Relative in general, but they're uniquely qualified to push stuff off
terra firma into orbit. Once you get a whole pile of stuff there you can
do all kinds of things.
We've had the discussion before that Orion, for its technical potential,
got tangled up in non-proliferation, non-militarization of space, etc.,
and I don't think it stood a chance. And now, with 20010911 still tattooed
to our eyelids (which I still think of as a low-tech version of Virus)
it's even harder to see people lofting nukes into orbit for peaceful
purposes.
I'd like to see someone put a self-replicating machine up on the Moon that
uses materials there to multiply itself, but it would have to have a
broadcaster on it that would regularly break into terrestrial TV and radio
programming and say, "Nyaah, nyaah, I've now built XX tons of ready-to use
machine parts, but you can't get up here and catch me, you pussies."
> I'm convinced chemical rockets is a relative waste of time with pathetic
> thrust to weight. We should have done Orion instead of Apollo and could
> have owned the entire inner solar system, instead of a transitory moon
> hop.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 09:59 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 3/6/2015 12:00:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> writes:
>>
>> It's amazing how many false economies we consistently fall for, whether
>> it's JSF or the idea of a "reusable" box to carry things to orbit that
>> weighs three or four times as much as its contents. When you realize how
>> comparable Shuttle was to Saturn V, both about 1/2 billion $ per launch,
>> 6.8 million pounds thrust vs. 7.5 million, and realize that S-V could
>> put
>> about 2.5 times as much mass into LEO (and for Shuttle only 1/4 of that
>> was payload, 3/4 was "reusable" box) and twice as much to the Moon as
>> Shuttle could to LEO, the false economies are appalling. If you figure
>> 135
>> shuttle launches times the waste mass of the orbiter itself, which was
>> almost identical to the mass of Skylab, that's 135 Skylabs we could have
>> put up, or almost 24 ISSs.
>>
>> That's because post-Apollo NASA was a Jobs-Program, not a Space Program.
>> A lot of money (for the time) was thrown at beating the Soviets in the
>> space race and key Congress-critters made sure they brought some of that
>> money home. There was no national political need to push beyond the
>> Moon
>> since nobody was going to solve the technical difficulties of getting to
>> Mars anytime soon. However, they weren't about to let that gravy train
>> end... somehow I don't think the 'reusable39; efficiency argument was the
>> primary reason NASA budgeting for the project was approved. Granted
>> iirc
>> it led to the Challenger disaster (the boosters had to be shipped by
>> rail
>> since they were made in a key C-critters district so O-rings were
>> required
>> since the boosters were too long).
>>
>> While China may push that space race button or some other black swan
>> event
>> occurs (making space projects a factor in voting), I'd put my bet that
>> more
>> and more of the heavy lifting will be seen on the private sector
>> projects
>> in the future. To make space development stick (beyond what we have) I
>> think it has to have a direct profit motive beyond snapping up a
>> government
>> contract\subsidy. That just isn't going to happen in a government
>> directed
>> project... the political nature of the beast creates way too many
>> economic
>> mal-incentives. For historical example, the only transcontinental
>> railroad
>> not to go bankrupt was the only one not built using public subsidies
>> (the
>> Great Northern Railway...now merged into the BNSF Railway). All the
>> other
>> transcontinental railways (all major receivers of public funds) went
>> belly-up.
>>
>> It may take a little longer, but I'd rather see profit motive and
>> economic
>> self-interest drive space development rather than the government good
>> idea
>> fairy getting involved. It's more likely to stick that way.
>>
>>
>
terra firma into orbit. Once you get a whole pile of stuff there you can
do all kinds of things.
We've had the discussion before that Orion, for its technical potential,
got tangled up in non-proliferation, non-militarization of space, etc.,
and I don't think it stood a chance. And now, with 20010911 still tattooed
to our eyelids (which I still think of as a low-tech version of Virus)
it's even harder to see people lofting nukes into orbit for peaceful
purposes.
I'd like to see someone put a self-replicating machine up on the Moon that
uses materials there to multiply itself, but it would have to have a
broadcaster on it that would regularly break into terrestrial TV and radio
programming and say, "Nyaah, nyaah, I've now built XX tons of ready-to use
machine parts, but you can't get up here and catch me, you pussies."
> I'm convinced chemical rockets is a relative waste of time with pathetic
> thrust to weight. We should have done Orion instead of Apollo and could
> have owned the entire inner solar system, instead of a transitory moon
> hop.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 09:59 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 3/6/2015 12:00:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> writes:
>>
>> It's amazing how many false economies we consistently fall for, whether
>> it's JSF or the idea of a "reusable" box to carry things to orbit that
>> weighs three or four times as much as its contents. When you realize how
>> comparable Shuttle was to Saturn V, both about 1/2 billion $ per launch,
>> 6.8 million pounds thrust vs. 7.5 million, and realize that S-V could
>> put
>> about 2.5 times as much mass into LEO (and for Shuttle only 1/4 of that
>> was payload, 3/4 was "reusable" box) and twice as much to the Moon as
>> Shuttle could to LEO, the false economies are appalling. If you figure
>> 135
>> shuttle launches times the waste mass of the orbiter itself, which was
>> almost identical to the mass of Skylab, that's 135 Skylabs we could have
>> put up, or almost 24 ISSs.
>>
>> That's because post-Apollo NASA was a Jobs-Program, not a Space Program.
>> A lot of money (for the time) was thrown at beating the Soviets in the
>> space race and key Congress-critters made sure they brought some of that
>> money home. There was no national political need to push beyond the
>> Moon
>> since nobody was going to solve the technical difficulties of getting to
>> Mars anytime soon. However, they weren't about to let that gravy train
>> end... somehow I don't think the 'reusable39; efficiency argument was the
>> primary reason NASA budgeting for the project was approved. Granted
>> iirc
>> it led to the Challenger disaster (the boosters had to be shipped by
>> rail
>> since they were made in a key C-critters district so O-rings were
>> required
>> since the boosters were too long).
>>
>> While China may push that space race button or some other black swan
>> event
>> occurs (making space projects a factor in voting), I'd put my bet that
>> more
>> and more of the heavy lifting will be seen on the private sector
>> projects
>> in the future. To make space development stick (beyond what we have) I
>> think it has to have a direct profit motive beyond snapping up a
>> government
>> contract\subsidy. That just isn't going to happen in a government
>> directed
>> project... the political nature of the beast creates way too many
>> economic
>> mal-incentives. For historical example, the only transcontinental
>> railroad
>> not to go bankrupt was the only one not built using public subsidies
>> (the
>> Great Northern Railway...now merged into the BNSF Railway). All the
>> other
>> transcontinental railways (all major receivers of public funds) went
>> belly-up.
>>
>> It may take a little longer, but I'd rather see profit motive and
>> economic
>> self-interest drive space development rather than the government good
>> idea
>> fairy getting involved. It's more likely to stick that way.
>>
>>
>