On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nasa has done more harm than good to the CATS movement and ignoring
> *that* is foolish. Look at the results, not at the biased
> institutionalal propaganda which they call "information."
We weren't talking about that. We were talking about whether a specific
technique, namely balloon tanks, represented a viable way to build a
vehicle. You, as your main argument, used the fact that NASA has done it
that way. I pointed out to you why that is a bogus argument on both
philosophical and technological grounds. You even managed to make Henry
Spencer testy, which is quite an accomplishment, however dubious.
> Space access is no nearer or cheaper than it was forty years ago
> for civilians and we're the ones who've been forced to foolishly pay
> nasa's bills and salaries. I don't know what else that can be called
> but exploitation. It's not just incompetence. 40 years of incompetence
> is not believable. It's a pattern.
> Nasa's blockading space. They have some good people but the
> institution is not worth defending .
Blockading space? How, exactly? Have you not been keeping up with what
has been going on the past year or two on the regulatory and commercial
fronts? Look, the situation has changed and the alternative space
community (which, btw, is the current preferred term) has really gotten
down to the nuts and bolts of building vehicles and businesses. The
regulatory environment has improved dramatically, with two licenses
issued and AST showing a real desire to make things better.
-p
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
