Human Exploration of Mars

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:42:19 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: The 2nd generation shuttle is in the works.

: No, it's not.

You're probably right. I suspect it is on hold now while Bush is in
office. But wouldn't throw away all the designs. W will eventually be out
of office and we will once again look to space.

Eric, you're hilarious.

: We need an administration
: commited to space rather than oil and war. I really thought Clinton would
: have done more.

: Why did you think such an absurd thing?

Could you be more vague?

Certainly. Answer the question.

Eric Chomko wrote:

Michael Walsh ) wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:

: Michael Walsh ) wrote:
:
: : Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: : On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:02:29 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: : glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: : Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : : On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:10:51 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
: : : Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: : : way as to indicate that:
: :
: : : I think I see one of your bizarre misapprehensions here. You seem to think
: : : I *agree* with large military spending, and want it, as well as agree with
: : : current military adventures. You have (not atypically) completely missed
: : : the point of what I was saying. I was arguing that such justifications are
: : : more likely to *succeed* in funding space activities. I was not saying that
: : : this would therefore be a good thing.
: :
: : : Eric puts people in little boxes. It's the only way he can get his
: : : mind around them, even if they don't fit.
: :
: : No, your thinking is the one that is based upon self imposed limitations.
: : I believe that both a national space program (NASA) and commercial space
: : use can coexist in the same domain.
: :
: : Experience indicates otherwise, to date.
:
: : I believe that you are wrong.
:
: : If you are referring to unmanned launches then NASA and commercial launches
: : are coexisting quite nicely in the same domain.
:
: Exactly, why shouldn't they?
:
: : If you are referring to manned launches then there are either the NASA launches
: : (currently on hold) or nothing, the current commercial capability.
:
: : If a national manned space program and a commercial manned space program are
: : mutually
: : incompatible then it is logical to assume that there never will be a commercial
: : manned space program.
:
: : However, that conclusion would be false because the limitation is
: : not real.
:
: Again, why not both?
:
: Eric
:
: : Mike Walsh

: Eric, since the indication is that you are replying to my post
: have you lost track of who it is you are having the discussion
: with?

: You seem to have started to argue with people that
: agree with you on a particular point.

Oops, sorry. I thought Rand was saying that NASA and commercial space
flight could NOT coexist, and I was responding to that.

Eric

: Mike Walsh

Well, you were replying to my post and I was disagreeing with Rand on
that very point.

Mike Walsh

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Yup. That fantasy didn't die until after Challenger.

Which (Challenger) seems to be an event that you applaud in your hatred of
NASA.

How would any sane person draw such a conclusion?

One who doesn't really care enough about Space to get upset about the
failure of the shuttle program.

You think it's time to plonk the SOB, and maybe just have a monthly FAQ
until everyone else tells us he's stopped posting a hundred messages a
day?

--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:

: The big denial of reality is your imagining that 5 flights per
: year is anything but an abomination.

It could have been better. But again, they set the standard.
What do you have to actually compared the end result to? A document
from 1971 doesn't cut it.

Rightly or wrongly, that document was used by some to justify the
development of the shuttle, and it is quite possible the shuttle program
would not have survived without that justification. So from that point of
view, it is fair to compare the shuttle's results with the claims that were
being made on its behalf.

(Mind you, the document was of a study done by Mathematica, not NASA, and I
consider it an open question just how much NASA endorsed the results. The
shuttle program manager now says he did not, but there is some contrary
evidence in well-researched works by Jenkins, Heppenheimer, et al.)

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Eric Chomko wrote:

: Yes, it wasn't reality. As a result, the shuttle is a failure,
: not a success.

After 22 years and over 100 flights, I say you're wrong!

Since the shuttle manifestly failed to achieve the objective
that justified its construction, you are rather obviously mistaken.
Judging by your other postings, you opinion is based on a profound
ignorance of basic facts of history and economics.

If congress had known in 1970 that the shuttle flight rate
would only be 5 flights/year, the program would have died immediately.
Hell, *NASA* would likely have admitted the program was a stinker in that
case, and would have wanted something different.


: The big denial of reality is your imagining that 5 flights per
: year is anything but an abomination.

It could have been better. But again, they set the standard.
What do you have to actually compared the end result to? A document from
1971 doesn't cut it.

Eric, please try to think. The 50 flights/year figure was not
pulled out of someone's anus. It was the figure necessary for the
shuttle to achieve its goal of reducing launch costs.

The shuttle failed to do this. In fact, it failed so badly that
even if you write off the development costs it still failed to do it.

Numbers *matter*, Eric. You are employing some kind of innumerate
touchy-feely methodology to evaluate this turkey.


: It's far more than enough. Think, man! The shuttle in its current
: state is so bad that even NASA is being forced to go in the direction
: of abandoning it without an equivalent replacement.

The 2nd generation shuttle is in the works. We need an administration
commited to space rather than oil and war. I really thought Clinton would
have done more.

No, there is no 'second generation shuttle' in the works. There
is a possibly reusable reentry vehicle in the works that will be launched
on expendable boosters.

There's a reason no 'Shuttle 2' is being developed -- the economics
are now plain to see, and such a replacement *doesn't make sense*
at current or projected launch rates.

Policy makers have learned their lesson. You should try learning it also.


: To the other means of putting mass into orbit, which means expendable
: launchers. They were cheaper in 1971, and have gotten even cheaper
: since.

Cripes man, where are they?

Proton, Atlas V, Delta 4, Ariane, etc.

Didn't you realize how much more expensive the shuttle is compared
to these? This is a *basic* fact of launch economics. How can you
think to hold an informed opinion without knowing such fundamental
information?


: Do you fly in dirigibles, Eric? Sometimes approaches are just *wrong*.
: Abandonment is the proper course of action in that case.

Hey as a software engineer, I get the programming proverb, "Don't be
afraid to start over" (Programming Proverbs, by Ledgard). But this ain't
computer code, it's more like a US city. The Germans had the single
advantage of building the infrastructure of many of their cities
better because we bombed many of them! Bizarre as the anaolgy is it is
true!

You got the 'bizarre' right, at least.

Paul

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, that document was used by some to justify the
development of the shuttle, and it is quite possible the shuttle program
would not have survived without that justification. So from that point of
view, it is fair to compare the shuttle's results with the claims that were
being made on its behalf.

(Mind you, the document was of a study done by Mathematica, not NASA, and I
consider it an open question just how much NASA endorsed the results. The
shuttle program manager now says he did not, but there is some contrary
evidence in well-researched works by Jenkins, Heppenheimer, et al.)


Making launch more economical was the raison d'etre for the shuttle.
Projections of the economics of the shuttle program are therefore not
peripheral matters, but were central to its justification.

Mathematica did the study, surely, but the basic fact of the matter
that large numbers of launches were required to achieve breakeven
was not in dispute. Mathematica was not resposible for the position
that the shuttle could achieve those launch rates.

As it turned out, shuttle economics have been even worse than even
the most vociferous critics warned. Mondale was an optimist!

Paul

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Yup. That fantasy didn't die until after Challenger.
:
: Which (Challenger) seems to be an event that you applaud in your hatred of
: NASA.

: How would any sane person draw such a conclusion?

Right, it is as insane as saying that W took political advantage of
9-11.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:37:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : The government didn't "resort to capitalism." NPO Energia, a
: : supposedly private company, did.
:
: Wait are you saying that the Russian govt. got nothing to launch Tito and
: Shuttleworth (what a namne for a astronaut!) into space?

: I suspect they got a cut, in order to allow Energia to do it, but that
: doesn't make it capitalism, just corruption.

So you know the line between capitalism and corruption? I suspect that it
is always a covenient line for you regardless.

Eric

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:38:17 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Yup. That fantasy didn't die until after Challenger.
:
: Which (Challenger) seems to be an event that you applaud in your hatred of
: NASA.

: How would any sane person draw such a conclusion?

Right, it is as insane as saying that W took political advantage of
9-11.

Well, it's insane in a different way.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:39:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: I suspect they got a cut, in order to allow Energia to do it, but that
: doesn't make it capitalism, just corruption.

So you know the line between capitalism and corruption?

Yes. Capitalism doesn't involve bribing government officials.