Aeronautics Industry

Fred J. McCall · Guest

henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article <q77d33d6fajnku6hfatri1v6o0e29purue@4ax.com>,
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
:>space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
:>stations.
:
:Not exactly: the problem is that the *first* powersat is not particularly
:cheap. The 50th could be the cheapest energy source around, depending on
:what assumptions you make -- analyses claiming that powersat energy is
:excessively expensive tend to make stupid assumptions like launching all
:materials from Earth.
:

The problem is that folks who try to make a case that using space
materials in a big way generally hand wave away the development of the
technologies and space industrial base that makes that really
possible. If you bill all that to the SPS effort rather than assuming
is springs full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, is space
development really cheaper?

:
:The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
:uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
:least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
:to test their viability.
:

And that leads to both an immense barrier to entry, as it makes sure
prices for a working system stays preposterously high until the point
where you have a large working system, at which point what economies
of scale may exist don't help you all that much (because the system is
already built).

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Jonathan · Guest

"Geoffrey" <geoffrey.landis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178423119.686192.217510@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Henry Spencer · Guest

In article <1178456364.659390.293290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Turner <leap@gol.com> wrote:

Pat Flannery · Guest

Jonathan Goff wrote:

Rand Simberg · Guest

On Mon, 7 May 2007 04:13:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Michael Turner · Guest

On May 6, 9:42 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Eric Chomko · Guest

On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
:>
:> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:>
:
:What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:

That's a poor reason to hate anyone.

:
:And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:

Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>
:> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :way as to indicate that:
:> :>
:> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :
:> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :sanctions.
:>
:> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> where the US gets its oil.
:>
:> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> women are probably friendlier.
:
:The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:

So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.

:>
:> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> OPEC).
:
:That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:as the sale is in dollars.
:

You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
because it doesn't really matter.

:> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:
:Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:

Dumbass.

:> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:
:No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:

What planet are you living on, Eric?

Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.

From the Congressional Report entitled "Iraq: U.S. Regime Change
Efforts and Post-War Governance"

"In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that
the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a
change of regime."

"The Iraq Liberation Act made the previously unstated policy of
promoting regime change in Iraq official, declared policy. A provision
of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to
“support efforts” to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In
mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime
change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."

"In May 1999, in concert with an INC visit to Washington, the Clinton
Administration announced it would draw down $5 million worth of
training and “non-lethal” defense equipment under the ILA. During 1999
- 2000, about 150 opposition members underwent civil administration
training at Hurlburt air base in Florida, including attending Defense
Department-run courses provided civil affairs training, including
instruction in field medicine, logistics, computers, communications,
broadcasting, power generation, and war crimes issues. However, the
Clinton Administration asserted that the opposition was not
sufficiently organized to merit U.S. provision of lethal military
equipment or combat training."

Read all the preceding closely, Eric. You starting to catch on here
yet?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :> :way as to indicate that:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :> :
:> :> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :> :sanctions.
:> :>
:> :> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> :> where the US gets its oil.
:> :>
:> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> :> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> :> women are probably friendlier.
:> :
:> :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:> :
:>
:> So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:
:More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
:

Preposterous notion. Writing sensibly. Try it! You might like it.

:> :>
:> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> OPEC).
:> :
:> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :
:>
:> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> because it doesn't really matter.
:>
:
:Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:oil is concerned.
:

Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.

:>
:> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :
:> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :
:>
:> Dumbass.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:

Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
time.

:>
:> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :
:> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :
:>
:> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:>
:
:Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:

You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
*ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton. You responded with
'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.

Logic - get some!

:> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:
:Yes, and its states:
:
:"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:Council resolutions"
:

Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."

That's it. No conditions about means.

In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
"through" at all, much less the rest.

Liar.

:
:Bush ignored that part.
:

Because it wasn't there.

:
:No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:attacks Iraq
:

Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
there.

:
:... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:above cited document?
:

Cite where I made such a claim.

Liar.

:
:No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
:Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
:that is another story.
:

Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.

Liar.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :>
:> :
:> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :
:>
:> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:
:I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:

Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"

Make up your mind.

:>
:> :
:> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :
:>
:> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:>
:
:The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:

Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.

:
:Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:Maybe you should to catch up.
:

Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 10, 9:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote: