Re: VTVL?

Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:
:There is one absolutely vital fact about commercial spaceflight that
:so far only myself have raised. That is that all commercial activity
:in all other fields is global. You buy the cheapest and highest
:quality goods regardless of flag. You choose your suppliers, again on
:the basis of quality & price - not flag.
:
:Unless and until space submits to the same discipline it will NEVER be
:commercial.
:

Then lots of things that are commercial aren't commercial. I suggest
you take a look at the Munitions List.

:
:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/a5f5188f41e96c00/?hl=en#
:

Irrelevant and why would anyone believe Scott Lowther?

Hint: Unless he works for NASA/KSC, their Export Compliance Office
wouldn't bother with him.

:
:How can space in the USA be commercial EVER? In commerce you do not
:have your designs classified. If you put people in jail for 10 years
:for selling a mobile phone think of what that would do to the
:industry.
:

Hint for the adamantinely stupid: ITAR has nothing to do with
'classified'. They are two very different things.

:
:Rand and Fred are simply play actors, whenever they are challenged in
:any way they simply say other people are fantasising. They change
:their ground constantly.
:

Liar. Please show where I've changed ground constantly.

When idiots act as if their fantasies are reality, yes, I'll say
they're fantasizing. The simple fact is that you do that constantly.

:
:You said in some of your other postings that Rand (and Fred as well by
:implication) were saying (almost) that according to them only
:Americans were allowed to post.
:

Eric Chomko is a known idiot. He says all sorts of stupid and
counterfactual things.

:
:Now is space a scientific discipline,
:or is it simply a display of national virility?
:

Yes.

:
:Again ground constantly changes. It seems clear to me that the most
:important feature of the lunar base will be "Old Glory". Not a
:telescope - that is far better built in fragments in deep space. It is
:undeniable that if you view space from a purely scientific perspective
:unmanned exloration - Phoenix for example, is far more productive. The
:arguments for manned spaceflight are basically those of planting "Old
:Glory". Any other arguments are specious.
:

Attempt at proof by assertion fails.

Reality is that manned missions are typically orders of magnitude more
productive (by time spent). They are also orders of magnitude more
expensive.

What people like Ian ignore is that when the funding for manned space
goes down by X%, funding for unmanned space goes down by X%+Y%.

:
:To say that human manual
:dexterity (it is just manual dexterity we are talking about not
:reasoning ability) will never be reproduced by a machine is really too
:ridiculous to comment on.
:

Strawman alert. Ian is lying again. Nobody is talking about just
"manual dexterity".

:
:This question should be asked, perhaps not - You won't get a straight
:answer.
:

Certainly not if Ian is involved in the discussion you won't.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VTVL?
    ... In commerce you do not ... Freddy is consistently mean with his rants of "liar". ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: VTVL?
    ... I want commercial spaceflight to succeed. ... In commerce you do not ... important feature of the lunar base will be "Old Glory". ... dexterity (it is just manual dexterity we are talking about not ...
    (sci.space.policy)