|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
Rand Simberg wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:37:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: This was a very minor part of the report and the author really doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject. I suppose one could say that it was a "minor part of the report" in the sense that it encompassed a very small part of it (less than a hundred words out of tens of pages), but I wouldn't be surprised if it had a major impact on Air Force planning... There seems to be a belief in this particular newsgroup that any reference to the laws of physics indicates that the person making the remark is both completely clueless and will somehow cause great damage to the cause of low cost launch vehicles. Stating authoritatively that we can't do better than the existing systems with rockets technology certainly makes it more difficult to get appropriations for attempts to do exactly that. Do you not consider that damaging? That is not exactly what was said. It wasn't that we can't do better than existing systems with rocket technology, but that the gains were limited. It could be damaging, but I suspect that the damage from this one report is probably minor. In this particular case it seemed to me that the author was repeating information given to him by other sources and that any major impact on Air Force planning by this belief probably exists elsewhere. No doubt it does, and of course, this report now buttresses it. Well, I would claim it repeats it, not exactly buttresses it. And if someone in the Air Force has a different opinion, some ignorant Congressman can point to it now... Does the author have any real impact on Air Force policy? Or is this just another long winded RAND study. RAND puts out some good studies frequently, but I have seen enough of them to not be particularly impressed just because something originates there. The Air Force paid them to produce this report, presumably for the purpose of guiding policy... The Air Force pays for a lot of studies, not all of which seem to have any particular purpose. The main purpose of this report seems to be to push the claim of one segment of the Air Force that air and space are different arenas and also claims that space systems are becoming more and more important to national security. It almost looks as if one segment of the Air Force commissioned this report to give them ammunition against another segment that believes in a continuous aerospace continium. Mike Walsh |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
Rand Simberg wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:27:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The Air Force pays for a lot of studies, not all of which seem to have any particular purpose. So, it's just a waste of money, and no one will pay any attention to it? I suppose that's possible, but it wouldn't be my default assumption. Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just to disagree with those who us who criticize it? It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible that it could be harmful, although I doubt it. I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a good point to express my disagreement. Mike Walsh |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:49:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just to disagree with those who us who criticize it? It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible that it could be harmful, although I doubt it. I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a good point to express my disagreement. "Overreacting"? I didn't organize people to march in the streets. I didn't start up a web site. I didn't call for heads to roll. I simply stated concern. How is that an "overreaction"? -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
Rand Simberg wrote: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:49:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Why is it so important to you to believe that this is harmless? Just to disagree with those who us who criticize it? It isn't really important to me to believe that it is harmless. It is possible that it could be harmful, although I doubt it. I think you are over-reacting to it and I can't deny that I saw it as a good point to express my disagreement. "Overreacting"? I didn't organize people to march in the streets. I didn't start up a web site. I didn't call for heads to roll. I simply stated concern. How is that an "overreaction"? OK. Perhaps I was guilty of hyperbole. Mike Walsh |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Paying for military space applications
On 8 Aug 2003 13:47:23 -0700, (Allen Thomson)
wrote: (Derek Lyons) wrote Sound about the same as Proceedings (USNI). It's read by a lot of folks with a naval bent, within and without the Service and related industries. It does not make policy, but it sure gets read by policy makers and those who influence them. Yes, much like that. Actually, in a show-down, I'd have to say the articles in the Proceedings are generally of higher intellectual quality (at least when I was reading both regularly). But they're both good pubs. I find the Proc. USNI to be much less "managerial" and more down-to-earth. In fact, I read it cover to cover, but I don't read the USAF magazine nearly that closely. There is a similar association, with magazine, for the Army, but I don't know the name of either. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |