Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand we know what you are against. What are you for?

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 11:51 AM

I have said what I'm for many times in many places, and I don't have the time right now to repeat it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 11:58 AM

I touch on the logistical problems of war on the moon here:

http://robot_guy.blogspot.com/2005/11/war-on-moon.html

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 9, 2005 11:59 AM

I have said what I'm for many times in many places, and I don't have the time right now to repeat it.

Fair enough. I have my answer. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 12:03 PM

So now I'm a liar. How sad that Rand is reduced to that kind of name calling.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 12:08 PM

Rand also apparently has not the time to discuss why "logistics, economics, and physics" renders my scenario "hilariously illogical and implausible." He does have plenty of time to be insulting and rude, though.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 12:12 PM

Fair enough. I have my answer.

I doubt if you have the answer that you think you do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 12:21 PM

So now I'm a liar.

Once again, you put words in my keyboard buffer that I didn't write. Perhaps you need to see a doctor about this. You seem to have as much trouble with the concept of "lying" as the critics of the president do.

I didn't write that, and in fact doubt it. I think that you actually believe the nonsense that you write, Mark. But only you know for sure.

Rand also apparently has not the time to discuss why "logistics, economics, and physics" renders my scenario "hilariously illogical and implausible."

Others have already done it for me, as I expected.

And I find it pretty rich that someone who repeatedly mischaracterizes others' writings and beliefs, and refuses to back it up with actual evidence, takes umbrage and feels insulted when they call him on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 12:28 PM

Rand, if you're going to parse words, Clinton style, be my guest. But not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 12:37 PM

I have said what I'm for many times in many places, and I don't have the time right now to repeat it.

But you *never* have the time and to even press you to identify even simple individual believes which you are prepared to back up you obfuscate until there's no meaning left in your words.

Typically then you whinge that it's the reading comprehension of people too stupid to understand you which is the problem.

It's rather sad really.

Posted by Daveon at November 9, 2005 12:41 PM

Ugh. "Beliefs" sorry.

Posted by Daveon at November 9, 2005 12:42 PM

Rand, if you're going to parse words, Clinton style, be my guest. But not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

I'm not "parsing" words, Mark, unless by that you mean using them as the dictionary intended. A lie is a knowingly false statement. A liar is someone who tells lies. I've not accused you of either, and once again, you are unable to point out where I did.

But do continue to mischaracterize what I (and others) write and say. You seem to get some perverse pleasure from it, and seem to believe it. Perhaps because the only way you can win an argument is by arguing with fantasies, instead of the actual positions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 12:50 PM

Rand, I don't give pleasure, perverse or otherwise, in dealing your rhetorical excesses at all. You have a lot to contribute to the great debate over space policy, but you really have to learn how to do it fairly, without attacking people. You also need, as others have suggested, articulate what you are for and them be prepared to defend that. Otherwise all you're doing is complaining and yelling.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 12:53 PM

That was, of course, "get" not "give." Mea culpa.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 12:54 PM

You have a lot to contribute to the great debate over space policy, but you really have to learn how to do it fairly, without attacking people.

I'm attacking people?

It's all right to make things up and pretend that I wrote them, or believe them, but when I defend myself, and point this out, I'm attacking you?

You're truly amazing, Mark.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 12:56 PM

> But you *never* have the time and to even press you to identify even
> simple individual believes

"Simple" individuals may believe that, but intelligence readers are aware Rand has explained his views on several occassions.

Trying to win a debate by forcing an opponent to repeat himself to the point of exhaustion (and declaring oneself the winner if he declines) is a troll tactic.

Posted by at November 9, 2005 12:58 PM

Trying to win a debate by forcing an opponent to repeat himself to the point of exhaustion (and declaring oneself the winner if he declines) is a troll tactic.

Rand is utterly dreadful at actually stating positions during discussions. He is a past master at making sweeping statements of "fact" and then claiming that he doesn't need to back them up because he's done so often in the past.

Rand may well do so in person, at events, but not all of us have had the pleasure of Rand Simberg live!, some of us merely have to deal with his various web and usenews based pronoucements.

Interestingly, I have a fairly good handle on Mark Whittington's position, which he is quite capable of summing up in a few sentances which leave little confusion.

Apparently Rand's views on this are much more complex than that.

Samizdata recently coined a phrase to describe that kind of situation. They called it a "willetts".

Calling Rand on his pronouncements when he makes so many of them (significantly more as a percentage of sci.space.policy than ones usually marked as "trolls") is perfectly valid.

Especially as nobody I have read here or elsewhere is really claiming victory, what I detect is a resignation that Rand is, yet again, refusing to engage in honest discussion.

Posted by Daveon at November 9, 2005 01:08 PM

Bill White opines as follows (as an example to show Rand that it isn't really all that hard) - - I offer NO attacks on anyone, just my opinion.

Am I wrong about stuff? Sure. But I love to learn from my mistakes:

(1) ESAS. ESAS is the best Mike Griffin can do given the political realities within the US Congress. If I were Grand Poo-bah of space exploration (to include the power to tell Congress to STFU) I would freely give David Gump $1 billion US taxpayer dollars and tell him to go do his best. Griffin lacks that power and must placate Senator Bill Nelson (D) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R).

To ankle-bite at Mike Griffin serves no useful purpose.

(2) China. China by itself cannot "take over" the Moon within the next twenty years. China in alliance with Russia (pending) and the EU (possible) can secure the majority of good lunar sites leaving the US on the outside looking in.

(3) ALT-SPACE. US-ians are not inherently smarter than other human beings. If we can figure out $100 per pound Earth-to-LEO so can the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and the Albanians for that matter. And if we do figure it out first, someone will steal it from us. And at Russian and Chinese engineering wage scales, they will do it cheaper.

Other than t/Space and SpaceX, no alt-space company is remotely close to orbital. Musk's work is awesome however he will not beat the Russians on price, not by any significant margin. Buying SpaceX rather than Proton or the Ukranian Dneper (Satan re-named) is altogether good for U.S. interests however SpaceX opens NO doors that a multi-national cannot go through, today.

Besides, Musk's RICO lawsuit is a BAD sign for his business prospects. At least IMHO. And yes, I am a lawyer who believes that BOTH parties usually lose in litigation no matter what the judge says.

(4) Spacefaring. Confederate general Bedford-Forrest said it best. The civilization that gets out there "fust-est with the most-est" will win.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 01:34 PM

Bill, very well put and I agree with most of it, especially point (4). That includes both government and private business.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at November 9, 2005 01:40 PM

Rand actually "clarifies" his statement about me.

"It is possible to make false statements without lying--all it requires is a belief (no matter how mistaken, or deluded) that the statement is true. So, since I haven't called him a "liar," I rationally felt no need to "prove" that he was one."

Hmm. At the risk of causing yet another explosion, I would venture to guess that he is calling me a fool instead of a liar. Except that he goes on to say:

"Mark has been too busy making up things that I supposedly write to pay attention to things that I actually do write."

"Making things up." Sounds like I'm still a liar.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 02:03 PM

Mark, it's possible to make things up without realizing that one is doing it. I'd consult a shrink for further explanation--you're clearly far beyond my ability to help.

And yes, I have been quite forthright in my opinion that you are delusional when it comes to my statements and beliefs (but not a liar--as I already said, only you know that). I have made a strong case for it (in brief: Mark says I believe and have written A. I don't believe A and have never written it. I know better than Mark what I believe and have written, and Mark provides zero evidence that I believe or have written A). I, and the rest of us, await some evidence to substantiate your bizarre claims.

Thus the burden of proof about your mischaracterization of my beliefs remains on you, for reasons I've already explained.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 02:13 PM

So now I'm insane? I wish Rand would make up his mind.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 02:31 PM

So now I'm insane?

No, Mark, just deluded on certain issues (notably, me). You seem to be highly functional--the only problem is that you continually make a fool of yourself on line.

I wish Rand would make up his mind.

I've been steadfast on this issue. That you remain confused about it is simply further evidence of your delusions.

And I see that you continue to avoid actually proving any of your absurd claims about my beliefs (including this latest one, that I "won't make up my mind" about the nature of your problem). Further evidence of your delusions.

I can see why you don't allow comments on your own blog posts.

There is an easy (well, for some, perhaps, but perhaps not you, given your apparent ego) way out of this quagmire. You could simply write, "...on reconsideration, I guess Rand didn't really say and doesn't really believe that the Chinese have benign intentions, and he didn't really say that NASA shouldn't be allowed to go to the Moon, since on further research I can't find any actual instances of him stating or implying those opinions."

I don't expect you to do that, though. It's the old delusion thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 02:42 PM

This is so much fun! I love watching people throw pies at each other! It doesn't make you guys look like cream-covered clowns at all.

Posted by Joe Athelli at November 9, 2005 02:56 PM

Recommend Google
search string:
rand simberg moon exploration -transterrestrial

692 hits!

Posted by Leland at November 9, 2005 03:15 PM

> (1) ESAS. ESAS is the best Mike Griffin can do given the political realities
> within the US Congress.

So you say. There's no evidence other of that, other than the fact that people promoting ESAS say so.

> (2) China. China by itself cannot "take over" the Moon within the next twenty
> years. China in alliance with Russia (pending) and the EU (possible) can secure
> the majority of good lunar sites leaving the US on the outside looking in.

Based on your unproven claim that there are only a few "good" lunar sites -- something you can't know until every square kilometer of the Moon has been thoroughly explored. The Moon has a larger surface area than North America, and it's going to take a long time to explore it all.

That said, if you're really worried about a Chinese-Russian alliance, the obvious solution is for the US to work with Russia, instead of forcing them into an alliance with China.

A good first step would be to buy Soyuz capsules instead of spending $10 billion to develop Apollo clones. Note that is a specific suggestion, Bill -- something you and Mark say critics never offer.

> (3) ALT-SPACE. US-ians are not inherently smarter than other human
> beings. If we can figure out $100 per pound Earth-to-LEO so can the
> Chinese, Russians, Japanese and the Albanians for that matter.

That's just it, Bill. They *can't* figure out $100 per pound Earth-to-LEO using ELVs and expendable capsules. No one one can. By heading down that road, they will be doomed to a cycle of high cost and low results. Just as NASA will be if they go down that road. This has nothing to do with intelligence. Wernher von Braun had one of the biggest brains on the planet, and he couldn't do it.

To reduce costs, it isn't enough to copy Von Braun and try to be smarter. It's necessary to do things differently, to try things Von Braun *didn't* do.

You also overlook the fact that while other nations may have the same average IQ as Americans, they do not have the same technology, industrial base, or economy system as Americans. (Yes, I am saying that American capitalism is superior to Chinese Communism, and I have abundant evidence to back that belief.)

Albania cannot just overtake the US in aerospace any time they want to, any more than they can overtake the US in computing any time they choose. If they could, I'm sure they would choose to do it tomorrow morning.

> And if we do figure it out first, someone will steal it from us. And at Russian
> and Chinese engineering wage scales, they will do it cheaper.

That assumes the outcome of an engineering effort depends solely on the number of engineers you can afford. It doesn't. Armies of cheap engineers haven't allowed the Chinese to build airliners that displace Boeing and Airbus. The quality of an engineering team is much more important than the size.

Moreover, the Chinese are not trying to steal low-cost launch technology any more than NASA is trying to steal (or buy) low-cost launches. Both are pouring money into high-cost systems. And in the case of NASA, you are encouraging them to do that.

Now, if the Chinese were rational, they would behave differently. Of course, if the Chinese were rational, they would give up Communism and become a Western liberal democracy with free-market capitalism.

> Other than t/Space and SpaceX, no alt-space company is remotely close to orbital.

Similar statements were made about the first microcomputers and the first airplanes. Most people cannot see the potential of disruptive technologies in the early phases. That doesn't mean it isn't there. It took less than 30 years for airplanes to go from flying around the barnyard to cross the Atlantic.

> (4) Spacefaring. Confederate general Bedford-Forrest said it best. The
> civilization that gets out there "fust-est with the most-est" will win.

General Forrest was not advocating high-cost logistics. Quite the opposite. The Constellation capsules and heavy-lift ELVs you want may or may not get there firstest, but they are certain to get there with the leastest.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 9, 2005 04:02 PM

"(3) ALT-SPACE. US-ians are not inherently smarter than other human beings. If we can figure out $100 per pound Earth-to-LEO so can the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and the Albanians for that matter."

SeaLaunch just launched the Inmarsat-4 satellite. That makes 16 successful orbital launches for them.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 9, 2005 04:10 PM

(1) ESAS. ESAS is the best Mike Griffin can do given the political realities
> within the US Congress.

So you say. There's no evidence other of that, other than the fact that people promoting ESAS say so.

Back up a bit to the first statement. Maybe a reword can help. ESAS is the best Mike Griffin can do. When you get to that level in the government there's a lot of CYA going on to keep your job. Griffin suggests ESAS (or promotes it) the government likes what it hears and allows him to keep his job. He may have other ideas, but I don't think he's ready to voice them yet, until he's in a far more stable position for his future.

Posted by Mac at November 10, 2005 06:14 AM

A good first step would be to buy Soyuz capsules instead of spending $10 billion to develop Apollo clones. Note that is a specific suggestion, Bill -- something you and Mark say critics never offer.

Fine by me, Ed. I've even argued for this exact proposal elsewhere.

Will Congress go along? Not so sure.

= = =

My pending novel uses this idea. An American tycoon buys Proton / Soyuz off the shelf; develops a new re-useable lunar lander and beats NASA back to the Moon.

It's a great idea.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 07:28 AM

It's a great idea.

Steven Baxter basically used it in _Moonseed_, of course that was an otherwise awful book.

Posted by Daveon at November 10, 2005 08:57 AM

Moonseed? Thanks!

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 09:50 AM

Moonseed:

A world-class disaster epic worthy of any Saturday matinee, Moonseed opens with the spectacular, explosive death of Venus, an event requiring energy a thousand billion times the world's nuclear arsenal. As the radioactive blast from the late Venus reaches Earth, scientists scramble to attribute a cause, with massless black holes and elementary particles the size of bacteria pointing towards some sort of superstring as the smoking gun. The pace quickens when the substance that may have caused the demise of Venus is accidentally introduced to Earth. This substance, dubbed moonseed, acts as a geological lubricant: processes that normally take millions of years occur in mere months with moonseed in the picture. Once Scotland and the state of Washington get gobbled up by this rock-eating, 10th-dimensional nano-lifeform, all hell breaks loose and the search turns towards finding safe refuge for humanity on the Moon. The book's second half is a seat-of-your-pants, what-if exploration of space travel and terraforming.

Uh, my novel is a wee bit less, ahem, spectacular.

;-)

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 09:56 AM

> ESAS is the best Mike Griffin can do. When you get to that level in the government
> there's a lot of CYA going on to keep your job.

That would be logical, except for one fact: Griffin was advocating the exact same plan at the Planetary Society before he joined NASA. I doubt there was any great need for him to cover his anatomy there.

As an aside, the fact that ESAS came from the Planetary Society -- for decades, the leading opponent of human spaceflight -- ought to be a red flag.

Posted by at November 10, 2005 03:10 PM

Not there, no. However, I'm certain there's a lot of anatomy covering where he's at now. Without being there on the inside, the best we can do is speculate and bandy the facts we get from reporting (the media HAH!) I still support private industry doing their own thing. NASA is probably a lot like Microsoft...something good comes along and they grab onto it. A piece of the puzzle is found and acquired. There's no telling where it will go, since another election is coming. Therein lies a problem.

Posted by Mac at November 11, 2005 06:15 AM

Post a comment