Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Not really. The statement was vague enough to be really meaningless. Also, I don't regard China's space effort with anything resembling satisfaction.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 5, 2006 08:42 PM

> I don't regard China's space effort with anything resembling satisfaction.

Yet, you want US space policy to emulate China's, complete with a new state-run space transportation system based on expendable rockets and Shengh -- pardon, "Constellation" -- capsules.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 5, 2006 09:38 PM

Edward, as usual, you have not a clue about my views on space policy.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 5, 2006 09:43 PM

For a more rational view of America, China, and space policy, here are some remarks Newt Gingrich made to the Hoover Institution. Gingrich does not agree with the notion that America should merely copy the Chinese system.

"The highest value goal I think we could have in the near future is to get a next generation space delivery system that lowers the cost of going into space by an order of magnitude so it would cost you 10 percent of what it costs you today.... We need a ground up approach that says we're going to be able to leapfrog past the Chinese and the Europeans and develop a new system that's reusable, inexpensive, and very reliable. Second, as you're developing that kind of ability, you can build a sub-orbital bomber that can deliver weapons from the United States in 45 minutes any where in world. Now we know that's technologically true.... Instead of taking 10 hours or 12 hours to get from Missouri to Afghanistan, you could literally be delivering weapons within 45 minutes. That capability could be built. It's a very different future."

Gingrich wants to use tax incentives and large prizes to stimulate space development.

I wonder if Mark will tell us the former Speaker of the House is an evil "libertarian" and not a good Republican like himself?

Of course, Mark knows such ideas are politically unacceptable. I suppose someone who thinks like Newt Gingrich could never be elected to anything, could he? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at January 5, 2006 10:12 PM

> Edward, as usual, you have not a clue about my views on space policy.

No, but I know what you have *said* your views were.

Are you denying that you want a state-run system of Stick boosters, Shuttle-derived HLVs, and Constellation capsules?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 5, 2006 10:17 PM

Mark, it's no more "vague" than the other things "they" say that you latch on to when "they" say something that makes you think they're going to have a lunar base in 2015.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 05:02 AM

Edward - I tend to agree with Newt. I would also use the NASA lunar base as a core market, much as Griffin intends to use ISS.

Rand - When have I said such a thing about Chinese lunar bases in 2015? You're now just being silly.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 06:01 AM

OK, then when you seize on things "they" say, to write, "The Chinese are coming, the Chinese are coming, we're in a new space race." Which is equally silly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 06:15 AM

That's very cute, Rand. You misrepresenting my views (something you often falsely accuse me of) is just as "silly" as informed speculation based on statements by Chinese officials. I am awestruck.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at January 6, 2006 06:40 AM

Dumb question:

Just how much savings is likely for a reuseable launcher versus a throw-away, given the same thrust/throwweight? Is it really enough to be meaningful?

Any URL links for fuller explanations would be appreciated.

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 6, 2006 07:15 AM

Just how much savings is likely for a reuseable launcher versus a throw-away, given the same thrust/throwweight? Is it really enough to be meaningful?

For sufficiently high flight rates, yes. Orders of magnitude.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 07:17 AM

What we need is to build a destination so commercial players can generate non-taxpayer sourced revenue for flying people and material out there. Throwing tax dollars at alt-space outfits will merely transform them into legacy outfits.

But send a lunar LOX plant with old fashioned rockets and deploy a re-useable lunar shuttle and then there is a commercial market for privately funded alt-space efforts.

= = =

The value of the media rights for the first person to step back onto the moon is probably a bigger number than any prize Newt Gingrich can get passed in Congress.

Want a private sector prize? Use that one.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 08:25 AM

To clarify my last point.

If President Gingrich calls for a $1 billion prize for lunar return I will support it, vigorously. A $10 billion prize I will support even more vigorously because $1 billion ain't enough, IMHO.

I am not willing to have that be the only egg in the basket, however.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 08:36 AM

On RLVs Rand writes:

Q:Just how much savings is likely for a reuseable launcher versus a throw-away, given the same thrust/throwweight? Is it really enough to be meaningful?

A: For sufficiently high flight rates, yes. Orders of magnitude.

= = =

Going the other way for cargo, if you can get the fuel to dry mass ratio high enough (95% fuel to 5% structure for example) you can achieve similiar savings with very high flight rates with expendables. At lift off, the Thiokol SRBs are 85% fuel and 15% dry mass (aluminum using 1970s metallurgy). Now, if the SRBS were re-designed using plastics and that ratio moved from 85/15 to 92.5/7.5 or 95/5 then net payload would increase very substantially.

A four segment SRB has 192,000 pounds of dry mass, at that 85/15 ratio. Going to 92.5/7.5 adds 96,000 pounds to your 2nd stage payload or 120,000 pounds to a 5 segment SRB. A 5 segment SRB cargo only rocket made from 21st century plastic can come close to genuine HLLV capability. And mass produced plastic SRBs would be made at lower cost, because of economies of scale.

A Proton killer (in the commercial sense) if nothing else.

In theory, a disposable rocket with the fuel held in place by a mass-less force field (think Star Trek) would defeat an RLV hand down as you would lift only fuel and payload, no structure.

= = =

Ultimately, RLVs are the way to go. However we need destinations in space to create the demand to fund their commercial development and lowering the cost of expendables is a necessary intermediate step.

= = =

As for mass produced RLV space planes, how many vehicles would be needed to lower costs by orders of magnitude? Build 5 RLVs and all the R&D cost gets lumped into those 5 vehicles and the net cost per flight stays high. Build 5 RLVs and there is no economy of scale in the manufacture of those RLVs.

Build 5,000 or 50,000 RLVs flying every day?

Colonization is the only source of demand sufficient to need all those flights.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 08:54 AM

Build 5,000 or 50,000 RLVs flying every day?

That's many more than required for dramatic cost reductions.

Colonization is the only source of demand sufficient to need all those flights.

That's an interesting (and unsupported) opinion, but it's certainly not a fact.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 08:58 AM

Build fewer than 5,000 and your cost per unit stays high. Cars are cheap because we make millions of them.

500 flights per day at 10,000 pounds per flight equals close to 2 billion pounds to LEO per year. 5000 flights approaches 20 billion pounds to LEO per year.

Other than colonists and their supplies, what do you propose to lift with all that capability?

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 09:07 AM

Build fewer than 5,000 and your cost per unit stays high.

No, it just doesn't get as low as it would if you built 50,000. It's still very, very low compared to building five.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 09:11 AM

500 then. Fly once per week. 25,000 flights per year. Can tourism alone absorb all that capacity?

10,000 pound payloads at $100 per pound gives you a million dollars per flight in gross revenue. One flight per week gives you $50 million per year in gross revenue per vessel. Can you finance an RLV with $50 million per year in gross revenue?

Fly once per day and then its $365 million in revenue but then 500 RLVs will yield 182,500 flights per year. Can tourism use that many flights?

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 09:40 AM

500 then. Fly once per week. 25,000 flights per year. Can tourism alone absorb all that capacity?

It's certainly not obvious that it can't.

One flight per week gives you $50 million per year in gross revenue per vessel. Can you finance an RLV with $50 million per year in gross revenue?

Why not? Seems like a lot of money to me. If not, then fly twice a week (once a day is probably not doable, due to orbital mechanics).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 09:50 AM

Using this calculator a $50 million per year RLV payment (like your car lo&n or home mortgage) amortized over ten years at 12% interest (can an RLV fly for 10 years?) will support a purchase price of $282.5 million.

That leaves nothing for fuel, wages, insurance, ground crews etc. . .

Build an RLV that can carry 10,000 pounds to LEO and sell it for less than $300 million a copy and the world will beat a path to your door. ;-)

= = =

lo&n got snagged by the filter. . .

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 09:59 AM

Ooops. Go to monthly payments of $4.2 million and you can buy a $400 million RLV. The foregoing was based on one annual payment of $50 million.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 10:02 AM

Build an RLV that can carry 10,000 pounds to LEO and sell it for less than $300 million a copy and the world will beat a path to your door.

It will. And I'm aware of no technical or economic reasons that this is unachievable, particularly when they're being built by the dozens, or hundreds.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 10:07 AM

And if someone can do that, why does ESAS matter? Just do it and beat NASA to the Moon.

What is alt-space waiting for?

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 10:13 AM

Alt-space is not "waiting" for anything, Bill. It's out raising money and developing vehicles.

And ESAS doesn't matter, except to the degree that it's largely a waste of money, and helps perpetuate the myth that space is, and always must be expensive, which makes it a little harder to raise the money.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 10:24 AM

Hey, I missed the fact that we now agree. Tourism alone can support dozens of RLVs. I agree with that. I said we needed colonization to support 5,000 or 50,000 RLVs each having a high flight rate. So we agree.

Cool.

= = =

100 RLVs with a ten year service life? That means we build 10 to 20 per year. Not much room for different players making thsee things. Also, we will need to roll all of the R&D costs into those few vessels.

Perhaps you are right and it is feasible, but to build 5,000 or 50,000 or more copies because the colonization meme has sunk in would make all of this far, far easier to accomplish.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 10:26 AM

Bill makes a point which Rand misses. There is no humans to the Moon project being developed by the alt.space sector (not withstanding the 100 million dollar orbit around the Moon proposal on board a Soyuz.) That's because the serious players are, right now, going for markets in Low Earth Orbit, which are actually achievable. Rand makes a bald statement, that ESAS, is a "waste of money" without backing it up. The fact of the matter is that the next people on the Moon will be employees of some government, ours or someone elses.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 10:29 AM

There is no humans to the Moon project being developed by the alt.space sector (not withstanding the 100 million dollar orbit around the Moon proposal on board a Soyuz.)

Because the alt-space sector (unlike NASA) recognizes that it's premature to be making plans to go to the Moon when the costs of getting into orbit remain unreasonably high, and when we fix that problem, lunar architectures will look vastly different, and not require massive taxpayer expenditures in unnecessary gargantuan launchers with low flight rates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 10:41 AM

Members of the alt-space sector believe going to the Moon is premature, unlike NASA?

What about George Bush and the VSE?

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 10:56 AM

George Bush didn't command NASA to build a heavy-lift vehicle and only send a few astronauts at a time at high costs per mission. It's not premature to plan to go to the moon in the next decade and a half per se, as long as those plans include reducing the costs of space access to something affordable. NASA has chosen to ignore that issue, and assume that it's not possible. From that standpoint, alt-space (e.g., Bigelow) are more realistic about lunar activities than NASA is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 11:02 AM

Seems to me that when President Bush signed the NASA authorization bill passed by both houses of Congress after Griffin briefed everyone on ESAS and no one in Congress or the White House raised much objection (any objection?) to ESAS then it is pretty hard to say that President Bush does not support ESAS.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 11:12 AM

I didn't say that he didn't support ESAS, Bill. All I said is that he didn't demand it. He hired Mike Griffin, and trusts him in broad outline to carry out his vision, and doesn't want to have to micromanage it, because he has much bigger problems to deal with.

I'm really failing to see your point here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 11:20 AM

[Bush] hired Mike Griffin, and trusts him in broad outline to carry out his vision, and doesn't want to have to micromanage it.

On this we agree. I didn't think you agreed with this point. If you do agree with the foregoing, well good for you.

I trust Griffin in broad outline as well.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2006 11:39 AM

> Edward - I tend to agree with Newt. I would also use the NASA lunar base as a core market,
> much as Griffin intends to use ISS.

No, Mark, you do not "tend to agree with Newt."

Gingrich wants the US government to offer prizes and other incentives so private enterprise will build a lunar base, owned and run by private enterprise. You want NASA to build the lunar base, owned and run by NASA.

Calling for something completely different is not "agreeing."

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 11:39 AM

Rand makes a common mistake of a lot of the internet rocketeer crowd by suggesting that the interests of the commercial sector should override the national interest. There are lots of benefits to returning to the Moon that go beyond commercial reasons. The beauty of it is that because NASA is returning to the Moon, commercial players will probably get there sooner and on a greater scale.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 11:42 AM

Edward, I think I know what I think far better than you. You have a problem common with the internet rocketeer crowd in that you live in a fantasy land.

In point of fact there is no contradication between prizes and incentives and a lunar base. In fact they complement one another.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 11:45 AM

I trust Griffin in broad outline as well.

Well, unlike the president, I no longer do, based on his performance so far, at least when it comes to carrying out the vision in an affordable and sustainable manner. But then, I'm much more knowledgable than the president in such matters, and am following it much more closely. As I said, he's busy with other things.

I happen to think that the interests of the commercial sector are much more aligned with the national interest than are the interests of the fiefdoms at NASA. And there's no particular reason to believe that your thesis about getting commercial players to the Moon sooner as a result of NASA is doing so has any validity whatsoever. It is mostly wishful thinking.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 12:10 PM

> There is no humans to the Moon project being developed by the alt.space sector (not withstanding
> the 100 million dollar orbit around the Moon proposal on board a Soyuz.)

There's no private humans to the Moon project, if you ignore the fact there is one???

> That's because the serious players are, right now, going for markets in Low Earth Orbit, which are actually achievable.

No,, most of the serious players are going after suborbital markets right now. You may not like That may not be part of your "vision," but it's happening, nevertheless.

Why do you think lunar flight is not "achievable"? Do you think we have less technology today than NASA did in the 1960's?

And if lunar flight is not achievable, how can Griffin do it?

> Rand makes a bald statement, that ESAS, is a "waste of money" without backing it up.

Anyone who has read Rand knows that is false, Mark.

> The fact of the matter is that the next people on the Moon will be employees of some government, ours or someone elses.

No, it is not a "fact." It is a prediction, a personal belief.

Facts are empirical observations -- hard data. Calling your predictions "facts" does not make them facts. It merely shows that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion -- something you should have learned in journalism, even if you never took science.

It is not a "fact" that the next humans on the Moon will all be government employees -- it is your *opinion* and your *wish."

It is Gingrich's opinion that the next humans on the Moon should be private citizens, and that we should reduce the cost of getting into space so that a lot of people can go to the Moon.

You' have offered to valid arguments against Gingrich's plan. He offers solid arguments in favor of it. You've claimed that your plan is the only one that's politically practical, but I suspect the former Speaker knows at least as much about politics as you do. So, why should the US government spend $106 billion on your plan, rather than Gingrich's?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 12:11 PM

Edward, the problem with arguing with people like you is how often you misrepresent the facts. Not only do you misrepresent my position, but Newt Gingrich's. I defy you to quote a statement of his that the next people who visit the moon must be private citizens. I understand that he is supportive of the President's VSE, but holds (as I do) that it needs a large commercial component. That is entirely different from the position of internet rocketeers and idealogues whose master plan always begins with "first, we abolish NASA."

Posted by M at January 6, 2006 12:51 PM

...internet rocketeers and idealogues whose master plan always begins with "first, we abolish NASA."

That's breathtaking, Mark. Did you really write this in the same comment in which you accuse other people of misrepresenting positions?

[Looking up at it again]

Yup.

Can you cite anyone who says this? You know, like, a real person? And can you demonstrate that their position is representative of "internet rocketeers"? Am I an "internet rocketeer"? Just who is part of this evil cabal that you're always whining about?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 12:57 PM

Actually, Rand, you once informed me that you favored abolishing NASA "every other day." I could name other people who are in favor of it every day of the week. People who think that are not part of an "evil cabaL, as that implies that they have real power. They don't, as they tend to advance unrealistic positions, make absurd boasts, and otherwise make fools of themselves.

I'm reminded of the bit of dialogue in the film, The Dish, when the radical daughter of the Mayor said, about the Apollo Moonlanding, "If you ask me, I think it's the biggest chauvinistic exercise in the world."

To which her mother replies, without missing a beat, "That's why no one asks you, darling."

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 01:03 PM

Actually, Rand, you once informed me that you favored abolishing NASA "every other day."

Well, that would hardly make it "always" my "master plan," would it? Or even ever a "master plan," or a plan at all. Just an idle thought.

But do go on--you amuse.

I could name other people who are in favor of it every day of the week.

Really? As I said, go on.

Come comrade, let us together find these luddites who are holding us back from our grand and glorious national space program, preventing us from fulfilling the fifteen-year plan.

Perhaps we can have show trials. The people will demand it!

People who think that are not part of an "evil cabaL, as that implies that they have real power.

Then why fret and whine on line about them so much? Particularly here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 01:14 PM

Rand, thank you for making my point. Show trials indeed! (g)

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 6, 2006 01:23 PM

Well, I'm not sure how I made your point, but I'm glad you enjoyed it, Mark.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 01:26 PM

I will note, though, that you've answered few of my questions (as usual).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2006 01:27 PM

"The Dish"

I never heard of it, yet amazingly enough someone out there can quote verbatim from it (at least I'll take their word on that). Makes me wonder what the movie was about. I'll have to check out imdb and boxofficemojo.

Posted by Leland at January 6, 2006 01:42 PM

From IMDB search of "The Dish":

"Tagline: As Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, our only link was a satellite dish in rural Australia with a few bugs (And a few hundred sheep). "

A few hundred sheep... is this the prequel to "Brokeback Mountain"? Sorry to jump posts, but that tagline just wouldn't draw me to the box office.

Posted by Leland at January 6, 2006 02:00 PM

> Edward, the problem with arguing with people like you is how often
> you misrepresent the facts.

No, the problem is that you state "facts" that are nothing more than your personal opinion. Or things you made up, like this one:

> Not only do you misrepresent my position, but Newt Gingrich's. I defy you
> to quote a statement of his that the next people who visit the moon
> must be private citizens.

You "defy" me to "quote" something I never claimed??? I never claimed Gingrich said that. You made that up, Mark. It's fiction, like your "Children of Apollo."

What I said was that Gingrich *wants* to make it possible for private citizens to visit the Moon. Just as you want to make it possible only for NASA. It's too early to say which of you will be successful. Gingrich does not claim to know the future, and neither do I. Only *you* claim to know the future, when you pass off speculation as "fact."

> I understand that he is supportive of the President's VSE,

Gingrich said it quite clearly. He wants reusable vehicles that leapfrog over the Chinese, not Apollo capsules. He wants suborbital bombers that can hit any target on Earth within 45 minutes. He wants billions of dollars in prizes and tax incentives.

Show me where the President's VSE is doing any of that. You can't, because it isn't.

> but holds (as I do) that it needs a large commercial component.

Your "large commercial component" is a $500-million ISS resupply program. NASA gets $106 billion, the private sector gets less than 0.5% of that.

0.5% is "large" only to someone who thinks the private sector shouldn't be doing very much. It is *not* equivalent to billions of dollars worth of prizes and tax incentives.

> That is entirely different from the position of internet rocketeers and
> idealogues whose master plan always begins with "first, we abolish NASA."

Of course, those "internet rocketeers and idealogies" don't exist anywhere except in your fiction.

You don't seem willing (or able) to address real arguments being made in the real world.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 03:38 PM

>> I could name other people who are in favor of it every day of the week.

> Really? As I said, go on.

Rand, I'm going to step in and help Mark out on this one because his side (as usual) isn't doing very well. :-)

There is at least one person publicly calling for the abolition of NASA. Steve Forbes, in an editorial published 8/18/05.

Forbes Magazine has a website, so Steve Forbes could fit Mark's definition of an "Internet idealogue."

The show trial can now began. I will step down and let the self-proclaimed "space policy analyst" denounce Steve Forbes for his ignorant, uninformed views on business, technology, and politics. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 04:02 PM

> Build fewer than 5,000 and your cost per unit stays high. Cars
> are cheap because we make millions of them.

No, they're cheap because they're driven often. If a car could only be driven once, cars would be prohibitively expensive, no matter how many millions were built.

Do you think the cost of SpaceShip One was prohibitively high because Rutan only built one?

> Hey, I missed the fact that we now agree. Tourism alone can support
> dozens of RLVs. I agree with that. I said we needed colonization to
> support 5,000 or 50,000 RLVs each having a high flight rate. So we
> agree.

To quote a line from The Princess Bride, "I do not think that word means what you think it does." According to the World Tourism Organization, all travellers can be classifed as either "expeditionists" or "tourists." Tourists are travellers who stay at least one night at a destination. Expeditionists are those who do not stay overnight.

Since most everyone who goes into orbit will stay for at least one sleep period, almost all of them will be tourists, by the international travel industry definition. Even NASA astronauts.

Until people can afford to be space tourists (go into space and spend at least one night there), it will be impossible for them to be space colonists (go into space and spend the rest of their lives there). We cannot have space colonization *before* we have affordable access to space, any more than the Pilgrims could sail to the New World before finding a ship they could afford.

As for your "5,000 or 50,000 RLVs," don't you think it's premature to worry about building the 50,000th RLV before you've built the first? Why must we always put the cart before the horse?

> 100 RLVs with a ten year service life? That means we build 10 to 20 per
> year. Not much room for different players making thsee things. Also, we
> will need to roll all of the
> R&D costs into those few vessels.

Bill, there are *lots* of numbers between 100 and 5,000.

Your "5,000-50,000 RLVs" means as many RLVs as we have airliners today (if not more). It's unrealistic to think we can go from nothing to 5,000 in one giant leap.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 04:31 PM

> In point of fact there is no contradication between prizes and
> incentives and a lunar base. In fact they complement one another.

Sigh. No one said there was a contradiction between prizes and incentives and a lunar base. Please stop making things up.

In fact, I talked about using prizes and incentives to help private enterprise *create* a lunar base.

Your "Vision" does not use prizes and incentives but relies on the dogmatic belief that government must do everything (or at least, 99.5% of everything) itself.

*That* is the contradiction, Mark. Not between incentives and lunar bases but between free-enterprise encouraged by government incentives and your "Vision" of 99.5% pure socialism.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 04:40 PM

> In theory, a disposable rocket with the fuel held in place by a mass-less
> force field (think Star Trek) would defeat an RLV hand down as you would lift
> only fuel and payload, no structure.

Apart from the fact that this violates basic laws of physics, you're also ignoring basic economics. Expendables are expensive because of labor and capital costs, not fuel which is cheap. Your "force-field" rocket might reduce fuel requirements, but it's unlikely that it would be cheap to build.

Adding new, complicated technologies will not make rockets cheaper.

> Ultimately, RLVs are the way to go. However we need destinations in space

We have destinations in space. One Moon, one space station (so far), thousands of asteroids, 10 planets (or however many there are this week), and a few dozen moons. What we currently lack is the means of reaching those destinations.

> to create the demand to fund their commercial development and lowering the
> cost of expendables is a necessary intermediate step.

Why is it "necessary"? There's no reason to think an RLV would cost more to develop than a new expendable.

> As for mass produced RLV space planes, how many vehicles would be needed
> to lower costs by orders of magnitude? Build 5 RLVs and all the R&D cost gets
> lumped into those 5 vehicles and the net cost per flight stays high.

Not if those 5 RLVs fly often. Besides, the R&D cost is not likely to be as high as you think. There is very little "R" required -- just "D".

> Build 5,000 or 50,000 RLVs flying every day?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 6, 2006 05:04 PM

Actually The Dish is a really amusing and genuinely nice piese of slightly, but not overly, distorted moon landing history. There are some excellent throw away lines too.

When one of the astronomers complains to the NASA guy about whether or not they matter he replies that the best person he knows in NASA is a farmboy. What does he do, they ask. Well, this time tomorrow, he's going to be walking on the moon.

It's well worth seeking out if for no other reason than the shock of hearing Sam Neil intentionally speaking with an Australian accent.

Posted by Dave at January 7, 2006 04:30 AM

>>"There are lots of benefits to returning to the Moon that go beyond commercial reasons. "

There are NO benefits of going to the moon, mars, or NEA's that go beyond economic reasons. Period.

Posted by Chris Mann at January 8, 2006 05:52 PM

Post a comment