Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

kT wrote:

No, earth sheltered houses, heated with hydroponic greenhouses.

Sorry if you find reality unmanageable, that that's how things work.

Not in our present world, they don't.
You are speculating on a possible future as if it were not only ideal,
but indeed inevitable.
Rather like your rocket designs.

Pat

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:You can't simply spend your way out of as crisis.
:

Of course you can, if you've got the cash.

:
:Stimulation of the
:economy was appropriate during the depression, but has been of dubious
:effectiveness at other times.
:

Wrong multiple times in the same sentence! Please, PLEASE stop
pontificating on topics about which you are abysmally ignorant.

:
:The effect of public works of any
:description has been calculated on the computer model.
:

Oh, really? And just which 'computer model' would that be and just
how have they run infinite test cases (you did say "public works of
any description") in finite time?

:
:As far as expenditure on space is concerned.
:

Not a sentence.

:
:If it will lead to
:greater technology the money will be well spent.
:

Maybe yes, maybe no.

:
:What is really needed
:though is expenditure on technology.
:

Which technology and as opposed to what?

:
:The belief that scientific
:investment is capable of solving problems, whether of energy supply or
:global warming.
:

Not a sentence.

:
:As Buzz Aldrin says it is important to stimulate the interest of young
eople, both those who are going into science and those who are going
:into other fields. I do not myself believe that creationalism affects
:those who decide to study science all that much. What creationalism
:does however do is create a wedge between scientists and the rest of
:the population.
:

Just what the hell is 'creationalism'? I though you were referring to
'Creationism' with that mangling of the language, but if that's so
then your preceding paragraph makes no sense.

:
:BTW - I am not American I am British.
:

I think it's more likely that you're software. You don't speak
English well enough to be British.

:
:This is however not a zero sum
:game.
:

You being British is not a zero sum game?

:
:The whole world will benefit from more rational policies an
:behalf of the US.
:

Yes, it would, but getting some of you lefty loons to adopt such
policies seems difficult.

:
:There is one thing that worries me.
:

Only one?

:
:The Democrats
who I think will get in) are rational over Iraq.
:

Well, no, they aren't. And they don't all agree on it, either, so
you'd better tell us just what 'rational' policy you think they have.

:
:They do however seem
:to hanker after protectionalism. Protectionalism will mean one thing.
:Americans will be paying higher prices for goods and services than the
:rest of the world. Moreover if US prices of feed materials are higher
:this will put up costs and make the US even less competitive.
:

You really, really, REALLY need to learn something about economics.

Hint: If the US adopts protectionist policies and the rest of you do
not, we will be better off and you will be worse off. If we adopt
protectionist policies and you do likewise we will all be worse off.


--
"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

Pat Flannery wrote:


kT wrote:

No, earth sheltered houses, heated with hydroponic greenhouses.

Sorry if you find reality unmanageable, that that's how things work.

Not in our present world, they don't.
You are speculating on a possible future as if it were not only ideal,
but indeed inevitable.

Earth sheltered housing wins over McMansions, Condo City or Victorian,
hands down. The only thing that comes close is cardboard farmhouse.

If I have to live in a box, I would rather it be a very strong and
maintenance free box that is warm in the winter and cool in the summer,
with abundant solar hot water and nice windows facing the south.

Tornadoes tend to be a problem here too.

Rather like your rocket designs.

Or like my desert island luxury resort shacks.

You have no idea, Pat, not a clue.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:26:20 -0600, kT wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.


Huh?

Please spare us.


I just don't see what Orion/Altair/Ares has to do with global warming,
creationism, and so forth.

No, investing in a extraterrestrial space exploration program that sucks
most of the money away from rational Earth centric observation and
space transportation infrastructure ....

First off, the Earth is hardly unobserved. There are tons of
satellites up there as we speak aiming their instruments back down --
have been for many years. That's where the weather channel gets their
satellite images and other data. You can do plenty of "rational"
Earht observation without nearly as much money as exploration.

And what's "irrational" about extraterrestrial exploration? We're
supposed to orbit the Earth and ignore everything BUT Earth? That's
ridiculous! That's like a SCUBA diver going a few inches below the
surface, rolling up on his back, and looking UP to see what's above
the waves. One would think one of the points of going into space is
to go to other places in that environment. In fact, Aurthur C. Clarke
wrote a book on it, "The Exploraiton of Space."

..... If you don't think that both VSE
and ESAS have been disastrous for America there is no use discussing it
with you.


Why should it be a "disaster"? America's history and tradition is one
of pushing back frontiers. No one every did that by walking a few
yards from home, stopping, and looking back at it.

I see Ares and Orion as building blocks that can be used for anything
we want down the road. What will their impact be? Neither has been
built yet, so how can anyone say?

You want to know what the rationale for Ares 1 is? As I see it,
there's a simple two-step:

1. Use your connection as an insider outsider to talk to the guys
actually doing it.

2. Believe what they tell you.

No conspiracy theory required.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:18:23 -0600, kT wrote:

I suppose typing in Bush and creationism or intelligent design into the
search bar is out of the question. Intelligent design is creationism.

How else do you explain the Ares I? I just don't have faith in Mr.
Griffin's bias. I was a little suspicious when Bush sent mankind on a
journey out into the cosmos. I thought we already lived in the cosmos.


Whatm if anything, does Presidnet Bush' beliefs have to do with the
design of Ares 1? Was he on the design team? Did he say, "The Bible
tells us in Leviticus that we must use a large solid first stage and
cryogenic second stage"? Did he at least issue an executive order
requiring a crucifix on the side of each booster? No, I didn't think
so. Bush has been called the CEO president -- delegating instead of
putting himself out front. A mindset like that would let the
engineers do the engineering.

How one rocket design is called "irrational" or "creatoinist" and
another is not makes no sense. THEY'RE ROCKETS! Apart from aiming UP
99 times out of 100, what does the religion of someone who had no
invlovment in designing them have to do with it?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:49:20 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:26:20 -0600, kT wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.


Huh?

Please spare us.


I just don't see what Orion/Altair/Ares has to do with global warming,
creationism, and so forth.

This is "ElfNazi." Killfile him, or be killfiled.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:46:15 -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:

There is a phrase "playing God". What exactly does that phrase mean?
Theologians have put forward some quite complex arguments, some of
which are quite compelling. Bush however has a very fundamentalist
Bible bashing view of theology. If you pressed him he would equate
"playing God" with stem cells and, of particular relevance here AI.

I see that you're as monumentally ignorant about what George Bush
believes as you are about what I believe.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:30:47 -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:

On 9 Jan, 20:13, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:46:15 -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:

There is a phrase "playing God". What exactly does that phrase mean?
Theologians have put forward some quite complex arguments, some of
which are quite compelling. Bush however has a very fundamentalist
Bible bashing view of theology. If you pressed him he would equate
"playing God" with stem cells and, of particular relevance here AI.

I see that you're as monumentally ignorant about what George Bush
believes as you are about what I believe.

It is not just me. Large numbers of scientists have commented on GWB
being essentially antiscientific.

What difference does it make? They don't know any more about George
Bush's theology than you do. Well, OK, unlike you, they're not
idiots, so it's possible that they know a *little* more. But I'm not
interested in the opinions of "large numbers of scientists" on what is
in a man's heart. The notion that he has a "Bible bashing view" of
theology is simply stupid.

Anyway the fact remains that Ares is a 20th century concept in the 21st
century.

Which has nothing to do with creationism, or religion. It has to do
with technological conservatism on the part of Mike Griffin, and an
emphasis on pork over progress.

rest of idiotic, irrelevant questions snipped

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:26:20 -0600, kT wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.

Huh?
Please spare us.


I just don't see what Orion/Altair/Ares has to do with global warming,
creationism, and so forth.

Think it through, when a nation both embraces creationism and denies
science simultaneously, what sort of launch vehicle will result?

No, investing in a extraterrestrial space exploration program that sucks
most of the money away from rational Earth centric observation and
space transportation infrastructure ....

First off, the Earth is hardly unobserved. There are tons of
satellites up there as we speak aiming their instruments back down --
have been for many years. That's where the weather channel gets their
satellite images and other data. You can do plenty of "rational"
Earht observation without nearly as much money as exploration.

And what's "irrational" about extraterrestrial exploration?

Not being able to afford it in the first place, not designing a
sustainable and affordable method of doing so in the second place, and
it not being relevant to the severe problems on Earth in the last place.

We're
supposed to orbit the Earth and ignore everything BUT Earth?

No, we are supposed to be able to *GET* into Earth orbit and stay there
in a rational, sustainable and affordable manner.

That's ridiculous!

If you say so buddy, you're the one with the problem :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

..... If you don't think that both VSE
and ESAS have been disastrous for America there is no use discussing it
with you.


Why should it be a "disaster"?

It is demonstrably via empirical methods already a disaster, you appear
to be one of the 'faithful'.

America's history and tradition is one
of pushing back frontiers. No one every did that by walking a few
yards from home, stopping, and looking back at it.

snicker


I see Ares and Orion as building blocks that can be used for anything
we want down the road.

What you want does not correspond to reality.

What will their impact be? Neither has been
built yet, so how can anyone say?

We have these things, empirical models, theoretical methods,
computational techniques, and a budget, all have already spoken.

You want to know what the rationale for Ares 1 is?

I already know : failure.

As I see it,
there's a simple two-step:

1. Use your connection as an insider outsider to talk to the guys
actually doing it.

I've already told them to stop immediately, and I have offered a
rational alternative which may save some of the elements, in the form of
a COTS proposal. Not only will they be reading it, congress and the GAO
will be reading it too. Are you starting to get it yet?

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:18:23 -0600, kT wrote:

I suppose typing in Bush and creationism or intelligent design into the
search bar is out of the question. Intelligent design is creationism.

How else do you explain the Ares I? I just don't have faith in Mr.
Griffin's bias. I was a little suspicious when Bush sent mankind on a
journey out into the cosmos. I thought we already lived in the cosmos.


Whatm if anything, does Presidnet Bush' beliefs have to do with the
design of Ares 1?

VSE is his baby. Without VSE there would have been no fraudulent ESAS
and there would have been no Stick, and we would all be better off.

THEY'RE ROCKETS!

In your faith based world all rockets are the same, apparently.

Apart from aiming UP
99 times out of 100, what does the religion of someone who had no
invlovment in designing them have to do with it?

It's his space program just like it's his wars.

All his, everyone else are just incompetent yes men, (and quite a few
yes women too, apparently, a whole lot of them bible college educated).