Another problem with longer flights

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


Nonsense.


Common sense

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


No, it didn't.


Yes it did!

Jonathan wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...



Nonsense.


Common sense


My God! He's actually developed brevity to a point that even puts Rand
to shame!
Maybe the two of them could come up with a numerical code for arguments
and counter-arguments.
Picture this:

"Rand Simberg wrote:
9
17
15
4
4? I'll show you 4, you ignoramus."
Let's make "you ignoramus" 27, shall we?

Okay, it's 27.
But you are still a 4."


Pat ;-)

Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:



Jonathan wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

My God! He's actually developed brevity to a point that even puts Rand
to shame!
Maybe the two of them could come up with a numerical code for
arguments and counter-arguments.
Picture this:

"Rand Simberg wrote:
9
17
15
4
4? I'll show you 4, you ignoramus."
Let's make "you ignoramus" 27, shall we?

Okay, it's 27.
But you are still a 4."

- Who are you?
- I'm the new number 2.
- Who is number 1.
- You are number 6
- I'm not a number. I'm a free man!
- Buwahahahaha!...

H Tavaila

Harri Tavaila wrote:
- Who are you?
- I'm the new number 2.
- Who is number 1.
- You are number 6
- I'm not a number. I'm a free man!
- Buwahahahaha!...


Take a look at my apartment number.
I am _Number 5_.
This means I get to feed Rover its morning dish of Purina Protoplasmic
Guardian Chow before it sets out on a hard day of roaring and
suffocating people.
With rank comes responsibility.
By the time I broke*... and told Number 2 why I had quite the CIA, he
was so confused he didn't know what to make of it... except it seemed to
revolve around the demise of Hydrox Cookies in the face of the
competition from the inferior Oreo Cookies over a period of several
decades, and how that made me realize the West was in fatal
decline...and I would no longer risk my life for it.

* Around three hours after arriving at The Village, and following
seconds after his affirmative answer to the question: "Does this mean
that pizza is on the menu _every_ night...and it's _free_?". ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

My God! He's actually developed brevity to a point that even puts Rand
to shame!
Maybe the two of them could come up with a numerical code for
arguments and counter-arguments.

Well, that was a interesting idea, but not realistic.
These two individuals would be battling each other not with ideas, but
rather with insults.
So it would look a lot more like this:

" 1
2
1
2
3
What does '3' mean, you idiot?

'3' means that you are a major league retard, mister 2. Let's call that
one '4' " ;-)

Pat






"Rand Simberg wrote:
9
17
15
4
4? I'll show you 4, you ignoramus."
Let's make "you ignoramus" 27, shall we?

Okay, it's 27.
But you are still a 4."


Pat ;-)

Pat Flannery wrote:

Well, that was a interesting idea, but not realistic.
These two individuals would be battling each other not with ideas, but
rather with insults.
So it would look a lot more like this:
" 1
2
1
2
1
3
What does '3' mean, you idiot?
'3' means that you are a major league retard, mister 1. Let's call
that one '4' "

Okay, thats '4', you 2."


Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jonathan wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...



Nonsense.


Common sense


My God! He's actually developed brevity to a point that even puts Rand
to shame!
Maybe the two of them could come up with a numerical code for
arguments and counter-arguments.
Picture this:

"Rand Simberg wrote:
9
17
15
4
4? I'll show you 4, you ignoramus."
Let's make "you ignoramus" 27, shall we?

Okay, it's 27.
But you are still a 4."

Well, that was a interesting idea, but not realistic.
These two individuals would be battling each other not with ideas, but
rather with insults.
So it would look a lot more like this:
" 1
2
1
2
1
3
What does '3' mean, you idiot?
'3' means that you are a major league retard, mister 2. Let's call
that one '4' .

Okay, thats a '4', you 1."


Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jonathan wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...



Nonsense.


Common sense


Maybe the two of them could come up with a numerical code for arguments and
counter-arguments.


Nonsense.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 1:59 pm, jacob navia wrote:


Robots will cost us 0.1% of whatever a human outfitted expedition
would demand. However, the one-way human mission has terrific
potential.

One-way? I always thought it odd that Kennedy included the line....
'and returning him safely to Earth' in his moon speech. And later mentioned
if we were to only go 'half way' then we shouldn't go at all. That makes
me think they were considering a one way mission at some point. I'd think
it'd be an assumption to return them, so why even mention it?

Even if manned missions were cheaper, I bet it'd be like the ISS now
where the crew spends 98.6% of their time maintaining the
equipment just to stay afloat.


Put those one-way tickets up for grabs on eBay, and see how much our
NASA gets offered (minimum bid $100M).

People here just don't seem to have any common sense.
I mean have some logic people, we're talking about robots
with a twenty minute delay to deal with, or manned missions with
a TWENTY YEAR DELAY in launch dates to deal with.


Manned missions are destined to be for high value activities, military
and commercial projects. Long duration/distance exploration missions
are for R2D2. I mean the sensors/cameras etc these days are getting
so good, putting a robot somewhere ...is...putting people there.
Hundreds of millions of people, all looking through the rover's 'eyes'
at the same time. Far superior to just a couple of explorers on the
ground. Not to mention the cost.

I can't believe this debate even takes place among thinking people.



~ BG