FAA liscense for its attempt. Who's delaying whom? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:48:50 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote: Because it's been mostly a costly failure in terms of doing anything significant in space? The Shuttle has not lived up to expectations, true. But that does not mean having specialists among the crew, as to having a couple of fighter pilots who are supposed to do anyting, is a bad one. The US was not colonized by sailors; the sailors brought the colonists. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 4th 03 10:14 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |