Rescue shuttle planning update

(bob haller) wrote in
:

Bob uses these sorts of silly arguments all the time. I just like to
see how he attempts to counter them.

I think always be prepared. Space is dangerous. If your going to do it
have enough back up and extra infrastructure to cover the myriads of
failure modes espically those that end in a lost vehicle and crew.

Then get used to going around in circles, because with that attitude,
getting out of LEO is going to remain expensive for a *long* time. Longer
than your lifetime, certainly. And had your attitude been prevalent during
the 1960s, Apollo simply would not have happened.


--
JRF

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

Then get used to going around in circles, because with that attitude,
getting out of LEO is going to remain expensive for a *long* time. Longer
than your lifetime, certainly. And had your attitude been prevalent during
the 1960s, Apollo simply would not have happened.


--
JRF

ALL we presently do is go around in circles so that dioesnt prove anything.

We better have LOTS of backup capacity or going to mars will be a death
experience. we need rugged durable equiptement thats thoroughly tested then
lots of backup capacity.

thats why we need a moon base first, just for practice, before help is months
away.
Hey this is my opinion

(bob haller) wrote in
:

Then get used to going around in circles, because with that attitude,
getting out of LEO is going to remain expensive for a *long* time.
Longer than your lifetime, certainly. And had your attitude been
prevalent during the 1960s, Apollo simply would not have happened.

ALL we presently do is go around in circles so that dioesnt prove
anything.

And that is all we will ever be able to afford to do, as long as your
standards prevail.

We better have LOTS of backup capacity or going to mars will be a
death experience. we need rugged durable equiptement thats thoroughly
tested then lots of backup capacity.

When Congress learns the colossal price tag for such a "belt-and-
suspenders" approach, they will kill the program pronto. The nation cannot
afford it, period.

We will either go to Mars accepting the risks, or we will not go at all. It
is that simple.
--
JRF

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

(bob haller) wrote:

We better have LOTS of backup capacity or going to mars will be a death
experience. we need rugged durable equiptement thats thoroughly tested then
lots of backup capacity.

thats why we need a moon base first, just for practice, before help is months
away.

Nope. All of the equipment, except for the surface stuff, needed for
a Mars mission can quite capably be tested in LEO. (And the
differences between the lunar and martian surfaces is great enough
that it's unlikely that the experience will transfer.)

If your intention is to go to Mars, the Moon is nothing but an
expensive, pointless, and silly diversion of effort.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
When Congress learns the colossal price tag for such a "belt-and-
suspenders" approach, they will kill the program pronto. The nation cannot
afford it, period.

We most certainly *can* afford it financially. It's unlikely however
that we can afford it politically.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
When Congress learns the colossal price tag for such a "belt-and-
suspenders" approach, they will kill the program pronto. The nation
cannot afford it, period.

We most certainly *can* afford it financially. It's unlikely however
that we can afford it politically.

A nitpicking distinction, but true.


--
JRF

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

(Derek Lyons) writes:
Nope. All of the equipment, except for the surface stuff, needed for
a Mars mission can quite capably be tested in LEO. (And the
differences between the lunar and martian surfaces is great enough
that it's unlikely that the experience will transfer.)

If your intention is to go to Mars, the Moon is nothing but an
expensive, pointless, and silly diversion of effort.

Somehow I doubt that NASA presents the "Moon issue" to the
administration in this way. If NASA can piggy back a Lunar initiative
on top of a Mars initiative, they'll sell the Lunar initiative as a
"second step to Mars", (with the first step being continued research
on ISS).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
When Congress learns the colossal price tag for such a "belt-and-
suspenders" approach, they will kill the program pronto. The nation
cannot afford it, period.

We most certainly *can* afford it financially. It's unlikely however
that we can afford it politically.

A nitpicking distinction, but true.

Nitpicking, but important. To the vast majority of the populace
''afford'' occurs only in the context of ''money''.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.