LBJ and space travel

On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

And a simple answer of "yes" only adds to your inherent vagueness.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

On 13 May, 22:26, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

And which cost a lot more.


- Ian Parker

On May 13, 5:26*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$? Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

Eric

On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On May 13, 5:26*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

On May 14, 3:51*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On May 13, 5:26*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On May 12, 9:25*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:40:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

M wrote:
I read in a book once that he commented to a space official at
Huntsville or Michoud after seeing all of the Apollo Saturn
infrastructure that
"it was too bad that all of this will be ****ed away" after the Apollo
Program ended.

What else could you do with it?
You could build a giant space station (pretty pointless, as we found out
with the *ISS).

It's only pointless if you can't afford to get to it. *Which in fact
would have been the case if we were constrained to Saturn.

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

So in your mind we have yet to build an economic spacecraft be it RLV
or ELV? Every manned spacecraft has cost more than it should?

On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:30:43 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

So in your mind we have yet to build an economic spacecraft be it RLV
or ELV? Every manned spacecraft has cost more than it should?

No, I'm saying that every manned spacecraft has cost more than would
have one designed to cost less.

On May 22, 4:03*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:30:43 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

So in your mind we have yet to build an economic spacecraft be it RLV
or ELV? Every manned spacecraft has cost more than it should?

No, I'm saying that every manned spacecraft has cost more than would
have one designed to cost less.

You're speaking in circles. I don't doubt that a design exists that
has yet to be implemented that would bring down launch costs. It is
just that no one has marketed it yet and that is most likely because
it doesn't exist yet.

Please correct me if I am wrong with an actual example.

Eric

On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

So in your mind we have yet to build an economic spacecraft be it RLV
or ELV? Every manned spacecraft has cost more than it should?

No, I'm saying that every manned spacecraft has cost more than would
have one designed to cost less.

You're speaking in circles.

Only to morons.

I don't doubt that a design exists that
has yet to be implemented that would bring down launch costs. It is
just that no one has marketed it yet and that is most likely because
it doesn't exist yet.

Of course it doesn't exist yet. If it did, we wouldn't even be having
this (what barely passes for an intelligent) conversation.

That doesn't mean that it cannot exist, or could not have.

On May 23, 8:34*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





You're speaking in riddles again. Do you mean to say that we would not
be able to afford Saturns today or that Saturns lack the means to get
to ISS?

We decided in 1967 that we couldn't afford Saturns. *That's why the
Shuttle program was initiated.

But as you and others have pointed out the shuttle being a RLV and the
Saturns being ELVs, have the former really saved us anything,
especially in terms of $$$?

No.

Had we continued with Saturns and not
necessarily Vs, could we have improved on the design to the point that
the ELVs, though seemingly more wasteful and certainly less enviro-
friendly, at least in theory, could they have been cheaper in the long
run?

No.

So in your mind we have yet to build an economic spacecraft be it RLV
or ELV? Every manned spacecraft has cost more than it should?

No, I'm saying that every manned spacecraft has cost more than would
have one designed to cost less.

You're speaking in circles.

Only to morons.

Okay, you're speaking to morons in circles.


I don't doubt that a design exists that
has yet to be implemented that would bring down launch costs. It is
just that no one has marketed it yet and that is most likely because
it doesn't exist yet.

Of course it doesn't exist yet. *If it did, we wouldn't even be having
this (what barely passes for an intelligent) conversation.

Where is the intelligent research?! You're the rocket scientist. I
guess I just answered my own question.

That doesn't mean that it cannot exist, or could not have.

Could not have? What, we had it once and like "A Canticle for
Liebowitz" the technology has simply disappeared?! What are you
saying? Clearly we have yet to make the ideal space vehicle ever and
that includes 50 years of trying. There is no we could have when we
don't have!

Eric