Thread: GROUCHY! (Was: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Colonizing Venus)

That really disappointed me that we couldn't get Shuttle up in time to
save Skylab. They used to have pieces of Skylab (from the Australian
debris field) in Lucite as paperweights for sale at the National Air &
Space museum, really pretty good sized chunks, like the size of your
thumbnail for $75.00. I didn't have enough money the one time, and when I
had it a couple weeks later they were all gone.

Most days I don't really believe we had a space program from 1981 to 2011.
That thing was such a dog, almost exclusively parasite weight, and had so
many cut corners to be "cheap" that it ended up costing huge ransoms just
to keep it hobbling along. That's why NASA hacks had to make up so much
nonsense about how many gajillion miles they fell around the Earth, they
knew what an embarrassment it was. Its finest hour was when John Young
spoke about it from the Moon. The Traveller timeline doesn't provide me a
lot of comfort, but I do have hopes for Elon Musk.

> Now , now...on the Traveller timeline, the manned portion of the US Space
> Program wasn't essentially shutdown in the mid-70s (the space shuttle
> actually gets built in time to service Skylab as planned for example) and
> the EU didn't get all wrapped up in bailing out semi-socialist government
> that made too many spending promises to their people.

I never thought after we left the Moon when I was a kid, that that was
going to be the last time in my lifetime. I hope and Pray that the previous
sentence won't be true.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:

>
>
> That really disappointed me that we couldn't get Shuttle up in time to
> save Skylab. They used to have pieces of Skylab (from the Australian
> debris field) in Lucite as paperweights for sale at the National Air &
> Space museum, really pretty good sized chunks, like the size of your
> thumbnail for $75.00. I didn't have enough money the one time, and when I
> had it a couple weeks later they were all gone.
>
> Most days I don't really believe we had a space program from 1981 to 2011.
> That thing was such a dog, almost exclusively parasite weight, and had so
> many cut corners to be "cheap" that it ended up costing huge ransoms just
> to keep it hobbling along. That's why NASA hacks had to make up so much
> nonsense about how many gajillion miles they fell around the Earth, they
> knew what an embarrassment it was. Its finest hour was when John Young
> spoke about it from the Moon. The Traveller timeline doesn't provide me a
> lot of comfort, but I do have hopes for Elon Musk.
>
> > Now , now...on the Traveller timeline, the manned portion of the US Space
> > Program wasn't essentially shutdown in the mid-70s (the space shuttle
> > actually gets built in time to service Skylab as planned for example) and
> > the EU didn't get all wrapped up in bailing out semi-socialist government
> > that made too many spending promises to their people.
>
>
>

--
Evyn

I'm with you. I've come to accept the notion that going to the Moon from
1968-1972 was a real precocious aberration for our species, made possible
by a "perfect storm" of politics, technology, youthful exuberance, etc.

But for as long as I live I will remain ridiculously proud that I lived at
the same time, and in the same nation as Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Bill
Anders, Tom Stafford, John Young, Gene Cernan, Neil Armstrong, Michael
Collins, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon, Al Bean, Jack Swigert,
Fred Haise, Al Shepard, Stu Roosa, Ed Mitchell, Dave Scott, Al Worden, Jim
Irwin, Ken Mattingly, Charlie Duke, Ron Evans, Harrison Schmitt, and all
of the Webbs, Gilruths, Fagets, and Von Brauns who made it possible.

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.

"But the shuttle is reusable!" Assuming that was true (which it wasn't, it
was disassembled and refurbished after each flight), it's still a false
economy. The issue is mass to orbit divided by cost, so Saturn V was not
only still the most powerful operational rocket/spacecraft system ever
built, it was about 5 times as efficient in putting mass into orbit (which
got to stay there, which is the point). With Shuttle you had to put a
Skylab up each time just to carry 1/4 of a Skylab, and then bring a Skylab
back down, and then put it back up the next time. Just leave the damn
thing up there where it belongs. Expendable boosters splashing into the
Atlantic are nothing compared to the waste of putting up and bringing down
a Skylab each shot.

People will fall for anything.

> I never thought after we left the Moon when I was a kid, that that was
> going to be the last time in my lifetime. I hope and Pray that the
> previous
> sentence won't be true.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That really disappointed me that we couldn't get Shuttle up in time to
>> save Skylab. They used to have pieces of Skylab (from the Australian
>> debris field) in Lucite as paperweights for sale at the National Air &
>> Space museum, really pretty good sized chunks, like the size of your
>> thumbnail for $75.00. I didn't have enough money the one time, and when
>> I
>> had it a couple weeks later they were all gone.
>>
>> Most days I don't really believe we had a space program from 1981 to
>> 2011.
>> That thing was such a dog, almost exclusively parasite weight, and had
>> so
>> many cut corners to be "cheap" that it ended up costing huge ransoms
>> just
>> to keep it hobbling along. That's why NASA hacks had to make up so much
>> nonsense about how many gajillion miles they fell around the Earth, they
>> knew what an embarrassment it was. Its finest hour was when John Young
>> spoke about it from the Moon. The Traveller timeline doesn't provide me
>> a
>> lot of comfort, but I do have hopes for Elon Musk.
>>
>> > Now , now...on the Traveller timeline, the manned portion of the US
>> Space
>> > Program wasn't essentially shutdown in the mid-70s (the space shuttle
>> > actually gets built in time to service Skylab as planned for example)
>> and
>> > the EU didn't get all wrapped up in bailing out semi-socialist
>> government
>> > that made too many spending promises to their people.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Evyn
>

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&quot; 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&quot; 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.

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&quot; 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&quot; 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.
>
>

In a message dated 3/6/2015 1:29:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

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.

Time was a political\policy issue. The US wasn't sure how far along the
Soviets were at that point. IRC it was viewed that a two step program (send
astronauts to a waypoint in orbit...station... and then launch for the
moon) was viewed internally as the more sensible and long term solution for
visiting the moon but other needs demanded a one shot.

In any Alt-history scenario I don't think an Orion project could have made
it past the design and logistical limitations of the time. IIRC the state
of the art electronics onboard Apollo had the computing power of an Apple
IIc. Life support alone would be an interesting problem.... In the end
though it was about national politics, not about sustainability.

Granted an old-style Orion project for a private company would be an
interesting conversation to listen in on when they propose it to the FAA "We'd
like to build some nuclear bombs....just little ones...no they really aren't
weapons".

Overall, I'd agree that chemical rockets are a dead end for profitable
intersolar transportation let alone interstellar.

You're probably familiar with how no briefing on a new DoD program is
complete without the slide showing that it has subcontractors in 47 to 50
of the states.

It's outrageous/fascinating how rationality and self-interest get morphed
when you distribute it across different sizes and groups of people. It
makes perfect sense for India and South Korea and Japan to say, "I'll buy
your plane if you let me assemble it here," or "build the wings here" to
grow their own industry rather than shipping their money to build US
factories, but when I drive through St. Louis and see F-18 wing sets being
trucked around, and every time I see the special airplanes that Boeing and
Airbus build to fly wings and fuselages around between factories it just
makes me sigh. Amazing how long we got by without realizing that it's
impossible to build wings and fuselages in the same building, but it's all
"The Art of the Deal" now. And as someone said, then it wound up in a
movie, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Like I said, I have hopes for Elon Musk.

> 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&quot; 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&quot; 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.

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&quot; 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&quot; 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.
>>
>>
>

The problems we have with getting off this rock are pretty much this...
1. What's the profit motive?  Exploring for exploration39;s sake is a late 19th early-20th century concept.  When people in previous centuries went out and put their butt's on the line or invested large sums of gold to send people off the map, they expected to to get paid.  da Gama wanted to find a true sea route to the spice rich portions of Asia, because having a sea route there meant you didn't have to deal with/bribe/get shot at by the natives as you went along the overland spice routes.  Columbus hoped to find a shorter sea route to those same spice rich portions of Asia, and failing at that, found slaves and rumors of gold and other riches instead on some islands off the coast of two continents.  Later Spainards would get rich exploring/exploiting those continents of course, which drew in others.  The English showed up in North America looking for gold and ended up finding good soil and a pleasant enough climate that they could get rich (or at least wealthier) farming cash crops.  The French came for furs, the Dutch for furs and other resources, and so on.  Later James Cooke and other 18th and early 19th century explorers went searching for places to plant their nation flags and spread the "Empire", thus giving it more opportunities to make money and increase its power.  Everyone had an angle.  Everyone.  There are no exceptions, save perhaps English Catholics who wanted to stop being harassed, the Puritans who were more interested in practicing their ultra conservative religious beliefs in peace, convicts who decided that the New World sounded a whole lot better than jail, people who didn't like starving to death in Ireland, Germans who didn't like being shot, and of course slaves who didn't really get a say so on where they went.  Going into space is expensive.  Really, really expensive and when you try to cheap out too much or decide that time is money once too often space shuttles blow up on TV.  As of 2015 there is also no money in it.  It will ultimately be the private sector that figures out if some day there will be money in it, and when that happens, we'll have a new space race, with most all the good, the bad, and the ugly you'd expect to come from it.
2. We had a nice technology bump going into and continuing through World War I and World War II (with a brief pause during the early days of the Great Depression of course).  That led to further rapid technological innovations and that is what got us to the Moon.  While some areas of technology have continued to advance since 1970, space technology isn't advancing at the same rate.  It just isn't.  The fact that the Saturn V is still "king of rockets" and we have trouble building a space station that has areas with artificially created gravity (yes a spinning section counts) should be a clue.  Look at our science-fiction movies that happen "in the near future" for more clues.  We aren't even trying to keep up with what our imaginations tell us *is* possible if we try anymore.  Perhaps another world war would solve that, war does bring burst of tech development after all, whether they run cold or hot, but the problem with a global hot war is that we've reached a certain age where are toys would likely cause more tech damage than they create tech.  So a new cold war is in order perhaps.  It would generate a space race that would result in a faster pace of innovation, but of course it wouldn't be without serious risk.
3. Have I mentioned that going into space is expensive, really, really expensive?  To the extend that you have Walter Mondales (politicians who are convinced that space spending is a waste of money) in places where they can influence government spending, and politicians who squash attempts to let private enterprise take the lead instead, we will always be handicapped in our efforts to get "out there" (points toward the stars).  We should be asking "what39;s your position on manned space flight?" of politicians more often, and holding them accountable when they talk about going into space but then refuse to loosen government control of space launches or spend the money to make them happen. 

There's all kinds of money in space between telecommunications,
navigation, Earth imaging for just about anything, and microsatellites are
lowering the bar for entry, but there is definitely no money in "manned"
exploration unless we go back to, "I touched it, so it's mine." I do
expect China will screw with the six historical sites up there to mess
with us. That's almost as good as a machine calling us names.

> The problems we have with getting off this rock are pretty much this...
> 1. What's the profit motive?  Exploring for exploration39;s sake is a late
> 19th early-20th century concept.  When people in previous centuries went
> out and put their butt's on the line or invested large sums of gold to
> send people off the map, they expected to to get paid.  da Gama wanted to
> find a true sea route to the spice rich portions of Asia, because having a
> sea route there meant you didn't have to deal with/bribe/get shot at by
> the natives as you went along the overland spice routes.  Columbus hoped
> to find a shorter sea route to those same spice rich portions of Asia, and
> failing at that, found slaves and rumors of gold and other riches instead
> on some islands off the coast of two continents.  Later Spainards would
> get rich exploring/exploiting those continents of course, which drew in
> others.  The English showed up in North America looking for gold and
> ended up finding good soil and a pleasant enough climate that they could
> get rich (or at least wealthier) farming cash crops.  The French came for
> furs, the Dutch for furs and other resources, and so on.  Later James
> Cooke and other 18th and early 19th century explorers went searching for
> places to plant their nation flags and spread the "Empire", thus giving it
> more opportunities to make money and increase its power.  Everyone had an
> angle.  Everyone.  There are no exceptions, save perhaps English
> Catholics who wanted to stop being harassed, the Puritans who were more
> interested in practicing their ultra conservative religious beliefs in
> peace, convicts who decided that the New World sounded a whole lot better
> than jail, people who didn't like starving to death in Ireland, Germans
> who didn't like being shot, and of course slaves who didn't really get a
> say so on where they went.  Going into space is expensive.  Really,
> really expensive and when you try to cheap out too much or decide that
> time is money once too often space shuttles blow up on TV.  As of 2015
> there is also no money in it.  It will ultimately be the private sector
> that figures out if some day there will be money in it, and when that
> happens, we'll have a new space race, with most all the good, the bad, and
> the ugly you'd expect to come from it.
> 2. We had a nice technology bump going into and continuing through World
> War I and World War II (with a brief pause during the early days of the
> Great Depression of course).  That led to further rapid technological
> innovations and that is what got us to the Moon.  While some areas of
> technology have continued to advance since 1970, space technology isn't
> advancing at the same rate.  It just isn't.  The fact that the Saturn V
> is still "king of rockets" and we have trouble building a space station
> that has areas with artificially created gravity (yes a spinning section
> counts) should be a clue.  Look at our science-fiction movies that happen
> "in the near future" for more clues.  We aren't even trying to keep up
> with what our imaginations tell us *is* possible if we try anymore. 
> Perhaps another world war would solve that, war does bring burst of tech
> development after all, whether they run cold or hot, but the problem with
> a global hot war is that we've reached a certain age where are toys would
> likely cause more tech damage than they create tech.  So a new cold war
> is in order perhaps.  It would generate a space race that would result in
> a faster pace of innovation, but of course it wouldn't be without serious
> risk.
> 3. Have I mentioned that going into space is expensive, really, really
> expensive?  To the extend that you have Walter Mondales (politicians who
> are convinced that space spending is a waste of money) in places where
> they can influence government spending, and politicians who squash
> attempts to let private enterprise take the lead instead, we will always
> be handicapped in our efforts to get "out there" (points toward the
> stars).  We should be asking "what39;s your position on manned space
> flight?" of politicians more often, and holding them accountable when they
> talk about going into space but then refuse to loosen government control
> of space launches or spend the money to make them happen. 

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&quot; 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&quot; 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

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&quot; 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&quot; 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

This reminds me of the set of WW2 miniatures rules I wrote, where tanks are essentially treated as wandering monsters, regardless of which side they are on.


---In , <dcndcn13@...> wrote :

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.

Frank has a great story about a miniatures game (probably CD or CD2) he
was involved in, maybe with Greg Novak or Glenn Kidd. Reflecting the idea
that unsupported US infantry had a tendency to fear the worst and call all
German tanks "Tigers," they were running a limited intelligence game where
all of the German armor was represented by Tiger models (this was not
known to the US players). At one point German armor was spotted and the
Tiger model was placed on the board. Some valiant American unit took a
shot at it anyway and the players were surprised when the ruling was that
the German tank had been penetrated and burst into flames. The American
players were shocked into a murmuring, whispering huddle, or as Frank
likes to say, "there was a great sucking of teeth," and finally brightened
up having restored intellectual order to their world. They announced,
"That was one of the pre-production prototypes that was built in soft
steel instead of armor plate."

> This reminds me of the set of WW2 miniatures rules I wrote, where tanks
> are essentially treated as wandering monsters, regardless of which side
> they are on.
>
>
> ---In , <dcndcn13@...> wrote :
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>