On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:46:35 -0800, Sean Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Except that the HST and the Station were both planned in concert with
>the Shuttle and were cited as evidence of what great things the Shuttle
>could do. Of course, at this point we're building ground-based
>telescopes that will outperform HST, and at a fraction of the cost.

True - already are outperforming HST, in fact.  See Mar 2002 Sky & Tel
for a Dec 2001 VLT NAOS-CONICA image that shows sharper and fainter
stars than HST.  Granted, that's in the IR band (2.2 um), but it's
still impressive, and similar visible light performance will be here
soon, with a sodium laser artificial guide star.

But HST was launched in 1990.  Would it have been worthwhile to wait
over eleven years to save a large fraction of a billion dollars?
...Yeah, probably.  Nuts.

>I read the entire article from beginning to end, Randall. I don't think
>you did before posting your response.

You're correct.  Having read his recent screed, I couldn't force
myself to finish his historical one.  Both are chock full of errors,
and of Ideology presented as Truth.

>Did I mention lobbying?

Campaigning, lobbying, slippery slope.  Rather not go there.

>Does the Infernal Revenue Code prohibit ERPS
>members from public expressing opinions? Does it prevent us from posting
>in big letters on our web site that we don't think the Shuttle program
>is a good idea?

Of course not.  But I don't believe we should do the latter.

>> Remember: we're not trying to defeat NASA.  We're trying to obsolesce
>> them.
>
>So you think that the government's competing with commercial launchers
>and giving NASA a monopoly on military launches doesn't hurt the
>commercial space industry?

Since when does NASA do military launches?  The military never relied
on NASA for launches except for being dragged kicking and screaming
into launching everything on Shuttle - and after Challenger they said,
"Congress, we told you so; NASA, get stuffed," and went back to
launching their own missions.

>You think we can "obsolesce" NASA without
>doing anything about the hurdles thrown in the face of the industry by
>the very agency that's supposed to be supporting/encouraging it?

AFAIK, NASA has no charter to support or encourage commercial space
development.  That's FAA/AST.  NASA usually gets Congressional orders
to support commercial space in their budget allocations, but they
usually ignore them, and for some reason Congress lets them.

In any case, I believe that trying to do something about those hurdles
by trying to shut down America's only national space program would be
counterproductive, and would only further marginalize us.  If Lockmart
and Boeing want to try it, more power to them.  For us, I think it
would be dumb.  It amounts to a frontal assault against someone who
could outspend us by a factor of a billion.  We must be more subtle.

For example, we could take every opportunity to give extremely
left-handed compliments to Nixon's White Elephant and Goldin's Empire.
Something like, "Considering what a marginal vehicle Shuttle is, it's
a great tribute to NASA that they've been able to fly it for over 20
years and only lose 40% of the fleet."  :-)

>Remember, these people are using *our* money to compete against us. It
>seems to me that any comprehensive program intended to produce cheap
>private access to space must take this into account. 

Indeed it must - by recognizing that the government competition is not
going to go away, and anyone who goes head to head with them is going
to lose.  The secret to success in competing with government is to
cooperate with them until you can beat them at their own game.  Then
get a bunch of their people to defect, and make them irrelevant.

I think the bottom line for me is that I don't want to see ERPS
attacking anyone or anything.  We should leave that to Rick.  Our
role, IMHO, is to show the world what can be done using a model other
than NASA's.  Eventually, if we are right that we have the better
model, ours will prevail.

-R

--
Every complex, difficult problem has a simple,
easy solution - which is wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list

Reply via email to