Re: WeChooseTheMoon
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). So SpaceX doesn't qualify for your definition of 'private'? http://www.spacex.com/updates.php --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
And here is my reply: Very good. I should have dug deeper on their website before opening my mouth. :-) --[Lance] Dan M wrote: Somehow this just went to the author instead of the list. So, I'm reposting, even though I got a nice reply from Lance. -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Health care (was Re: WeChooseTheMoon)
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:40 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? Corporations do not have the power to compel people at gunpoint to do as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge difference. So is the difference between criminal and civil law. So put away your gun-toting straw men - nobody is talking about criminalizing private health care. They're not even talking about making private health care unlawful, so your whole argument is a canard. Let's see... providing basic education to everyone - that was a step forward. Providing voting rights to everyone - that was a step forward. Providing civil rights to everyone - that was a step forward. Providing economic opportunity to everyone - that was a step forward. But providing basic health care to everyone would be a step backward??? Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Health care is civil law, not guns involved (Re: WeChooseTheMoon)
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: I have posted articles that list a number of state mandates for health care plans. If a provider were to dare to sell a policy to a willing buyer, and that policy did not, for example, cover acupuncture in certain states, the provider would be breaking the law. If the provider refused to cease selling policies without acupuncture, they would eventually send the police to arrest them, with guns if the person attempted to defend themselves. This is so much baloney that Oscar Meyer would be jealous. Courts, not the police, not enforce civil matters like this. The only point at which police become involved would be when other laws are broken consequential to enforcement of the civil laws by courts. The only point at which guns are drawn is when officers believe they are others may be in immediate danger of great harm. I guess now I understand how you are consistent - Offer acupuncture or I'll shoot is a denial of civil rights, so you apparently don't recognize that our nation has made that step forward, which reasonably is a higher priority than basic health care. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? Corporations do not have the power to compel people at gunpoint to do as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge difference. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:40 AM, John Williams wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? Corporations do not have the power to compel people at gunpoint to do as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge difference. Right. I'm always getting a gun pointed at my head when I go to the damn doctor. I am SO tired of those bastards and their guns when I go in for a check-up, aren't you? Oh, wait… That never, ever happens. It's a straw man. Another one. The Republicans run those ads for millions and millions of dollars asking do you want a government bureaucrat deciding your health care for a reason: because they don't want people thinking yes, I do, because the alternative is a CORPORATE bureaucrat that I cannot under any circumstances remove from office. We live in an imperfect representative democracy, but at least it /is/ a representative democracy, where change -- however glacial -- is possible. Do you really think that you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the care you need from some corporate bean counter who is REQUIRED by LAW to maximize profits, and not required to take care of your health? Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: Right. I'm always getting a gun pointed at my head when I go to the damn doctor. I have posted articles that list a number of state mandates for health care plans. If a provider were to dare to sell a policy to a willing buyer, and that policy did not, for example, cover acupuncture in certain states, the provider would be breaking the law. If the provider refused to cease selling policies without acupuncture, they would eventually send the police to arrest them, with guns if the person attempted to defend themselves. In Maryland, it is illegal to practice physical therapy unless you have a doctorate. Better not set up a practice trying to rehabilitate injured people in Maryland if you just have an M.A., or you could end up arrested at gunpoint. Another example is that it is illegal for a doctor licensed in one state to treat someone in another state. A doctor from Texas could end up arrested at gunpoint for trying to help people in New Orleans after a hurricane. Do you really think that you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the care you need from some corporate bean counter who is REQUIRED by LAW to maximize profits, and not required to take care of your health? Absolutely. I choose to buy services from those who have a good reputation for serving their customers. And quite a few people who run businesses are aware that the best way to maximize profits is to build a reputation upon good customer service. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
John wrote: I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the free market as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told what to do by others. No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. In the case of health care, we have the free marketeers lobbying against any kind of government alternative to private insurance, but offering no substantial improvement over the status quo. The private health care companies wish to continue to 1. not insure anyone that can not pay their hefty premiums and co-pays 2.Pay as little as possible for people that _are_ insured and get sick 3. get the government to pay for as much of their costs as they can get away with and 4. make as much money as possible. The result being the f**ked up system we have today wherein we pay by far the most per capita and don't get the best care and don't even cover a huge segment of the population. So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, provide a vital benefit to society. If non-profits and charities are such wonderful solutions, why do we still have such a massive problem? To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians record. Your pretext; that we were forced to pay for the Apollo program is fallacious. We elected the leaders that conceived of the program and re-elected the leaders that pledged to continue it. I have little doubt that if you polled the world about man's greatest achievements, the Apollo program would rank at or near the top of the survey. If you asked the people of this country today if Apollo was worth the money, well, here's the poll: [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/Majority-Americans-Say-Space-Program-Costs-Justified.aspx ] I laud charitable organizations and the good work they do, but the idea that they could have an impact on problems such as health care is even a greater fallacy. We're an extremely rich nation and have been for quite some time, but when it comes to spending a grand on a new plasma TV or giving the money to charity, guess what we do most of the time. We give money to charity when it gives us a good tax break mostly. This is not to say that there are individuals that are extremely charitable, rich and poor alike. There are many people that give of themselves, but this generosity is not pervasive enough to make a dent in our larger problems. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. Except that, in recent years, the markets have been far from free. Government intrudes into virtually every market. Just look at the thousands of pages in the Federal Register, and how the number of pages has grown over the past decades. The most egregious manipulation is done by politicians. The private health care companies wish to continue to 1. not insure anyone that can not pay their hefty premiums and co-pays 2.Pay as little as possible for people that _are_ insured and get sick 3. get the government to pay for as much of their costs as they can get away with and 4. make as much money as possible. The result being the f**ked up system we have today wherein we pay by far the most per capita and don't get the best care and don't even cover a huge segment of the population. The private health care companies cater to those who pay them, which is primarily the government and employer groups. If there was actually a free market for health care plans chosen by individuals, there would likely be plans that are much better than what is available in the current government-controlled market. As for people who cannot afford even the least expensive health care plans, that is a whole different subject, but I would not be opposed to a voucher system, something like food-stamps for health care. Although I would prefer a voluntary charitable system. If non-profits and charities are such wonderful solutions, why do we still have such a massive problem? Because people are not choosing where to best spend there charitable dollars, but are having much of their surplus resources taken from them and the choices made by politicians pandering to special interests. Your pretext; that we were forced to pay for the Apollo program is fallacious. We elected the leaders that conceived of the program and re-elected the leaders that pledged to continue it. The only way there is no coercion is if those who did not vote for politicians who made the choices could opt out of having their money confiscated by the government for purposes they did not choose. And even for those who did vote for the politicians in question may not have supported spending money on the moon landings if they had been given a check box on their tax forms to give the money or not. I have little doubt that if you polled the world about man's greatest achievements, the Apollo program would rank at or near the top of the survey. I think you are probably correct about that. But if you asked those same people to donate $X in order to do it, I have little doubt that few of them would. That's human nature. We want a great deal, but when it comes down to paying for it, we find that what we want and what we really need are quite different. A free market allows people to efficiently get what they need, whereas government coercion allows politicians and special interests to wastefully get what they want. There are many people that give of themselves, but this generosity is not pervasive enough to make a dent in our larger problems. Which is to say that you believe you know better how people should spend their money than they do themselves. That people need to have their money confiscated and spent by the intellectual elite since otherwise people would spend it on a bunch of crap. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Which is to say that you believe you know better how people should spend their money than they do themselves. That people need to have their money confiscated and spent by the intellectual elite since otherwise people would spend it on a bunch of crap. No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. That said, individuality and indeed selfishness have attributes that the group can't always compete with. Competitiveness sparks innovation and motivates people to work hard and they should and do expect to reap the benefits of their labors. The trick is to balance the two by allowing our competitive nature to flourish while not allowing our baser nature to take paths that will be detrimental in the long run. I think that while without our individual attributes we wouldn't have come so far so fast, but that without the group we would sill have claws or hooves. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. Perhaps that is true, in an ideal system. But in practice, in the situations we have been discussing, a group means politicians, lobbyists, and special interests, and a lot of decisions that are in the selfish interests of the politicians and those who can exert influence over the politicians. In reality, I don't think the group decisions are any less selfish than the individual ones, except perhaps in quite small groups where everyone knows everyone else. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:32 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending Hmm, my sources (one is HHS) indicate that, as of the last measure, Medicaid spending was to be ~400 billion in 2008, according to Keiser, Medicare was $410 billion in 2007, and with several projected increases of 7% for 2007 to 2008 it would be about ~430 billion. Total healthcare costs for the US in 2008 was about 2.4 trillion, according to several sources. So, were talking about Medicare and Medicaid making up roughly 35% of total costs. How did you get 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Hi Doug, everyone. I think that both groups the free market sometimes make better decisions than individuals, but that the answer to life the universe and everything, returning to the moon and health care, is finding ways to allow groups to make better decisions than individuals every single time. I don't think that a free market by itself is able to do this. I've been thinking about this in several different contexts lately. When I think of there being nearly 7 billion humans on Earth today, I don't see that as an environmental disaster about to happen, I see it as a huge reservoir of knowledge and untapped computational decision making power. I think a huge problem for humanity is that 99% plus of intellectual effort is spent reinventing the wheel, and that free and open knowledge sharing and finding ways of enabling it are the keys to reducing duplication of effort and a better future for the human race. I think a lot has happen lately in the realm of web 2.0 and the development of software collaboration tools, and I hope this will start to result in increased intellectual productivity in the not to distant future. I've spent a fair bit of time over the last nine months working on a wiki to help Australian Local Governments share information, and I think if more people started and contributed to similar initiatives I think that would be a step in the right direction. I've read as much as I can about google wave and I think that will help. I have gotten excited about open source software and where its going. And I've recently read about networked improvement communities, and I am trying to find out more, with a view of joining a few or promoting them. I'm optomistic about the future of the world, and even if there id not a singularity around the corner, I think good things are. Regards, Wayne. I recently read a bit about - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:47 PM No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. That said, individuality and indeed selfishness have attributes that the group can't always compete with. Competitiveness sparks innovation and motivates people to work hard and they should and do expect to reap the benefits of their labors. The trick is to balance the two by allowing our competitive nature to flourish while not allowing our baser nature to take paths that will be detrimental in the long run. I think that while without our individual attributes we wouldn't have come so far so fast, but that without the group we would sill have claws or hooves. Doug___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. Aw, Doug. Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? This is apparently because government is accountable to no one, but corporations are accountable to their owners. At least that's how I understand it. Too bad governments can't be privately owned. No, wait... oh, my head hurts. Or not. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:43 PM, John Williams wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: A free market economy has its limits? The goals of a free market economy aren't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the species? Huh? Best interest of the species? How many starving or sick people could have been helped with the money it took to send a few people to the moon? Do you think some people have more right to decide what is the best interests of the species than others? Echoes of an earlier discussion of population growth :-). Everybody thinks that they have the right to decide what is in the best interests of the species than others. In fact, isn't that the fundamental concept of free market capitalism? As individuals decide what is best for themselves, they are doing do for the entire market/species. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: As individuals decide what is best for themselves, they are doing do for the entire market/species. I don't follow that at all. When politicians decide what special interests to pander to, they force the entire market/species to do what is best for the politicians. When we are free to choose for ourselves, each of us chooses what is best for ourselves, including our own choices in how to best to help others. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. And why isn't it a free market? What is the free market mechanism that provides _all_ of the citizens of one of the the worlds wealthiest nations with health care? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:26 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. And why isn't it a free market? What is the free market mechanism that provides _all_ of the citizens of one of the worlds wealthiest nations with health care? Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: And why isn't it a free market? Because people in the government tell people what healthcare they can and cannot have, how it can be paid for, and what must be done to get it. And it restricts what health care providers and insurers may offer, and how they may offer it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the free market as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told what to do by others. So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, provide a vital benefit to society. To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians record. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I can pay not to die? Is there a guarantee? I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) It? Afford what, exactly? Presumably I don't get the joke. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
WeChooseTheMoon
The JFK Presidential Library and Museum is reliving the events of 40 years ago in real time at http://wechoosethemoon.org/ News article about it: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009459513_apusmoonlandingwebsite.html (The first link is not to be confused with http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song which someone on another list said it reminded them of.) Slightly more seriously along those lines, _New Scientist_ has listed the top ten Apollo-inspired songs at http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/top-10-apollo-inspired-songs.html?DCMP=NLC-nletternsref=blog1 or http://tinyurl.com/nhhn4d though the third verse of http://www.mp3lyrics.org/t/the-stylistics/im-stone-in-love/ was one of many which didn't make the list . . . And finally, we hope by now surely (don't all me Shirley) this is the case: http://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity/2009/07/11/ . . . ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). I have no idea when it will happen, but I will bet a case of beer against one beer that it will be more than 10 years from the first sub-orbital flight. Yes, we have announcement of Virgin planning sub-orbital flights in a big-time manner, which will probably be close enough to break even to be worth it in PR. And, the owner is a multi-billionaire who could afford it. But, I think it very worth noting that we are not talking about a step that took the government less than a year not being on the privatae horizen after 5 years. There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
Somehow this just went to the author instead of the list. So, I'm reposting, even though I got a nice reply from Lance. -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of dsummersmi...@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:33 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: WeChooseTheMoon An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). I have no idea when it will happen, but I will bet a case of beer against one beer that it will be more than 10 years from the first sub-orbital flight. Yes, we have announcement of Virgin planning sub-orbital flights in a big-time manner, which will probably be close enough to break even to be worth it in PR. And, the owner is a multi-billionaire who could afford it. But, I think it very worth noting that we are not talking about a step that took the government less than a year not being on the privatae horizen after 5 years. There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). I have no idea when it will happen, but I will bet a case of beer against one beer that it will be more than 10 years from the first sub-orbital flight. Yes, we have announcement of Virgin planning sub-orbital flights in a big-time manner, which will probably be close enough to break even to be worth it in PR. And, the owner is a multi-billionaire who could afford it. But, I think it very worth noting that we are not talking about a step that took the government less than a year not being on the privatae horizen after 5 years. There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. Dan M. mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Alan Shepard launched in May 1961. The last lunar mission, Apollo 17 launched in Dec 1972. Eleven years to go from one sub-orbital flight to spending 3 days on the moon. That is an incredible accomplishment, the likes of which we may never see again. I watched Shepard's launch (on TV of course) and Apollo 17's midnight launch (again on TV), and I probably won't live long enough to see the next lunar launch and that pisses me off. john ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:34 PM, John Garcia wrote: Alan Shepard launched in May 1961. The last lunar mission, Apollo 17 launched in Dec 1972. Eleven years to go from one sub-orbital flight to spending 3 days on the moon. That is an incredible accomplishment, the likes of which we may never see again. Let's not forget landing on the moon and then driving to the equivalent of the next town and back in the LRV. No small feat there, considering they had to drive a vehicle that could be folded up and stowed on the side of the LM descent stage. ;) But my best memories are still of the House Rock trip on 16. I can still hear Charlie Duke saying, Look at the size of that rock! I watched Shepard's launch (on TV of course) and Apollo 17's midnight launch (again on TV), and I probably won't live long enough to see the next lunar launch and that pisses me off. I remember going outside as a kid sometime around 1970 and seeing the gibbous moon (about the solar angle NASA seemed to like best for lunar landings), and thinking that it was entirely possible there was someone up there at that moment. It might have been around the time of 14, I can't remember. But the idea really hit me pretty profoundly at the time, that I was alive when our species accomplished the feat of landing on the moon, and it made me very sad even at that age when I found out 17 was the last mission, and that most of the funding had been cut after the landing. Bad way to come back to earth after such heady times. It seems like a cruel joke nowadays, that 1950's-1960's technology landed human beings on the moon and all the more modern technology we had later on fell so far short of that mark. I'm with Pournelle on that .. never thought I'd live to see the last ones. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Original Message: - From: Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:04:59 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon It seems like a cruel joke nowadays, that 1950's-1960's technology landed human beings on the moon and all the more modern technology we had later on fell so far short of that mark. I'm with Pournelle on that .. never thought I'd live to see the last ones. One thing that the non-inventor and/or non technical project leader often fails to have a gut feel for is how often advances are dictated by where 5000 foot sheer cliffs and what passes appear as we explore new landscape. I have buddies that made tremendous leaps forward in just a year or two; I've also been part of efforts that looked promising at first, but ended up being dead ends. If you look at the last 40 years of development most of it has been tied, directly or indirectly, to Moore's law. For example, in my field, I and my productive friends would never have been able to design tools without the myriad uses that we put computers to. It allowed us to model responses, it allowed us to build better mechanical parts, it allowed for far superior electronics design, it allowed us to run fast computers at 175C with tools that withstand shocks of 1000G and rms vibrations of 20G over a vast random frequency range for hours. Without computers being fast, none of this would have been possible. Unfortunately, aerospace is a place where, after 40 years of development, a 30% savings in fuel cost is a big thing. There is a cliff there, and no passes have been found since the heady days of the '60s. But, remember, that was a time when engineering was paid cost plus, and money was no object. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Dan wrote: There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. A free market economy has its limits? The goals of a free market economy aren't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the species? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: A free market economy has its limits? The goals of a free market economy aren't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the species? Huh? Best interest of the species? How many starving or sick people could have been helped with the money it took to send a few people to the moon? Do you think some people have more right to decide what is the best interests of the species than others? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: A free market economy has its limits? The goals of a free market economy aren't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the species? Huh? Best interest of the species? How many starving or sick people could have been helped with the money it took to send a few people to the moon? Do you think some people have more right to decide what is the best interests of the species than others? Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
