NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On 6 May 2004 22:25:53 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote:

Then what President Bush is talking about, particularly WRT the Moon,
is more akin to modern military bases -- a "presence" on foriegn soil
that people are rotated in and out of.

US military bases are established to protect the United States, not to
provide entertainment. There are no Moonmen threatening the United
States, so why do we need to establish military bases there?


I am not calling for military bases on the Moon; I was making an
analogy. Your reply, therefore, is non sequitor, so I won't answer
it.

If you could respond to what I am posting, as to what you think you're
reading, that would be nice.


..... We already know the lay of the land, down to a few centimeters. Why do
you keep on denying that -- and then denying that you denied it?


Reread my previous messages; get a clue. I've probably addressed this
before, so I will not do so again.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 07 May 2004 05:09:21 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

..... I'm proposing to do it sensibly, by
developing the infrastructure that makes it affordable.


If the infrastructure can be built while laying the groundwork for
President Bush's initiative, I think that works great: If CATS is
behind schedule, NASA is not dependent on it. On the other hand, if
you are suggesting NASA should do nothing, and wiat for the
infrastructure with no clue as to when it will be ready to your
satisfaction, not interested.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:33:09 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 07 May 2004 05:09:21 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

..... I'm proposing to do it sensibly, by
developing the infrastructure that makes it affordable.


If the infrastructure can be built while laying the groundwork for
President Bush's initiative, I think that works great: If CATS is
behind schedule, NASA is not dependent on it. On the other hand, if
you are suggesting NASA should do nothing, and wiat for the
infrastructure with no clue as to when it will be ready to your
satisfaction, not interested.

No, I'm saying that NASA should encourage, rather than (as has been
its effect, if not intent, since its inception) discourage the
development of such infrastructure.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:30:44 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

..... *Why* would sending three or four astronauts be a better way to
find it than sending hundreds of scientists, engineers, and other
specialists?

These days, "astronaut" includes scientists, engineers, and other
specialists under the headings of mission and payload specialists.
They've been a regular part of Shuttle crews for about twenty years
now, and I see no reason why NASA would abandon that model in building
a Moon base.

Because it's been mostly a costly failure in terms of doing anything
significant in space?

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

I am not calling for military bases on the Moon;

Do you stand behind your words or not? You said you wanted the US to
build bases that were "akin to modern military bases."

Why should the US build something akin to a military base if it serves
no military purpose?

I was making an analogy. Your reply, therefore, is non sequitor, so I won't answer
it.

There is no analogy. A military base that defends against foreign
enemies is not analogous to a space station that defends against no
one.

Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not a "non sequitor." If it
makes you mad, so be it.

..... We already know the lay of the land, down to a few centimeters. Why do
you keep on denying that -- and then denying that you denied it?

Reread my previous messages; get a clue. I've probably addressed this
before, so I will not do so again.

You have a real problem with honesty, Michael.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

No one is calling for an "endless" series of missions,

Really -- you called for an end to "Lewis and Clark" missions?....

No, I didn't say that, either.

Either it has an end or it is endless. Which is it?

I am saying it may be premature to declare the "Lewis and Clark" phase
over.

Again, that's based on historical ignorance. Lewis and Clark made only
one expedition, which lasted just two years. Demanding a government
monopoly on exploration that lasts for decades and calling it the
"Lewis and Clark phase" is slandering Lewis and Clark.

Instead of defaming Lewis and Clark, why don't you tell us why *you*
think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or
settlement is a good idea?

..... *Why* would sending three or four astronauts be a better way
to
find it than sending hundreds of scientists, engineers, and other
specialists?

These days, "astronaut" includes scientists, engineers, and other
specialists under the headings of mission and payload specialists.
They've been a regular part of Shuttle crews for about twenty years
now, and I see no reason why NASA would abandon that model in building
a Moon base.

You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is
better than than having hundreds.

Could you please answer just one of my questions instead of changing
the subject?

Furthermore, a base could have hundreds of specialists rotate through
it during the years of its operation.

Which is not the same as having hundreds of people living there full
time.

And the base could grow over
time, until it has hundreds of people on it. The CATS architectures
you and Rand are talking about could provide the infrastructure to
expand the base and rotate crews and materials through it. So
everybody wins.

Um, yes, but you aren't advocating a CATS architecture. You're
advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived
Vehicles that would delay the development of CATS, possibly for
decades. I'm still waiting for you to explain why that is a good idea.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:47:56 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I'm saying that NASA should encourage, rather than (as has been
its effect, if not intent, since its inception) discourage the
development of such infrastructure.

I don't see any reason why NASA can't do that AND work towards
President Bush's initiative. After all, Falcon 1 is on the pad and
the X-Prize contestants are continuing their work even as NASA
brainstorms on Moon/Mars and works to return the Shuttle to flight.
Doesn't sound like one is delaying the other.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 8 May 2004 15:04:44 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

I am not calling for military bases on the Moon;

Do you stand behind your words or not? You said you wanted the US to
build bases that were "akin to ...."

Hey words: "akin to," as in "similar to."

" ......modern military bases."


Yes, and then I went on to add, "a 'presence' on foriegn soil
that people are rotated in and out of." I did NOT say I want military
bases on the Moon; I DID say a lunar base would be comparable to a
foriegn military base in some sense. I thought I had made it clear
the first time, but you still grabbed the words "military bases" and
erected the straw man that I want to see military bases on the Moon;
since I did not say that, there is no point in continuing to discuss
that issue. Feel free to reread my previous post and respond to what
I did, in fact, say.

.... You have a real problem with honesty, Michael.

No, Ed, I have been honest in expressing my views. Perhaps not as
eloquent as I should be, but I have been honest. You, on the other
hand, have responded to things I did not say, and called me a liar for
pointing that out. I'm not the one with a problem.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 8 May 2004 15:32:50 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote:

why don't you tell us why *you*
think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or
settlement is a good idea?


I think the large scale developent, exploration, and settlement has a
better chance of success, over the long term, if is preceded by
publicly funded exploration. And as noted who knows how many times
now, both involve setting up bases on the Moon and Mars, which can
also serve as the initial foothold.

You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is
better than than having hundreds.


I don't, but no one is in a position to get hundreds up there at this
time. And if I am correct about the large scale colonization
benefitting from publicly funded trail blazers, then getting it
bass-ackwards insures no one goes anwhere.


..... You're
advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived
Vehicles....

Yes, when this thread began, I agreed with the Shuttle-derived option,
because it could be built relatively quickly and using exisiting
facilities. And I agreed the high costs counted against it. It has
advatanges and disadvantages.


..... that would delay the development of CATS .....


How is CATS delayed if it is pursued at the same time as other
options? Even as NASA brainstorms its Moon/Mars options, Falcon 1
sits on a pad, and the X-Prize contestants are getting very close to
trying for it; IIRC, at least one has an FAA liscense for its attempt.
Who's delaying whom?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:48:50 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Because it's been mostly a costly failure in terms of doing anything
significant in space?

The Shuttle has not lived up to expectations, true. But that does not
mean having specialists among the crew, as to having a couple of
fighter pilots who are supposed to do anyting, is a bad one. The US
was not colonized by sailors; the sailors brought the colonists.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---