Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Reggie Bautista wrote: > "The Martian Way?" Never heard of it. Any idea if it's > available in any of the copious numbers of Asimov anthologies > out there? According to the Internet SF Database site: http://isfdb.tamu.edu/cgi-bin/pw.cgi?6e2806 It's been published in these books/magazines: 1. Galaxy Science Fiction, November 1952, H. L. Gold, 1952, $0.35 2. The Martian Way and Other Stories, Isaac Asimov, 1955, Doubleday, hc 3. Worlds to Come, Damon Knight, 1967, Harper & Row, LCC# AC 67-10130, $4.95, hc 4. The Best of Isaac Asimov, Isaac Asimov, 1973, Sidgwick & Jackson, hc 5. Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume 2B, Ben Bova, 1973, Doubleday, hc 6. The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 2B, Ben Bova, 1974, Avon Books, 0-380-00054-7, pb 7. Prisoners of the Stars, Isaac Asimov, 1979, Doubleday, hc 8. The Great SF Stories 14 (1952), Isaac Asimov, 1985 9. The Asimov Chronicles: Fifty Years of Isaac Asimov, Isaac Asimov+Martin H. Greenberg, 1989, Dark Harvest, 0-913165-44-1, $21.95 The copy I own is in the mid 80s Asimov collection _Robot Dreams_. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Trent Shipley asked: > > What will be the tangible benefits from a manned mission to Mars? > > This is going to sound awfully pie-in-the-sky because, well, because it is, > at least a little :-) > > We have to get off this planet. We don't know when we might next be hit by > an asteroid like the one that killed off most of the dinosaurs. If you > think the human race is worth saving, then diversifying where we live is of > extreme importance. Right now, all our eggs are in one basket. And if you > want to take the really long-term view, eventually we have to get out of > this solar system. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk, and you > have to learn to walk before you can run. Sure it's going to be expensive. > But if we don't start now, then when? Or you could spend the projected 500billion on finding every asteroid and comet in the entire solar system, and wait a few years until material science advances enough to build a space elevator. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: War on AIDS [was: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan]
> Here in Brazil the number of children born with inherited AIDS > decreased from about 8% to about 3% in the past few years. We > _may_ have it under control. > Mazal tov, but that has nothing to do with Bush reneging on his promise by making a splashy announcement about increasing American contributions to the fight against AIDS and then not actually asking Congress for any additional money. He always makes these feel-good announcements to get the publicity benefit, then, after the press and public have turned their attention elsewhere, quietly forgetting all about actually requesting any of the promised money. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 02:15 PM 1/18/04, Reggie Bautista wrote: Julia wrote: > Anyone feel they were heavily influenced by Asimov's short story "The > Martian Way"? I say this as a long-time Asimov fan. "The Martian Way?" Never heard of it. Any idea if it's available in any of the copious numbers of Asimov anthologies out there? Well, you could try "The Martian Way and Other Stories" . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) The contents of this message © 2004 by the author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, redistribution, duplication, forwarding, dissemination, publication, broadcast, transmission or other use of the contents of this message, in whole or in part, with or without attribution, with or without this copyright statement, in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly and expressly prohibited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Trent Shipley asked: > What will be the tangible benefits from a manned mission to Mars? This is going to sound awfully pie-in-the-sky because, well, because it is, at least a little :-) We have to get off this planet. We don't know when we might next be hit by an asteroid like the one that killed off most of the dinosaurs. If you think the human race is worth saving, then diversifying where we live is of extreme importance. Right now, all our eggs are in one basket. And if you want to take the really long-term view, eventually we have to get out of this solar system. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk, and you have to learn to walk before you can run. Sure it's going to be expensive. But if we don't start now, then when? Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Julia wrote: > Anyone feel they were heavily influenced by Asimov's short story "The > Martian Way"? I say this as a long-time Asimov fan. "The Martian Way?" Never heard of it. Any idea if it's available in any of the copious numbers of Asimov anthologies out there? Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
War on AIDS [was: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan]
Tom Beck wrote: > > (remember his AIDS initiative? Remember No Child Left Behind?) > Here in Brazil the number of children born with inherited AIDS decreased from about 8% to about 3% in the past few years. We _may_ have it under control. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be > > treated. > > > > Open access to emergency medicine is the back door > > is basically a disguised > > form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent > > people to take on your > > charity case whether they want to or not. > Well Trent then I guess I won't depend on you should > my life ever be threatened. While we're at it, lets > get rid of unemployment support, wellfare, and any > other government "charities" since we're being > forced to provide for those leeches too... I think one of the yardsticks of how "civilized" a culture is can be deduced from how it handles its downtrodden or unfortunate members; if the deformed or mentally retarded or just plain temporarily-overwhelmed are tossed onto the garbage heap, that denotes both a lack of compassion and - from a practical standpoint - definite economic short-sightedness. Frex, a recent list discussion about various gov't. agencies employing mentally retarded persons: those persons are gainfully employed, tend to be loyal and steadfast in repetitive work positions, and would require significant social services if they did not have these jobs. I like Michael's presentation of a sort of revamped CCC, which I think would provide gainful employment, foster pride and self-sufficiency (assuming some training is provided where needed), and help prevent crime such as theft and burglary. I do agree that *creating and maintaining* a perpetually needy population is counter-productive, but helping the momentarily-fallen to regain their feet, and the permanently-disabled to contribute to society somehow, is a worthy endeavor. Debbi Baron Got Up On The Wrong Side Of The Stall Today Maru (fortunately I didn't have to take him out on the trail!) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for inexpensive earth to orbit travel: there are > two obvious ways to achieve this: > > * A nuclear thermal rocketThe problem with >nuclear thermal rockets is two fold. Firstly, > the current designs always put some radioactive > fission products > into the exhaust. The impression I get is that > the releases per > launch are less than a 1 GW coal-fired electric > power station puts > into the air (from uranium dust in the coal that > goes up the smoke stack). But I don't know. That would depend on how many rockets were launched per year, but I daresay most countries 'downwind' would not be pleased at such 'fallout.' > Secondly, some nuclear thermal rockets will > crash. That is > inevitable, just as some nuclear submarines have > sunk. Launch > trajectories can be designed so that not too > much damage is done > by a crash; but people will worry. How > confident are you that > Russian or Ukrainian built vehicles will safer > than the nuclear power station at Chernobol? Not very much, no. > * An air-augmented chemical rocketOf course, >air-augmented rockets, like current > airliners, put water > into the stratosphere. Some have argued that > this water is or will > upset the climate. The US is covered with > contrails, which are a > visible indicator of such water. And over the > past 30 years, people > have seen a decrease in the amount of measured > sunlight in western > Europe. (And maybe elsewhere; I don't know.)... According to an engineer at a solar power station in Arizona, yes: what I was told several years ago [private communication] was a "noticable reduction" in sunlight intensity reaching the panels.The number I recall was 40% - which seems quite absurdly high! - so perhaps it was 4%...? Another source of sunlight deflection in southern Arizona would be air pollution; the brown haze over Phoenix and Tucson can be truly appalling. And when I worked in Yuma, when the winds blew from the south during agricultural burning/fertilizing, I could not only feel & smell various contaminants, but over the following weeks would see an increase in respiratory complaints in the clinic. Debbi who wants to believe, but doesn't __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
> Actually, I'm quite sure that Bush is laughing at you. > Let him. The man's such a worthless buffoon, I take that as a badge of honor. At least he's not fooling ME. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
On Friday 2004-01-16 18:30, John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 01:49 PM 1/16/2004 -0700 Trent Shipley wrote: > >I can think of only a few objective reasons why the commonwealth should > >provide subsidies to ne'er do wells like myself. > > What a Nietschian hell > Exactly! Libertarian paradise, Social darwinist hell, same thing. > The answer, of course, is that every human life is precious... and indeed, > in your ow terms, every human life is a unique resource. Every human life > saved has the potential to reap enormous returns. > > JDG Yes, but in my system an actuary can tell you the odds of realizing a return on that resource and how big the present value of that return is likely to be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Social Contract Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 04:09 PM 1/16/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >Well isn't it at least partly due to luck? If I was born to a crack Mom, >I'd say that the cards had been stacked against me, wouldn't you. Now we >do live in a society that allows for the possibility that anyone can >overcome their bad luck, but that normally takes an extraordinary effort, >something alot of us are not capable of. Which is another matter of luck, >eh? Or consider the following analogy. In the modern world, every human being is born a slave. We are born without access to resources, and yet require resources to meet our basic survival needs of food, water, shelter, and clothing. There is no longer any vast wilderness "surplus" anyone can wander into to make a sustaining existence. Thus, survival is entirely dependent upon acquiring resources from those who control them. Consider, for example, a deserted island economy after a shipwreck.On the first day, one survivor washes ashore and claims the entire island for himself. On the second day, another survivor comes ashore.In Trent's world, however, the first survivor would have every right to deny the second survivor access to the island's resources - these resources, are, after all, the first's property. Presumably, however, the first survivor could decide to employ the second survivor in developing the island's resources and thus pay the second survivor "wages" sufficient for sustenance.Or presumably, the first could just decide that it is all too much bother, and allow the second survivor - a ne'er-do-well - to starve.In this way, the second survivor is a slave - he is entirely at the mercy of the first survivor to provide either charity or employment. And such is life in the modern world. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
At 07:13 PM 1/16/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >If you really buy into this, you're being taken. Bush and his people are >chortling at your credulity. "Man, can you believe they bought this? >A-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!" Actually, I'm quite sure that Bush is laughing at you. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 01:49 PM 1/16/2004 -0700 Trent Shipley wrote: >I can think of only a few objective reasons why the commonwealth should >provide subsidies to ne'er do wells like myself. What a Nietschian hell The answer, of course, is that every human life is precious... and indeed, in your ow terms, every human life is a unique resource. Every human life saved has the potential to reap enormous returns. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
> Obviously it is only a start. The converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" > is also true. Open your mind, man. And your heart. > Open your eyes, man. And your brain. You're taking the wish for the deed. Bush is infamous for propsing things that sound nice, so he can some nice publicity, and then later, when the cameras are gone, not funding them (remember his AIDS initiative? Remember No Child Left Behind?) This is just More Of The Same. He's not serious. There's no way we can pay for this, given the budget deficits he intentionally engineered SO THAT THERE'D BE NO MONEY TO PAY FOR STUFF LIKE THIS. If you really buy into this, you're being taken. Bush and his people are chortling at your credulity. "Man, can you believe they bought this? A-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!" Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Ronn! wrote: Why do you believe that being a taxpayer -- by which I am presuming you mean having an income, owning property, etc., so that you are subject to taxation -- is simply a matter of "luck"? Well isn't it at least partly due to luck? If I was born to a crack Mom, I'd say that the cards had been stacked against me, wouldn't you. Now we do live in a society that allows for the possibility that anyone can overcome their bad luck, but that normally takes an extraordinary effort, something alot of us are not capable of. Which is another matter of luck, eh? Or what about homeless Viet Nam vets? The fact that so many of these guys are on the street thirty years after the war suggests to me that they encountered problems that normal people can't easily overcome. All because they happened to be born when there was a draft and had a low lottery number. Hell, if our acting president hadn't been born high and mighty, he'd have probably been a ground pounder then and pushing a shopping cart around today. I'd say luck has a lot to do with it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 02:49 PM 1/16/04, Trent Shipley wrote: On Friday 2004-01-16 13:16, Damon Agretto wrote: > --- Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be > > treated. > > > > Open access to emergency medicine is the back door > > is basically a disguised > > form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent > > people to take on your > > charity case whether they want to or not. > > Well Trent then I guess I won't depend on you should > my life ever be threatened. While we're at it, lets > get rid of unemployment support, wellfare, and any > other government "charities" since we're being forced > to provide for those leeches too... > > Damon. Yep. If the space-cadets must justify their pet project in objective terms, so must bleeding hearts. The main reason to keep welfare programs is the sentimental belief that we (meaning those lucky -- or moral -- enough to be taxpayers) Why do you believe that being a taxpayer -- by which I am presuming you mean having an income, owning property, etc., so that you are subject to taxation -- is simply a matter of "luck"? are morally obliged to take care of all our fellow citizens, or even human beings. What does "to take care of" entail? I can think of only a few objective reasons why the commonwealth should provide subsidies to ne'er do wells like myself. Why do you consider yourself a "ne'er do well"? I understood from what you said in an earlier post that you have some chronic health problem(s?), and that they may be serious enough that you are disabled, but at least IMO that does not make you or someone else in the same situation a "ne'er do well" . . . -- Ronn! :) The contents of this message © 2004 by the author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, redistribution, duplication, forwarding, dissemination, publication, broadcast, transmission or other use of the contents of this message, with or without attribution, with or without this copyright statement, in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly and expressly prohibited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
On Friday 2004-01-16 13:16, Damon Agretto wrote: > --- Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be > > treated. > > > > Open access to emergency medicine is the back door > > is basically a disguised > > form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent > > people to take on your > > charity case whether they want to or not. > > Well Trent then I guess I won't depend on you should > my life ever be threatened. While we're at it, lets > get rid of unemployment support, wellfare, and any > other government "charities" since we're being forced > to provide for those leeches too... > > Damon. Yep. If the space-cadets must justify their pet project in objective terms, so must bleeding hearts. The main reason to keep welfare programs is the sentimental belief that we (meaning those lucky -- or moral -- enough to be taxpayers) are morally obliged to take care of all our fellow citizens, or even human beings. I can think of only a few objective reasons why the commonwealth should provide subsidies to ne'er do wells like myself. 1) Public stability requires providing the lumpen with bread and circuses. TV provides cheap circus. The question remains what is the optimally expedient expenditure on "bread" to maintain political stability and confidence in the status quo. (It also begs the question of what constitutes "bread". Americans seem to think that food is "bread" but housing and medical care dont. In behavioral science terms it is a question of moral economy. There is also related issues like the economic value of keeping homeless folk out of mercantile and 'respectable' neighborhoods.) 2) The economic stabilization that is a side-effect of entitlement programs. 3) Accounting that proves the program is counter-intuitively cost-effective. (Note that in the face of this kind of accounting, eg that providing treatment in prision for alchol and drug addiction is cost effective, conservatives raise moral objections [that we dismiss under this theory of amoral legislation] while libertarians say that surely there are unaddressed strategic costs of "codling" that result in expensive "dependency".) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
--- Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be > treated. > > Open access to emergency medicine is the back door > is basically a disguised > form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent > people to take on your > charity case whether they want to or not. Well Trent then I guess I won't depend on you should my life ever be threatened. While we're at it, lets get rid of unemployment support, wellfare, and any other government "charities" since we're being forced to provide for those leeches too... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be treated. Open access to emergency medicine is the back door is basically a disguised form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent people to take on your charity case whether they want to or not. On Friday 2004-01-16 07:03, Damon Agretto wrote: > > No. I have given up on social programs and think > > the government should spend > > little or no money on them. I think that if someone > > with no money shows up > > in an emergency room they should get no treatment > > even if this means that the > > person dies. > > Wow. So if I get into a car accident, because I don't > yet have insurance, and because I'm currently walking > the tight rope between solvency and bankruptcy, I > should be allowed to die? I hope you were just being > sarcastic! > > Damon. > > > = > > Damon Agretto > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." > http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html > Now Building: > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronn!Blankenship > > > "No Buck Rogers ==> no bucks." As someone else here has already said, the > taxpayers aren't going to get excited about spending billions just to get a > piece of asteroid. Space exploration is probably the best way to inprove our economy. Nearly every industry the US has today owes it's state of existence either to WWII or or the Space Race. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bryon Daly wrote: > I think "Manned Exploration Vehicle" would make more sense, but > Easterbrook's just nitpicking here. "Crewed" would be better than "Crew". Except "Crewed" sounds exactly like "Crude". Yeah, that's why I went with Manned, instead of Crewed (crude). Using "Manned" is an open invitation for accusations of sexism, unfortunately. Ah, yes. Forgot about that. _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked Exactly how realistic a proposal was Apollo on 25 May 1961? Fairly realistic. Not only were many of the technical details worked out in the 1940s and 1950s, but the US started development of the large rocket engines used by the Saturn boosters in the 1950s. The challenge was difficult, but `doable', which is why President Kennedy chose it. Also, the challenge was simple to define: carry a man (or in the event, two men per mission) to the surface of the moon, and bring him (them) back alive. Nothing else was important: not establishing a presence in space similar to the US presence in Antarctica after the International Geophysical Year, not setting the stage for crewed exploration of other planets, not reducing transport costs. (After 1957, the US presence in Antarctica became permanent, with both scientists and ordinary, working people, like one of my nephew's girl friends, who mostly loaded and unloaded supplies. Now a big issue is Antarctic tourism.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
The problem with space travel is money. The cost of reaching low earth orbit from the surface of the earth needs to drop by a factor of 20 or more. At the moment, space flight is expensive and has few users: * the military: long range artillery, espionage, weather forecasting, communications relay * everyone else: earth resources investigation, weather forecasting, communications relay Scientists are also provided some funding, Sadly, the current demand for space flight will not much increase even if the cost to carry a ton into orbit is halved or quartered. For a US presidential commitment to look like something other than a warning to the Chinese and an election year gambit, the president must commit the country to lower the costs of going into orbit radically, by a factor of at least 20. If the cost comes down to a level that people and ordinary businesses can afford, then we will see a huge increase in demand -- whole new industries will be invented or existing industries changed. But not until then. Unfortunately, the major US and foreign companies in the space business have no incentive to reduce costs dramatically: to do so would also reduce their profits dramatically. Not only that, such a cost reduction would require they abandon their current more or less predictable future for one that is full of organizational unknowns. The companies do have an incentive to keep track of possible cost cutting technologies, in case someone else introduces them. Hence, the various `advanced' research projects you can read about. Also, these projects make for good PR. However, unless the alternative is to lose their current business, the companies have no reason to institute programs that would reduce their current profits and not be predictable by current `good business' criteria. In addition, as an organization, NASA has no incentive to cut launch costs radically. For one, NASA employees can clearly foresee both their future and that of their organization when the current methods are followed. Moreover, much NASA development is actually done by companies and some think of the agency as a mechanism to provide corporations with disguised welfare. (Scientists, engineers, and such like people think differently; but they don't count bureaucratically. They are useful for creating things that produce good PR, like the Hubble space telescope, and the current unmanned landing on Mars.) Worse, the US government can clearly see the military danger of relatively inexpensive earth to orbit travel: another country could launch several dozen space ships that appear to be normal, civilian craft. They will cross over the US; it could be arranged that all cross the US as the same time, apparently accidentally. If they carry bombs, they could launch them with almost no warning. Large weapons could be detonated in orbit, not giving any warning at all. (It is for this reason that I expect that the US and other countries will insist on an inspection regime.) For these reasons, I do not think the Bush proposal means much, except as a way to stop spending on space telescopes, missions to Mercury, asteroids, and Pluto, and on advanced earth resources research. As for inexpensive earth to orbit travel: there are two obvious ways to achieve this: * A nuclear thermal rocket. The initial US research in the 1960s did not do so well (rocket engines crumbled) but eventually tests lasted "until the hydrogen ran out". One kind of rocket engine produced too low a thrust, given its mass, for lift off the planet; but other kinds had thrust-to-mass ratios of 30 to 1 and could be used in a single stage to orbit rocket. These are for tested nuclear rocket engines. There are some really interesting `advanced' designs, too. I have been told that a nuclear rocket development program, leading to a viable current design, would cost no more than $5 - 10 billion US dollars. I don't know whether this is true. The problem with nuclear thermal rockets is two fold. Firstly, the current designs always put some radioactive fission products into the exhaust. The impression I get is that the releases per launch are less than a 1 GW coal-fired electric power station puts into the air (from uranium dust in the coal that goes up the smoke stack). But I don't know. Secondly, some nuclear thermal rockets will crash. That is inevitable, just as some nuclear submarines have sunk. Launch trajectories can be designed so that not too much damage is done by a crash; but people will worry. How confident are you that Russian or Ukrainian built vehicles will safer than the nuclear power station at Chernobol? The way to reduce the number of crashes is to reduce the number of rockets, planet-wide. This raises the price of going into orbit and reduces the military risk. It also means that the gre
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> No. I have given up on social programs and think > the government should spend > little or no money on them. I think that if someone > with no money shows up > in an emergency room they should get no treatment > even if this means that the > person dies. Wow. So if I get into a car accident, because I don't yet have insurance, and because I'm currently walking the tight rope between solvency and bankruptcy, I should be allowed to die? I hope you were just being sarcastic! Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 04:21 AM 1/16/04, Trent Shipley wrote: On Friday 2004-01-16 02:32, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 10:17 PM 1/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote: > >On Thursday 2004-01-15 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Um. I thought I was pretty clear. I HAVE given up on the social > > programs. > > Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You have given up on social > programs, but you still want the government to collect tax money from > citizens and throw it at the same programs you have given up on? No. I have given up on social programs and think the government should spend little or no money on them. I think that if someone with no money shows up in an emergency room they should get no treatment even if this means that the person dies. Methinks I detect more than a note of sarcasm here . . . -- Ronn! :) The contents of this message © 2004 by the author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, redistribution, duplication, forwarding, dissemination, publication, broadcast, transmission or other use of the contents of this message, with or without attribution, with or without this copyright statement, in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly and expressly prohibited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
On Friday 2004-01-16 02:32, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 10:17 PM 1/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote: > >On Thursday 2004-01-15 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Um. I thought I was pretty clear. I HAVE given up on the social > > programs. > > Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You have given up on social > programs, but you still want the government to collect tax money from > citizens and throw it at the same programs you have given up on? No. I have given up on social programs and think the government should spend little or no money on them. I think that if someone with no money shows up in an emergency room they should get no treatment even if this means that the person dies. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> >When the administration announces grand plans for manned space programs i > >FEEL > >proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired. > > > >And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally > >responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that basing public > >policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic. > > > >In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated > > fools' errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to > > the Indies she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice > > side effect. Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! > > > >If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on > > investment? What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% > > do you plan to get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars? > > > >If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity cost. We > > have underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing population and > > military obligations we need to see to, remember. > > > >Money or national security only please. I believe that as a citizen I > > have a *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a > > pure Philistine. As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure science, the > > human quest, or feel-good programs. > > WADR, you sound pretty "emotional" here . . . Well, perhaps I am. I would like a good reason to execute the "Lets go to Mars" program. Unfortunately, no one has given me a good reason. You will not suffer liberals fiscal mismanagement. I am a fiscal conservative. How, pray tell, is going to Mars good fiscal policy? It seems like a big waste of money to me. I'd *LIKE* to be proven wrong. But so far people have only gotten angry at me for expecting them to meet the same burden of proof they put on others. And maybe the problem is that I brought up social programs. NASA doesn't even compete with them. Should we take money from the airforce? What about from particle physics? It doesn't matter, airforce weapon systems, automated space exploration, parks, medical research, it all should meet the same burden of proof. Why, in terms of national defense or the national economy, is this program good public policy? Why should it crowd out any of a dozen other competing programs? What is the tangible benefit from the program? What will be the tangible benefits from a manned mission to Mars? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 10:17 PM 1/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote: On Thursday 2004-01-15 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it. > > > > Who cares if its inspiring? > > > > Look I was raised to be a liberal. > > > > I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor > > sick folk. (Heck, > > I am poor with chronic illnesses and would *benefit* from socialized > > medicine.) > > > > I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education > > till public schools > > can flush money down toilets. > > > > I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone. > > > > I feel ... well you get the picture. > > > > I THINK all of this would be bad public policy. > I'll give up on the space program when you give up the social programs > > Philistine From Hell Um. I thought I was pretty clear. I HAVE given up on the social programs. Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You have given up on social programs, but you still want the government to collect tax money from citizens and throw it at the same programs you have given up on? If that is indeed what you are saying you want the government to do, is that fiscally responsible? Is it patriotic? Is it rational? (If I have misunderstood what you are saying in this and previous messages, I would appreciate being corrected . . .) -- Ronn! :) The contents of this message © 2004 by the author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, redistribution, duplication, forwarding, dissemination, publication, broadcast, transmission or other use of the contents of this message, with or without attribution, with or without this copyright statement, in any form by any means whatsoever is strictly and expressly prohibited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
In a message dated 1/16/2004 12:01:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Yes, but I believe that to have been a "crash" program, > > > > NOT an appropriate term to use wrt aerospace . . . > And Bill Dana will sue for copyright infringement. William Taylor Oh, I hope not. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
At 06:32 PM 1/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote: On Thursday 2004-01-15 16:28, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >spaceship is the Crew Exploration Vehicle? How inspiring! > > Less inspiring than, frex, "Lunar Module"? > > > The name doesn't even make sense. > > Who cares? > > >Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? > > No. Its task will be to > LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <. > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it. Who cares if its inspiring? Me. And I know I am not alone in this. Look I was raised to be a liberal. WADR, I consider my stance on political and social issues to be a product of informed choice, not simply the way I was reared. (I don't mean that as a slap at you or anyone. I'm not sure how to say it better without it sounding like I'm insulting anyone who disagrees with me or my views, and that is *not* what I am saying. I'm just saying that my opinions are uniquely my own . . . something which should be obvious by now to the members of this list. ;-) ) I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor sick folk. (Heck, I am poor with chronic illnesses As am I. *I* will not be going to Mars -- unless it's the same way Gene Shoemaker made it to the Moon, and I have absolutely no desire, much less plans, for that to happen -- unless they develop a method of getting there which is a whole lot faster and less stressful than what is currently available. That particular rocket launched long ago -- 27 years ago this past Monday, to be precise¹. (¹That was the day I picked up the application package for the astronaut program. On the way to do so, something happened that led me to reconsider the course I should take. I went ahead and picked up the package, but I never completed it, and I'm quite sure that was the right decision.) and would *benefit* from socialized medicine.) I dunno if I would benefit or not, either medically² or financially -- assuming that "socialized medicine" were to be done right. I also have doubts about it being done right. (Though that is a discussion for another time.) (²My problems are ones for which no one currently knows the cause -- though I could tell you the date of onset with almost as much precision as the date in the above paragraph -- much less a cure or any effective treatment.) I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education till public schools can flush money down toilets. I think that if teachers can't or aren't allowed to teach (e.g., forced to use programs which don't work, like "whole language" instead of phonics, "bilingual education" which actually delays the students' learning of English, etc.), and especially if parents are not interested, involved, and responsible, there is little to be gained by giving money to "educators" -- especially when many of the highest-paid never enter a classroom -- over flushing it down a toilet³. (³It may indeed be an American standard, but I'm not laughing.) I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone. By building "projects," or by helping people who need help to find a house and yard that they own and feel responsible for? I feel ... well you get the picture. "Right back atcha," hopefully. I THINK all of this would be bad public policy. And I think that, given the government's record on social issues (the "housing projects" of the Sixties, frex, or the education issues I mentioned), putting the government in charge of more of them would be really bad public policy. Most people feel better and do better when they are in control of their destiny, and most people are poor stewards of someone else's money, be they politicians spending tax money to get re-elected or people living in government-provided housing. Heck, people who rent (from private property owners) rather than own their homes are not exactly noted for keeping the property up. The attitude of far too many people seems to be "the heck with it: it's someone else's problem" rather than "it's someone else's property: I'm just renting it temporarily, so I should take care of it, as I would like someone who borrowed something of mine to take care of it." When the administration announces grand plans for manned space programs i FEEL proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired. And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that basing public policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic. In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated fools' errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to the Indies she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice side effect. Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on investment? What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% do you plan to get tangible ROI from a manned missi
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
At 07:04 PM 1/15/04, Bryon Daly wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 04:08 PM 1/15/04, Bryon Daly wrote: When I first read Bush's proposal, one of the first things that struck me was that it seems to be far too little new money, and far too little time, It took only 8 years from JFK's speech until Apollo 11, and JFK's speech happened less than four years after the very first ever object was launched into Earth orbit. . . . and, BTW, six weeks (plus one day for the excruciatingly pedantic among us) after the first ever man in space and three weeks (minus one day) after the first and to that time only US manned launch. Yes, but I believe that to have been a "crash" program, NOT an appropriate term to use wrt aerospace . . . with lots of money and resources brought to bear on it, with the singular goal in mind. (Am I wrong on that?) I've often heard use of "an Apollo-type program" to describe an intense, high-focus program to achieve some goal. Can reappropriating just 1/7 or so of NASA's budget allow for this sort of intense program? From some of the analysis I've seen, it looks as if NASA will still be spending part of its energies and a fair bit of its budget on the shuttle and space station, plus probably still trying to maintain at least some portion of its unmanned robotic exploration efforts. One big oopsie for me: Rereading Bush's speech, I realize his target for a return to the moon is 2015-2020. I had misremembered his testing date for the CEV (2008) as the targeted moon landing date, so it's a far more reasonable 11-16 year timeframe that the short 4-6 year time frame I was thinking. Even so, though, is that enough time (and is the budget sufficient) to develop both a heavy lifting Saturn V replacement, the CEV, and the moon probes? How long did the shuttle take to launch, from day 1 until its first true first space mission? I'm afraid our big project track record since the Apollo days isn't so encouraging. Which imho is at least in part because the "vision" was lacking. No more "higher," "faster," "further," but a step back. As many people pointed out at the time, it was rather ironic, not to mention sad, that three decades after he became the first US astronaut to orbit the Earth, John Glenn's second flight into space was another low Earth orbit mission. (ie: F-22) All that said, I do really like the idea of a return to manned exploration of space, a Moon base and Mars landings. I was pretty disappointed the last time I remember a president (was it Bush?) sorta mentioned a manned Mars mission, there seemed to be a resounding No! from some of the science community. And a loud "Yes!!" from some of us. I hope the "Yes" voices are louder this time. So really, my concern here is in how realistic the proposal is. Exactly how realistic a proposal was Apollo on 25 May 1961? I'd prefer a realistic appraisal up front of the time and costs involved over one that earns a reputation as behind schedule and over budget. (Not to say that I think that will be the case, but Easterbrook's numbers cause me some concern. Particularly the "Saturn V cost $40b in today's dollars" Can we do it plus the CEV today for under $12b when Boeing spends $7.5b designing a new airliner?) Easterbrook was a bit snarky with some of the stuff you quote below, which I won't defend, but I'll add some comments. The name doesn't even make sense. Who cares? I think "Manned Exploration Vehicle" would make more sense, but Easterbrook's just nitpicking here. That was my point. ;-)) I suspect, however, "MANned Exploration Vehicle", like "MANned mission to Mars", or "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a MAN on the moon and returning HIM safely to the Earth" won't fly in the 21st century . . . Which is one of the questions I brought up last night in class: What will the structure of the crew be? All men, with a military or paramilitary command structure? A mixed crew, perhaps as some SF writers have suggested, composed of married couples to allow them to maintain at least an appearance of respectability? I asked my students (as I've asked them before) to consider, if they are married, what would happen if we shut them and their spouse up together in a room the size of the classroom for the next year or two . . . and whether both of them would still be alive at the end of that time . . . Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? No. Its task will be to > LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <. _That's_ what's inspiring about it. I agree. Yep. "Command Module", "Service Module", or "Lunar Module" are not inspiring names in and of themselves. What made them inspiring was what they did. So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush himself to
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan) > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > A mission to a nickle-iron asteroid that would mean an eventual return > > for investment just aint sexy. I can think of one other listmember > > who, like me, might pop a boner at the thought of asteroid mining, but > > I doubt anyone else here would get excited, or in any other way > > emotional at the thought. > > No matter how good an idea it might be, very few people would be > > interested as compared to a Mars mission. > > I dunno about popping a boner, but I really like the idea, anyway. > > Anyone feel they were heavily influenced by Asimov's short story "The > Martian Way"? > For me, I think it was an essay by Niven or Pournelle I read way back in the 70s. I can't remember the name of it, but I've heard the same sentiments and similar numbers quoted over the years by others. I suppose I've never gotten over my excitement for space shots that I've had since I was 3 or 4 when the first Mercury missions were launched. xponent Rock 'N' Roll Too Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
Bryon Daly wrote: > I think "Manned Exploration Vehicle" would make more sense, but > Easterbrook's just nitpicking here. "Crewed" would be better than "Crew". Except "Crewed" sounds exactly like "Crude". Using "Manned" is an open invitation for accusations of sexism, unfortunately. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
Robert Seeberger wrote: > A mission to a nickle-iron asteroid that would mean an eventual return > for investment just aint sexy. I can think of one other listmember > who, like me, might pop a boner at the thought of asteroid mining, but > I doubt anyone else here would get excited, or in any other way > emotional at the thought. > No matter how good an idea it might be, very few people would be > interested as compared to a Mars mission. I dunno about popping a boner, but I really like the idea, anyway. Anyone feel they were heavily influenced by Asimov's short story "The Martian Way"? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
On Thursday 2004-01-15 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it. > > > > Who cares if its inspiring? > > > > Look I was raised to be a liberal. > > > > I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor > > sick folk. (Heck, > > I am poor with chronic illnesses and would *benefit* from socialized > > medicine.) > > > > I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education > > till public schools > > can flush money down toilets. > > > > I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone. > > > > I feel ... well you get the picture. > > > > I THINK all of this would be bad public policy. > I'll give up on the space program when you give up the social programs > > Philistine From Hell Um. I thought I was pretty clear. I HAVE given up on the social programs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
> > > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it. > > Who cares if its inspiring? > > Look I was raised to be a liberal. > > I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor > sick folk. (Heck, > I am poor with chronic illnesses and would *benefit* from socialized > medicine.) > > I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education > till public schools > can flush money down toilets. > > I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone. > > I feel ... well you get the picture. > > I THINK all of this would be bad public policy. > > > When the administration announces grand plans for manned > space programs i FEEL > proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired. > > And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally > responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that > basing public > policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic. Whoa there... Isn't socialized medicine, funding for public education, housing programs, etc, etc, mostly emotional public policy? FEED THE STARVING CHILDREN! BUILD SCHOOLS NOT BOMBS! HOUSE THE HOMELESS! HEALTHCARE FOR ALL! BUY AMERICAN! ABORTION IS MURDER! I don't see many bumper stickers out there saying "NASA RULES!" or "SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL ASTRONAUT" . Don't the liberals spend most of their time trying to convince the conservatives that these emotional-based policies are financially sound - Education builds wealth, equality in healthcare for all costs less, Housing for the poor gets people out of poverty, Etc, Etc... You turned the table around here and said that Space research provides no tangible ROI? Now I feel immediately suspicious! > > In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this > gold-plated fools' > errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a > route to the Indies > she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice > side effect. > Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! > > If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible > return on investment? Thousands of dollars for every per pound we lift into space... This is very tangible. The intangible parts are the side benefits that occur when the technology leaks out into the private sector. I find it hard to think we are on the negative side of the equation here. Afterall, we have Tang because of Apollo... ;-) > What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% > do you plan to > get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars? > > If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity > cost. We have > underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing > population and military > obligations we need to see to, remember. > > Money or national security only please. I believe that as a > citizen I have a > *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a pure > Philistine. That's not very nice. Are you saying anyone who supports space travel is, as the definition states, philistine-like? >From dictionary.com Phil*is*tine 1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C. 2a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. 2b .One who lacks knowledge in a specific area. > As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure > science, the human > quest, or feel-good programs. Hey... Your thing is public charity to help the poor and downtrodden, my thing may be the space program. I think your claim on how government money should be spent is as important as my claim. In fact, our republic supports this position. But for you to say I have no claim, based upon my "philistine" tendencies, is wrong, judgemental, and overly rightous. Now before you start bombing me with reasons I should feel the way you do, don't. I have my reasons for supporting the space program, as emotional as they may be, and you have your reasons for supporting your interests. I may even feel the same way you do about the many social programs... That's not my point. John McGinnis said this: "We are in a prisoner's dilemma: we would all be better off with a smaller government, but it would be irrational for any group to surrender the money or regulatory advantages it gets from the state without a guarantee that all other groups will, too." I'll give up on the space program when you give up the social programs Philistine From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 04:08 PM 1/15/04, Bryon Daly wrote: When I first read Bush's proposal, one of the first things that struck me was that it seems to be far too little new money, and far too little time, It took only 8 years from JFK's speech until Apollo 11, and JFK's speech happened less than four years after the very first ever object was launched into Earth orbit. Yes, but I believe that to have been a "crash" program, with lots of money and resources brought to bear on it, with the singular goal in mind. (Am I wrong on that?) I've often heard use of "an Apollo-type program" to describe an intense, high-focus program to achieve some goal. Can reappropriating just 1/7 or so of NASA's budget allow for this sort of intense program? From some of the analysis I've seen, it looks as if NASA will still be spending part of its energies and a fair bit of its budget on the shuttle and space station, plus probably still trying to maintain at least some portion of its unmanned robotic exploration efforts. One big oopsie for me: Rereading Bush's speech, I realize his target for a return to the moon is 2015-2020. I had misremembered his testing date for the CEV (2008) as the targeted moon landing date, so it's a far more reasonable 11-16 year timeframe that the short 4-6 year time frame I was thinking. Even so, though, is that enough time (and is the budget sufficient) to develop both a heavy lifting Saturn V replacement, the CEV, and the moon probes? How long did the shuttle take to launch, from day 1 until its first true first space mission? I'm afraid our big project track record since the Apollo days isn't so encouraging. (ie: F-22) All that said, I do really like the idea of a return to manned exploration of space, a Moon base and Mars landings. I was pretty disappointed the last time I remember a president (was it Bush?) sorta mentioned a manned Mars mission, there seemed to be a resounding No! from some of the science community. So really, my concern here is in how realistic the proposal is. I'd prefer a realistic appraisal up front of the time and costs involved over one that earns a reputation as behind schedule and over budget. (Not to say that I think that will be the case, but Easterbrook's numbers cause me some concern. Particularly the "Saturn V cost $40b in today's dollars" Can we do it plus the CEV today for under $12b when Boeing spends $7.5b designing a new airliner?) Easterbrook was a bit snarky with some of the stuff you quote below, which I won't defend, but I'll add some comments. The name doesn't even make sense. Who cares? I think "Manned Exploration Vehicle" would make more sense, but Easterbrook's just nitpicking here. Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? No. Its task will be to > LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <. _That's_ what's inspiring about it. I agree. So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are handing out phony numbers for political purposes, to get the foot in the door for far larger sums later. Obviously it is only a start. The converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" is also true. Open your mind, man. And your heart. What would the converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" be? -bryon _ High-speed usersbe more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
- Original Message - From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:32 PM Subject: Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan) > In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated fools' > errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to the Indies > she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice side effect. > Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! > > If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on investment? > What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% do you plan to > get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars? A mission to a nickle-iron asteroid that would mean an eventual return for investment just aint sexy. I can think of one other listmember who, like me, might pop a boner at the thought of asteroid mining, but I doubt anyone else here would get excited, or in any other way emotional at the thought. No matter how good an idea it might be, very few people would be interested as compared to a Mars mission. > > If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity cost. We have > underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing population and military > obligations we need to see to, remember. > > Money or national security only please. I believe that as a citizen I have a > *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a pure > Philistine. As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure science, the human > quest, or feel-good programs. > You wanna live forever cowboy? xponent Raiders Of The Lost Carbonaceous Chondrite Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
- Original Message - From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan > On Thursday 2004-01-15 15:08, Bryon Daly wrote: > > So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete > > nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush > > himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We > > should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. > > And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are > > handing out phony numbers for political purposes, to get the foot in the > > door for far larger sums later. > > Yeah, the budget compared with the goal make NO SENSE. It makes so little > sense that I am drawn to conspiracy theories. > > Corona hidden in NASA psuedo-program for space biology. (Space biologists > have careers stalled for national security -- albeit really critical national > security.) > > Modeling fusion for nuclear bombs marketed as research with high energy lasers > and magnets on fusion power. > > Glomar Explorer mines Soviet sub, but the world is told it is vacuuming > manganese nodules. > > Absurdly low price tag of $12G for space vehicle->moon base->manned mars > expidition hides what? > -- I have a hunch that strategic planners at Shrub Co have a defense > initiative that needs a B-I-G reliable booster. Once they get their lifter, > will the rest of the project get forgotten? > I've been following this story since it leaked last week. What I've been hearing is that not only will this end up an international effort, but the initial lifters are going to be (I think) Ariane 5s and Protons. I think we will likely have to wait a few weeks before more details shake out. But as things stand, any *new* crewed vehicles won't be *new* technology, just modifications of older designs so the costs *should* be reducible. And if the propulsion units are assembled in orbit or at L1 (as some rumors have it) there could be further cost reductions. I'm not claiming that there are not aspects of this plan that strain credulity, but I am saying that we haven't seen a blueprint yet. Just a rough sketch on a napkin, if you will. xponent Mars, bringer Of Budgets Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Martian Emotion (was Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan)
On Thursday 2004-01-15 16:28, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >spaceship is the Crew Exploration Vehicle? How inspiring! > > Less inspiring than, frex, "Lunar Module"? > > > The name doesn't even make sense. > > Who cares? > > >Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? > > No. Its task will be to > LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <. > > _That's_ what's inspiring about it. Who cares if its inspiring? Look I was raised to be a liberal. I feel that we should fund medicaide and take care of poor sick folk. (Heck, I am poor with chronic illnesses and would *benefit* from socialized medicine.) I feel that we should fund primary and secondary education till public schools can flush money down toilets. I feel that we should provide adequate housing for everyone. I feel ... well you get the picture. I THINK all of this would be bad public policy. When the administration announces grand plans for manned space programs i FEEL proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired. And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that basing public policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic. In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated fools' errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to the Indies she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice side effect. Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on investment? What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% do you plan to get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars? If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity cost. We have underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing population and military obligations we need to see to, remember. Money or national security only please. I believe that as a citizen I have a *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a pure Philistine. As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure science, the human quest, or feel-good programs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
On Thursday 2004-01-15 15:08, Bryon Daly wrote: > So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete > nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush > himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We > should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. > And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are > handing out phony numbers for political purposes, to get the foot in the > door for far larger sums later. Yeah, the budget compared with the goal make NO SENSE. It makes so little sense that I am drawn to conspiracy theories. Corona hidden in NASA psuedo-program for space biology. (Space biologists have careers stalled for national security -- albeit really critical national security.) Modeling fusion for nuclear bombs marketed as research with high energy lasers and magnets on fusion power. Glomar Explorer mines Soviet sub, but the world is told it is vacuuming manganese nodules. Absurdly low price tag of $12G for space vehicle->moon base->manned mars expidition hides what? -- I have a hunch that strategic planners at Shrub Co have a defense initiative that needs a B-I-G reliable booster. Once they get their lifter, will the rest of the project get forgotten? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
At 04:08 PM 1/15/04, Bryon Daly wrote: When I first read Bush's proposal, one of the first things that struck me was that it seems to be far too little new money, and far too little time, It took only 8 years from JFK's speech until Apollo 11, and JFK's speech happened less than four years after the very first ever object was launched into Earth orbit. to accomplish the goals he set out in his proposed time frame. Nasa's new "fast and cheap" development philosphy probably won't be acceptable for manned spacecraft. This blog entry by Gregg Easterbrook puts out some numbers that seem to support the same conclusion. http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1198 EXPLORING THE CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE: NASA wants hundreds of billions of dollars, and the best name the agency can come up with for its new spaceship is the Crew Exploration Vehicle? How inspiring! Less inspiring than, frex, "Lunar Module"? The name doesn't even make sense. Who cares? Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? No. Its task will be to > LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <. _That's_ what's inspiring about it. So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are handing out phony numbers for political purposes, to get the foot in the door for far larger sums later. Obviously it is only a start. The converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" is also true. Open your mind, man. And your heart. As somebody on That Other List is fond of using as a .sig quote: "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Governor George W. Bush -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Easterbrook on Bush's NASA plan
When I first read Bush's proposal, one of the first things that struck me was that it seems to be far too little new money, and far too little time, to accomplish the goals he set out in his proposed time frame. Nasa's new "fast and cheap" development philosphy probably won't be acceptable for manned spacecraft. This blog entry by Gregg Easterbrook puts out some numbers that seem to support the same conclusion. http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1198 EXPLORING THE CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE: NASA wants hundreds of billions of dollars, and the best name the agency can come up with for its new spaceship is the Crew Exploration Vehicle? How inspiring! The name doesn't even make sense. Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew? Just the cost numbers for the Crew Exploration Vehicle alone--forget all the probes, colonies, and other stuff--make Bush's announcement yesterday an all-time monument to budgetary low-balling. He declared that for the next five years, $12 billion will be devoted to the Moon-Mars initiative. That, the president said, is enough to fund new the Moon probes and development of the ill-named Crew Exploration Vehicle. This figure is utterly ridiculous, a mere fraction of what will be entailed in anything beyond some "paper spacecraft"--engineers' lingo for studies and Power Point presentations of hardware that never gets built. Boeing expects to spend around $7.5 billion merely to develop the new 7E7 jetliner, which will stay within the atmosphere and use very well-understood engineering. The development cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle will be several times greater. The timetable is also a low-ball. Bush declared that the Crew Exploration Vehicle would be tested in 2008, just four years from now. There's no way on Earth, as it were, this could happen without a cost-no-object crash program to rival Apollo. The Air Force's new F22 fighter has been in development for 13 years; an entire new spaceship can be developed in four years? The Crew Exploration Vehicle concept is hazy; NASA has given no specifics. But if, as Bush declared, it will be capable both of flying back and forth to the space station and of flying to the Moon, we're talking quite a machine. If one single spacecraft that can carry enough fuel to travel to the Moon and back, and be anything than another ultra-cramped "spam-in-a-can" like Apollo, the part that reaches orbit would need to be enormous--larger than the space shuttle. That means the Crew Exploration Vehicle will cost vast sums, at least dozens of billions of dollars, to develop. Alternatively, a smarter approach might be to construct one spaceship that always stays in space, looping back and forth between Earth and Moon; people, supplies, and fuel would be launched to meet the ship in Earth-orbit, but the ship itself would never come down. (This was a Werner von Braun idea.) That would mean design, engineering, and construction of a type of flying machine that has never existed before. Development of the space shuttle cost between $50 billion and $100 billion in current dollars, depending on whose estimate you believe. The idea that something more challenging, the first-ever true spaceship, can be developed for $12 billion is bunkum. And what's going to put this Crew Exploration Vehicle into orbit? No rocket that exists in the world today is capable of lifting the Apollo capsule and Moon lander of the late 1960s. Unless the Moon-bound twenty-first-century Crew Exploration Vehicle is going to be significantly smaller than the Apollo of a generation ago--carrying just one person and no supplies--a new, very large rocket will be required. Apollo flew atop the Saturn V, which NASA retired almost 30 years ago. Many "architecture" studies for Mars flight, including Mars Institute studies that are said to have influenced the Bush announcement, assume NASA will develop a "heavy lifter" rocket substantially more powerful than the Saturn V. A rocket far more powerful than the Saturn V will be a necessity if the Crew Exploration Vehicle is to be both capable of Moon flight and of carrying more than one person. Such a rocket is possible on a technical basis, but vast expenditure would be entailed. Development of the Saturn V was the single greatest line item for the first Moon program--the Saturn V cost about $40 billion, in current dollars, to develop. A similar outlay would be entailed to develop a new super-rocket. That's $40 billion or more spent before the first dime is invested in the Crew Exploration Vehicle that sits on top. So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are hand
