Lessons Learned

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800 (PST),
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

My latest Fox column, in which I discuss human motivators (*none* of
which is cooperation), the historical basis for them, and the
relevance to any potential near-term space policy announcements.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105414,00.html

Leads to a thought, for Rand and others.

Recently, I've been of the thought that maybe we should embark on a
project to restore some form of Heavy-Lift capability (ie Saturn V) to
US space.

Would it have any use in, say, satellite launches?

Part of me is thinking 'Why the hell NOT, just to round out the
capabilities roster just in case?', but I figured I'd ask.

John

On or about Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:42:12 -0800 (PST), Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:32:34 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
This is good. You do a good job of describing the transnationalist
position in a reasonably fair way, and then arguing against it without
belaboring the point.

That comes from word-limited columns. ;-)

Well, you'd never know it by most of your responses here... :-P
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

Recently, I've been of the thought that maybe we should embark on a
project to restore some form of Heavy-Lift capability (ie Saturn V) to
US space.

Would it have any use in, say, satellite launches?

Short answer is no. There are a few US government satellites (NRO, I
think) which are big enough to want EELV Heavy. But that is a very
few (like, one every year or two I think), compared with the number
for smaller launchers.

On the commercial side, the biggest ones are the GEO comsats going up
on Sea Launch, Ariane V, etc. And although there has been some
tendency to go for larger satellites, it isn't really outrunning
available launchers these days.

So there isn't a current need which would just plug into a Saturn V
class capability. One can imagine the availability of a Saturn V
class launcher as stimulating new satellites, or perhaps launching
clusters of satellites. Although I wouldn't count on it (and of
course there would be issues of price and such).

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:48:05 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
LooseChanj made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

This is good. You do a good job of describing the transnationalist
position in a reasonably fair way, and then arguing against it without
belaboring the point.

That comes from word-limited columns. ;-)

Well, you'd never know it by most of your responses here... :-P

This place and my blog give me freedom from editors.

Not always for the better... ;-)

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:00:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
John Penta made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800 (PST),
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

My latest Fox column, in which I discuss human motivators (*none* of
which is cooperation), the historical basis for them, and the
relevance to any potential near-term space policy announcements.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105414,00.html

Leads to a thought, for Rand and others.

Recently, I've been of the thought that maybe we should embark on a
project to restore some form of Heavy-Lift capability (ie Saturn V) to
US space.

Would it have any use in, say, satellite launches?

Not an economic one.

Part of me is thinking 'Why the hell NOT, just to round out the
capabilities roster just in case?', but I figured I'd ask.

We don't really need it, and there's not enough traffic right now to
amortize its development or fixed costs. Let's get some DC-3s
operating before we think about 747s.

LooseChanj wrote in message news:
This is good. You do a good job of describing the transnationalist
position in a reasonably fair way, and then arguing against it without
belaboring the point.

That comes from word-limited columns. ;-)

Well, you'd never know it by most of your responses here... :-P

What are you talking about? Rand is the king of the three "sneaky"
tricks of group discussion control:

1. RULE OF SIZE: ALWAYS limit post size to below the "click to read
the rest of this article" limit, so that no effort is required to see
the entire post.

2. RULE OF SNIPS: Snip any true points your opponent makes that cannot
be considered main points but that do hurt your case. That strengthens
your case while making it less likely your opponent will cry foul over
snippery, and it drives the discussion in the direction you want.

3. RULE OF SPEED OVER STRENGTH: It is more important to respond to a
'damaging' post than to have a good response to it. This way the most
recent post on that thread has your name on it, and someone has to
open the full thread to see the opponents' points.

Everyone understands these rules to some degree, but Rand is
unquestionably the master, especially of rules 1 & 3.

Tom Merkle

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:12:41 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What are you talking about? Rand is the king of the three "sneaky"
tricks of group discussion control:

1. RULE OF SIZE: ALWAYS limit post size to below the "click to read
the rest of this article" limit, so that no effort is required to see
the entire post.

2. RULE OF SNIPS: Snip any true points your opponent makes that cannot
be considered main points but that do hurt your case. That strengthens
your case while making it less likely your opponent will cry foul over
snippery, and it drives the discussion in the direction you want.

3. RULE OF SPEED OVER STRENGTH: It is more important to respond to a
'damaging' post than to have a good response to it. This way the most
recent post on that thread has your name on it, and someone has to
open the full thread to see the opponents' points.

Everyone understands these rules to some degree, but Rand is
unquestionably the master, especially of rules 1 & 3.

This is the first time that I've been accused of "discussion control"
by simply following netiquette.

I snip to save bandwidth, and not make it necessary to scroll down
through long posts to see what I have to say. It's never more
nefarious than that.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..

1. RULE OF SIZE: ALWAYS limit post size to below the "click to read

2. RULE OF SNIPS: Snip any true points your opponent makes that cannot

3. RULE OF SPEED OVER STRENGTH: It is more important to respond to a


Everyone understands these rules to some degree, but Rand is
unquestionably the master, especially of rules 1 & 3.

This is the first time that I've been accused of "discussion control"
by simply following netiquette.

I snip to save bandwidth, and not make it necessary to scroll down
through long posts to see what I have to say. It's never more
nefarious than that.

I don't think it's nefarious Rand, I do it all the time. It's all part
of being a good communicator. I was more laughing at a suggestion that
your posts are too long, which is blatantly false. You have a
newpaperman's immediecy and brevity. (spare me the I'm not a
journalist protests. Neither was samuel clemens until he started
writing.)

The only rule that frustrates me is #3. I have a cable modem, but
somehow you have the magical ability to respond to my (and others')
posts before they ever appear, so that your response appears at the
same time as the post. How do you do it? What's the secret?

Tom Merkle

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:53:14 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The only rule that frustrates me is #3. I have a cable modem, but
somehow you have the magical ability to respond to my (and others')
posts before they ever appear, so that your response appears at the
same time as the post. How do you do it? What's the secret?

I'm not sure, but it has nothing to do with bandwidth. I suspect that
your ISP is slow to update its news server, or that you're using a
web-based system instead of a true Usenet client.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:47:12 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:53:14 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The only rule that frustrates me is #3. I have a cable modem, but
somehow you have the magical ability to respond to my (and others')
posts before they ever appear, so that your response appears at the
same time as the post. How do you do it? What's the secret?

I'm not sure, but it has nothing to do with bandwidth. I suspect that
your ISP is slow to update its news server, or that you're using a
web-based system instead of a true Usenet client.

I should add, on reflection, that if you're using Microsoft network
for Usenet, that probably explains the problem in a nutshell.