A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CEV PDQ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #571  
Old May 26th 05, 03:01 AM
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:37:42 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


That's nice, but that doesn't mean that money is being allocated *now*.


Actually it does.


How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a task
mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task?


It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough
serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in. It worked
for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to
accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them.

Do you know the names of the Lindbergh backers? How about where they
lived?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
  #572  
Old May 26th 05, 03:14 AM
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:59:43 GMT, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

I found something more to add that isn't merely rehashing old stuff.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:27:09 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote

Where the discussion is breaking down is Herb's insistence that we
must act as if those limits are laws of nature.


No, where the discussion is breaking down is my insistence that
*present day designs* must adhere to *present day limits*.


On the face of it, that insistence sounds reasonable. However, as George
Bernard Shaw famously noted, being reasonable often tends to result in a
lack of progress. If you never design outside the box, the limits will be
perpetuated.


Having been designed outside the box is why NASP, OSP, and X-33 are
all such successful vehicles, then? I'll try to keep that in mind.

If the launcher can't put an entire integrated Mars-bound spacecraft up
there in one piece, designing it to be assembled by a small army of
clean-room workers on the ground isn't going to result in an assembled
vehicle in a useful location. I think it seems rather plausible to assume
that the pieces will need to be put together after they're delivered to
orbit.


Then they should be assembled the same way the Command Module, Service
Module, and Lunar Module were, not by folks floating around in space
stringing wires and plumbing and installing subsystems. It's silly to
rely on assembling the vehicle the hardest way possible. The
difficulty of EVA work has been demonstrated time and again.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
  #573  
Old May 26th 05, 04:41 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:
How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a

task
mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task?


It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough
serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in.


Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. How does the promise of money
offered as a prize for completion of a task show that actual money *is being
allocated*, as opposed to *could be allocated*,to accomplish that task?
Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the
organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name names,
then you're *assuming* that money is being spent.

It worked
for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to
accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them.


That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my
question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money
*is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who. That
means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but
he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error.
He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may
sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence.


  #574  
Old May 26th 05, 07:57 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:19 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

It worked
for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to
accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them.


That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my
question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money
*is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who. That
means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but
he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error.
He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may
sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence.


rolling eyes...
  #575  
Old May 27th 05, 05:30 AM
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:19 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:54:58 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:
How does the promise of money offered as a prize for completion of a

task
mean that actual money is being allocated to accomplish that task?


It gives credibility to the project, by proving that there's enough
serious interest in the goal that's its worth investing in.


Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. How does the promise of money
offered as a prize for completion of a task show that actual money *is being
allocated*, as opposed to *could be allocated*,to accomplish that task?


The funding of attempts to win the prize show that funding has been
allocated. It's not allocated by Act of Congress but by people
dipping into their own pockets (eliminating the middlemen of the IRS
and responsible agency).

Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the
organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name names,
then you're *assuming* that money is being spent.


No, that's not true. If there's someone putting up a prize, I can
name that person knowing that person is spending non-prize money. If
there's someone trying to win the prize I can name them with certainty
knowing that they're spending non-prize money.

It worked
for Lindbergh and McCready, to name just two who raised the money to
accomplish tasks that carried prizes for the first to do them.


That means that it *could work* to improve EVA capability, but that isn't my
question. Rand insists that the existence of a prize itself means that money
*is* being spent, but admits he doesn't care enough to find out who.


Raymond Orteig and Henry Kremer spent money to foster aviation
improvements by putting up their respective prizes. Putting a prize
up, even if no one wins it, isn't free. It's also not an investment,
because the only returns are giving away the prize or not. Either
way, the cost isn't returned. If there is a prize, that is prima
facie evidence that money is being spent to foster improvement.

That
means that he *cannot* provide any supporting evidence for his claims, but
he's not man enough to admit it or to even admit the possibility of error.
He fails to understand his assumptions, no matter how logical they may
sound, are not *facts* without supporting evidence.


I'm not interested in the sandbox squabbles around here, so this is
just so much nonsense to me. I attempt to ignore the
testosterone-based rivalries and cliques as much as possible.

The following points are true: people spend money to put up prizes to
foster improvements and other people raise and spend money to try to
win those prizes (while, we hope, producing the desired improvements).
You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your
erroneous statements.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
  #576  
Old May 27th 05, 07:01 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
The funding of attempts to win the prize show that funding has been
allocated.


How can you *know* that funding has been allocated to win a prize *without*
also knowing the name of the organization receiving the funding?

Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the
organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name

names,
then you're *assuming* that money is being spent.


No, that's not true. If there's someone putting up a prize, I can
name that person knowing that person is spending non-prize money.


But *that person* is not *expending* current funds on the process of winning
the prize, so that still doesn't answer the question.

If
there's someone trying to win the prize I can name them with certainty
knowing that they're spending non-prize money.


Which *still doesn't answer the question*, which I'll rephrase- how does the
act of putting up prize money *itself* prove that *other people* are
expending funds in order to win the prize?

It *doesn't*- putting up a prize does not in any way prove that anyone is
spending money in order to win that prize. Rand was trying to say that it
does. The only way to prove that money is being spent to *win* the prize is
to have a representative of an organization that is actually spending money
in order to win the prize publically state it is doing so.


Raymond Orteig and Henry Kremer spent money to foster aviation
improvements by putting up their respective prizes.


By putting up that money, those specific funds, what improvements were
created *with that specific money*? None- other people had to spend other
money to make those improvements.

If there is a prize, that is prima
facie evidence that money is being spent to foster improvement.


Unless, of course, nobody is interested in the prize.

The following points are true: people spend money to put up prizes to
foster improvements


But the money put up for the prize is not itself spent on the improvements
themselves.

You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your
erroneous statements.


You've tried to, but haven't yet succeeded. You and Rand both missed
something, which is surprising for you: *putting up prize money itself does
not produce any improvements*, since no improvements are made unless someone
is interested in the prize. In short, a prize *in and of itself* does not
lead to improvements, contrary to what Rand may say.


  #577  
Old May 27th 05, 09:31 PM
jbaloun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Henry Spencer wrote:

sn



Just whose examples should I have included to be less selective, Derek?
Lockheed Martin, perhaps? When have they ever built a manned spacecraft?
Boeing? Which manned spacecraft were designed and built there?



http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...tion/overview/

  #578  
Old May 27th 05, 10:11 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 27 May 2005 14:01:15 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your
erroneous statements.


You've tried to, but haven't yet succeeded. You and Rand both missed
something, which is surprising for you: *putting up prize money itself does
not produce any improvements*, since no improvements are made unless someone
is interested in the prize. In short, a prize *in and of itself* does not
lead to improvements, contrary to what Rand may say.


We've said what we've said. It's a free country, of course, and
you're welcome to persist in your delusions despite that.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.