Your real point is so big and broad and connected to so many things, and
can go in so many different directions, in terms of why didn't it happen
in the past or how could or couldn't it happen now that I will confine
myself to what was a mere passing example.
Anyone who says tanks are obsolete is either an idiot or is trying to gut
your budget to pay for his own. But that doesn't stop people, probably
because tanks look like sacred cows, and people love going after what they
imagine are sacred cows. But "conventional tactical wisdom" applies only
to political appointees or pundits who write columns for newspapers, not
to people who actually engage in tactical operations. Guys in the infantry
mafia may pretend to believe that tanks are obsolete, but deep down they
know they don't mean it, if only because they want the tanks renamed
"assault guns" and transferred to them.
> Where I mean is that requires a long term effort with lots of up front
> spending to build the infrastructure for someone else to profit
> politically
> two decades later probably isn't happening, which soaks to the same
> scenario for all large scale procurements. Cancelation of Constellation
> proved that when you have an administration with different priorities...
>
> The Cold War allowed some of that to be subordinated to the clear red
> menace in a way jihad largely hasn't (to the nature of asymmetrical
> warfare), though the Abrams in particular proved to defy the conventional
> tactical wisdom. Ask any Marine at the battle of Fallujah of the MBT was
> obsolete. I have first hand accounts from tankers who were there how very
> much in demand for their services.
>
> Follow on missions then could have used chemical rockets for sustainment,
> perhaps. Modern sub kiloton devices with clean secondaries to get to LEO
> should alleviate fallout concerns.
>
> For the same money & effort expended on Apollo, we could have crews of
> dozens with payloads in the thousands of tons to get Mars & back without
> worrying about the most efficient course.
>
> Then there was the whole boomer phenomenon which only stoked the Soviet
> paranoia and vice versa and could have been entirely avoided. Everyone
> would have seen an Orion battleship or two parked at L1 and known exactly
> what it was doing. In any event, it's a superior option to MAD as it
> could
> intercept ICBM on boost as well as have a practical purpose for dealing
> with near earth objects, as well as making every space station to date
> look
> like toys while putting boots on Mars at the same time.
>
> Whatever hindsight may be, we are faced with a nuclear arsenal a decade
> passed its shelf life & the two projects could dovetail nicely. Invite
> participation from the Russians & Chinese to mitigate militarization and
> treaty concerns, maybe...
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 11:28 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
can go in so many different directions, in terms of why didn't it happen
in the past or how could or couldn't it happen now that I will confine
myself to what was a mere passing example.
Anyone who says tanks are obsolete is either an idiot or is trying to gut
your budget to pay for his own. But that doesn't stop people, probably
because tanks look like sacred cows, and people love going after what they
imagine are sacred cows. But "conventional tactical wisdom" applies only
to political appointees or pundits who write columns for newspapers, not
to people who actually engage in tactical operations. Guys in the infantry
mafia may pretend to believe that tanks are obsolete, but deep down they
know they don't mean it, if only because they want the tanks renamed
"assault guns" and transferred to them.
> Where I mean is that requires a long term effort with lots of up front
> spending to build the infrastructure for someone else to profit
> politically
> two decades later probably isn't happening, which soaks to the same
> scenario for all large scale procurements. Cancelation of Constellation
> proved that when you have an administration with different priorities...
>
> The Cold War allowed some of that to be subordinated to the clear red
> menace in a way jihad largely hasn't (to the nature of asymmetrical
> warfare), though the Abrams in particular proved to defy the conventional
> tactical wisdom. Ask any Marine at the battle of Fallujah of the MBT was
> obsolete. I have first hand accounts from tankers who were there how very
> much in demand for their services.
>
> Follow on missions then could have used chemical rockets for sustainment,
> perhaps. Modern sub kiloton devices with clean secondaries to get to LEO
> should alleviate fallout concerns.
>
> For the same money & effort expended on Apollo, we could have crews of
> dozens with payloads in the thousands of tons to get Mars & back without
> worrying about the most efficient course.
>
> Then there was the whole boomer phenomenon which only stoked the Soviet
> paranoia and vice versa and could have been entirely avoided. Everyone
> would have seen an Orion battleship or two parked at L1 and known exactly
> what it was doing. In any event, it's a superior option to MAD as it
> could
> intercept ICBM on boost as well as have a practical purpose for dealing
> with near earth objects, as well as making every space station to date
> look
> like toys while putting boots on Mars at the same time.
>
> Whatever hindsight may be, we are faced with a nuclear arsenal a decade
> passed its shelf life & the two projects could dovetail nicely. Invite
> participation from the Russians & Chinese to mitigate militarization and
> treaty concerns, maybe...
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 11:28 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>