Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

On Dec 4, 12:24 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:10:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On Dec 4, 12:03 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:47:23 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

An engineer who is any good works things out. 90% of the world's
population lives on 10% of the land surface. It takes far less mass to
support a desert with SSP than it does to build an O'Neill colony.
This is obvious to any engineer. You are clearly not an engineer.

That doesn't seem so clear to the many people who have hired me to do
engineering.

I just got a shudder at the thought of that. So many it would seem
that you change jobs a lot.

Yes, that's what consultants do, you moron.

Many "consultants" are corporate failures.

And many are not, so once again, you have no point.

My point is and has been to replace pomposity with humility.


You used to work in the
corporate world now you have found enough fools to hire you as
yourself.

Were they supposed to hire me as someone else?

One could only hope...

No, I found intelligent people to hire me. Something that you'd have
trouble doing, I suspect.

I have just as long as a work career as you and the same number and
level of degrees. We have been through this.

Particularly if they read a few of your
Usenet posts. It wouldn't take more than a few, because they are all
uniformly idiotic.

You wouldn't know how to create, implement or maintain a ground
system, if it bit you on the ass. Keep baffling them with your space
segment "knowledge" as you'd never make it on the ground.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:12:37 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.

That is not clear at all.


Well then you haven't been keeping up with current events
and aren't versed in US military policy.




The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
their immense expense could drain our national budget.
Their military uses mean society would get little in return
aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise.

They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
engineers and architects.


Designed by man vs. evolved from nature.
Preconcieved vs. emergent.
Rigid vs adaptive
dictatorship vs. democracy
unstable vs stable




With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.


You have way too much negativity about you.
It's easy to criticize.




rest of jonathan gibberish snipped

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:05:38 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:12:37 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.

That is not clear at all.


Well then you haven't been keeping up with current events
and aren't versed in US military policy.

I think you misspelled "Well, then, you haven't been keeping up with
my latest delusions."

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 4 Dec, 12:58, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:12:37 -0500, in a place far, far away,
: "Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.
:
: That is not clear at all.
:
: The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
: their immense expense could drain our national budget.
: Their military uses mean society would get little in return
: aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
: that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
: civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.
:
: Just because they're designed by scientists only means
: trouble, not a paradise.
:
: They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
: engineers and architects.
:
: With the rigid military like
: environments too small for democratic or market forces
: to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
: of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
: colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
: possible to sustain.
:
: I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
: underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
: money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
: Great view, but otherwise a living hell.
:
: Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
: colonies?
:
: Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.
:
:
:An engineer who is any good works things out.
:

Yes, we do. It's why we think you're such an idiot.

:
:90% of the world's population lives on 10% of the land surface.
:

True, but irrelevant.

:
:It takes far less mass to
:support a desert with SSP than it does to build an O'Neill colony.
:

Probably true, but so what?

:
:This is obvious to any engineer. You are clearly not an engineer. I
:reckon you would have called Brunel looney had you lived in the 19th
:century. You seem to lack any kind of scientific understanding.
:

Frankly, having you think they are stupid is something everyone should
consider complimentary, given your own obvious limitations when it
comes to intellect, training, reasoning ability, and reading
comprehension.

:
:OK, you might argue SSP might not be cost effective. Sure, it might be
:even cheaper to have a set of terrestrial mirrors and raise steam. If
:this is so it strengthens my case and that of Jonathan. I must say my
:first reaction to the dry fountains was "mirrors, steam, turbines,
:desalination".
:

Hint: Any time you're using Jonathan, Guthball, OnTheFritz, or El
Chimpko as support for your position you need to reevaluate that
position. Having those loons on your side when it comes to anything
technical is rather like having Mahmoud I'mANutJob, the Iranian
President, on your side in a discussion about the Holocaust.

:
:This is what I say. This group seems to be getting totally negative,
:totally abusive. I have not forgotten the slurs you have made on me.
:

Slurs? If you don't like people pointing out your deficiencies, DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THEM.

I still think you're just a poorly written ASS*.



*Artificial Stupidity System


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:You are a typical Republical.
:

Except he's not a 'Republical' (whatever that might be).

:
:I am a pedarist.
:

Ok, if you say so. Nobody else has.

:
:Mc Cain had an affair with a black woman.
:

News to me. And of course, there's no evidence that any 'Republical'
ever said any such thing.

:
:That is the only way you can argue.
:

Perhaps, but at least he CAN argue. You seem incapable of making any
kind of sense at all.

:
:I asked a perfectly reasonable question.
:

Really? I didn't notice a question.

:
:If I was in a scientific lab
:I would be expected to learn anything that was relevant.
:

We rather expect that here, too, and yet you adamantly refuse to learn
anything at all.

:
:If I was in
:Google translate I would be expected to learn Arabic.
:

Well, no, you wouldn't. The people developing Google Translate don't
speak the languages it translates.

Frankly, it would be a vast improvement if you would just learn to
read simple declarative English sentences.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Dec 4, 1:17 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

The irony is is that when people propose things like antigravity they
do not get hauled up.

The electrogravitic crystallography guys are a total waste of time,
and no purpose is served by trying to discuss anything with them...
but then, in the political area, there are people like that too. It
isn't because we agree with anti-Semitism that we often avoid
confronting it... and when it comes to people who call the Nazis - or
even the rocket scientists they had working for them - "Semites",
well, that's pretty far out of touch with reality too.

My politics are simple enough. I think people ought to be left alone
to mind their own business. America fought the Nazis, who disturbed
peaceful Poland and Czechoslovakia. America fought the Communists, who
enslaved Eastern Europe - how they rounded up the intelligentsia in
the Baltics, just like the Nazis did in Poland, is in the historical
record. And peaceful Americans going about their business were
attacked on September 11, 2001. And Saddam Hussein attacked peaceful
Kuwaitis going about their business too - and then violated the peace
agreement under which he narrowly avoided being deposed, by playing
games with weapons inspectors.

Israel is the one country where Jews aren't unwanted foreigners, so
that they're sure of being accepted as refugees from elsewhere. The
Jews in Palestine were the targets of violence just because they
weren't Muslims before there was an Israel, and as soon as Palestine
was partitioned - by the decision of the United Nations - the
surrounding Arab nations tried to drive Israel into the sea, not
because of any injustice Israel, or Jews, had done to them, but
because the idea of Jews living other than under Muslim rule was
unnatural effrontery.

And the Arab world didn't know enough to quit while it was ahead. So,
in 1967, Gamel Abdul Nasser prepared to build up a giant military
force which could have wiped out Israel with its first blow - that
with the help of the murderous tyrants of the Kremlin noted above -
hence, the West Bank and Gaza.

Still not quitting while they're ahead... so we have Hamas and suicide
bombers.

*Even after September 11, 2001* we read of...

murderous mobs killing dozens in Nigeria because a newspaper makes a
slighting reference to Muhammad...

Danish businessmen beaten in Sa'udi Arabia because they were Danish,
and a publication in that country with which they had no personal
connection had published cartoons of Muhammad...

rioters calling for the execution of a woman for giving a teddy bear,
at the suggestion of children in that country, the most popular first
name for people there (that country being, incidentally, known for
tolerating an armed militia, the Janjaweed, that has terrorized its
black residents, both Christian and Muslim - either refusing to
suppress that militia, or incapable of doing so, and refusing to allow
U.S. troops to to that job)...

all of this being particularly shocking, because, of course, after
September 11, 2001, we would expect Muslims around the world to engage
in extended soul-searching, to see if there was anything in their own
thinking which was similar to the mentality that led to this foul
deed.

Apparently, they think their own petty quarrels are more important
than September 11, 2001. They don't seem to understand the pivotal,
central importance of this event in world history - or, for that
matter, the pivotal importance of the Cold War, since they cozied up
to the Communists to obtain arms, or the pivotal importance of the
Holocaust.

Israel isn't seeking to persecute Arabs. It is a democratic nation,
with the same liberal ideals of equality that America has.
Humanitarian aid comes to the Palestinians from terrorists like Hamas
- because they kill everyone else who tries to bring it in. This isn't
new. Back before Camp David, the old bunch of terrorists were killing
any Arab in the Gaza Strip who took anything from Israel - as Moshe
Dayan noted in his autobiography.

So when people slam American politicians because they fight against
the enemies of democratic people, whether the Nazis, or the
Communists, or the enemies of Israel, or mainland China (which rattles
its sabres at peaceful, democratic Taiwan, in case you haven't
noticed), I have no patience or sympathy with such nonsense.

Evil tyrants who keep political prisoners, who prevent free elections
and a free press, are not to be appeased. That mistake was made once,
when Hitler was allowed to invade Czechoslovakia with impunity. The
world paid a terrible price. Then we foolishly let our guard down, and
the Communists stole the secret of the atom bomb - and, so, while we
could, at a terrible price in blood, oppose Communism to a limited
extent in Korea and Vietnam, we had to stand by and watch for
agonizing decades as people were shot for desperately trying to cross
the Berlin Wall, or massacred in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

However, that's no excuse for failing to respond to Tienanmen Square,
since supposedly China had only one tiny nuclear submarine, and its
ICBMs were not such as to deny the U.S. a first-strike capability
against China. But then, as with Sudan, the United States doesn't want
to be accused of being an aggressor, and Americans don't want to be
drafted and sent off to war unless it's strictly necessary.

I know reality is perhaps not entirely that Manichaean. While,
finally, there is good reason to view Hugo Chavez as trying to make
Venezuela a dictatorship, the U.S. has had a record in Latin America
that has not been calculated to win them friends among the common
people there. And it has been slow to address the continuing problems
of African-Americans.

But it should still be obvious to everyone which countries are free
countries, and which aren't - and that the strength of the United
States is largely the reason why the world's free countries are free.

John Savard

On Dec 4, 9:51 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

But it should still be obvious to everyone which countries are free
countries, and which aren't - and that the strength of the United
States is largely the reason why the world's free countries are free.

John Savard

That is true, as only in America can you get so far ahead by simply
lying your butt off, and packing heat at the same time.

There's a good many freedoms for doing serious bad **** to one
another, even if it means putting your own kind on a stick, or working
with Osama bin Laden for accomplishing the desired effect of pushing
the price of energy through the roof.

According to yourself, the American ends always justifies our means,
doesn't it.
- Brad Guth

: The irony is is that when people propose things like antigravity
: they do not get hauled up.

You're wrong. The block is at the top of, mostly, your head.

: The electrogravitic crystallography guys are a total waste of time,

Uh, right.

: and no purpose is served by trying to discuss anything with them...

Go ahead, stooge, shall we return to the Savard psychology now?

: but then, in the political area, there are people like that too.

Yeah, like all those politically correct supporters of too much
energy consumin' like Senator Packwood, who would support rein-
statement of the Windfall Profits tax bill, making the U.S. even
more dependent on foreign oil, while the bureaucracy grows even
more lobbyist tenacles.

Can we see something something, anything worth your very own
salt that wouldn't add to this bureaucratic beast? (I doubt it).

: It isn't because we agree with anti-Semitism that we often avoid
: confronting it... and when it comes to people who call the Nazis
: - or even the rocket scientists they had working for them -
: "Semites", well, that's pretty far out of touch with reality too

: My politics are simple enough. I think people ought to be left
: alone to mind their own business. America fought the Nazis, who

"Own business"? What dynasty are you living in, Ming, Xia, Shin?
Can we leave you alone now?

: disturbed peaceful Poland and Czechoslovakia. America fought the
: Communists, who enslaved Eastern Europe - how they rounded up the
: intelligentsia in the Baltics, just like the Nazis did in Poland,
: is in the historical record. And peaceful Americans going about
: their business were attacked on September 11, 2001. And Saddam

Yeah, America fought the Communists, and we're already paying for
it in spades with over $1 million a minute, $1.4 Billion a day.
Is that YOUR kind of salvation to the rest of the transnationalist
bureaucracy whose illegal immigrants continue to pour in at over
5 million a year? There is something missing in this economic
theory. I think it's called revolutionary innovation. By quoting
history, you are in fact condemning others to repeat the past
of a whole spectrum of invalidating establishments: establishments
whose tenacles reached not only into the military industrial
establishment of the United States and Soviet Union, but into
international economic transnationalism as well, and that will
inevitably lead to a world wide socialist mentality - a very
unhealthy for the potential promise markets of succeeding gener-
ations of succcessful entrepreneurs.

Let's forget not to include the historical record of all the
intelligensia today: engineers, physicists, inventors, and yes,
anti-establishment alternative energy types, including the
Vietnam Veterans, retired military officers, NASA types, and oh,
I almost forgot, the idea factories percolating all over the
internet.

: Hussein attacked peaceful Kuwaitis going about their business too
: - and then violated the peace agreement under which he narrowly
: avoided being deposed, by playing games with weapons inspectors.

Was this not the result of a false paper trail that started
somewhere around the yellowcake Nigeria connection? Imagine that.
My gut feeling is that there was a crony cookbook invented up in
the back rooms of brown-nosed establishments to avoid the
perception that it was private energy interests that were
originally in charge here - that would mean class warfare -
that is, until the army of Satraps descended upon the World
Trade Center, with their no-fault anti-conspiracy in place.

: Israel is the one country where Jews aren't unwanted foreigners,
: so that they're sure of being accepted as refugees from elsewhere.
: The Jews in Palestine were the targets of violence just because
: they weren't Muslims before there was an Israel, and as soon as
: Palestine was partitioned - by the decision of the United Nations
: - the surrounding Arab nations tried to drive Israel into the sea,
: not because of any injustice Israel, or Jews, had done to them,
: but because the idea of Jews living other than under Muslim rule
: was unnatural effrontery. And the Arab world didn't know enough
: to quit while it was ahead. So, in 1967, Gamel Abdul Nasser
: prepared to build up a giant military force which could have
: wiped out Israel with its first blow - that with the help of the
: murderous tyrants of the Kremlin noted above - hence, the West
: Bank and Gaza. Still not quitting while they're ahead... so we
: have Hamas and suicide bombers.

"unnatural effrontary" is too nebulous a description for drawing
a line in the sand between the West Bank and Gaza. "Lines in the
sand" are legal tools that use force to invade any nation that
does not use its military might to "Lord it over others" into
complete submission, when the "line itself" is just a rubber
stamp that keeps getting redrawn, day after day, year after
year. What there needs to be is a fiery pit, that when one falls
into, cannot escape, forever and ever.

: *Even after September 11, 2001* we read of... murderous mobs
: killing dozens in Nigeria because a newspaper makes a slighting
: reference to Muhammad... Danish businessmen beaten in Sa'udi
: Arabia because they were Danish, and a publication in that
: country with which they had no personal connection had published
: cartoons of Muhammad... rioters calling for the execution of
: a woman for giving a teddy bear, at the suggestion of children
: in that country, the most popular first name for people there
: (that country being, incidentally, known for tolerating an
: armed militia, the Janjaweed, that has terrorized its black
: residents, both Christian and Muslim - either refusing to
: suppress that militia, or incapable of doing so, and refusing
: to allow U.S. troops to to that job)... all of this being
: particularly shocking, because, of course, after September 11,
: 2001, we would expect Muslims around the world to engage
: in extended soul-searching, to see if there was anything in
: their own thinking which was similar to the mentality that
: led to this foul deed.

Call it what it is - Religious fascism, but you can't stop it
by just getting Muslims to look at pictures of the Twin Towers
collapsing. Even THEY are smart enough to know that it's all
some kind of a Christian "trick" to get them to oblige in the
democratic restructuring of what they might think is involved
with the practice of "civility". Is it a new minaret? No.
Is it oil? (Sure, but even THEY are smart enough to figure
out that there are revolutionary alternatives to oil that
would make King Faisal turn over in his grave). It's a power
grab - and there must be hundreds of sects vying for the
opportunity to get a piece of the holy government pie. So what
do we do about it? Nothing, except try to police the hostility
as neutral observer - all costing billions and billions
of all that pro-Federal Reserve police state money that the
real America never gets to see in the first place. Must we
continue to sanitize and dehumanize what's happening to our
stolen tithe when the real issue is BIG GOVERNMENT?
We've become no better than those scrappy, murderous muslims
when the true intent of the face on the money has just become
a historical artifact.

: Apparently, they think their own petty quarrels are more
: important than September 11, 2001. They don't seem to
: understand the pivotal, central importance of this event
: in world history - or, for that matter, the pivotal impor-
: tance of the Cold War, since they cozied up to the
: Communists to obtain arms, or the pivotal importance of
: the Holocaust.

Here's "Pivotal" for you : Disjointed Germans from their own
banking establishment, after Hitler attempted to control the
power elite; Albert Einstein escaping the holocaust by
emigrating to New York; the Sons of Liberty throwing over
352 casks (45 tons) worth $10,000 British pounds, of East
India Company Tea, overboard, into the Boston Harbor.

To put it plainly, America is sick of paying for other
people's problems. It's time to separate the intellectual
capital from the plutomaniacs driving Hummers - driving to
their government jobs that have no respect for revolutionary
replacement technologies.

: Israel isn't seeking to persecute Arabs. It is a
: democratic nation, with the same liberal ideals of equality
: that America has. Humanitarian aid comes to the Palestinians
: from terrorists like Hamas - because they kill everyone else
: who tries to bring it in. This isn't new. Back before Camp
: David, the old bunch of terrorists were killing any Arab
: in the Gaza Strip who took anything from Israel - as Moshe
: Dayan noted in his autobiography.

Wrong. Israel is NOT the United States. I repeat: Israel IS
NOT the United States. Israel does NOT have the same liberal
ideals that America has. Most American ideals have become
oriented to a giant service economy that is in no way
related to the post war technology that we had with NASA
and the like. The "state" of Israel should in no way be
related to the "nation" of Israel, since it would become
a "nationalistic" Israel that would inevitably become con-
nected to a One World Government, which it is not.

: So when people slam American politicians because they
: fight against the enemies of democratic people, whether
: the Nazis, or the Communists, or the enemies of Israel,
: or mainland China (which rattles its sabres at peaceful,
: democratic Taiwan, in case you haven't noticed), I have
: no patience or sympathy with such nonsense.

Depends on the weapons you're using. If it's a blood war,
then I'm all for nukes. If it's a slow leeching of the
economy into useless, futureless, anti-generational robo-
markets, then it's the same as a blood war, and I'm all
for nukes. If it's overtaxation with a collateral market
slide into oblivion, then I'm assuming that there can be
no representation without a revolution in government.

: Evil tyrants who keep political prisoners, who prevent
: free elections and a free press, are not to be appeased.
: That mistake was made once, when Hitler was allowed to
: invade Czechoslovakia with impunity. The world paid a
: terrible price. Then we foolishly let our guard down,
: and the Communists stole the secret of the atom bomb -
: and, so, while we could, at a terrible price in blood,
: oppose Communism to a limited extent in Korea and Vietnam,
: we had to stand by and watch for agonizing decades as
: people were shot for desperately trying to cross the
: Berlin Wall, or massacred in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

It's ignorance of the money system that dehumanizes honest,
hardworking people into shadowy cyborgs that can only wish
for your defeat. It's a completely natural occurance. The
same thing is happening in this country when Bush is made
to look like a dictator - the blindsidedness of it all
can give the appearance of tyranny - with all the glom-on-
for-defeat political partisan policy agendas are made to
appear like a new suit that's not empty - yet, but it will
be - there are simply not enough stories of how the
revolutionary energy entrepreneurs overcame monsterous
odds to become a modern day success story - with great
witness, testimony, and the like. To 'hope' is simply not
enough. The legs have been kicked out from under the bar-
gaining table. There will be no more smiles and handshakes.

: However, that's no excuse for failing to respond to
: Tienanmen Square, since supposedly China had only one
: tiny nuclear submarine, and its ICBMs were not such as
: to deny the U.S. a first-strike capability against China.
: But then, as with Sudan, the United States doesn't want
: to be accused of being an aggressor, and Americans don't
: want to be drafted and sent off to war unless it's
: strictly necessary.

Who came first, the chicken or the egg? Excuse the cliche,
but the wisdom here is that there were exactly two chickens
before the egg, and if opposing forces stuck to their
nuclear pushbuttons long enough, they would find out that
(a) either all eggs are rotten, or (b) there are no eggs
at all being manufactured by the chickens. What does this
tell you? It tells you that there are no real "eggs" out
there between the two nations that can make new chickens!
The only time "rotteness" creeps in is when the nukes
themselves are percieved as being the single, most
ultimate threat to earth and all of mankind together!

: I know reality is perhaps not entirely that Manichaean.
: While, finally, there is good reason to view Hugo Chavez
: as trying to make Venezuela a dictatorship, the U.S. has
: had a record in Latin America that has not been calcula-
: ted to win them friends among the common people there.
: And it has been slow to address the continuing problems
: of African-Americans.

I'd go with dual-Manichaean, or even quad-Manichaean, de-
pending upon which government agency is doing what to whom,
and who it is that finds the where-with-all to tax and
marginalize even more of our blood-stained notes into
their particular geosynchronous ivory towers, while
our intellectual fiefdoms continue to port out the
hugest trial balloons in history, although there's no
turning back once the last one leaves the prison planet
forever.

: But it should still be obvious to everyone which coun-
: tries are free countries, and which aren't - and that
: the strength of the United States is largely the reason
: why the world's free countries are free.

If it's a difference between choosing beans or tacos,
I'll choose tacos - but it really cooks my gourd to see
those fat cat bureaucrat plutocrats eating beefsteak three
times a week over in uptown. They need to trim down.

: John Savard


American

Change res, verto of informatio es solvo
(Change the business, the exchange of ideas are free)

On 4 Dec, 21:11, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:51:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:17:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
If you look at space from an othodox scientific/economic perspective
one or two things become clear. The first of these is that there is no
magic formula to lower costs. If there were someone would now be
building a cheap LEO reusable vehicle.

Yes, of course. In fact we would have had it three thousand years
ago.

rest of typical Ian stupidity snipped

I should also point out how idiotic it is to, in the same paragraph,
talk about "othodox scientific/economic perspective" [sic] and "a
magic formula" for launch costs.

What a loon. Ian wouldn't know a scientific perspective if it fell on
his head from an apple tree.

Now this really is idiotic. To claim that we could have had a
technology years back in the past with no antecedents. It is on a par
with some feminist "science that insist that Newtons work was a rape
manual.

To achieve an industrial civilization you need to go though certain
stages. You first need civilization. You need a group of people living
together in a city. Then you need writing. The first phonetic script
was Ugaritic from phonecia. Then people can write down their ideas for
posterity.

The ancient world achieved a fair degree of technology. The Egyptians
built the pyramids (despite what v Daniken says) the Romans invented
concrete and built aquaducts and many impressive buildings. Recent
discoveries have shown that the classical world made some quite
complex machines.

Why did the Romans not have steam power? An explanation often given
was that they had vast numbers of slaves. A quinquireme was rowed by
slaves. However of you were to have insead of a quinquireme a "navem
vaporis" with all the slaves taken out you could travel faster and use
the space for catapults. Why was such a thing never built?

I think it is to do with the interplay between theoretical and
engineering knowledge. James Watt when he was a technician at Glasgow
university was given a Newcoman engine and told to get it to work
which he duly did. He soon found out that it consumed vast quantities
of coal for a very modest energy output. He went to Edinbourgh to
consult with James Black. Black told him that water boiled at a lower
temperature when a vacuum was created, and that Watt was heating up a
cooling a reservoir of water. Watt then proceeded to install valves in
the engine so that the boiling water was kept at a constant pressure.

This incident speaks volumes about the relationship between pure
knowledge and engineering. The Romans were expert engineers but lacked
pure knowledge. Tis also suggests to us that there is some sort of
rough order in which innovation takes place.

1421 - This is a case of economic incentive. Why is Los Angeles called
Los Angeles and not New Nanjing? Why did the Spanish starting off from
an inferior technological position innovate faster. The answer
(probably) was that Europe had a tremenous economic incentive in the
shape of the Arab stranglehold on the spice trade. We might ask
questions about oil today.

Is there a low cost route to LEO. Lots of people have sought one. I
recall a number of threads where a large number of ideas were banded
about this very topic. The front runner seems to be a 2STO with both
stages winged and completely recoverable. OK there are others there is
a hypersonic plane and some ideas that are well - way out.

Instinct tells me that a 2STO is buildable but would involve a high
development cost. This seems to be the historical conclusion. Richard
Branson and Dick Rutan would have built a 2STO had they felt they
could do it economically. There is, and this is why I fell you are
particularly poisonous, a lack of willingness to discuss projects like
Blackstar, which you claim don't exist but almost certainly do. This
fails to give me, or anyone else for that matter, confidence that the
proposed solution is viable.

I will again repeat what I said about NASA management. It is all very
well to slag them, but they did (wrt Shuttle) exactly what they were
told to do by the military. Now the military is in the process of ****
shovelling. If there is a viable 2STO lets have it. Lets not have
****.

Economically the 2STO would be developed for Space Solar Power. This
would be the main driver. So :-

1) You deny the existance of blackstar and refuse to give any details
of your proposals.
2) You slag off NASA management when all they have done is what they
have been told.
3) You are trying to kill off SSP which would be the main driver for
2STO. Without it what is the point?

Now anyone living in the 21st century is a lunatic. Let me explain
what I mean. AI is the technology of this century. If anyone fails to
take cogniscence of this fact in any scientific forum they are
condeming themselves to obsolescence.

While we are on the subject of innovation there is one fact about the
Middle East which is clear. For some reason only Israel innovates.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/goo...ae1ddddb?hl=en

This has consequrences throughout society. In fact the human rights
record is a consequence of this failure, so "Amnesty International" is
a self fulfilling prophecy. (Read the thread and this allusion will
become clear).

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/goo...ae1ddddb?hl=en

My main point is this. Unless we can understand why any interference
has to be counterproductive. In fact Saddam Hussein's Iraq was close
to innovation than the present US inspired clerically based régime. It
is almost as if there is a conspiracy to deny technology to the Arab
world.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 5, 4:51 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 4 Dec, 21:11, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:17:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The first of these is that there is no
magic formula to lower costs. If there were someone would now be
building a cheap LEO reusable vehicle.

Yes, of course. In fact we would have had it three thousand years
ago.

Now this really is idiotic. To claim that we could have had a
technology years back in the past with no antecedents. It is on a par
with some feminist "science that insist that Newtons work was a rape
manual.

I think what he meant was that if there was a "magic formula" to
voyage to the Moon without problems, then, since three thousand years
ago, people were already chanting magical incantations, it could has
easily have been available then.

That is, he was taking the phrase "magic formula" in its literal sense
with the intent of uttering a witticism.

John Savard