🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <72528@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart
Thorn) wrote:
> 
> >>   That was those despicable fools at NASA doing this.
> >
> >here you lost me. You seem to live in a very black and white world. You
> >assume that since I don't support everything NASA does (even its mistakes)
> >that I must oppose everything NASA does.
> 
>      I went off the deep end on that one and hereby apologize, Allen.
>      Maybe it's because I don't recall you ever saying a kind word about
>      NASA or one of its programs.     
> 
> >This is not the case. There is lots of great stuff going on at NASA. I
> >criticize the unproductive things NASA does so that we can have more of
> >the good stuff. Why does that bother you so much?
> 
>      Because very seldom does anyone ever mention the great stuff
>      going on at NASA.
> 
> >>   Just because NASA isn't deep in development of a new space booster
> >>   (why bother when SDIO already is)
> >
> >NASA shouldn't be developing OR operating any operational space transport
> >system. That is outside its charter and is ultimately wasteful and harmful
> >to lower cost solutions.
> 
>      Agreed but with one exception. Presently there is no means other
>      than Shuttle to send people into space. When MacDac or someone
>      else develops a system to send people into space, and a new firm
>      or organization gets going to do the dirty work of launching, then
>      and only then will I be in favor of kicking NASA out of the manned
>      space transportation arena.
> 
> >The problem is that you seem to think asking the question: "is
> >there a cheaper way to do this" is treason.
> 
>      No, I think that urging the elimination of our only manned space
>      transport system before a proven replacement is available is
>      contrary to the cause of space exploration and development. When
>      someone shows me that they have a workable, cheaper manned space
>      system, then I'll go along with them. But remember, Space Shuttle
>      looked cheaper and faster than the alternatives early in its
>      design phase, too. The transition from paper to flight article
>      seems to have a serious negative effect on launch systems. Asking
>      if there is a cheaper way to do this is a good idea. Saying, "this
>      system which we plan to fly in five or six years definitely will
>      be cheaper than Shuttle" must be carefully considered.
> 
> >As an engineer I ask myself that same question every single day. Why do you
> >think NASA shouldn't worry about the costs?
> >
> >>   It's not fair to denounce NASA for
> >>   laying the foundation while praising OSC and McDAC for erecting the
> >>   skyscrapers.
> 
> >As to denouncing NASA, I praise NASA when they lay the foundation. I
> >condemn them when they prevent the skyscraper from being built.
> 
>      But didn't you just say that NASA should not be operating a space
>      transport system? If this is so, then how is NASA preventing private
>      industry from building said skyscraper?
> 
>      -Brian
>      
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
> BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
>                                                 -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"