NASA@50
Rand Simberg
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
kT
> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
So sad.
Eric Chomko
> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
Gee where do I begin? From the top of course...
First off the whole article rambles as you tend to do. Do you support
NASA or no? It is hard to tell. I don't think even you know your exact
feeling regarding the administration and it shows in your article.
Clearly, you want NASA to move aside at least to some degree to make
way for commercial spaceflight. Fine. But why not mention the whole
picture. You know, the Japanese businessman that wants a refund for
being grounded. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080925/sc_nm/us_space_touristscience
You mention the goods and the bads WRT NASA and publically funded
spaceflight, why only the positive spin on the commercial side?
Your "born in sin" comment is silly on its face as many more striking
examples exist in American history exist than Operation Paperclip.
You write "ongoing national and global financial crisis". Oh really?
Exactly how does the US translate into "global"? The rest of the world
is doing fine we are the ones losing value with our currency. Half
right and half assed....again!
Oh and regarding all that success with commercial spaceflight with
SpaceX, I nominate you being their first astronaut when they actually
have a manned spaceflight.
Could your last paragragh have been more vague? I really doubt it!
Hey, if you don't want feedback from your article then don't post a
link to it into s.s.p.
Eric
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:493a7f12....@news.giganews.com...
>I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
Of course the entire problem here is the same the haunts
modern science in general. We are obsessed with detailing
what things are, or were. And ....of course....the result is
rather depressing. The future seems hard to predict, even bleak
while a solution seems even more difficult when using this instinctual
frame of reference with our methods of understanding.
And all because of our chosen frame of reference where we
detail reality in order to find our answers.
There is a much better way. The scientific method should begin
not with the details of our reality, but with our imagination.
So for the question of NASA, the first order of business in finding
a solution to it's current 'state' is to imagine what NASA
could/should be in a perfect future. Once we have that vision
and in detail, then we can return to the details of current reality
in order to ....draw a path... from here to there.
Without a clear path between two points, how can we know
what to do next? We need the two data points. And it's
NOT the past and present. It's the future and the present.
Then, and only then, the answer to every question becomes
obvious. And the imagined future becomes probable.
This is the only meaningful way to predict the future of
the real world. Not by detailing the past and present in order
to predict the future. But by designing the future we desire then
making it happen.
Stop pissing into the wind, and start thinking about how to
make the world a better place.
s
BradGuth
> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
"So, on this half-century mark of U.S. civil space exploration, even
if NASA’s future doesn’t seem to necessarily be as bright as its past
— particularly its early years — the future of American space
activities seems very promising, offering hope that we may finally see
the kinds of progress that we’ve been promised for all these past
decades."
"as bright as its past"? What past brightness of "early years" are we
talking about?
Its past "early years" was essentially 100% DARPA, of which our DARPA
was nearly 100% of Zionist/Nazi smarts. Let us at least give the
credit where credit is due.
It seems you can't even be honest to yourself. Did you get paid for
that manifesto?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
That's two words too many.
How about instead ( . ) as a birthday thought?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo...@org.trash> wrote in message
Pissing into the wind is as good as it gets, especially when you have
to live a lie, or else.
~ BG
Quadibloc
> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
Some people may not approve of NASA getting great chunks of tax money.
And it may now be as impractical *today* for Rockwell, or whoever, to
build another space shuttle as it would be to build new Saturn V
boosters.
But there was a time when additional Space Shuttles could have been
built, and I don't think that time had ended when 60 Minutes aired a
segment on how old, decrepit, and dangerous the aging Space Shuttle
fleet was getting.
So as far as access to the ISS is concerned, there are no problems
that writing a cheque for more Shuttles couldn't have cured while we
were waiting for Ares I.
So, my reaction to your article is - why blame bad management at NASA
(which may very well exist) for a problem that clearly is a political
one, a failure on the part of Congress to authorize the necessary
spending to keep the ISS humming with no visible problems... and, for
that matter, to be focused on the goal of sending a man to Mars and
returning him safely to Earth within some short deadline?
Those decisions aren't NASA's to make, so how is it to blame if
they're made badly?
If NASA kept a more open mind to guys like Burt Rutan, we would be
able to easily afford to go into space, and so the political problem
wouldn't arise? I find it hard to persuade myself that life is so
simple. Maybe that is an emotional blindness to the facts, but rocket
propulsion isn't like microchips; it's based on technologies that go
back to the Industrial Revolution, with little room for revolutionary
progress. If rockets are wretchedly overpriced due to a monopoly,
though, the cure is easier than exploring new technologies like the
aerospike.
Bring costs down with mass production.Like OTRAG. Actually, there is
one flaw; one area where one size doesn't fit all. You do want to be
able to vary one critical parameter - the size of the tanks, the mass
of the fuel, relative to the size of the engine. So instead of only
one standard stage, mass-produce only one engine, but vary the length
of the tanks that go with it, so that you can design suitable rockets
for a range of missions. And having so many engines raises reliability
concerns for personelled launches.
John Savard
BradGuth
Each lie begets another and another, and it seems our dumbfounded
citizens of this nation are still pretty much without a clue.
Whatever could have been and should have been are pretty much lost
forever, as it'll take the better part of this century just to
compensate for the past decade of wrong doings, and that's only if our
government and its faith-basted puppet masters can mange to keep their
peckers in their pants long enough in order to make such a recovery
possible.
~ BG
Ian Parker
> Bring costs down with mass production.Like OTRAG. Actually, there is
> one flaw; one area where one size doesn't fit all. You do want to be
> able to vary one critical parameter - the size of the tanks, the mass
> of the fuel, relative to the size of the engine. So instead of only
> one standard stage, mass-produce only one engine, but vary the length
> of the tanks that go with it, so that you can design suitable rockets
> for a range of missions. And having so many engines raises reliability
> concerns for personelled launches.
>
Possibly if we concentrated on assembly at LEO (preferably robotic)
and tried to avoid heavy indivisible loads we could do all the work
with one rocket type. However doing this would mean taking a key
technological decision about the direction future technology should
take. Perhaps this is the guts of the real debate. Given limited funds
what direction do you move in.
NASA's funds are limited yet in many ways it behaves as though they
are not. It is not prepared to make hard choices.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
Our NASA has never made an honest hard choice that paid us back with
anything except grief and suspicions for the past 50 years and
counting.
There are so many lies and deceptions within our DARPA and NASA that
there's no honest way of figuring it all out. When bad things happen,
no one seems in charge, and whenever a good thing happens they claim
as never having enough of our hard earned loot for accomplishing their
nest best thing.
Bringing cost down has never been a goal of DARPA or NASA, any more so
than keeping us informed has been a priority. NASA is essentially a
rogue agency with all sorts of MI5/CIA and many other cult like ties
to those it's continually sucking up to. But then that's our form of
politics and religion as all rolled up into one big happy family.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
> On Oct 1, 7:46 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
> > I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
> >http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>
> Some people may not approve of NASA getting great chunks of tax money.
NASA gets 7/10 of 1% of the US government's budget. Somehow that
percentage and "great chunks" just don't seem to equate.
> And it may now be as impractical *today* for Rockwell, or whoever, to
> build another space shuttle as it would be to build new Saturn V
> boosters.
>
> But there was a time when additional Space Shuttles could have been
> built, and I don't think that time had ended when 60 Minutes aired a
> segment on how old, decrepit, and dangerous the aging Space Shuttle
> fleet was getting.
>
> So as far as access to the ISS is concerned, there are no problems
> that writing a cheque for more Shuttles couldn't have cured while we
> were waiting for Ares I.
The problem there is that while sustainment expediture occurs with
older technology (and that means everything from grounds systems,
shuttles, space telescopes, you name it), there is a tendency for the
incumbent group to cling to the older aspect of operations to pay the
bills. The new R&D, start-up/development replacement is viewed as
stealing their revenue and politicians are caught in the middle trying
to make everyone happy. Not everyone transistions from the old to the
new.
> So, my reaction to your article is - why blame bad management at NASA
> (which may very well exist) for a problem that clearly is a political
> one, a failure on the part of Congress to authorize the necessary
> spending to keep the ISS humming with no visible problems... and, for
> that matter, to be focused on the goal of sending a man to Mars and
> returning him safely to Earth within some short deadline?
There is no short deadline to a Mars mission. You do realize that a
Mars mission is two year minimum given the Earth and Martian orbits,
right?
>
> Those decisions aren't NASA's to make, so how is it to blame if
> they're made badly?
>
> If NASA kept a more open mind to guys like Burt Rutan, we would be
> able to easily afford to go into space, and so the political problem
> wouldn't arise? I find it hard to persuade myself that life is so
> simple. Maybe that is an emotional blindness to the facts, but rocket
> propulsion isn't like microchips; it's based on technologies that go
> back to the Industrial Revolution, with little room for revolutionary
> progress. If rockets are wretchedly overpriced due to a monopoly,
> though, the cure is easier than exploring new technologies like the
> aerospike.
>
> Bring costs down with mass production.Like OTRAG. Actually, there is
> one flaw; one area where one size doesn't fit all. You do want to be
> able to vary one critical parameter - the size of the tanks, the mass
> of the fuel, relative to the size of the engine. So instead of only
> one standard stage, mass-produce only one engine, but vary the length
> of the tanks that go with it, so that you can design suitable rockets
> for a range of missions. And having so many engines raises reliability
> concerns for personelled launches.
>
Access to space to everyone with no govt. oversight? Why?
Eric
Dr J R Stockton
000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:25:21, Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> posted:
>
>So as far as access to the ISS is concerned, there are no problems
>that writing a cheque for more Shuttles couldn't have cured while we
>were waiting for Ares I.
>
So why did Canada not write such a cheque? The cost per head of getting
one would not, I think, be more than the USA spent on developing and
getting six shuttles plus dedicated infrastructure.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
NOT <URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines
BradGuth
> In sci.space.history message <c6732231-3e90-49dc-86fa-1d1b8e8bc93f@i76g2
> 000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:25:21, Quadibloc
>
>
>
> >So as far as access to the ISS is concerned, there are no problems
> >that writing a cheque for more Shuttles couldn't have cured while we
> >were waiting for Ares I.
>
> So why did Canada not write such a cheque? The cost per head of getting
> one would not, I think, be more than the USA spent on developing and
> getting six shuttles plus dedicated infrastructure.
>
> --
> <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
> <URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
> NOT <URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines
In the US, whatever we're being told of our DARPA and NASA R&D plus
actual equipment and infrastructure cost, isn't 10% of the truth.
Straight forward robotic missions are a whole lot more believable, but
even so we're usually not being told the birth-to-gave nor all-
inclusive truth, at least not until long after it's too late to make
any difference.
Our USAF has actually been deploying the most satellite tonnage into
LEO and GSO at by far the least cost, and as of lately China has been
doing the same except at not 10% of our USAF cost per kg placed into
LEO or GSO, and somewhere in between is Russia. With a launch
facility in Cuba, the Russian cost per kg deployed into LEO and GSO
may get as cheap as China. How about via outsourcing to India/ESA, as
being nearly half the NASA cost of doing business?
BradGuth
> On Oct 2, 7:25 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 7:46 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
> > > I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
> > >http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>
> > Some people may not approve of NASA getting great chunks of tax money.
>
> NASA gets 7/10 of 1% of the US government's budget. Somehow that
> percentage and "great chunks" just don't seem to equate.
Our NASA gets to spend whatever our DARPA and their embedded army of
Zionist/Nazis care to make available, not to mention their having MI5/
CIA accommodated loot. It's otherwise called inflation, of the purely
artificial kind, or that plus simply lying through each of their
mostly Republican Mafia butt-cheeks.
If either you or I did this kind of fancy LLPOF bookkeeping, we'd be
thrown in jail or perhaps worse (given a federal bailout option so
that we'd be able to keep most of our stolen loot).
In this nation of uneducated and otherwise dumbfounded fools upon
fools, apparently no good mainstream lie goes to waste or underfunded
with public loot.
~ BG
BradGuth
John Savard, as per usual you are chuck full of it, as well as
mainstream brown nosed as you can possibly get. If you and the likes
of lord all-knowing William Mook had it your way, there’d be a dozen
more public funded agencies like NASA with open-ended fuzzy
accounting.
I and others half as smart as a 5th grader should know, that even
though the public assess to our interactive Usenet/newsgroups has been
suspended, it seems my stuff has still been getting reviewed by those
on the inside of Usenet, even though the rest of us are not being
allowed to see our replies, nor those of others or even any new
topics, all because the Google/NOVA servers of Usenet/newsgroups are
being artificially moderated or hacked to death by those in charge of
whatever the public gets to see.
I’m actually not all that surprised, because if I were in charge of
DARPA and the likes of MI5/CIA damage-control, it’s certainly what I’d
be doing as damage-control via hacking or otherwise terminating this
public interactive Usenet/newsgroup medium.
It seems only shortly after I’d posted by usual replies to those
unable or by way of MI5/CIA policy or via faith denied the right to
deductively think for themselves, is when our Google/NOVA Usenet of
public newsgroups became rather useless and otherwise locked down by
those in charge (namely DARPA).
I’m not taking all the credit because, there had also been so much
mainstream injected clownism by those having posted hundreds of bogus
and otherwise intentionally misleading topics along with even more
bogus kinds of subject headers, such as those of contributor “gb…..”
as having posted solid blocks of topic/subject index context, in that
perhaps no way could the Usenet/newsgroup servers deal with all the
“search for” combinations when given that much index of block subject
context per bogus topic.
It seems a simple modification as to whatever can or at least of how
much can be given within the subject or topic index is a Usenet
programming no brainer, that is if DARPA actually wanted to better
manage this Usenet of public unmoderated newsgroups, as perhaps
limited to the index subject title of 72 characters and more limited
as to subject title changing seems rather doable, whereas perhaps the
only subject/title revision restricted as to the original topic
author, rather than allowing just anyone to make such debauchery
loaded changes on the fly.
Btw, our NASA has actually been getting their dirty hands on a whole
lot more of our hard earned public loot than reported, and I’d say at
times it’s to the tune of getting as much as ten fold more of our loot
than ever shows up on any public accounting. Canada is certainly
energy and other wise talent and resource rich, as yourself and
William Mook would certainly agree there’s no shortage of spare/
surplus public loot or the necessary resources for having created that
new and improved fleet of shuttles. So, if not for cloak and dagger
or any number of cover thy NASA/Apollo butt reasons, what has been the
big hold up?
Secondly, you and others of your mainstream infomercial spewing kind
have known darn good what having a Clarke Station or some other space
oasis, depot or gateway use of our Selene/moon-L1 (Earth-moon L1)
would have accomplished a whole lot of good for everyone as of decades
ago, and perhaps at not 10% the cost of our DARPA Apollo fiasco, not
to mention the vast and far reaching benefits of what my LSE-CM/ISS
represents. At best you folks are nothing but hypocrites, and at
worse nothing but the very worse that humanity has to offer.
David Spain
> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
Reply posted to your blog.
jacob navia
You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
a single orbiting flight.
NASA has reached for the first time the limits of the solar
system with the Voyager probes: they entered interstellar space.
I have followed the adventure of NASA since I was a child.
It is the finest achievement of American civilization.
The one for which that country will remembered.
In
one thousand years
"NASA" will still mean something to every school boy.
Happy birthday!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
kT
> David Spain wrote:
>> Rand Simberg wrote:
>>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>>>
>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>>
>> Reply posted to your blog.
>
> You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
>
> The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
> few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
> a single orbiting flight.
I guess you missed Falcon 1-4.
Jochem Huhmann
> David Spain wrote:
>> Rand Simberg wrote:
>>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>>>
>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>>
>> Reply posted to your blog.
>
> You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
>
> The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
> few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
> a single orbiting flight.
I will not the only one correcting you here, but last week SpaceX, a
private company with about 550 employees, inserted a two-stage rocket
into low earth orbit. It should have completed hundreds of orbits now.
> In
>
> one thousand years
>
> "NASA" will still mean something to every school boy.
>
> Happy birthday!
I highly doubt that such things will be known by anyone but professional
historians in one thousand years and even that only if there will be
something resembling an unbroken record of civilization on our planet
which by itself is not entirely sure...
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Rand Simberg
navia <ja...@nospam.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>David Spain wrote:
>> Rand Simberg wrote:
>>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>>>
>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>>
>> Reply posted to your blog.
>
>You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
>
>The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
>few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
>a single orbiting flight.
You missed the Falcon 1 launch last weekend?
Pat Flannery
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> I will not the only one correcting you here, but last week SpaceX, a
> private company with about 550 employees, inserted a two-stage rocket
> into low earth orbit. It should have completed hundreds of orbits now.
>
Does their test payload have any sort of radio transmitter on it so they
can track it?
One would have thought they would have stuck a small solar array and
transmitter on it so they could figure out its orbit as it slowly
decayed. The test payload itself is supposed to be a big block of
aluminum, and that could give someone a nasty surprise if it survives
reentry. What would have made a fun test payload would be a big
container of gravel, so that you would have a meteor shower when it
reentered.
Pat
jacob navia
Yes, I missed it.
They have achieved the level of sputnik 1 (1957)
Compared to interstellar probes, its surely "impressive"...
Sputnik mass was 83.6 Kg, and that thing 50 years later is 110 Kg.
Great!
Go on guys.
Nasa is a collective effort, and has collective projects with other
countries. It is an organization for exploring, an organization
for discovery.
The private sector profits from the developments of NASA and
their only objective (as always) is to make money.
Obviously, the choice is clear.
David Spain
> Obviously, the choice is clear.
What is obvious is that you have little idea of how the space
program currently functions or functioned in the past.
Even during the heyday of Apollo, and the events leading up
to it who was providing the bulk of the work and the hardware?
The public sector or the private sector? What do these names
mean to you, North American Rockwell, Grumman Aerospace,
Lockheed Corporation, Martin Marietta Corporation, Rocketdyne?
(Extra Credit: What happened to some of these formerly glorious
companies once they became overly dependent on the federal dollar?)
My modest proposal simply moves aside the heavy and unjustifiable
(in the 21st Century post Cold War) Administrative function.
If NASA/NACA still wanted a program to go to the moon they could
get in line and fund it. But better yet, why not wait until we have
a *reason* to go back to the moon? Something that returns a profit
and ergo remains sustainable? No more one shots then throw it away
when the political winds change direction on my tax dollar please....
Dave
Pat Flannery
David Spain wrote:
> What do these names
> mean to you, North American Rockwell, Grumman Aerospace,
> Lockheed Corporation, Martin Marietta Corporation, Rocketdyne?
> (Extra Credit: What happened to some of these formerly glorious
> companies once they became overly dependent on the federal dollar?)
They were pretty much dependent on the federal dollar from the moment of
their creation
When you build military aircraft or rockets, your customer list is
somewhat limited.
They did sell aircraft to other countries, but with the exception of the
F-104 (and surprisingly the P-51 Mustang, which started out being
designed for the RAF) the main customer for their military designs was
to be the US.
>
>
> My modest proposal simply moves aside the heavy and unjustifiable
> (in the 21st Century post Cold War) Administrative function.
>
> If NASA/NACA still wanted a program to go to the moon they could
> get in line and fund it. But better yet, why not wait until we have
> a *reason* to go back to the moon? Something that returns a profit
> and ergo remains sustainable?
Well, that pretty well rules out any manned Moon flights for the next
fifty years or so... :-)
Pat
David Spain
> Well, that pretty well rules out any manned Moon flights for the next
> fifty years or so... :-)
>
> Pat
Comrade! Not So!
The Glorious Peoples Republic of China will GLADLY offer a ride for
one or more of your astronauts in consideration of proper renumeration!
Our moon base under development to flash advertising of Made In China
to the world through our 1,000,000 acre LED farm has plenty of room for
one or two visits per year!
We only require you supply your own food, water, air and only allow
your astronauts' blogs to pass through our filters!
Allow us to put the moon back in your shine!
Jochem Huhmann
> Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>> I will not the only one correcting you here, but last week SpaceX, a
>> private company with about 550 employees, inserted a two-stage rocket
>> into low earth orbit. It should have completed hundreds of orbits now.
>>
>
> Does their test payload have any sort of radio transmitter on it so they
> can track it?
They had telemetry and even video when the thing was in range again
after the first orbit, but I'm pretty sure it was running on batteries.
> One would have thought they would have stuck a small solar array and
> transmitter on it so they could figure out its orbit as it slowly
> decayed. The test payload itself is supposed to be a big block of
> aluminum, and that could give someone a nasty surprise if it survives
> reentry. What would have made a fun test payload would be a big
> container of gravel, so that you would have a meteor shower when it
> reentered.
Since this is the complete second stage it is rather large and surely
being tracked by passive means (rocket stages ending up in LEO are not
that rare after all).
Fred J. McCall
:David Spain wrote:
:> Rand Simberg wrote:
:>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
:>>
:>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
:>
:> Reply posted to your blog.
:
:You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
:
:The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
:few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
:a single orbiting flight.
:
Let's not tell all the telecom and Earth observation people, ok?
:
:NASA has reached for the first time the limits of the solar
:system with the Voyager probes: they entered interstellar space.
:
That's because there's no commercial reason to go there right now.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Pat Flannery
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Since this is the complete second stage it is rather large and surely
> being tracked by passive means (rocket stages ending up in LEO are not
> that rare after all).
>
I'm sure Space Command is tracking it.
Surprising they didn't detach the ballast block to try out the satellite
separation system for the operational flights.
Pat
jacob navia
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> :David Spain wrote:
> :> Rand Simberg wrote:
> :>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
> :>>
> :>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
> :>
> :> Reply posted to your blog.
> :
> :You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
> :
> :The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
> :few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
> :a single orbiting flight.
> :
>
> Let's not tell all the telecom and Earth observation people, ok?
>
> :
> :NASA has reached for the first time the limits of the solar
> :system with the Voyager probes: they entered interstellar space.
> :
>
> That's because there's no commercial reason to go there right now.
>
Exactly. There are no dollars waiting for us in space.
Just knowledge.
I see exploration as a human activity that is a
value FOR ITSELF. Science needs no profits. No
CEOs, no golden parachutes.
The people against NASA are against exploration,
they just want to promote the profits of some companies.
Ian Parker
There is one irony about the private sector you seem to have missed.
It is the private sector that produced Google. Unmanned exploration is
taking place with the products of the private sector. The private
sector is working hard on robotics. Asteroids will be mined using
robotic technology developed for terrestrial purposes by the private
sector.
- Ian Parker
jacob navia
> On 6 Oct, 18:48, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:25:45 +0200, in a place far, far away, jacob
>> navia <ja...@nospam.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>> a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>> David Spain wrote:
>>>> Rand Simberg wrote:
>>>>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
>>>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
>>>> Reply posted to your blog.
>>> You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
>>> The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
>>> few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
>>> a single orbiting flight.
>> You missed the Falcon 1 launch last weekend?
>
> There is one irony about the private sector you seem to have missed.
> It is the private sector that produced Google.
So what?
> Unmanned exploration is
> taking place with the products of the private sector.
JPL is not a private sector institution. You are just wrong.
Besides, many parts of the spacecrafts designed and built
by JPL are specially done for the trip. And even if they do
use the parts and raw materials from the market, they assemble
and test their spaceships before flight themselves.
The mars rovers, for instance, were built at JPL for the most
part, since the hardware needs a lot of special requirements
not necessary or not found in commercial, off the shelf
products.
> The private
> sector is working hard on robotics.
Sure. So what?
> Asteroids will be mined using
> robotic technology developed for terrestrial purposes by the private
> sector.
>
Asteroids will not be mined since there is no sense
in getting to an asteroid to mine it. You can mine
anything you want here on earth. Metals and other raw
materials are here on earth, and they are much cheaper mined here
than going to an asteroid to mine it.
You read too much bad science fiction. Just think about the expense
of building huge spaceships to bring raw metal ore... Economic
nonsense.
Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up.
Let's face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going into
space. Science doesn't bring us quick profits. Just knowledge.
>
> - Ian Parker
jacob navia
Not only moon flights but ALL space exploration. There is no money
to be earned by exploring Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter. Not a single
penny, to the contrary. Going there is expensive.
A private sector motivated by greed would never go anywhere but
low earth orbit to put TV satellites. Period.
Rand Simberg
>>> My modest proposal simply moves aside the heavy and unjustifiable
>>> (in the 21st Century post Cold War) Administrative function.
>>>
>>> If NASA/NACA still wanted a program to go to the moon they could
>>> get in line and fund it. But better yet, why not wait until we have
>>> a *reason* to go back to the moon? Something that returns a profit
>>> and ergo remains sustainable?
>>
>> Well, that pretty well rules out any manned Moon flights for the next
>> fifty years or so... :-)
>>
>> Pat
>
>Not only moon flights but ALL space exploration. There is no money
>to be earned by exploring Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter. Not a single
>penny, to the contrary. Going there is expensive.
>
>A private sector motivated by greed would never go anywhere but
>low earth orbit to put TV satellites. Period.
That must be why Bob Bigelow and Elon Musk are planning trips to and
around the moon.
Ian Parker
>
> Asteroids will not be mined since there is no sense
> in getting to an asteroid to mine it. You can mine
> anything you want here on earth. Metals and other raw
> materials are here on earth, and they are much cheaper mined here
> than going to an asteroid to mine it.
>
There is :-
1) Platinum.
2) We need to establish space manufacturing to get the larger projects
off the ground.
> You read too much bad science fiction. Just think about the expense
> of building huge spaceships to bring raw metal ore... Economic
> nonsense.
>
The "bad SciFi" aspect is interesting. In fact SciFi reflects the
preoccupations of the age. SciFi predicted MANNED exploration of
space. Even Star Trek is rather cold on AI.
SciFi is interesting in that it presents a picture of how people at a
particular time thought about the future. In fact the main thrust of
space exploration has been the development of sophisticated automatic
equipment.
As far as the cost of mining asteroids goes. It all depends on how you
do it. To do it the SciFi way would indeed be very expensive. Suppose
however you did it with nanotech. Suppose you only sent 10Kg or so in
toto to an asteroid. EXISTING rockets would in fact have superflous
capacity.
I would evisage an asteroid mining operation where the weights (and
cost) was somewhere (logarithmically) between a manned base and
nanotech.
- Ian Parker
David Spain
> Exactly. There are no dollars waiting for us in space.
>
Well I don't believe that, but that's beside the point,
I'll set that one aside for now.
> Just knowledge.
This is the old carnard that all knowledge is valuable
beyond the cost of obtaining it. I'm afraid that isn't
true and it never was. It's something you learn in
adulthood. If you want a for instance, I'll cite the
knowledge obtained when we discovered that guided tours
up Mt. Everest are a bad idea.
>
> I see exploration as a human activity that is a
> value FOR ITSELF. Science needs no profits. No
> CEOs, no golden parachutes.
>
And paid for by *voluntary* contributions, *not* by the
coercive taxing power of the state, right?
Why shouldn't I be free to fund the directions I'd like
to see Science go?
> The people against NASA are against exploration,
> they just want to promote the profits of some companies.
>
Nonsense. When I was flush with cash I freely gave to
*both* the Planetary Society and the Space Studies Institute
to fund space activities that are sustainable. How 'bout you?
Dave
Fred J. McCall
:
:Asteroids will not be mined since there is no sense
:in getting to an asteroid to mine it. You can mine
:anything you want here on earth. Metals and other raw
:materials are here on earth, and they are much cheaper mined here
:than going to an asteroid to mine it.
The New World will not be mined since there is no sense in getting to
the New World to mine it. You can mine anything you want here in
Europe. Metals and other raw materials are here in Europe, and they
are much cheaper mined here than going to the New World to mine it.
Then people started bringing back shiploads of gold...
:
:You read too much bad science fiction. Just think about the expense
:of building huge spaceships to bring raw metal ore... Economic
:nonsense.
:
Yes, it *is* economic nonsense. Why would you need a "huge spaceship"
when you can just paste a few motors to your rock of choice and move
it wherever you want?
:
:Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up.
:Let's face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going into
:space. Science doesn't bring us quick profits. Just knowledge.
:
Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up. Let's
face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going to the New World....
jacob navia
> Yes, it *is* economic nonsense. Why would you need a "huge spaceship"
> when you can just paste a few motors to your rock of choice and move
> it wherever you want?
>
Sure sure. But to get it into the surface of the earth
you will need those huge motors.
> :
> :Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up.
> :Let's face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going into
> :space. Science doesn't bring us quick profits. Just knowledge.
> :
>
> Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up. Let's
> face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going to the New World....
>
You seem to confuse crossing the Atlantic Ocean, and getting into
some asteroid.
There are several orders of magnitude difference in size of the trip,
and the environment around the ship.
Note that the best spaceships we can manage now can put just
several hundred kilograms in Mars. The first exploration ships
in asteroids are also approximately this size and not even designed to
make the round-trip.
Looking for minerals in asteroids is just plain nonsense for the next
century.
kT
> Looking for minerals in asteroids is just plain nonsense for the next
> century.
So you think spectroscopy is nonsense.
Got any other funny ones?
jacob navia
I am speaking about mining for the mineral ore, not
about researching the composition of asteroids, and you know
this well.
But you want to add your "funny sentence" without contributing anything
to the actual discussion.
You do not read the answers when somebody answers a detailed
explanation to your "small sentences". For instance when you
complained that Europeans wasted the ATV, burning it in the pacific
I cited -for you the head of the ESA project saying that the next
vehicles will be reusable...
You snipped everything from my answer but what you were
interested in.
Most of your contributions are just slogans, without any attempt
to discuss them further. Maybe because you think that you explain
everything in your home page, or maybe because you think here
everyone is a "fascist" anyway.
Either way I do not care.
kT
> kT wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for minerals in asteroids is just plain nonsense for the next
>>> century.
>>
>> So you think spectroscopy is nonsense.
>>
>> Got any other funny ones?
>
> I am speaking about mining for the mineral ore, not
> about researching the composition of asteroids, and you know
> this well.
Actully, no, I don't. Asteroids also come to us regularly, in the form
of meteorites. These are amenable to clear in situ analysis as well.
> But you want to add your "funny sentence" without contributing anything
> to the actual discussion.
I'm good. Thanks!
kT
> You do not read the answers when somebody answers a detailed
> explanation to your "small sentences". For instance when you
> complained that Europeans wasted the ATV, burning it in the pacific
> I cited -for you the head of the ESA project saying that the next
> vehicles will be reusable...
Actually, the REASON that they are doing this is because RATIONAL people
just like me, and including myself, have pointed out the severe flaws
and clear illogic inherent in their philosophy of disposable hardware.
kT
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:03:39 -0500
From: Elfritz Non Grata
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Subject: Re: NASA@50
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:03:38 -0500
Organization: The Jews Will One Day Get You, Tommy Lee! Live on CNN, TOO!
Message-ID: <8fcne4hiodq902937...@4ax.com>
References: <493a7f12....@news.giganews.com>
<XI2dnTC-Wty4t3fV...@giganews.com> <gcde6l$cpf$1...@aioe.org>
<49494f5f....@news.giganews.com>
<46c1d4e8-2c2d-4bd9...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<gcfg9e$5bu$1...@aioe.org> <o62ne4hah3cr36hvu...@4ax.com>
<gcg4l6$8u6$1...@aioe.org> <LEMGk.1924$tu5....@newsfe09.iad>
<gcg5db$cgj$1...@aioe.org> <SRMGk.1926$tu5...@newsfe09.iad>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.0/32.763
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-e8aW03ly+ohCkGwEmZFRbPU1C/l+L5MJP4nJNphQ3F6tqnSvfljsYVpiCPbuIATtYnKiNtFvq0y8jJe!3MK5nm25oPcbNyxiAA4ztPP6RrwhqFJm+tYfyoO083TzB8u4y+Xuh1hHC4n9YqR2VzYfAkK4mQ==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:17:55 -0500, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>> RATIONAL people just like me
>
> BAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAH ELFNAZI? RATIONAL? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
> HAH!
That sounds rational?
From the headers :
Organization : The Jews Will One Day Get You, Tommy Lee! Live on CNN, TOO!
You are an American fascist. The FBI has again been notified.
David Spain
> JPL is not a private sector institution. You are just wrong.
>
> Besides, many parts of the spacecrafts designed and built
> by JPL are specially done for the trip. And even if they do
> use the parts and raw materials from the market, they assemble
> and test their spaceships before flight themselves.
>
> The mars rovers, for instance, were built at JPL for the most
> part, since the hardware needs a lot of special requirements
> not necessary or not found in commercial, off the shelf
> products.
>
lead in exploration. Because of the limited budget constraints JPL
labors under they built and flew only two of these. And after the two
there are no follow ons. Why? Because the "program" has ended. Imagine
if Ford had built "two" Model T's and then called it quits because the
"program" funding had run out?
Why aren't there dozens of these running around the surface of Mars
right now? Why do I have to wait 15 years and *billions* of dollars
later for the next "program" to "grant" us with another rover that
is unproven and may actually fail?
Dave
Eric Chomko
> jacob navia wrote:
> > Obviously, the choice is clear.
>
> What is obvious is that you have little idea of how the space
> program currently functions or functioned in the past.
>
> Even during the heyday of Apollo, and the events leading up
> to it who was providing the bulk of the work and the hardware?
> The public sector or the private sector? What do these names
> mean to you, North American Rockwell, Grumman Aerospace,
> Lockheed Corporation, Martin Marietta Corporation, Rocketdyne?
> (Extra Credit: What happened to some of these formerly glorious
> companies once they became overly dependent on the federal dollar?)
They merged and became primarily defense contractors.
>
> My modest proposal simply moves aside the heavy and unjustifiable
> (in the 21st Century post Cold War) Administrative function.
>
> If NASA/NACA still wanted a program to go to the moon they could
> get in line and fund it. But better yet, why not wait until we have
> a *reason* to go back to the moon? Something that returns a profit
> and ergo remains sustainable? No more one shots then throw it away
> when the political winds change direction on my tax dollar please....
The exact same argument, but perhaps an even better one, can be made
regarding war and your tax dollars. Was Vietnam better than Apollo? Is
the current war better than what NASA is doing now?
Eric
Eric Chomko
No mention of AI?!? What the f....?
Who are you and what did you do with Ian Parker?
Eric Chomko
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.com> writes:
> > Exactly. There are no dollars waiting for us in space.
>
> Well I don't believe that, but that's beside the point,
> I'll set that one aside for now.
>
> > Just knowledge.
>
> This is the old carnard that all knowledge is valuable
> beyond the cost of obtaining it. I'm afraid that isn't
> true and it never was. It's something you learn in
> adulthood. If you want a for instance, I'll cite the
> knowledge obtained when we discovered that guided tours
> up Mt. Everest are a bad idea.
And the internet once the ARPAnet trumps your example.
>
>
>
> > I see exploration as a human activity that is a
> > value FOR ITSELF. Science needs no profits. No
> > CEOs, no golden parachutes.
>
> And paid for by *voluntary* contributions, *not* by the
> coercive taxing power of the state, right?
Well if faith-based entities can avoid taxes, then why can't we spend
on science?
> Why shouldn't I be free to fund the directions I'd like
> to see Science go?
Like nowhere as the faith-based folks believe? Sorry I'd rather spend
tax dollars on scince and not on religion.
>
> > The people against NASA are against exploration,
> > they just want to promote the profits of some companies.
>
> Nonsense. When I was flush with cash I freely gave to
> *both* the Planetary Society and the Space Studies Institute
> to fund space activities that are sustainable. How 'bout you?
>
Now you're broke and can't even donate to the Air and Space Museum due
to not being able to get to DC to see it.
jacob navia
Obviously too, for many people in the U.S. spending 700 billion
in banks or 500 billion destroying Irak is money well spent.
Only when NASA spends a little money that increases our knowledge about
the solar system (JPL) or the universe in general (Hubble telescope)
or in earth observation THAT money is an awful waste.
jacob navia
> jacob navia wrote:
>> JPL is not a private sector institution. You are just wrong.
>>
>> Besides, many parts of the spacecrafts designed and built
>> by JPL are specially done for the trip. And even if they do
>> use the parts and raw materials from the market, they assemble
>> and test their spaceships before flight themselves.
>>
>> The mars rovers, for instance, were built at JPL for the most
>> part, since the hardware needs a lot of special requirements
>> not necessary or not found in commercial, off the shelf
>> products.
>>
> This is a particularly bad example of why the public sector should
> lead in exploration. Because of the limited budget constraints JPL
> labors under they built and flew only two of these.
Obviously your private sector would have NO budget constraints
since it is well known that are many private firms building
mars rovers :-)
> And after the two
> there are no follow ons. Why? Because the "program" has ended.
No, because they are trying to build better ones. The Mars exploration
program hasn't ended at all.
> Imagine
> if Ford had built "two" Model T's and then called it quits because the
> "program" funding had run out?
>
This is just plain nonsense. Ford could sell the cars to private
people to drive around. A Mars rover has a much smaller market you see?
Try to sell one to people out there.
> Why aren't there dozens of these running around the surface of Mars
> right now?
Because Bush decided that science has no interest and started
this "go back to the moon" story.
> Why do I have to wait 15 years and *billions* of dollars
> later for the next "program" to "grant" us with another rover that
> is unproven and may actually fail?
>
The Bush administration has put NASA new goals and no more funding.
Something had to give and science (not a really priority for G.W.)
had to go.
It is funny that the same people that cut NASA budget propose
"private enterprise" that will solve everything.
kT
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:07:45 -0500, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>> You are an American fascist. The FBI has again been notified.
>
He didn't post multiple death threats on the usenet. You did.
> What makes an anti-semitic
> bastard like you think you can make it work?
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:29:41 -0500
From: Elfritz Non Grata
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Subject: Re: More Fascism in America
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:29:37 -0500
Message-ID: <0mvne4lvq9e15dh97...@4ax.com>
References: <XI2dnTC-Wty4t3fV...@giganews.com>
<gcde6l$cpf$1...@aioe.org> <49494f5f....@news.giganews.com>
<46c1d4e8-2c2d-4bd9...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<gcfg9e$5bu$1...@aioe.org> <o62ne4hah3cr36hvu...@4ax.com>
<gcg4l6$8u6$1...@aioe.org> <LEMGk.1924$tu5....@newsfe09.iad>
<gcg5db$cgj$1...@aioe.org> <SRMGk.1926$tu5...@newsfe09.iad>
<8fcne4hiodq902937...@4ax.com>
<QsOGk.45338$gY7....@newsfe19.iad>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.0/32.763
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 17
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-RukE2H/lttCNNBAsgBl5CVX1bNLxeED6097+ncJsWcgR3ubR2PQrKEMkMC2/NEHs1W+PeyTjdSKv+uu!UrVY4kuO0FYS5OgV40lagK6mH3c4O15XaBDroSDVMdbrWq0LG1FeVrw6keaY9kisuZi/abeWeg==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
It worked already! No death threats hidden in the Organization header.
I can even tell what computer you are using from the Forte agent.
Soon you won't be able to post from Giganews anymore, Mosley.
>
> Fuck off, Nazi trash!
> OM
Robert Mosley III from Austin, Texas USA - American Fascist.
Pat Flannery
jacob navia wrote:
>
> Asteroids will not be mined since there is no sense
> in getting to an asteroid to mine it. You can mine
> anything you want here on earth. Metals and other raw
> materials are here on earth, and they are much cheaper mined here
> than going to an asteroid to mine it.
The key is going to a area where the crust of the Earth is fairly
thin...say Tanganyika... and drilling a hole down to the molten
nickel-iron of the outer core... this may be difficult to do using
conventional drilling techniques, but with the use of nuclear explosives
we should be able to accomplish this with only a small risk of anything
going wrong. ;-)
Seriously, as you point out, the only place where asteroid-mined metals
can be used economically versus surface manufacture is in space, and
once you figure out all the costs of mining and processing them there
(even for space use - particularly if you go into manned space mining
operations route) it still may be cheaper to mine the ore on Earth and
send it to where needed in space as finished metal products. If they
ever figure out a way to mass manufacture Fullerene-based materials at
low cost, then a lot of uses for metal in space may vanish, and Earth
launch become a lot more practical due to the low weight versus strength
of the Fullerene materials compared to metal alloys.
Pat
David Spain
>> Why aren't there dozens of these running around the surface of Mars
>> right now?
>
> Because Bush decided that science has no interest and started
> this "go back to the moon" story.
I know that the typical Usenet news experience is one of arguing with
people who have made up their minds and will harbor no contradiction.
I'll bet that over the entire history of Usenet Newsgoups the total number
of people who ever changed their opinion of something because of a
"discussion" entered into in one of these news groups is probably an
amazingly low number (wonder if it exceeds 10,000, or even 1,000?).
I have from time-to-time actually changed an opinion I held because of
reasoned argument seen on a few newsgroups.
This, of course, is not one of those times. (HA! Pat I set you up!)
What I'd like to point out to those of you who may be lurking in this
thread that the above proclamation is *exactly* the argument I've been
making here that proves my point. I *don't* want a space program subject
to the whims of those who run the government. I *don't* want to be coerced
via the taxation power of the state into funding programs I believe have
no long term viability. I'd *like* the private sector and private organizations
to step up to the plate to provide the sustainable infrastructure needed for
human spaceflight w/o pandering to the whims of fickle politicians. I'd *like*
the state to get off my back by offering me tax deductions for contributions
made to private organizations backing space exploration.
>
> The Bush administration has put NASA new goals and no more funding.
> Something had to give and science (not a really priority for G.W.)
> had to go.
>
I think you'll find that attitude is not confined to any particular
political party.
> It is funny that the same people that cut NASA budget propose
> "private enterprise" that will solve everything.
Let's let NASA advise and let 100's of startups give it a whirl instead
of a single bureaucracy.
Dave
Rand Simberg
Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>You write "ongoing national and global financial crisis". Oh really?
>Exactly how does the US translate into "global"? The rest of the world
>is doing fine we are the ones losing value with our currency. Half
>right and half assed....again!
What was that again.? Moron?
OM
>Fuck off, Nazi trash!
> OM
...Good impression of me. Not. At least they got the .sig correct, but
any C&P will accomplish that.
[shakes head in mild amusement]
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
kT
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:29:37 -0500, Elfritz Non Grata wrote:
>
>> Fuck off, Nazi trash!
>> OM
>
> ...Good impression of me. Not. At least they got the .sig correct, but
> any C&P will accomplish that.
Giganews will sort it out.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Yes, it *is* economic nonsense. Why would you need a "huge spaceship"
:> when you can just paste a few motors to your rock of choice and move
:> it wherever you want?
:>
:
:Sure sure. But to get it into the surface of the earth
:you will need those huge motors.
:
Really? Why? They don't have 'gravity' on your world? Stuff just
naturally comes down...
:> :
:> :Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up.
:> :Let's face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going into
:> :space. Science doesn't bring us quick profits. Just knowledge.
:> :
:>
:> Even if it was gold that was discovered, it would not pay up. Let's
:> face it. There is NO MONEY to be made by going to the New World....
:>
:
:You seem to confuse crossing the Atlantic Ocean, and getting into
:some asteroid.
:
You seem to confuse a voyage with a voyage. Oh, wait. Same thing!
:
:There are several orders of magnitude difference in size of the trip,
:and the environment around the ship.
:
How long did it take to cross the Atlantic in the 15th Century?
:
:Note that the best spaceships we can manage now can put just
:several hundred kilograms in Mars. The first exploration ships
:in asteroids are also approximately this size and not even designed to
:make the round-trip.
:
The preceding simply isn't true. You mean the best spaceships we're
willing to fund...
:
:Looking for minerals in asteroids is just plain nonsense for the next
:century.
:
I'm sure that's what everyone was telling Columbus until he met
Isabella...
Pat Flannery
Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> The New World will not be mined since there is no sense in getting to
> the New World to mine it. You can mine anything you want here in
> Europe. Metals and other raw materials are here in Europe, and they
> are much cheaper mined here than going to the New World to mine it.
>
> Then people started bringing back shiploads of gold...
>
And that never (bad pun) panned out, and indeed led to Spain's financial
failure as a empire by devaluing gold on the European market due to a
huge influx of new gold supplies from the New World... which fairly
rapidly dried up after it was all seized from the Mesoamerican
civilizations and needed to be mined the old-fashioned way.
The things that did make the New World work in a financial sense were
addictive drugs: Rum and Tobacco...and possibly Chocolate. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
jacob navia wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Yes, it *is* economic nonsense. Why would you need a "huge spaceship"
>> when you can just paste a few motors to your rock of choice and move
>> it wherever you want?
>>
>
> Sure sure. But to get it into the surface of the earth
> you will need those huge motors.
Nah, lithobraking:
http://www.mreclipse.com/Observatory/Crater/full/Crater99-111w.JPG
Pat
Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
>
> No mention of AI?!? What the f....?
>
>
AI is an extremely important area. One really should view it as a
number of realated technologies. The most relevant for space is
robotics and the ability to reproduce human manual dexterity.
Linguistics and "understanding" if you like is interesting but not
reallyrelevant for space.
There has also been discussion on the $700e9 baleout. The fact the AI
has been used extensively to optimize the buying and selling of shares
is of great importance if we wish to regulate the stock market so that
it is stable. AI acts on what it sees. It does not have bullish
enthusiasm or bearish despondency. In fact an AI system (Stock
Exchange) can be REQUIRED to have built in stability.
I cannot see any grandiose space project (like SSP) being viable
without the vast majority of the materials used coming from space.
This implies that robotics is a key technology. To be sure you need to
engineer a SSP system. It needs to be capable of deliving power in a
flexible way. It needs to use phase coherence. This being said it
should be clear that although we can do a lot to demonstrate the
safety and feasibility of a SSP phase control system a full scale
Petawatt system can ONLY be produced and assembled in space.
What should NASA do? Simply wait or try to play some part. I feel that
NASA should :-
1) Try to educate politicians and the public into this way of
thinking.
2) Get the manufacturers of robots interested in the space based
possibilities. NASA should partially fund a selection of key projects.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
But most of everything related to out DARPA / NASA is need-to-know and
otherwise strictly taboo/nondisclosure rated, especially about
mistakes.
NASA or even DARPA itself is not a resource for R&D funding.
~ BG
David Spain
> What should NASA do? Simply wait or try to play some part. I feel that
> NASA should :-
>
> 1) Try to educate politicians and the public into this way of
> thinking.
>
> 2) Get the manufacturers of robots interested in the space based
> possibilities. NASA should partially fund a selection of key projects.
And:
3) Restructure itself to fill the important scientific, engineering, and
laboratory advisory role its former NACA self did so outstandingly well
in aeronautics.
Dave
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:15:25 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >You write "ongoing national and global financial crisis". Oh really?
> >Exactly how does the US translate into "global"? The rest of the world
> >is doing fine we are the ones losing value with our currency. Half
> >right and half assed....again!
>
> What was that again.? Moron?
Yep, the Europeans are going to start cancelling their travel plans to
the US now.
You're the moron due to all your self-limiting beliefs.
Eric Chomko
Politicians are all too connected to industries and their corporations
which are only concerned with their bottom lines.
> 2) Get the manufacturers of robots interested in the space based
> possibilities. NASA should partially fund a selection of key projects.
>
NASA has several robotics projects. Heck the Mars rovers may very well
be the most famous "robots" working today.
Eric
Ian Parker
>
> > 1) Try to educate politicians and the public into this way of
> > thinking.
>
> Politicians are all too connected to industries and their corporations
> which are only concerned with their bottom lines.
>
Mars. I am suggesting two things. Firstly the Moon is not the right
place to set off from for Mars. Secondly a manned expedition to Mars
should not be a high priority anyway.
The bottom line. What is on the bottom line? In a business this is
profit. In politics it is getting elected. Will Mars get you to the
White House? This is the bottom line question. No this election at any
rate will be "The Economy stupid". $100billion not injected directly
into the economy will be a big no no.
> > 2) Get the manufacturers of robots interested in the space based
> > possibilities. NASA should partially fund a selection of key projects.
>
> NASA has several robotics projects. Heck the Mars rovers may very well
> be the most famous "robots" working today.
>
The Mars Rovers - yes. These vehicles are in fact rather primitive in
robotic terms. They do their job, don't get me wrong. What I would be
interested in would be something capacle of stripping dows Hubble and
putting it together again. Or a robot that can travel across Mars at a
good walking pace. Not a few meters a day.
- Ian Parker
der...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:16:04 +0200
>
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >
> >
> > David Spain wrote:
> >> What do these names
> >> mean to you, North American Rockwell, Grumman Aerospace,
> >> Lockheed Corporation, Martin Marietta Corporation, Rocketdyne?
> >> (Extra Credit: What happened to some of these formerly glorious
> >> companies once they became overly dependent on the federal
> dollar?)
> >
> >
> > moment of their creation
> > When you build military aircraft or rockets, your customer list
> > is somewhat limited.
> > They did sell aircraft to other countries, but with the exception
> > of the F-104 (and surprisingly the P-51 Mustang, which started
> > out being designed for the RAF) the main customer for their
> > military designs was to be the US.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> My modest proposal simply moves aside the heavy and unjustifiable
> >> (in the 21st Century post Cold War) Administrative function.
> >>
> >> If NASA/NACA still wanted a program to go to the moon they could
> >> get in line and fund it. But better yet, why not wait until we
> have
> >> a *reason* to go back to the moon? Something that returns a
> profit
> >> and ergo remains sustainable?
> >
> > next fifty years or so... :-)
> >
> > Pat
>
> Not only moon flights but ALL space exploration. There is no money
> to be earned by exploring Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter. Not a single
> penny, to the contrary. Going there is expensive.
>
> A private sector motivated by greed would never go anywhere but
> low earth orbit to put TV satellites. Period.
The only deep space voyages which stand the chance of making cash are for
exploitation of the asteroids.
I've thought that should be the priority mission as that's the only way to
engage people's greed.
Big things only tend to happen to satisfy greed or in the course of war,
and there's no real military value to dropping an asteroid on someone, it
would get the dropper's country too.
As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start installing
solar power satellites.
David Spain
> As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start installing
> solar power satellites.
Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
Dave
Damien Valentine
Spanish treasure fleets, bear in mind that said Spanish didn't have to
build their own cities, or mine their own gold. That had already been
done over several centuries, by the native civilizations the Spanish
conquered. Unless there are "dusky savages" somewhere in the Kirkwood
Gap that we can exploit -- maybe some kind of automated system? --
it's not really the best analogy for Belt colonization.
BradGuth
And then there's Venus with significant complex and very intelligent
looking infrastructure to start off with.
~ BG
OM
<vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mr. Behn, when you make an analogy between asteroid mining and the
>Spanish treasure fleets, bear in mind that said Spanish didn't have to
>build their own cities, or mine their own gold.
...The Spanish *did* have Queen Isabella. We just need to find some
rich bimbo of our own and hock -her- jewels.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
> ...The Spanish *did* have Queen Isabella. We just need to find some
> rich bimbo of our own and hock -her- jewels.
>
Although that makes a fun story, that's not really what happened.
The Columbus voyage cost Spain almost nothing, particularly because the
three ships sent on it were pretty low cost.
Santa Maria was a worm-eaten hulk that was ready for retirement, and
Nina and Pinta were both pretty small vessels.
Although Ferdinand and Isabella were very interested in any profits that
Columbus might find across the sea, and that made it worth investing in
the voyage for their royal highnesses, the total amount of money used
was like pocket change to them.
Best money any royalty but into a speculative sea voyage was Queen
Elizabeth financing Francis Drake as he set out to raid the Spanish
Galleons as the returned from the New World...it took him around three
years to get back to England from that voyage...as he went clean around
the world after raiding the west coast of South and Central America,
but she got paid off around 2/1 on her original investment, and the
total haul he brought back equaled more than 1/2 of the Crown's total
royal income for that year ..and he got knighted.
His personal profit on the whole voyage was _4,500 %-:
http://www.historymole.com/cgi-bin/main/results.pl?theme=10001941
God, the absolute balls to sail _clean around the world_ on the way
home.. only Ferdinand Magellan had ever circumnavigated the world before!
God, the sailing skill to make that work in a fairly small ship that was
riding low in the water from all the Spanish treasure in its bowels.
It's no wonder that the despairing captain of a far larger Spanish
galleon he once captured was delighted to surrender his sword to him*...
after learning his name.
After all, he had no eternal black mark on his name... as he said: "It
is no shame to surrender to the greatest seaman of the age!"
* Drake, of course, let him keep his sword.
"Feed a ego, starve a fever." :-D
Pat
BradGuth
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
> :David Spain wrote:
> :> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> :>> I have some birthday thoughts for the space agency:
> :>>
> :>>http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nasa-turns-50-%e2%80%94-so-now-what/
> :>
> :> Reply posted to your blog.
> :
> :You (and Simberg) talk about "the private sector"...
> :
> :The "private sector" isn't going anywhere. The highest flight is a
> :few kilometers above the earth, they haven't even managed to make
> :a single orbiting flight.
> :
>
> Let's not tell all the telecom and Earth observation people, ok?
>
> :
> :NASA has reached for the first time the limits of the solar
> :system with the Voyager probes: they entered interstellar space.
> :
>
> That's because there's no commercial reason to go there right now.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
We still do not have a Selene/moon L1 platform of science, much less
an oasis/gateway depot (Clarke Station) that future space travel can
utilize.
Why is that?
What is our DARPA and their NASA/Apollo not telling us?
Why are you and others of your all-knowing kind such a liars?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
der...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
The conquistadors couldn't move the mine to Spain either, but we could put
an asteroid nearby.
der...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
A space elevator is still in the working out what material to use stage so
is at the best decades away.
Rand Simberg
der...@cix.compulink.co.uk made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> *From:* David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
>> *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
>>
>> der...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>> > As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start
>> > installing solar power satellites.
>>
>> Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
>>
>> Dave
>
>We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
Or a lot of smaller reusables that will be a lot cheaper to operate.
BradGuth
> > *From:* David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
> > *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
>
> > > As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start
> > > installing solar power satellites.
>
> > Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
>
> > Dave
>
> We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
>
> A space elevator is still in the working out what material to use stage so
> is at the best decades away.
China is already offering CATS, with Russia not all that far behind.
Even India should be able to accomplish their own version of CATS at
not 10% the LEO cost/kg of NASA.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
Brad, you don't know the difference between the lies and the truth, so
what differences does it make to you?
Eric Chomko
> On Oct 13, 9:41 am, dere...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > > *From:* David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
> > > *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
>
> > > dere...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> > > > As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start
> > > > installing solar power satellites.
>
> > > Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
>
> > > Dave
>
> > We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
>
> > A space elevator is still in the working out what material to use stage so
> > is at the best decades away.
>
> China is already offering CATS, with Russia not all that far behind.
Well I bet they advertise it as chicken, tho
> Even India should be able to accomplish their own version of CATS
[...]
Stands to reason with all those starving there.
Eric
BradGuth
Will, now that you should ask, and as long as your incest mutated kind
are so systematically intent upon taking us to the cleaners, as well
as over the edge of Earth, it really doesn’t hardly matter because
soon enough it’ll all be over.
Since you folks obviously can’t deal with objective and peer
replicated science as honestly formulated or revised evidence, why
don’t you go back to your Republican Mafia of institutional profit
takings of our hard earned public loot. After all, it’s the right
kind of Zionist/Nazi offshore tax avoidance and public loot hording
thing to be doing, isn’t it?
Obviously state and federal regulations via their SEC along with their
global banking transaction tracing authority that our Patriot Act
gives them full access to, could just as easily monitor and thereby
tax such systematic day by day and even hour by hour profit takings at
50%, that is if they weren’t all part of the cookie jar gang of blood
sucking thieves to start off with.
Perhaps our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), his trusty bed-wetting
partner Dick Cheney and their mutual brown-nosed SEC along with their
private Federal Reserve cabal/cartel are really not nearly as dumb as
some of us might care to think, because it seems their investment
portfolios are anything but suffering. If a certain young and
otherwise capable democrat got elected, how long do you give BHO to
live?
BTW, I most certainly know objective and/or peer replicated science
when I see it, hear it or read about it. I also know when I’m being
snookered to death by those of your silly LLPOF kind.
BradGuth
The US may be catching up real soon, with more percapita of real
unemployed and starving then India. You do realize that the US has
more incarcerated percapita than India.
~ BG
der...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:02:19 GMT
Haven't you learnt your lesson from the shuttle debacle?
What drives the cost down is mass production and extensive automation, not
reuse.
When the mission control suite is a couple of people with laptops and the
boosters are being churned out faster than Dodge Chargers, then you'll
have a reasonably low cost programme.
BradGuth
> > *From:* simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> > *Date:* Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:02:19 GMT
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:41:21 -0500, in a place far, far away,
> > such a way as to indicate that:
>
> > >> *From:* David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
> > >> *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
>
> > >> > As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start
> > >> > installing solar power satellites.
>
> > >> Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
>
> > >> Dave
>
> > >We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
>
> > Or a lot of smaller reusables that will be a lot cheaper to operate.
>
> Haven't you learnt your lesson from the shuttle debacle?
>
> What drives the cost down is mass production and extensive automation, not
> reuse.
>
> When the mission control suite is a couple of people with laptops and the
> boosters are being churned out faster than Dodge Chargers, then you'll
> have a reasonably low cost programme.
That's all too logical, and otherwise unable to keep yourself plus
close friends employed with benefits, and those contractor kickbacks
rolling in.
China has passed up Russia in mass productions of their fly-by-rocket
alternatives, and there's no telling what India might accomplish once
given the ESA green light.
It seems our DARPA and their NASA puppets are about the only ones left
in the mutually perpetrated cold-war dark ages, as they keep having to
cover their butts because of what their Apollo missions did not
accomplish.
~ BG
Rand Simberg
>> *From:* simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
>> *Date:* Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:02:19 GMT
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:41:21 -0500, in a place far, far away,
>> der...@cix.compulink.co.uk made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>> such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >> *From:* David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
>> >> *Date:* Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:05:25 -0400
>> >>
>> >> der...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>> >> > As for orbital use, we need a really heavy lifter to start
>> >> > installing solar power satellites.
>> >>
>> >> Well, sure. But hey, what about that space elevator thingy?
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >
>> >We could build a lot of heavy lifters in the next few years.
>>
>> Or a lot of smaller reusables that will be a lot cheaper to operate.
>
>Haven't you learnt your lesson from the shuttle debacle?
It's completely illogical to draw grand (and false) conclusions about
a class of objects from a single example.
>What drives the cost down is mass production and extensive automation, not
>reuse.
No, what drives the cost down is flight rate. Shuttle wasn't fully
reusable, and it didn't have a high flight rate.
David Spain
> No, what drives the cost down is flight rate. Shuttle wasn't fully
> reusable, and it didn't have a high flight rate.
I'd add to that innovation as well. Without a sustainable infrastructure
we didn't get orders for new shuttles to replace the old ones. Thus we
don't get cost saving innovations introduced to the shuttle fleet either.
Sustainability and flight rate go hand-in-hand. Rand and I are completely
on the same page here. If I can recover the booster hardware (tankage, engines,
guidance systems) and all I need to do is dry it off, change the batteries,
relubricate and refuel it. I can't think of a much cheaper way to go. And I
get kudos from the environmental crowd for not littering the ocean with
expendables.
There are lots of lessons to be learned from the Space Shuttle. Let's make sure
they are the right ones.
Dave
Rand Simberg
Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
Unfortunately, we seem to have learned wrong, and stupid ones (e.g.,
separate crew and cargo, don't be reusable, go back to Apollo).
BradGuth
wrote:
Those smart Zionist/Nazi DARPA folks no longer exist as active staff,
plus most all of their mission related R&D and prototype data and much
hardware is missing, so that makes most anything of our Apollo as-
built fiasco era out of the question.
~ BG
Jeff Findley
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:496cbf93....@news.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:25:09 -0400, in a place far, far away, David
> Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>>sure
>>they are the right ones.
>
> Unfortunately, we seem to have learned wrong, and stupid ones (e.g.,
> separate crew and cargo, don't be reusable, go back to Apollo).
How about: large segmented solids are a good thing to have on future launch
vehicles
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
BradGuth
wrote:
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo...@org.trash> wrote in message
Why reinvent the Zionist/Nazi fly-by-rocket wheel?
~ BG