Who would you like to see replace Goldin?
David Findlay
Carl Sagan.
David
davebananna
>Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best
>after him would be
>Carl Sagan.
....also pushing up daisies
Dave
Gregg Germain
: Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best after him would be
: Carl Sagan.
: David
He's just as dead.
--- Gregg
"Eschew surplusage."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Mark Twain
Phone: (617) 496-7237
Pat Kelley
Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
--
Pat Kelley 撤erseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
President - George Washington
VelaTech
Rand Simberg
daveb...@aol.com (davebananna) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best
>>after him would be
>>Carl Sagan.
>
>....also pushing up daisies
And in addition to the fact that they're metabolically challenged,
neither of them would be well suited to the job.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Dwight Williams
>
> Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
> the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
> successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
> budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
Sounds like a good candidate.
--
Dwight Williams - Orleans(Ottawa), ON, Canada
Personal Homesite: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my Usenet postings, not some archival service!
Andrew Case
>You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
>Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
>the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
>successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
>budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
NASA internal politics as well as he does. Given the right incentives
he could play the whole organization like a banjo. The only problem
is that the incentives need to be structured just exactly right so
that his response corresponds to desirable goals, which might be
asking a little too much of the administration. Still, I thought I'd
throw it out just to stir the pot :)
......Andrew
--
Andrew Case |
ac...@plasma.umd.edu |
Institute for Plasma Research |
University of Maryland, College Park |
Rand Simberg
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
>>Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
>>the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
>>successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
>>budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
>
>He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
>NASA internal politics as well as he does. Given the right incentives
>he could play the whole organization like a banjo. The only problem
>is that the incentives need to be structured just exactly right so
>that his response corresponds to desirable goals, which might be
>asking a little too much of the administration. Still, I thought I'd
>throw it out just to stir the pot :)
I can't imagine two individuals farther apart. Abbey is one of the
reasons NASA is such a mess.
Gregg Germain
: Pat Kelley <cpke...@spacetrans.com> wrote:
:>You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
:>Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
:>the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
:>successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
:>budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
: He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
: NASA internal politics as well as he does. Given the right incentives
: he could play the whole organization like a banjo. The only problem
: is that the incentives need to be structured just exactly right so
: that his response corresponds to desirable goals, which might be
: asking a little too much of the administration. Still, I thought I'd
: throw it out just to stir the pot :)
Wasn't Abbey the one who was relegated to VP in charge of counting
trash cans in Houston? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Mark R. Whittington
Tom Moorman seems to be the best of the people who've been menetioned. I'd
also support Jess Sponable.
"David Findlay" <david_j...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2001.10.19.2...@yahoo.com.au...
Andrew Case
>ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>in such a way as to indicate that:
>>He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
>>NASA internal politics as well as he does.
>I can't imagine two individuals farther apart. Abbey is one of the
>reasons NASA is such a mess.
Yup - I'm not really serious, just wanted to make the point (albeit
in a roundabout way) that the person at the top needs a weird set
of skills that may not be good in other circumstances. Abbey seems
to have a management style better suited to North Korean or Iraqi
styles of government. BUT: he knows the system as it currently
exists, and he knows where the pressure points and loopholes are.
No outsider will ever have that kind of knowledge. To reform the
beast without enormous disruption will require exactly this information.
Since the administration doesn't seem to have the will to create
the required enormous disruption the choices seem to me to be either
an insider (who is necessarily tainted by having attained his position
and understanding by manipulation of the system as it currently exists),
or a marginally effective outsider. There's always the chance of a knight
in shining armor, but I'm not hopeful.
B-Chan
Bruce Lewis
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Wow! And I thought the General (and William, when he's not feeling depressed)
were the only cool guys on this newsgroup!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
elif...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
George William Herbert
>I nominate Mr. Gary C. Hudson.
You're years too late:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v0rl0n.10weta136b33rz%40hq.nasa.gov&output=gplain
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
B-Chan
>
> > I nominate Mr. Gary C. Hudson.
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Wow! And I thought the General (and William, when he's not feeling depressed)
> were the only cool guys on this newsgroup!"
Thanks. I'm one of the few here that still believes in the vision of
jut-jawed, two-fisted, clean-shaven American Domination of Space instead
of "scientific, market-based approaches to microgravity utilization" or
whatever term they're using for our current half-assed approach to Space
these days.
(Philip Bono would puke.)
Well, I say screw science, and screw the markets, too -- I want total,
nuclear-powered, flame-spouting Space Conquest, and I want it now.
Manifest Destiny with a space helmet -- that's the string I pluck.
As for my choice of Mr. Hudson: Others in our community talk, file
position papers, wax enthusiastic over the latest NASA Cosmic Dust
Explorer mission, or support a "gradual, intelligent approach to space
policy." Meanwhile, Mr. Hudson goes out and builds the damned rocket,
and one with rotors and fins at that. If for no other reason than the
grand, beautiful, doomed Roton project, he deserves to be running the
show.
(Okay, not the fins, but you know what I mean.)
If anybody's doing anything to forward jut-jawed, two-fisted,
clean-shaven American Conquest of Space, it's Gary C. Hudson. He doesn't
need to be NASA Admin; he needs to be the Secretary of the Department of
Space Exploration and Colonization, with a Manhattan Project-class
budget and a mandate from God.
Bruce Lewis
(Speaking only for myself; opinions expressed are solely my own)
Gregg Germain
: Well, I say screw science, and screw the markets, too -- I want total,
: nuclear-powered, flame-spouting Space Conquest, and I want it now.
: Manifest Destiny with a space helmet -- that's the string I pluck.
: Bruce Lewis
: (Speaking only for myself; opinions expressed are solely my own)
For that we are all very grateful ;^)
B-Chan
>
> B-Chan <bc...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> : Well, I say screw science, and screw the markets, too -- I want total,
> : nuclear-powered, flame-spouting Space Conquest, and I want it now.
> : Manifest Destiny with a space helmet -- that's the string I pluck.
>
> : Bruce Lewis
> : (Speaking only for myself; opinions expressed are solely my own)
>
> For that we are all very grateful ;^)
You'll thank me someday -- by PicturePhone®, from the lobby of the HoJos
on Space Station V.
Bruce
Thomas Lee Elifritz
My sentiments exactly, except that I don't think that nuclear energy is required to
get the job done, or even a very good idea within the Earth's environment, and the
near Earth and near Sol environment. It's a pretty sure be in deep space, though.
As everybody around here well knows, I'm a BIG fan of HUGE reusable multipurpose
rockets, as long as they are powered by big turbopump fed engines, using cryogenic
hydrogen and oxygen only, TSTO, near SSTO, or RLVs, it doesn't matter to me. I
think it can be done in aluminum too, nothing too fancy, except the avionics and
the energy conversion, and minimal hydraulics. You can catch me flaming over at
sci.energy.hydrogen. How else are we going to get off the Saudi oil, and onto clean
solar photons from nuclear fusion?
Rocket powered ultralights just don't do it for me. :-)
It's do or die as far as I'm concerned.
I nominate ME. :-)
Thomas Lee Elifritz
elif...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
Ian Stirling
>On 19 Oct 2001 12:37:39 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>daveb...@aol.com (davebananna) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best
>>>after him would be
>>>Carl Sagan.
>>
>>....also pushing up daisies
>And in addition to the fact that they're metabolically challenged,
>neither of them would be well suited to the job.
Korolev?
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"The theory of everything falls out trivially." -- Etherman, sci.physics kook.
Joann Evans
He's too smart to get involved in that manegerial quagmire.
But maybe if they could give him a free hand at DARPA....
Thomas Lee Elifritz
You are a legendary steely eyed missile guy, on a mission from God.
Keep up the good work. Keep spreading the Good Word!
I nominate you.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
elif...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~eelifritz
David Findlay
>>From: "David Findlay" david_j...@yahoo.com.au
>
>>Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best after him would
>>be
>>Carl Sagan.
>
> ...also pushing up daisies
When did Carl Sagan die? :-(
David
GCHudson
[snip]
>If anybody's doing anything to forward jut-jawed, two-fisted,
>clean-shaven American Conquest of Space, it's Gary C. Hudson. He doesn't
>need to be NASA Admin; he needs to be the Secretary of the Department of
>Space Exploration and Colonization, with a Manhattan Project-class
>budget and a mandate from God.
I'm flattered, which happens all too frequently these days. But only with a
letter signed by the President and the Majority Leaders written along the lines
of the "Cardinal Richelieu letter " (sometimes known as the "get out of jail
free letter):"
"The bearer of this note has done what he has done by my hand and for the good
of the state."
Gary C Hudson
Jim Kingdon
> take the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
> successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
> budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
I like the idea, at least if he could get used to Washington, where
you have this whole President-Congress-OMB triangle, not to mention
other such things like the oft-discussed NASA Center-NASA
contractor-Congress triangle. I'm sure private companies have
disparate power bases and such too, but Washington brings it to a
whole new level.
Having said all that, I could support Tito...
Christopher M. Jones
Steve Wachowski
> When did Carl Sagan die? :-(
Dec. 20, 1996
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec96/saganobit.ltb.html
hrtbreak
improvement over Goldin or Abbey---ambient-temperature metabolism and all.
(Why do you suppose Goldin announced his resignation just a few days before
they find out if the latest Mars mission is going to make orbit?)
Now if I were in charge of NASA, the first thing I'd do is send some of
those out-of-work open-pit miners down to Houston to dig a giant hole in the
Longhorn pasture at JSC so they could bulldoze the whole site into it.
Things would go a lot smoother then.
JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
"Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3bd04...@cfanews.harvard.edu...
> Andrew Case <ac...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
> : Pat Kelley <cpke...@spacetrans.com> wrote:
> :>You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
[cut]
> : He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
> : NASA internal politics as well as he does.
[cut]
maxbeerbohm
"GCHudson" <gchu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019234459...@mb-cc.aol.com...
Gary,
Thank you for the best laugh I've had today. You have a fine taste in
literature, by the way.
Tell me, who should the exceutioner of Lille shorten?
Phil Fraering
> Any of the dead guys mentioned (Roddenberry, Korolev, Sagan) would be an
> improvement over Goldin or Abbey---ambient-temperature metabolism and all.
> (Why do you suppose Goldin announced his resignation just a few days before
> they find out if the latest Mars mission is going to make orbit?)
>
> Now if I were in charge of NASA, the first thing I'd do is send some of
> those out-of-work open-pit miners down to Houston to dig a giant hole in the
> Longhorn pasture at JSC so they could bulldoze the whole site into it.
> Things would go a lot smoother then.
You say this as if the head of NASA would have authority to do that.
I'm beginning to think the Professional Goldin Haters all share a
common characteristic: they believe things are a lot better than they
really are, and that just getting rid of the apparently lousy manager
will magically let the system reform itself.
This is a "rosy scenario" in the extreme.
Phil
Edward Lyons
Mark R. Whittington <mwhit...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:9qpgl3$v15$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Someone who can clean up the mess.
> Tom Moorman seems to be the best of the people who've been menetioned. I'd
> also support Jess Sponable.
>
>
It doesn't really matter who becomes the new Administrator of NASA. What
matters is whether his political taskmasters will allow him to do anything.
The Administrator does not run NASA -- he is the figurehead put in place to
represent the policies handed down or allowed to him by the Administration
and Congress. It doesn't matter if the Administrator (or anyone else in
NASA) has "the vision thing" if it doesn't stretch all the way up to Capitol
Hill and the White House.
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
David Findlay
> You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone. Personally, I'd like to
> see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take the job. He has a JPL background, so credible
> space credentials, successful businessman who has run a large organization with large budgets,
> and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should never be comercialised,
it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to see someone with the same drive as Korolov or
Von Braun to take over. They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have charisma, to be
able to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
David
Doug Jones
>
> Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should never
> be comercialised, it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to see someone
> with the same drive as Korolov or Von Braun to take over. They would be much
> better. And whoever it is has to have charisma, to be able to convince congress
> to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
Your position seems irrational; what is so bad about commercializing
space? Incidentally, the largest portion of space launches has, for
years, been communication satellites, a commercial enterprise. Space
has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
Also, experience from the 20th century shows that truly attempting to
make anything "free for the people" is a short ride to totalitarian
oppression, high costs, and little access for the people for whom the
mission is allegedly undertaken. Both Von Braun and Korolov were
political animals who were utterly comfortable with the use of slave
labor and courted the favor of tyrants, poor role models in many eyes.
Many of us feel it is not congress' duty to send people to Mars or other
interesting places, but rather our own task to do- while turning a
profit.
Tito for Administrator!
--
Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- B. Franklin
David Findlay
> David Findlay wrote:
>>
>> Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should never be
>> comercialised, it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to see someone with the same drive
>> as Korolov or Von Braun to take over. They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have
>> charisma, to be able to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
>
> Your position seems irrational; what is so bad about commercializing space? Incidentally, the
> largest portion of space launches has, for years, been communication satellites, a commercial
> enterprise. Space has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
Harm, I'll show you harm. What about the irrational idea of dropping 88 satelites into the upper
atmosphere, risking lives, and wasting money and effort.
> Also, experience from the 20th century shows that truly attempting to make anything "free for
> the people" is a short ride to totalitarian oppression, high costs, and little access for the
> people for whom the mission is allegedly undertaken. Both Von Braun and Korolov were political
> animals who were utterly comfortable with the use of slave labor and courted the favor of
> tyrants, poor role models in many eyes.
You don't seem to have noticed the open source revolution. It revolves around freedom and
working together for the best outcome. I don't seem to remember paying $1000 for Linux, and
Linus Torvalds isn't whipping me to do his bidding.... :-)
David
ralph buttigieg
Ehh??
What 88 satellites are your reffering to? Iridium? They actually launched
less then
that and the company has been reorganised and is still running under new
ownership.
ta
Ralph
David Findlay wrote in message ...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> In <3BD27671...@qnet.com>, Doug Jones wrote:
>
> > David Findlay wrote:
> > Your position seems irrational; what is so bad about commercializing
space? Incidentally, the
> > largest portion of space launches has, for years, been communication
satellites, a commercial
> > enterprise. Space has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
>
> Harm, I'll show you harm. What about the irrational idea of dropping 88
satelites into the upper
> atmosphere, risking lives, and wasting money and effort.
Risking lives? Yeah right.
Wasting money? The money "wasted" was by investors who knew the risks. It
didn't cost ME a dime. (Well not until the Feds bought time in "new"
company.
I'd prefer that to the money wasted in taxpayers name.
Who exactly do you expect to pay for this "free" space?
>
> > Also, experience from the 20th century shows that truly attempting to
make anything "free for
> > the people" is a short ride to totalitarian oppression, high costs, and
little access for the
> > people for whom the mission is allegedly undertaken. Both Von Braun and
Korolov were political
> > animals who were utterly comfortable with the use of slave labor and
courted the favor of
> > tyrants, poor role models in many eyes.
>
> You don't seem to have noticed the open source revolution. It revolves
around freedom and
> working together for the best outcome. I don't seem to remember paying
$1000 for Linux, and
> Linus Torvalds isn't whipping me to do his bidding.... :-)
>
Ah, I see, a wide eyed dream boy. I'll tell you something about the Open
Source Revolution. For one thing Linus is a late comer. Two, despite its
impact a large majority of the money made using computers is still made
using software and OS's are bought commercially. Three: when you can get
server class machines for free and you can get people to run your data
centers for free (let's not even talk about the smashing success of Linux on
the desktop) THEN you can crow about how much the open source revolution has
changed things.
Let me know when reality gives you that cold hard slap in the face.
> David
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> In <3BD02F61...@earthlink.net>, Pat Kelley wrote:
>
> > You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
Personally, I'd like to
> > see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take the job. He has a JPL
background, so credible
> > space credentials, successful businessman who has run a large
organization with large budgets,
> > and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
>
> Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should
never be comercialised,
Far to late.
> it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to see someone with the same
drive as Korolov or
> Von Braun to take over.
Ah yes, the Communist master and the apolitical leader.
> They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have charisma, to be
> able to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
>
Umm, that's nice and all, but sorry, if Congress is gonna pay for this,
I damn well want it to be an American. Now, if other countries want to get
in there and pay their share (such as with ISS) that's fine by me too.
> David
Andrew Case
>Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space
>should never be comercialised, it should be free for the people. I'd
>prefer to see someone with the same drive as Korolov or Von Braun to
>take over. They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have
>charisma, to be able to convince congress to send man(*not america*)
>to Mars and beyond.
Ack! 'free for the people' == 'commercialized'
Without the ability to buy and sell, what is freedom? The freedom
to do wahtever Big Government tells you is OK? Huge inefficient
government programs cannot create a permanent presence in space,
not to mention the fact that the tax dollars so spent would be better
spent on other areas, or returned to the people. The idea of a glorious
visionary leading a government effort as the path to space is a relic of
the cold war. If private citizens are going to go to space it will have to
be as part of some commercial venture. Commerce isn't evil, it just is.
Certainly there are plenty of examples of the fruits of commerce being
harmful, but there are uncountably more in which those fruits are
beneficial.
......Andrew
--
Andrew Case |
ac...@plasma.umd.edu |
Institute for Plasma Research |
University of Maryland, College Park |
Andrew Case
>You don't seem to have noticed the open source revolution. It
>revolves around freedom and working together for the best outcome. I
>don't seem to remember paying $1000 for Linux, and
>Linus Torvalds isn't whipping me to do his bidding.... :-)
1) Linus Torvalds built the Linux Kernel, and GNU built the rest,
while there was plenty of commercialization of the marketplace.
Commerce did nothing to stop them, and arguably helped, since
the Linux market was primed by people pissed off at MSWindows.
2) The government had nothing to do with the creation of Linux.
3) Rockets aren't software. People are trying open source rocket
projects, and none so far have been outstandingly successful.
Anthony Roberts
> neither of them would be well suited to the job.
They'd want to see a significant human presence in space. There's no way
that would be tolerated.
Henry Spencer
David Findlay <david_j...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> ...Space has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
>
>Harm, I'll show you harm. What about the irrational idea of dropping 88
>satelites into the upper atmosphere, risking lives, and wasting money
>and effort.
Are you unaware that government agencies have been dropping satellites --
including much larger ones -- into the upper atmosphere for decades now?
The money and effort that went into Iridium were wasted before launch,
because of miscalculations about how useful the system would be to its
intended customers. Bringing the satellites down (which is not now
planned, at least as long as they keep working) would not change that.
--
Many things changed on Sept. 11, but the | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
importance of freedom did not. -SpaceNews| (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
Rand Simberg
Roberts" <NOSPAManthonyr-a...@hotmail.com> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> And in addition to the fact that they're metabolically challenged,
That is a necessary, but by no means sufficient condition. And
actually, depending on how define "significant," I'm not sure that
Sagan ever really wanted that.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
George William Herbert
>Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman.
>Space should never be comercialised, it should be free for the
>people.
Um.
Space is *empty*.
If someone wants to make money parking a communications
satellite in some corner of geosynchronous orbit, as long
as it doesn't interfere with anyone else, what's wrong with that?
If someone wants to make money flying people into space,
what's wrong with that?
Space is accessable to anyone who can afford to go, now.
What will make it "free for the people" is not turning it
into a socialist or communist heaven. What will make it
"free for the people" is making it cheap enough that
"the people" are free to enjoy or participate.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
David Findlay
> Let me know when reality gives you that cold hard slap in the face.
I'll let you know when I pass Mach 25. :-)
David
Joann Evans
Von Braun and Korolev were driven by the Cold War. Do you consider
that as preferable to the 'evil' profit motive that made the computer
you're using more than an extremely expensive government/business toy?
Like it or not, the Cold War is over. Just as well, as it always had
the potential to become a 'Hot War.' If a business approach fails, some
workers and shareholders lose, but civilization (and other businesses)
go on...
Joann Evans
>
> In <3BD27671...@qnet.com>, Doug Jones wrote:
>
> > David Findlay wrote:
> >>
> >> Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should never be
> >> comercialised, it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to see someone with the same drive
> >> as Korolov or Von Braun to take over. They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have
> >> charisma, to be able to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
> >
> > Your position seems irrational; what is so bad about commercializing space? Incidentally, the
> > largest portion of space launches has, for years, been communication satellites, a commercial
> > enterprise. Space has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
>
> Harm, I'll show you harm. What about the irrational idea of dropping 88 satelites into the upper
> atmosphere, risking lives, and wasting money and effort.
If you're talking about Iridium, it was bad busines decisions, and
technology that wasn't sufficently low cost. Are you saying government
(who is left?) could've done beter? The only alternative would be to
continue to prop up an unprofitable system with taxes.
And the satelites are of sufficently low mass to be comletely
destroyed in the upper atmosphere. The Russians destructively re-enter
Progress and other, more massive objects all the time. When it can be
done under control, over oceans, we've seen even entire space stations
can be brought down without hazard.
> > Also, experience from the 20th century shows that truly attempting to make anything "free for
> > the people" is a short ride to totalitarian oppression, high costs, and little access for the
> > people for whom the mission is allegedly undertaken. Both Von Braun and Korolov were political
> > animals who were utterly comfortable with the use of slave labor and courted the favor of
> > tyrants, poor role models in many eyes.
>
> You don't seem to have noticed the open source revolution. It revolves around freedom and
> working together for the best outcome. I don't seem to remember paying $1000 for Linux, and
> Linus Torvalds isn't whipping me to do his bidding.... :-)
>
> David
Working on hardware that exists only because various
computer/processor manufacturers were in competition with each other,
Open Source works because the entry costs are small. Small experimental
aircraftare as close as you'll get to using the Open Source model in
space transportation development for the forseeable future. Until
advanced nanotech enters the picture, there aren't likely to be OC
spacecraft.
David Ball
wrote:
How about Sam Nunn? He was head of the senate armed forces
subcommittee for many years. He definately knows washington and I
would imagine he's familiar with the military side of the space
program. He's also one of the few congresscritters that I actually
respect.
-- David
B-Chan
LOL
B-Chan
> He's too smart to get involved in that manegerial quagmire.
>
> But maybe if they could give him a free hand at DARPA....
Oh, I agree completely. With all due respect to the NASA folks, letting
the government run the space program is like letting the Postal Service
run the airlines. Still if we must have a NASA Admin, why not a
steely-eyed missleman?
"Gary, I want a U.S. flag on the moon by next Christmas. And not just a
flag -- a whole colony. 200 people. Damn the expense. Can you do it?"
"Yes, Mr. President. You did say 'damn the expense', right? Okay. I'll
need a shipyard. And some nuclear bombs -- oh, two or three hundred
ought to do, I guess. And I want the following people put on the payroll..."
Bruce Lewis
Rand Simberg
<bc...@airmail.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>Oh, I agree completely. With all due respect to the NASA folks, letting
>the government run the space program is like letting the Postal Service
>run the airlines.
Actually, the proposal to federalize airline security is somewhat akin
to that, unfortunately.
Andrew Case
><bc...@airmail.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
>as to indicate that:
>
>>Oh, I agree completely. With all due respect to the NASA folks, letting
>>the government run the space program is like letting the Postal Service
>>run the airlines.
>
>Actually, the proposal to federalize airline security is somewhat akin
>to that, unfortunately.
Not really. The feds checking bags is a far cry from the feds flying the
planes (and setting the schedules). Federalizing airline security may have
only a modest impact on flight safety, but given the pitiful skills of the
current crop (70% of BWI screeners flunked a security knowledge test after
the attacks) a modest improvement is huge in relative terms. We only
needed about a 20% hit rate to prevent at least one of the attacks last
month. I'd rather just have monster fines for screening companies that
flunk tests, though. They'd figure out how to spot undercover feds
really well :)
Not that I expect you to agree, though.
Rand Simberg
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Actually, the proposal to federalize airline security is somewhat akin
>>to that, unfortunately.
>
>Not really. The feds checking bags is a far cry from the feds flying the
>planes (and setting the schedules).
I only meant as far as security goes--not in running the airlines
overall--that's why I said "somewhat akin."
>Federalizing airline security may have
>only a modest impact on flight safety, but given the pitiful skills of the
>current crop (70% of BWI screeners flunked a security knowledge test after
>the attacks) a modest improvement is huge in relative terms.
I'm certainly not defending the current crop. I just don't think that
setting up another work force of unfireable, unionized civil servants
is the answer, either. If we're really going to federalize that
function, it would be better to make it a uniformed service, with
esprit de corps (and no AFSCME), more like the Coast Guard.
>I'd rather just have monster fines for screening companies that
>flunk tests, though. They'd figure out how to spot undercover feds
>really well :)
>
>Not that I expect you to agree, though.
Actually, I do agree. I have no objection to setting and enforcing
stringent standards for private security operators. Of course, I
think that security should be focused on bombs slipped on board, and
allow the rest of us to arm ourselves as we perceive to be necessary
(same rules as CCW states). ;-)
Shardrukar
B-Chan <bc...@airmail.net> writes:
>"Gary, I want a U.S. flag on the moon by next Christmas. And not just a
>flag -- a whole colony. 200 people. Damn the expense. Can you do it?"
>
>"Yes, Mr. President. You did say 'damn the expense', right? Okay. I'll
>need a shipyard. And some nuclear bombs -- oh, two or three hundred
>ought to do, I guess. And I want the following people put on the payroll..."
>
We wouldn't need Orions to fulfill that mission. We have more than enough lift
technology, we'd just have to up the production and turn-around schedules a
little on the HLV classes that are existant. With an unlimited budget, and very
little "new" hardware, this would be relatively simple.The hardest part of the
schedule would be assuring adequate training of the "manned" element of the
mission.
B-Chan
>
> In article <CB99178401ED38EC.39936224...@lp.airnews.net>,
> B-Chan <bc...@airmail.net> writes:
>
> >"Gary, I want a U.S. flag on the moon by next Christmas. And not just a
> >flag -- a whole colony. 200 people. Damn the expense. Can you do it?"
> >
> >"Yes, Mr. President. You did say 'damn the expense', right? Okay. I'll
> >need a shipyard. And some nuclear bombs -- oh, two or three hundred
> >ought to do, I guess. And I want the following people put on the payroll..."
> >
>
Yeah, but who cares? Build them anyway. Name the first one USS MANIFEST
DESTINY. Paint an American flag on the side, a shark's mouth on the
nose, and let 'er rip.
The problem we face isn't a lack of technology, it's a lack of drama, of
inspiration, of adventure. We need BOLD SPACE CONQUEST here, not more
PowerPoint-trained Ph.Ds with Right Stuff talking about "maximizing of
synergy in the task space" or whatever. That dinky chemical rocket stuff
is boring. That growing-carrot-cells-in-microgravity jazz is so tired.
Americans hate that crap -- and they should. We need explorers riding
Big Pointy Things to the New Frontier, not more kerosene-fueled soda
cans full of Earnest Professionals on an orbit to nowhere.
Bruce Lewis
Henry Spencer
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote:
>>Federalizing airline security may have
>>only a modest impact on flight safety, but given the pitiful skills of the
>
>I'm certainly not defending the current crop. I just don't think that
>setting up another work force of unfireable, unionized civil servants
The key issues here are competition, and checks and balances. The people
hiring and training the screeners should *not* be the same folks who set
the standards and decide whether they are being met. Doesn't matter
whether they're private or government -- if you put them in charge of
their own performance evaluation, standards *will* slide once things quiet
down. And on each side of the fence, there should be at least some sense
that if you screw up, the other team on the same side will notice and
benefit.
On the operations side, the obvious way to do this is to keep it a private
function, with efforts to encourage competition (for example, by insisting
that some fraction of the business must go to small firms, to give new
entrants into the field a chance to get started).
On the regulatory side, we need significant funding for ongoing testing
and evaluation, and real consequences for getting a poor rating. Plus,
preferably, a second agency looking over the shoulder of the primary
regulator -- e.g., the FAA does normal testing and evaluation, but the FBI
gets funding and personnel to do some checking too (not just an occasional
spot check, but something regular enough that the FAA will see it as
potential competition).
Michael Walsh
David Findlay wrote:
> Personally I'd like ever Gene Roddenbury(sp?), but he's dead I think, so best after him would be
> Carl Sagan.
>
> David
Who is also dead.
Is your point that all the ones you think are good candidates are dead?
Mike Walsh
Thomas Lee Elifritz
You have some good points, but you are missing some good points too. Kerosene is
nasty, and we have to buy most of oil to make it, from the other countries. SRBs are
nastier still, but hey, they only fail once in a while, but we can make them in
America! Nuclear bombs are even more nasty, and now we have to deal with other
countries that have them too. Maybe we should be buying them up too.
However, SSME's are definitely NOT boring, and the RS-68, the RS-83, the "Cobra" or
whatever the hell else it's called, will be even less boring, especially if we
cluster them up without SRBs. We are talking about a clean, fast, steam driven,
elevator like ride to space, in gigantic aluminum spaceships, that have no reason at
all to return to earth, except to return the engines, as mandated by GOD!
Sure, in the beginning they will be soda cans, but soon they will be rock encrusted
soda cans, and later they will be nickel plated soda cans, and soon there will be six
packs and cases and semi-loads of soda cans, nickel plated and rock encrusted, filled
with water and covered with ice and silicon and silicon dioxide, and containing you
and me and a bunch of fabulous space babes, going to Mars and the stars and some
steamy jazz bars.
Water and chemistry and solar power will work just fine.
You need to see the big picture, one step at a time.
Best Regards,
Thomas Lee Elifritz
elif...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
However,
Joann Evans
>
> Shardrukar wrote:
> >
> > In article <CB99178401ED38EC.39936224...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > B-Chan <bc...@airmail.net> writes:
> >
> > >"Gary, I want a U.S. flag on the moon by next Christmas. And not just a
> > >flag -- a whole colony. 200 people. Damn the expense. Can you do it?"
> > >
> > >"Yes, Mr. President. You did say 'damn the expense', right? Okay. I'll
> > >need a shipyard. And some nuclear bombs -- oh, two or three hundred
> > >ought to do, I guess. And I want the following people put on the payroll..."
> > >
> >
> > We wouldn't need Orions to fulfill that mission...
>
> Yeah, but who cares?
Opponents with deep pockets, and the phone numbers of lots of
lawyers...
Nuclear detonations (espically on Earth) are more drama than some
people want. They'll have less of a problem with the 'kerosene soda
cans.' Do you want to spend half of your endless money on litigation,
during which *nothing* happens?
> Build them anyway. Name the first one USS MANIFEST
> DESTINY. Paint an American flag on the side, a shark's mouth on the
> nose, and let 'er rip.
>
> The problem we face isn't a lack of technology, it's a lack of drama, of
> inspiration, of adventure. We need BOLD SPACE CONQUEST here, not more
> PowerPoint-trained Ph.Ds with Right Stuff talking about "maximizing of
> synergy in the task space" or whatever. That dinky chemical rocket stuff
> is boring. That growing-carrot-cells-in-microgravity jazz is so tired.
> Americans hate that crap -- and they should. We need explorers riding
> Big Pointy Things to the New Frontier, not more kerosene-fueled soda
> cans full of Earnest Professionals on an orbit to nowhere.
>
> Bruce Lewis
Do you want to get there big and quick, or do you want drama? Don't
let yourself be decieved into thinking that they're exactly the same....
Stephen Souter
Findlay" <david_j...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> In <3BD02F61...@earthlink.net>, Pat Kelley wrote:
>
> > You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
> > Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
> > the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
> > successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
> > budgets,and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
>
> Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should
> never be comercialised, it should be free for the people.
Duh! That's like somebody in the days of Ferdinand and Isabella saying
travel across the Atlantic shouldn't be commercialised. :)
Free space travel, like a free Internet, is a nice ideal, but hopelessly
unrealistic.
> I'd prefer to
> see someone with the same drive as Korolov or Von Braun to take over. They
> would be much better. And whoever it is has to have charisma, to be able
> to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and beyond.
Why? Idealism aside, the only real reason for international space missions
would be to help defray the costs. It will not necessarily get you to Mars
(or beyond) any faster.
In any case, the problems America has had with the Russians over the ISS
have not, I suspect, done much to endear the idea of international manned
space missions to Congress.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
B-Chan
> > > We wouldn't need Orions to fulfill that mission...
> >
> > Yeah, but who cares?
>
> Opponents with deep pockets, and the phone numbers of lots of
> lawyers...
...in other words, people who have too much power as it is. (Remember
that in this particular fantasy scenario Mr. Hudson is the Secretary of
Space -- a Cabinet-level post -- and has a Manhattan Project style blank
check to work with. Anyone who gets in the way of the Moon Project gets squashed...)
> Nuclear detonations (espically on Earth) are more drama than some
> people want.
These people should be roundly ignored.
> They'll have less of a problem with the 'kerosene soda
> cans.' Do you want to spend half of your endless money on litigation,
> during which *nothing* happens?
No. I want the litigation ignored -- quashed _in camera_ by Federal
judges on the grounds of national security.
> Do you want to get there big and quick, or do you want drama? Don't
> let yourself be decieved into thinking that they're exactly the same....
May I rant?
What I want is for the cocky, optimistic,
eff-the-critics-we're-going-to-mars spirit of 1960 America to come back.
What I want is the big rocket, the moon city, the flying car, and the
kind of zeitgeist that made people believe in that stuff. What I want is
to see those who advocate "measured, methodical, cost-based approaches
to microgravity utilization" sitting tied to a chair in the Nevada
desert as a ten thousand ton battleship-steel atomic-powered
all-American space cruiser blasts its way into space using evil, dirty
nuclear bombs. I want to see teenage kids with posters of Jet Conroy,
commandant of the U.S. Lunar Territories, on their bedroom walls. I want
to see foreign newspapers decrying "U.S. space imperialism", and U.S.
citizens ignoring them. I want a window table at the Howard Johnson's
Earthlight Room on Space Station V. I want to see a NASA administrator
answer the question "But why go to space?" with a raised middle finger
and a snide "Because we're G--d----- Americans, Charlie, that's why." I
want my grandkids to visit me and grandma in Luna City. I want bold,
manly, because-it-is-there SPACE CONQUEST, of the kind that will inspire
and thrill the young people of this world the way Apollo did, an
all-out, full-court national crusade that will unite the nation the way
World War II did. I want my future back.
But I won't get it, of course. Because that stuff is "silly",
"unrealistic," and "not compatible with the realities of multinational,
coalition-building low-orbital infrastructure utilization" blah blah blah.
In other words: more of the same tired old pointless crap.
Bruce Lewis
Gregg Germain
: What I want is for the cocky, optimistic,
: eff-the-critics-we're-going-to-mars spirit of 1960 America to come back.
What you want to return, was never there in the first place.
--- Gregg
"Eschew surplusage."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Mark Twain
Phone: (617) 496-7237
Andrew Case
<rant>
B-Chan <bc...@airmail.net> wrote:
>What I want is for the cocky, optimistic,
>eff-the-critics-we're-going-to-mars spirit of 1960 America to come back.
It never existed outside the fantasies of a small minority.
>I want my future back.
You are living your future. It's a disappointment not because somebody
else failed to live up to your fantasies by blowing tax dollars on
huge socialist schemes dressed up in flag waving rhetoric about
'Americanism' all while persuing policies which are the antithesis of
the free market individualism which makes this country great, no - it's
a disappointment because you demand that others make your fantasies real.
Bring your fantasies to the cold reality of the way things actually are
and figure out how *YOU* can make a difference. Don't demand that somebody
else be Square-Jawed and Big-Balled while they hike my taxes for some
dumbass scheme that creates the United Socialist Lunar Empire - get off
your ass and do something yourself.
>In other words: more of the same tired old pointless crap.
The same tired old pointless crap is demanding that somebody else hand
you your dreams on a silver platter. Grow up. Get your hands dirty,
skin your knees, blow out your back actually doing something, even if
it's only making some money to donate to the groups that are building
rockets in their basements. Your demand that somebody else make your
dreams real is infantile.
</rant>
John Schilling
>Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote:
>><bc...@airmail.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
>>as to indicate that:
>>>Oh, I agree completely. With all due respect to the NASA folks, letting
>>>the government run the space program is like letting the Postal Service
>>>run the airlines.
>>Actually, the proposal to federalize airline security is somewhat akin
>>to that, unfortunately.
>Not really. The feds checking bags is a far cry from the feds flying the
>planes (and setting the schedules). Federalizing airline security may have
>only a modest impact on flight safety, but given the pitiful skills of the
>current crop (70% of BWI screeners flunked a security knowledge test after
>the attacks) a modest improvement is huge in relative terms.
What about a modest degredation? Remember, if we make this a civil
service function, 90% of the screeners can fail and we won't be able
to fire them.
(Yes, I know, oversimplification. We could in theory fire them; in
practice we won't)
>We only needed about a 20% hit rate to prevent at least one of the attacks
>last month.
How do you figure that? A "hit", at very best, means we find that someone
on the terrorist watch list was carrying a box cutter. On 9/11, a box
cutter was a tool, not a weapon, and the terrorist watch list was filled
with vague suspects of the presumed-innocent variety. This does not add
up to a flight being cancelled, it adds up to a flight being hijacked by
four rather than five knife-wielding terrorists.
If they'd tried to use guns, yes, catching one might have set off enough
alarms to do some good. But the new standard of keeping terrorists from
bringing pocketknifes aboard airliners is impossible to achieve no matter
who we put on the job. The false-positive rate will be too high for
sustained vigilance by anything human, most of the true positives will
be innocent mistakes for which draconian punishment is impolitic, and so
the standards will be relaxed to the point where a terrorist wishing to
smuggle a knife will rightly anticipate success and fear no more than a
try-again-tomorrow wrist slap.
The no-knives standard is on the edge of feasibility for soldiers or
prison inmates, but not for a population as heterogeneous and undisciplined
as the American public. Even no-guns is barely practical, and the screeners
more a visible deterrent for amateurs than a serious defense against the
professionals.
As in most areas, the security of airline travel depends far more on how
we respond to attack than on the imagined impermeability of the barriers
we set up against attack. United 93 showed us how we have to respond,
and that response has since been enhanced, reinforced, and codified.
Do not let hijackers have control of an airliner, no matter the cost,
period. Implement by means of reinforced doors, resolute passengers
and crew, armed marshals, or at the last by F-16s. We can not now stop
terrorists from smugling knives or even guns aboard airliners, any more
than we could two months ago. But they can not now profit by doing so.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
rk
> On the regulatory side, we need significant funding for ongoing testing
> and evaluation, and real consequences for getting a poor rating. Plus,
> preferably, a second agency looking over the shoulder of the primary
> regulator -- e.g., the FAA does normal testing and evaluation, but the FBI
> gets funding and personnel to do some checking too (not just an occasional
> spot check, but something regular enough that the FAA will see it as
> potential competition).
On a related note, there was a "Viewpoint" by USAF Gen. (ret.) J. Loh,
who served on the Gore commission on aviation safety and security, in
the 10/8/2001 AW&ST. He discusses all of the things that were never
done, including the annual compliance report, with no report since 1998.
I think the main answer is to give someone - an identifiable,
responsible person with a specific name - both the responsibility and
authority to do a well-defined job and to have an independent means of
verification who has some teeth to fix problems. I not that the article
covers this and how it has failed, as the problems have been documented
by the independent verification entity.
I think Rudy G. will be looking for work Jan. 1 and hasn't shown any
problems with tackling stubborn organizations and shaking things up.
--
rk
Just an OldEngineer
Stephen Souter
> David Findlay wrote:
> >
> > Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should
> > never be comercialised, it should be free for the people. I'd prefer to
> > see someone with the same drive as Korolov or Von Braun to take over.
> > They would be much better. And whoever it is has to have charisma, to
> > be able to convince congress to send man(*not america*) to Mars and
> > beyond.
>
> Your position seems irrational; what is so bad about commercializing
> space? Incidentally, the largest portion of space launches has, for
> years, been communication satellites, a commercial enterprise. Space
> has *been* commercialized, with little harm.
But little good either. Commercial communications satellites may be going
up, but how many commercial MANNED missions?
There may be plans for those out there, but it's still not clear how many
will end up being actually realised, at least in the near-term; and the
same might be said for unmanned missions beyond Earth orbit by commercial
ventures. (I've noticed a number of the latter have had launch dates that
seem to keep receding into the future like a desert mirage you try to
approach.)
Some on this newsgroup have got grand visions for large-scale lunar
industries, fleets of SPSes built by people in Earth orbit, etc, But if
we're going to rely wholly, or eveb largely, on commercial companies and
the market to realise these I suspect we'll be waiting rather longer than
most of us would like. :)
> Also, experience from the 20th century shows that truly attempting to
> make anything "free for the people" is a short ride to totalitarian
> oppression, high costs, and little access for the people for whom the
> mission is allegedly undertaken. Both Von Braun and Korolov were
> political animals who were utterly comfortable with the use of slave
> labor and courted the favor of tyrants, poor role models in many eyes.
Whereas, of course, in the Land of Commerce no company has ever made use
of slave labour (trade unions are, of course, a myth; not to mention the
Civil War), courted a tyrant (it wasn't the America military which did
Hitler in; it was American companies boycotting him), or been anything
less than a sterling role model for the youth of America.
> Many of us feel it is not congress' duty to send people to Mars or other
> interesting places, but rather our own task to do- while turning a
> profit.
I'm curious. Just how exactly would the first manned trip to Mars turn a
profit? By selling tickets to multi-millionaires like Dennis Tito or by
claiming the mineral rights to the Red Planet?
Or will they expect to be underwritten by the US taxpayer before they leave?
And when exactly might we expect it to lift off?
I notice one 1997 webpage (http://exn.net/Stories/1997/05/26/03.asp) makes
mention of Japan's Obayashi Corporation having plans for a Mars colony,
but the date they have in mind for it is 2061. That sort of suggests
Obayashi is not anticipating trips to Mars will be commercially viable
until sometime around the middle of 21st Century.
Which in turn suggests that there will be no commercial trips to Mars (or
even the Moon) until the costs of getting there have been brought down.
Yet if nobody actually goes (or at least makes the effort) there will be
no incentive for firms to make the effort (paper studies aside) to bring
down costs.
Which in its own turn suggests we are more likely to see commercial manned
missions into orbit and the Moon before they go anywhere beyond, by which
time the technology to get to Mars at a profitable rate might be
available.
Yet that in its own turn suggests the first trip to Mars, if left up to
market forces and the profit motive, could easily be four or five (or
more) decades away.
Andrew Case
[I wrote]
>>We only needed about a 20% hit rate to prevent at least one of the attacks
>>last month.
>
>How do you figure that? A "hit", at very best, means we find that someone
>on the terrorist watch list was carrying a box cutter.
A hit means you know something bad is planned. It means that security
is ratcheted up dramatically, possibly deterring some attackers from even
trying, subjecting everyone to closer scrutiny, making further hits more
likely. Under the current system, a hit means the guy loses his boxcutter
and has to board the plane unarmed, while the security people try to
minimize the fuss so as not to spook the passengers. Under the current
system, the security people are there as window dressing, to make people
*feel* safe, not to actually make them safe.
>On 9/11, a box
>cutter was a tool, not a weapon, and the terrorist watch list was filled
>with vague suspects of the presumed-innocent variety. This does not add
>up to a flight being cancelled, it adds up to a flight being hijacked by
>four rather than five knife-wielding terrorists.
Under the current system, you are quite right. Under a system run by
somebody answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport
profits, the dynamics change substantially.
>As in most areas, the security of airline travel depends far more on how
>we respond to attack than on the imagined impermeability of the barriers
>we set up against attack.
100% agreement. That does not mean, however, that the current lassez-faire
airport security is an acceptable state of affairs. I don't support
federalizing security over an approach based on independent operators
subject to strict controls and checks, and answerable not to the airlines
or the airports, but to the feds. My response to Rand was merely a quibble
over the nature of the proposed federalization.
>United 93 showed us how we have to respond,
>and that response has since been enhanced, reinforced, and codified.
>Do not let hijackers have control of an airliner, no matter the cost,
>period. Implement by means of reinforced doors, resolute passengers
>and crew, armed marshals, or at the last by F-16s.
Again, 100% agreement
>We can not now stop
>terrorists from smugling knives or even guns aboard airliners, any more
>than we could two months ago. But they can not now profit by doing so.
We can make it substantially harder than it was, or even than it is
right now. Technology, training, a better knowledge of the threat,
all can be brought to bear on this issue. There is still the problem of
terrorists attacking the plane itself - knowing that it's harder doesn't
mean they won't try - even if they fail to crash it into the desired
target they can still kill several hundred people and get big press.
Michael Kent
> It doesn't really matter who becomes the new Administrator of NASA. What
> matters is whether his political taskmasters will allow him to do anything.
> The Administrator does not run NASA -- he is the figurehead put in place to
> represent the policies handed down or allowed to him by the Administration
> and Congress. It doesn't matter if the Administrator (or anyone else in
> NASA) has "the vision thing" if it doesn't stretch all the way up to Capitol
> Hill and the White House.
Much overstated, IMO. The Administrator's sandbox is bound pretty
tightly by the boundaries set by the Congress and the administration
(primarily the OMB). But within this sandbox the NASA Administrator has
substantial leeway to act, provided he knows how to play his political
cards.
The boundaries are his budget (~$14 billion) and that he must spread
money around (to the Centers, to certain Congressional districts, and to
the proper demographics). His political cards are mainly that he must
get approval for major programs from the proper committees and that he
must not embarrass his supporters by appearing to waste money.
Within these boundaries the mandate of "do something in space" applies.
That's a pretty broad mandate. Goldin and ISS are in trouble because
they embarrassed too many people with their constant overruns. If the
program were properly managed, follow-on efforts to address many of
ISS's shortcomings would almost certainly be funded. (Again, IMO.)
Mike
Michael Kent
> With all due respect to the NASA folks, letting
> the government run the space program is like letting the Postal Service
> run the airlines. Still if we must have a NASA Admin, why not a
> steely-eyed missleman?
>
> "Gary, I want a U.S. flag on the moon by next Christmas. And not just a
> flag -- a whole colony. 200 people. Damn the expense. Can you do it?"
>
> "Yes, Mr. President. You did say 'damn the expense', right? Okay. I'll
> need a shipyard. And some nuclear bombs -- oh, two or three hundred
> ought to do, I guess. And I want the following people put on the payroll..."
Padon me, but are you serious? Are you honestly under the delusion that
this is possible? Or even desirable?
Mike
Edward Wright
> Under the current system, you are quite right. Under a system run by
> somebody answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport
> profits, the dynamics change substantially.
Of course, this is nothing more than political rhetoric. The standards
for airline security prior to September 11 *were* set by "somebody
answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport profits."
It wasn't the airlines who decided pilots should passively cooperate
with hijackers, it was the Feds. The hijackings succeeded not because
the Federal standards weren't followed by private enterprise, but
because they *were*.
pat
or Andy Grove?
Rudy Giuliani?
or William Daley?
Maybe a federal judge who has taken a Federal dept into receivership
like Judge Green?
"Andrew Case" <ac...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:9qpell$f...@z.glue.umd.edu...
> Pat Kelley <cpke...@spacetrans.com> wrote:
> >You seem to have a thing for promoting dead people - Sagan also gone.
> >Personally, I'd like to see someone try to convince Dennis Tito to take
> >the job. He has a JPL background, so credible space credentials,
> >successful businessman who has run a large organization with large
> >budgets, and he's definitely in favor of space tourism.
>
> He's my first nominee, too. My second is Abbey - nobody understands
> NASA internal politics as well as he does. Given the right incentives
> he could play the whole organization like a banjo. The only problem
> is that the incentives need to be structured just exactly right so
> that his response corresponds to desirable goals, which might be
> asking a little too much of the administration. Still, I thought I'd
> throw it out just to stir the pot :)
Henry Spencer
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Which in turn suggests that there will be no commercial trips to Mars (or
>even the Moon) until the costs of getting there have been brought down.
Quite true. And the same is true of the government agencies. Without the
Cold War, they no longer have the political backing needed to spend huge
amounts on symbolic space ventures. (Apollo was not about science; the
political backing for large expenditures on science in space has never
been strong.)
*NOBODY* is going to Mars until the costs of getting there have been
brought down, a lot. Nobody.
>Yet that in its own turn suggests the first trip to Mars, if left up to
>market forces and the profit motive, could easily be four or five (or
>more) decades away.
You can take out the middle clause of that sentence without affecting its
validity.
Andrew Case
>ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
>> Under the current system, you are quite right. Under a system run by
>> somebody answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport
>> profits, the dynamics change substantially.
>Of course, this is nothing more than political rhetoric. The standards
>for airline security prior to September 11 *were* set by "somebody
>answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport profits."
>It wasn't the airlines who decided pilots should passively cooperate
>with hijackers, it was the Feds.
In the part you snipped it was made quite clear that I was talking about
the passenger screening process. I agree that the policy regarding
cooperation is dumb. It has been changed. The fact that 70% of screeners
at BWI failed a test of security knowledge *after* the attacks is
due entirely to the fact that the screening companies were not answerable
to an independent authority for the competence of their employees.
I'm all in favor of private enterprise solutions, but without serious
checks and balances, effective security will lose out to cost savings
and passenger convenience.
B-Chan
By "this", do you mean Mr. Hudson's becoming NASA Admin? If so, my
answer is "no". My proposal was a time-killing fantasy, not a serious
suggestion. If by "this" you mean building large spacecraft in
shipyards, I'm in favor of it.
If "by this" you meant ground launch of Orion-type vehicles using evil,
dirty nuclear weapons that will put thousands of tons of payload on the
Moon in one shot while at the same time releasing clouds of deadly
fallout into the precious biosphere of Mother GaiaŽ resulting in the
deaths of millions of nuns, crippled kids, and Greenpeace activists, my
answer, is "yes", I am under the delusion that such a course of action
is both possible and desirable. (At least until we have something even
more powerful to use for propulsion.)
Any further questions?
Bruce Lewis
Thomas Lee Elifritz
I withdraw my nomination. :-)
Thomas Lee Elifritz
life...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
B-Chan wrote:
. My proposal was a time-killing fantasy, not a serious suggestion. If by "this" you
mean building large spacecraft in shipyards, I'm in favor of it.
Yes I am definitely in favor of that.
> If "by this" you meant ground launch of Orion-type vehicles using evil,
> dirty nuclear weapons that will put thousands of tons of payload on the
> Moon in one shot while at the same time releasing clouds of deadly
> fallout into the precious biosphere of Mother GaiaŽ resulting in the
> deaths of millions of nuns, crippled kids, and Greenpeace activists, my
> answer, is "yes", I am under the delusion that such a course of action
> is both possible and desirable. (At least until we have something even
> more powerful to use for propulsion.)
No, I am definitely NOT in favor of that.
Edward Wright
> >Of course, this is nothing more than political rhetoric. The standards
> >for airline security prior to September 11 *were* set by "somebody
> >answerable for passenger safety rather than airline/airport profits."
> >It wasn't the airlines who decided pilots should passively cooperate
> >with hijackers, it was the Feds.
>
> In the part you snipped it was made quite clear that I was talking about
> the passenger screening process. I agree that the policy regarding
> cooperation is dumb. It has been changed.
The passenger screening standards are set by the same people who
established the "no resistance" policy. Yet, you suggest that having
the screeners work for those people is a magic bullet to improve
safety.
> The fact that 70% of screeners at BWI failed a test of security knowledge
> *after* the attacks is due entirely to the fact that the screening companies
> were not answerable to an independent authority for the competence of their
> employees.
No, it is not. Federal employees are known to fail tests also. Guess
who set the training standards for the people failed those tests?
Federal employees.
The notion that people are going to become smarter just because they
join the Civil Service is silly. Airline pilots are just as
safety-critical and have to master much more technical knowledge than
an x-ray machine operator, yet they are not Civil Service and no one
claims that thousands of planes are crashing every year because pilot
training always loses out to cost savings and passenger convenience.
Do you think they hire Raplph Cramden to drive the plane?
> I'm all in favor of private enterprise solutions, but without serious
> checks and balances, effective security will lose out to cost savings
> and passenger convenience.
There are checks and balances. Saying otherwise is simply political
rhetoric. To improve safety, we need to tighten up the standards --
which are set by the Federal government regardless of who the airport
security people work for.
Christopher P. Winter
(in part):
> How about David Packard if he's still alive
>
Sorry -- he died several years ago. William Hewlett died this
year, IIRC.
> or Andy Grove?
>
> Rudy Giuliani?
>
> or William Daley?
Who? Do you mean Richard M. Daley, current mayor of Chicago and
son of Richard J. Daley?
pat
"Christopher P. Winter" <chri...@best.com> wrote in message
news:r4ahttgfsafa6ml7k...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:39:32 -0400, "pat" <ba...@tgv-rockets.com> wrote
> (in part):
>
> > How about David Packard if he's still alive
> >
>
> Sorry -- he died several years ago. William Hewlett died this
> year, IIRC.
>
darn, well how about Lew Platt or John Young who ran H-P.
Steve jobs would be good, he'd drive people insane. ;-)
> > or Andy Grove?
> >
> > Rudy Giuliani?
> >
> > or William Daley?
>
> Who? Do you mean Richard M. Daley, current mayor of Chicago and
> son of Richard J. Daley?
His Older Brother, former head of Commerce under Clinton, and legislative
guide for NAFTA. he's got federal experience, gets along well on the Hill,
knows how to move treaties, and knows more about power politics then anyone
since
the kennedy's.
Only problem, he's a democrat....
Stephen Souter
wrote:
> In article <s.souter-241...@mac13a36.edfac.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >Which in turn suggests that there will be no commercial trips to Mars (or
> >even the Moon) until the costs of getting there have been brought down.
>
> Quite true. And the same is true of the government agencies. Without the
> Cold War, they no longer have the political backing needed to spend huge
> amounts on symbolic space ventures. (Apollo was not about science; the
> political backing for large expenditures on science in space has never
> been strong.)
>
> *NOBODY* is going to Mars until the costs of getting there have been
> brought down, a lot. Nobody.
Including Zubrin and his fellow Mars Direct enthusiasts?
Gregg Germain
: To improve safety, we need to tighten up the standards --
: which are set by the Federal government regardless of who the airport
: security people work for.
Well, that's only one third the story: the other 2/3's are:
check performance
have serious consequences if they fail to perform.
Rand Simberg
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> *NOBODY* is going to Mars until the costs of getting there have been
>> brought down, a lot. Nobody.
>
>Including Zubrin and his fellow Mars Direct enthusiasts?
Yes.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Andrew Case
>The passenger screening standards are set by the same people who
>established the "no resistance" policy. Yet, you suggest that having
>the screeners work for those people is a magic bullet to improve
>safety.
Nononono...
Putting screeners on the federal payroll is no magic bullet for anything,
and I did not claim that it was. The current system is worse than
useless. Screeners have to be subject to a system of meaningful checks and
balances, and held to a standard with real consequences for failing to
meet that standard. The ideal, IMO, is for private companies to select and
train the screeners, feds to regularly test (in meaningful ways, like have
undercover agents try smuggling a kilo or two of semtex through), and
substantial fines for failure. There also needs to be a check on the
testers to make sure that they don't get too cosy with the people being
regulated. Henry Spencer suggested a system that incorporated checks
and balances to make sure that competing interests worked to keep
the system effective. That is what we need, and that is the sort of thing
I am advocating - improved federal oversight, not outright subsumption
into the federal bloatocracy.
Phil Fraering
> "Christopher P. Winter" <chri...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:r4ahttgfsafa6ml7k...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:39:32 -0400, "pat" <ba...@tgv-rockets.com> wrote
> > (in part):
> >
> > > How about David Packard if he's still alive
> > >
> >
> > Sorry -- he died several years ago. William Hewlett died this
> > year, IIRC.
> >
>
> darn, well how about Lew Platt or John Young who ran H-P.
>
> Steve jobs would be good, he'd drive people insane. ;-)
Steve Jobs would be horrible. Look at what happened to the Newton.
Look at how long it took _after_ they bought NeXT to get a functional
OSX out of the deal.
Look at what happened with cloning, and although it made more money
in the short term for Apple, it's screwed up their hardware competitiveness
in the long term.
> > > or Andy Grove?
Andy Grove would be better.
Heck, I think I suggested Bill Gates earlier. He at least understands
the concept of dominating the market by selling LOTS AND LOTS of units.
> His Older Brother, former head of Commerce under Clinton, and legislative
> guide for NAFTA. he's got federal experience, gets along well on the Hill,
> knows how to move treaties, and knows more about power politics then anyone
> since
> the kennedy's.
>
> Only problem, he's a democrat....
I think Goldin was a Democrat when Bush The Elder selected him.
I think I'd still go with Bill Gates.
At least he understands how to get things done with inadequate
technology.
Phil
Jorge R. Frank
news:87heskz...@globalreach.net:
> Heck, I think I suggested Bill Gates earlier. He at least understands
> the concept of dominating the market by selling LOTS AND LOTS of units.
<cynic>You mean, he understands how to use monopolistic tactics to dominate
the market despite having inferior products. A perfect match for
NASA.</cynic>
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Alan Anderson
> Steve Jobs would be horrible. Look at what happened to the Newton.
What happened to the Newton was approximately the sort of thing that NASA
really ought to be doing with space technology. Apple pushed the envelope
a teeny bit farther than the market was willing to embrace at the time,
developing lots of nifty little snippets of technology in the process, and
enabling other parties to take what was put out there and run with it.
[One of the major pieces which came together to create the
market-dominating Palm (nee Pilot) platform was the Graffiti
"handwriting-recognition" system, which was developed for Newton.] Also,
once the Newton was more or less mature but still not a commercial
success, it was discontinued. That's another feature I'd like to see from
a "good NASA".
> Look at how long it took _after_ they bought NeXT to get a functional
> OSX out of the deal.
There were lots of intermediate steps. For instance, OSX Server was
around for a *very* long time before MacOSX for the masses was released,
and Darwin has been available for quite a while as well. That too seems
like something I'd like to see from NASA -- instead of an all-up push for
a megatechnology project like VentureStar, a bunch of little steps seems
more useful.
> Look at what happened with cloning, and although it made more money
> in the short term for Apple, it's screwed up their hardware competitiveness
> in the long term.
They tried it. It failed. So? NASA should be trying more -- and if they
don't fail occasionally, they're not trying enough.
> Heck, I think I suggested Bill Gates earlier. He at least understands
> the concept of dominating the market by selling LOTS AND LOTS of units.
Um...I don't think that's what NASA ought to be doing. NASA is supposed
to be *enabling* the market, not dominating it.
> At least he understands how to get things done with inadequate
> technology.
What Bill Gates understands is how to market himself and his products,
making them the people's choice even though they're demonstrably inferior
in many ways to the alternatives. That's a great feature for the leader
of a commercial company, but it's a very bad thing for the leader of a
government agency, at least from the point of view of the taxpayers.
MattWriter
enough about technology to get the job done.
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
rk
>
> Doesn't Jack Welch need a new challenge? Not a space guy, but understands
> enough about technology to get the job done.
Ah, Neutron Jack!
Now, my memory ain't perfect, but how did the GE spacecraft perform on
orbit at the end of their existence? (this was after he bought up
RCA). Ooops, didn't they have a different owner at that time? After
massive cuts? After massive defections of anyone who could get out?
And he sold off the GE fab lines to Harris. After he bought RCA out of
that business. Buy and sell. Make $. Bottom line guy.
If I remembered incorrectly, please delete the above paragraph.
Phil Fraering
> Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote in
> news:87heskz...@globalreach.net:
>
> > Heck, I think I suggested Bill Gates earlier. He at least understands
> > the concept of dominating the market by selling LOTS AND LOTS of units.
>
> <cynic>You mean, he understands how to use monopolistic tactics to dominate
> the market despite having inferior products. A perfect match for
> NASA.</cynic>
As much as I think that Microsoft's products are inferior, I think I
have to agree with the statement that 80% of the battle is showing
up, and Microsoft's really good at showing up.
Microsoft isn't where it is because of unfair business practices,
even though it's followed them. It's where it is because most of
its competitors gave up without a fight. Like IBM with OS/2, and
Sun's incompetent bungling with Java. Apple dragging its feet over
Rhapsody, and ditching the Newton _right after_ all the problems
with it were solved.
Apple is a really irritating case. They've thrown away enough
decent technology, already productized, than most companies
ever produce, and for stupid political reasons.
Phil
Phil Fraering
> Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
>
> > Steve Jobs would be horrible. Look at what happened to the Newton.
>
> What happened to the Newton was approximately the sort of thing that NASA
> really ought to be doing with space technology. Apple pushed the envelope
> a teeny bit farther than the market was willing to embrace at the time,
> developing lots of nifty little snippets of technology in the process, and
> enabling other parties to take what was put out there and run with it.
> [One of the major pieces which came together to create the
> market-dominating Palm (nee Pilot) platform was the Graffiti
> "handwriting-recognition" system, which was developed for Newton.] Also,
> once the Newton was more or less mature but still not a commercial
> success, it was discontinued. That's another feature I'd like to see from
> a "good NASA".
What makes you think the Newton was a commercial failure?
Apple was about to spin it off when Steve Jobs decided that it was Too
Valuable to be spun off. Then he shut it down, because it was Too
Useless to continue marketing.
There's a big contradiction going on there.
The rumors I heard was that basically, the Newton had reached the
point of profitability. However, because it was a favorite brainchild
of the guy who fired Steve Jobs, Jobs needed to take his revenge
by canning it. That this is entirely consistent with his personality
appears to suggest that he isn't the guy you want running NASA.
Other people have tried to license the Newton tech from Apple, without
success. They're also adamant about not doing anything about it themselves.
It's the same sort of political bullshit that's screwed up NASA.
Apple has a problem in that they're willing to trade market share for
a small amount of profits _today_. That's not what we need from a
space agency.
> > Look at how long it took _after_ they bought NeXT to get a functional
> > OSX out of the deal.
> There were lots of intermediate steps. For instance, OSX Server was
> around for a *very* long time before MacOSX for the masses was released,
> and Darwin has been available for quite a while as well. That too seems
> like something I'd like to see from NASA -- instead of an all-up push for
> a megatechnology project like VentureStar, a bunch of little steps seems
> more useful.
Darwin wasn't being used by _anyone_. And for good reason; for whatever
reason you'd want to use it, there are better reasons to use FreeBSD
or Linux.
> > Look at what happened with cloning, and although it made more money
> > in the short term for Apple, it's screwed up their hardware competitiveness
> > in the long term.
>
> They tried it. It failed. So? NASA should be trying more -- and if they
> don't fail occasionally, they're not trying enough.
It didn't fail. Apple had cloning set up in two phases: 1) use only
Apple designed motherboards, and 2) you can use your own motherboards
and we'll provide the OS.
They shut down cloning on the eve of part 2; at the time, the cloners'
prototypes for the G3-equipped computers were faster, more sophisticated,
and cheaper than Apple's. It took Apple around nine months to equal
the computer Power Computing was one month away from releasing when it
was shut down.
> > Heck, I think I suggested Bill Gates earlier. He at least understands
> > the concept of dominating the market by selling LOTS AND LOTS of units.
> Um...I don't think that's what NASA ought to be doing. NASA is supposed
> to be *enabling* the market, not dominating it.
> > At least he understands how to get things done with inadequate
> > technology.
> What Bill Gates understands is how to market himself and his products,
> making them the people's choice even though they're demonstrably inferior
> in many ways to the alternatives. That's a great feature for the leader
> of a commercial company, but it's a very bad thing for the leader of a
> government agency, at least from the point of view of the taxpayers.
When noone's really trying to produce alternatives, providing the primary
product is a great service.
Phil
Andrew Case
>As much as I think that Microsoft's products are inferior, I think I
>have to agree with the statement that 80% of the battle is showing
>up, and Microsoft's really good at showing up.
The more I understand business, the more I admire Bill Gates. He
consistently creates brilliant business strategies and executes
masterfully, even though he's been caught flat-footed multiple times.
In five years he will own the Internet. Too bad his products suck.
Henry Spencer
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>> *NOBODY* is going to Mars until the costs of getting there have been
>> brought down, a lot. Nobody.
>
>Including Zubrin and his fellow Mars Direct enthusiasts?
Including them. Their idea of getting NASA fired up to do it is a
wish-fulfillment fantasy, pure and simple.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Dennis Tito would be the worst person. He is a businessman. Space should
>never be comercialised,
>it should be free for the people.
What does this mean, in practice?
If you don't have private companies eventually operating launch and space
lines, then you aren't going to get any _commercial_ push behind Man's
expansion into space.
For us to expand into space, places in space have to be seen as merely
"places," not as holy sanctuaries.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Chris Vancil
> In article <s.souter-261...@mac13a36.edfac.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >> *NOBODY* is going to Mars until the costs of getting there have been
> >> brought down, a lot. Nobody.
> >
> >Including Zubrin and his fellow Mars Direct enthusiasts?
>
> Including them. Their idea of getting NASA fired up to do it is a
> wish-fulfillment fantasy, pure and simple.
First, we are the Mars Society not "Mars Direct enthusiasts" society!
That is plainly silly. You hitch your cart up to what all you want
but, don't go labeling us with one of many different methods of
getting people to Mars. Second, we are not trying to get NASA all
fired up. That has never been our intention at all! The people of the
USA, Congress and the President control NASA. "Getting NASA fired up"
would be pointless and in some quarters is already a done deal!
I would agree costs to orbit must come down to increase the likelihood
of the endeavor. But, I would not go so far as to say "nobody" will
be going till cost go down. That is about the same as saying "space
tourism" will be "impossible" till a reduction of two orders of
magnitude in costs (or what ever numbers fit). The future is unwritten
as yet and political factors change with the winds as a few terrorists
have shown.
--Chris Vancil
Rand Simberg
clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>I would agree costs to orbit must come down to increase the likelihood
>of the endeavor. But, I would not go so far as to say "nobody" will
>be going till cost go down. That is about the same as saying "space
>tourism" will be "impossible" till a reduction of two orders of
>magnitude in costs (or what ever numbers fit).
It is not the same. Space tourism is affordable, but extremely
limited (a few per year at most) at present costs. Thus there is a
seed for a potential new industry that could drop costs much further.
Mars is currently unaffordable to any but a government, or an insane
billionaire, and will remain so until launch costs drop considerably.
Of course, if a sane billionaire wants to go to Mars, the first thing
he will do is reduce costs to orbit, which is probably best achieved
by first developing space tourism.
Shardrukar
(Rand Simberg) writes:
>Mars is currently unaffordable to any but a government, or an insane
>billionaire, and will remain so until launch costs drop considerably.
>Of course, if a sane billionaire wants to go to Mars, the first thing
>he will do is reduce costs to orbit, which is probably best achieved
>by first developing space tourism.
It tis a sweet and alluring flavor of insanity is it not?
Chris Vancil
> On 29 Oct 2001 09:21:41 -0800, in a place far, far away,
> clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >I would agree costs to orbit must come down to increase the likelihood
> >of the endeavor. But, I would not go so far as to say "nobody" will
> >be going till cost go down. That is about the same as saying "space
> >tourism" will be "impossible" till a reduction of two orders of
> >magnitude in costs (or what ever numbers fit).
>
> It is not the same. Space tourism is affordable, but extremely
> limited (a few per year at most) at present costs. Thus there is a
> seed for a potential new industry that could drop costs much further.
>
Interesting use of affordable. Exactly how affordable? How many people
have stepped up to buy a multimillion dollar ticket since Dennis Tito?
I don't deny that people will spend large amounts of money on trips
to Space, it is appealing. I just don't think space tourism will be
the "cure" by itself.
>
> Mars is currently unaffordable to any but a government, or an insane
> billionaire, and will remain so until launch costs drop considerably.
> Of course, if a sane billionaire wants to go to Mars, the first thing
> he will do is reduce costs to orbit, which is probably best achieved
> by first developing space tourism.
At least you give us two possible ways to go. I don't suppose more
than one billionaire, maybe some millionaire as well, could get
together and form a Mars Exploration Club or that more than one nation
might be involved.
Lowering launch costs might be what an insane billionaire would do as
well...their hard to predict.
--Chris Vancil
Shardrukar
clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) writes:
>At least you give us two possible ways to go. I don't suppose more
>than one billionaire, maybe some millionaire as well, could get
>together and form a Mars Exploration Club or that more than one nation
>might be involved.
>
>Lowering launch costs might be what an insane billionaire would do as
>well...their hard to predict.
>
weren't (aren't?) there several Brittish "clubs" devoted to what would
colloquially be termed "adventureering"?
Rand Simberg
clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Interesting use of affordable. Exactly how affordable? How many people
>have stepped up to buy a multimillion dollar ticket since Dennis Tito?
One, so far. More than zero, which is the number who have ever
stepped up to lay out their own money to go to Mars.
> I don't deny that people will spend large amounts of money on trips
>to Space, it is appealing. I just don't think space tourism will be
>the "cure" by itself.
I see no other possibility, currently, short of a massive military
buildup in human space operations.
>At least you give us two possible ways to go. I don't suppose more
>than one billionaire, maybe some millionaire as well, could get
>together and form a Mars Exploration Club or that more than one nation
>might be involved.
They might indeed do that. But if they do, step one will still be to
reduce launch costs.
>Lowering launch costs might be what an insane billionaire would do as
>well...their hard to predict.
Could be, but if he did that, I'd have to look for other evidence of
her insanity.
Rand Simberg
sim...@interglobal.org (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Interesting use of affordable. Exactly how affordable? How many people
>>have stepped up to buy a multimillion dollar ticket since Dennis Tito?
>
>One, so far. More than zero, which is the number who have ever
>stepped up to lay out their own money to go to Mars.
And I should add, as Tom Rogers is fond of pointing out, that the
ratio of something to nothing is infinite...
Michael Kent
> Michael Kent wrote:
> >
> > Padon me, but are you serious? Are you honestly under the delusion that
> > this is possible? Or even desirable?
> By "this", do you mean Mr. Hudson's becoming NASA Admin? If so, my
> answer is "no". My proposal was a time-killing fantasy, not a serious
> suggestion. If by "this" you mean building large spacecraft in
> shipyards, I'm in favor of it.
>
> If "by this" you meant ground launch of Orion-type vehicles using evil,
> dirty nuclear weapons that will put thousands of tons of payload on the
> Moon in one shot while at the same time releasing clouds of deadly
> fallout into the precious biosphere of Mother Gaia® resulting in the
> deaths of millions of nuns, crippled kids, and Greenpeace activists, my
> answer, is "yes", I am under the delusion that such a course of action
> is both possible and desirable. (At least until we have something even
> more powerful to use for propulsion.)
>
> Any further questions?
No, you pretty much answered them.
Mike
Chris Vancil
> On 30 Oct 2001 01:00:09 -0800, in a place far, far away,
> clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Interesting use of affordable. Exactly how affordable? How many people
> >have stepped up to buy a multimillion dollar ticket since Dennis Tito?
>
> One, so far. More than zero, which is the number who have ever
> stepped up to lay out their own money to go to Mars.
>
Rand, you are now being silly. No so long ago (if you accept Tito as
the first) Space Tourists was a zero number and has had a few years of
the availability of passage. There is presently no infrastructure to
reach Mars (for humans) were there is to LEO (pricey but there).
> > I don't deny that people will spend large amounts of money on trips
> >to Space, it is appealing. I just don't think space tourism will be
> >the "cure" by itself.
>
> I see no other possibility, currently, short of a massive military
> buildup in human space operations.
>
I can think of several scenarios that make it a political necessity to
send American Astronauts to Mars. One scenario; as the USA economy
fails and some other country begains to be precieved as "The
Superpower" we need to prove our technological ablities in a non
violent method...could just as well dig a hole thru the Earth but not
as likely to be done...
> >At least you give us two possible ways to go. I don't suppose more
> >than one billionaire, maybe some millionaire as well, could get
> >together and form a Mars Exploration Club or that more than one nation
> >might be involved.
>
> They might indeed do that. But if they do, step one will still be to
> reduce launch costs.
>
Not necessary if you have the money, otherwise the present argument
for Space Tourism also fails on the same grounds.
> >Lowering launch costs might be what an insane billionaire would do as
> >well...their hard to predict.
>
> Could be, but if he did that, I'd have to look for other evidence of
> her insanity.
Of coarse! But if say Sir AC Clarke suddenly found himself a
multibillionaire and decided to spend it on a trust to send humans to
Mars he wouldn't be considered insane. Old men can do strange things
near the end of their lives without being insane. I'm sure his heirs
would think him insane, but that would be their greediness not his
insanity showing. Of coarse if my hypothetical trust was to send
lumberjacks to harvest the existing forests of Mars... 8-)
Maybe it would have been better to use SPS instead of Space Tourism in
my original argument. I look forward to people in mass being in LEO
"Hiltons" and see no major impediment to it happening other than
political silliness. I see major hurdles for SPS not least of which
is O'Neillers confessing to needing government funds to make pilot
plants before anyone would think of invest in building operational
Solar Power Satellites.
--Chris Vancil
Rand Simberg
clva...@yahoo.com (Chris Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Interesting use of affordable. Exactly how affordable? How many people
>> >have stepped up to buy a multimillion dollar ticket since Dennis Tito?
>>
>> One, so far. More than zero, which is the number who have ever
>> stepped up to lay out their own money to go to Mars.
>
>Rand, you are now being silly. No so long ago (if you accept Tito as
>the first) Space Tourists was a zero number and has had a few years of
>the availability of passage. There is presently no infrastructure to
>reach Mars (for humans) were there is to LEO (pricey but there).
Which is exactly why it is unaffordable.
>I can think of several scenarios that make it a political necessity to
>send American Astronauts to Mars. One scenario; as the USA economy
>fails and some other country begains to be precieved as "The
>Superpower" we need to prove our technological ablities in a non
>violent method...could just as well dig a hole thru the Earth but not
>as likely to be done...
There are many ways to do this besides going to Mars. And such a
scenario is unlikely. You continue to buy into the Apollo myth--that
such a confluence of events is a regular, as opposed to a unique
occurence.
>> >At least you give us two possible ways to go. I don't suppose more
>> >than one billionaire, maybe some millionaire as well, could get
>> >together and form a Mars Exploration Club or that more than one nation
>> >might be involved.
>>
>> They might indeed do that. But if they do, step one will still be to
>> reduce launch costs.
>>
>
>Not necessary if you have the money, otherwise the present argument
>for Space Tourism also fails on the same grounds.
??
I don't understand what you mean.
>> >Lowering launch costs might be what an insane billionaire would do as
>> >well...their hard to predict.
>>
>> Could be, but if he did that, I'd have to look for other evidence of
>> her insanity.
>Of coarse! But if say Sir AC Clarke suddenly found himself a
>multibillionaire and decided to spend it on a trust to send humans to
>Mars he wouldn't be considered insane.
But if the managers of the trust decided to send people to Mars
without doing anything about the cost of access to LEO, they would be
rightly considered insane. We aren't talking about ends--we're
talking about means. No matter who wants to go to Mars, or why, step
one is reducing launch costs. To attempt to go to Mars without doing
so is crazy, because this will minimize the overall costs of doing the
Mars mission, particularly if the goal is to establish any kind of
permanent presence there.