Discussion:
YASID: Irony on the Moon (Warning, SPOILERS!)
(too old to reply)
Quadibloc
2019-10-12 17:48:07 UTC
Permalink
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed effort to send men to Mars.

One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.

At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!

So the point is:

a) it's ironic, and

b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?

John Savard
a***@msn.com
2019-10-12 19:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed effort to send men to Mars.
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
John Savard
I think you mean "Columbus was a Dope" by Robert Heinlein - though in that book they are discussing a trip to Alpha Centauri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Was_a_Dope
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-12 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@msn.com
Post by Quadibloc
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed effort to send men to Mars.
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
John Savard
I think you mean "Columbus was a Dope" by Robert Heinlein - though in that book they are discussing a trip to Alpha Centauri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Was_a_Dope
I guessed Asimov. Darn. Several of his short story
titles could've been it, e.g. "Let's Not". What that
one actually is, is documented online.
Paul S Person
2019-10-13 17:15:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@msn.com
Post by Quadibloc
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed effort to send men to Mars.
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
John Savard
I think you mean "Columbus was a Dope" by Robert Heinlein - though in that book they are discussing a trip to Alpha Centauri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Was_a_Dope
I guessed Asimov. Darn. Several of his short story
titles could've been it, e.g. "Let's Not". What that
one actually is, is documented online.
I remember a short story, probably in Analog, recording the 15th
attempt by Columbus to reach the New World. Decades after 1492, they
are ordered (once again) to turn back, just before reaching the Canary
Islands.

It was, of course, a satire on the Moon program's slow-but-careful
approach.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
a***@msn.com
2019-10-13 18:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
I remember a short story, probably in Analog, recording the 15th
attempt by Columbus to reach the New World. Decades after 1492, they
are ordered (once again) to turn back, just before reaching the Canary
Islands.
It was, of course, a satire on the Moon program's slow-but-careful
approach.
--
There's Sailing, Through Program Management by Al Charmatz from 1981, which might be the one you're thinking of.

A similar one is Conestoga History by James B. Johnson in 1987 (this one inspired by the reaction to Challenger).
Quadibloc
2019-10-13 19:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Unlike with Conestoga, and other events of early pioneer days, though, with Challenger there was the option of doing things better.
a***@msn.com
2019-10-13 23:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Unlike with Conestoga, and other events of early pioneer days, though, with Challenger there was the option of doing things better.
Which is one of the flaws in the story.
Paul S Person
2019-10-14 17:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@msn.com
Post by Paul S Person
I remember a short story, probably in Analog, recording the 15th
attempt by Columbus to reach the New World. Decades after 1492, they
are ordered (once again) to turn back, just before reaching the Canary
Islands.
It was, of course, a satire on the Moon program's slow-but-careful
approach.
--
There's Sailing, Through Program Management by Al Charmatz from 1981, which might be the one you're thinking of.
A similar one is Conestoga History by James B. Johnson in 1987 (this one inspired by the reaction to Challenger).
Earlier. The Moon Program was in the 60s.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-15 01:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@msn.com
Post by Paul S Person
I remember a short story, probably in Analog, recording the 15th
attempt by Columbus to reach the New World. Decades after 1492, they
are ordered (once again) to turn back, just before reaching the Canary
Islands.
It was, of course, a satire on the Moon program's slow-but-careful
approach.
--
There's Sailing, Through Program Management by Al Charmatz from 1981, which might be the one you're thinking of.
A similar one is Conestoga History by James B. Johnson in 1987 (this one inspired by the reaction to Challenger).
Earlier. The Moon Program was in the 60s.
The Space Shuttle was not though.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2019-10-15 17:02:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 18:01:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@msn.com
Post by Paul S Person
I remember a short story, probably in Analog, recording the 15th
attempt by Columbus to reach the New World. Decades after 1492, they
are ordered (once again) to turn back, just before reaching the Canary
Islands.
It was, of course, a satire on the Moon program's slow-but-careful
approach.
--
There's Sailing, Through Program Management by Al Charmatz from 1981, which might be the one you're thinking of.
A similar one is Conestoga History by James B. Johnson in 1987 (this one inspired by the reaction to Challenger).
Earlier. The Moon Program was in the 60s.
The Space Shuttle was not though.
The story, however, was clearly a satire on the Moon program.

It's point was that, if Columbus had benefitted (if that's the word)
from such a program, all of us except the First Peoples would still be
in Europe, Africa, or Asia.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2019-10-12 19:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed effort to send men to Mars.
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
John Savard
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-12 22:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I femember a short story. Two people are talking about a proposed
effort to send men to Mars.
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
John Savard
Not especially.  We've already been to the Moon after all.  It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.

Lynn
danny burstein
2019-10-16 15:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-16 15:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
We'd need a moon base to make sure it is spread out enough to not explode.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 16:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
We'd need a moon base to make sure it is spread out enough to not explode.
Of course, if it still did explode, then one would still fail to have the
situation experienced both by Moonbase Alpha in Space:1999 and by Space Station
One in the Space Family Robinson comic book, where they are propelled at a
velocity several times the speed of light, so they can pass by a new star every
week (or even every three months) and yet also be moving slowly enough, when in
a solar system, that they can make several journeys back and forth to any
interesting planets there.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 15:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
No, because the rockets carrying the radioactive waste to the moon would, every
now and then, explode on the launch pad, which would be very bad.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-16 16:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by danny burstein
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
No, because the rockets carrying the radioactive waste to the moon would, every
now and then, explode on the launch pad, which would be very bad.
Not to mention the fact that dangerous doesn't mean useless.
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 18:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Not to mention the fact that dangerous doesn't mean useless.
Even with reprocessing and breeder reactors, there will be some radioactive waste
which is legitimately viewed as waste.

Launching it to the moon, though, is wildly uneconomic as well as horribly unsafe.
But apparently the TV show Space:1999 worked; it convinced hordes of stupid people
that nuclear power is bad. So we're stuck with global warming.

John Savard
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-16 20:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Scott Lurndal
Not to mention the fact that dangerous doesn't mean useless.
Even with reprocessing and breeder reactors, there will be some radioactive waste
which is legitimately viewed as waste.
Launching it to the moon, though, is wildly uneconomic as well as horribly unsafe.
But apparently the TV show Space:1999 worked; it convinced hordes of stupid people
that nuclear power is bad. So we're stuck with global warming.
John Savard
I'd suggest more that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (the actual
events, not the shows) convinced them of that, John.

Not that I disagree with you that we need to either accept it again, or
throttle back to a XIX. or even XVIII. century level of technology, but
the problem is there are way too many people who think we can avoid both
by just runing the world over to wind farms and solar bird-fryers
wherever there isn't already farmland or asphalt.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-16 20:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Scott Lurndal
Not to mention the fact that dangerous doesn't mean useless.
Even with reprocessing and breeder reactors, there will be some radioactive waste
which is legitimately viewed as waste.
Launching it to the moon, though, is wildly uneconomic as well as horribly unsafe.
But apparently the TV show Space:1999 worked; it convinced hordes of stupid people
that nuclear power is bad. So we're stuck with global warming.
John Savard
I'd suggest more that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (the actual
events, not the shows) convinced them of that, John.

Not that I disagree with you that we need to either accept it again, or
throttle back to a XIX. or even XVIII. century level of technology, but
the problem is there are way too many people who think we can avoid both
by just [argh, typos--TURNING!] the world over to wind farms and solar
bird-fryers wherever there isn't already farmland or asphalt.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 23:48:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Scott Lurndal
Not to mention the fact that dangerous doesn't mean useless.
Even with reprocessing and breeder reactors, there will be some radioactive waste
which is legitimately viewed as waste.
Launching it to the moon, though, is wildly uneconomic as well as horribly unsafe.
Why is it wildly uneconomic? Show me the numbers assuming Starship.
Post by Quadibloc
But apparently the TV show Space:1999 worked; it convinced hordes of stupid people
that nuclear power is bad. So we're stuck with global warming.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 00:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Why is it wildly uneconomic? Show me the numbers assuming Starship.
If you want to know how much it costs to send stuff to the Moon, look at the
Apollo program.

I mean, eventually it might become significantly cheaper to put stuff on the Moon,
after we invent antigravity, but one can't expect more than slight improvements in
rockets - they already *were* a mature technology back in 1970. If there had
been significant room for improvement in rockets, we'd be on Mars by now. Or the
Russians or Chinese would, if we neglected to press the technology forward as
much as possible.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 00:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why is it wildly uneconomic? Show me the numbers assuming Starship.
If you want to know how much it costs to send stuff to the Moon, look at the
Apollo program.
I mean, eventually it might become significantly cheaper to put stuff on the Moon,
after we invent antigravity, but one can't expect more than slight improvements in
rockets - they already *were* a mature technology back in 1970. If there had
been significant room for improvement in rockets, we'd be on Mars by now. Or the
Russians or Chinese would, if we neglected to press the technology forward as
much as possible.
John Savard
Don't look at SpaceX then. They are building rockets that run on LNG
(liquefied natural gas) and LOX (liquid oxygen) for significantly lower
costs than NASA.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 01:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why is it wildly uneconomic? Show me the numbers assuming Starship.
If you want to know how much it costs to send stuff to the Moon, look at the
Apollo program.
Why would anyone look at a 50 year old government boondoggle to find
out current costs for anything?
Post by Quadibloc
I mean, eventually it might become significantly cheaper to put stuff on the Moon,
after we invent antigravity, but one can't expect more than slight improvements in
rockets - they already *were* a mature technology back in 1970.
Yeah, like the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria were "mature
technology".
Post by Quadibloc
If there had
been significant room for improvement in rockets, we'd be on Mars by now.
You seem to be conflating lack of effort and lack of potential.
Post by Quadibloc
Or the
Russians or Chinese would, if we neglected to press the technology forward as
much as possible.
Quadi, do google "SpaceX". Google "Falcon 9". Google "Falcon Heavy".

I find it rather sad that someone who participates in a science
fiction newsgroup is so horribly uninformed about recent developments
in space technology.

Or to put it another way, launching the ISS cost 150 billion dollars.
Within the next decade, unlesss something goes horribly wrong, SpaceX
will be launching something with as much working area for about 10
million. And _landing_ it. On _Mars_.
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 14:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I find it rather sad that someone who participates in a science
fiction newsgroup is so horribly uninformed about recent developments
in space technology.
I know that Elon Musk and his competitors have ambitious plans to reduce the
barriers to access to space. Even if they are fully successful, though, surely
they're not going to manage to reduce the cost of getting to space by more than
_one_ order of magnitude. Of course, there's also a second order of magnitude as
figures for putting stuff into space the old way usually count development cost
instead of just marginal cost... but that launching stuff into space is
enormously expensive and somewhat dangerous is something I don't expect anyone
to be able to _really_ change.

Given current trends, though, if it _did_ get changed, the immediate result
would be launching so much junk into Earth orbit that instead of becoming
easier, space travel would become impossible.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 19:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I find it rather sad that someone who participates in a science
fiction newsgroup is so horribly uninformed about recent developments
in space technology.
I know that Elon Musk and his competitors have ambitious plans to reduce the
barriers to access to space. Even if they are fully successful, though, surely
they're not going to manage to reduce the cost of getting to space by more than
_one_ order of magnitude. Of course, there's also a second order of magnitude as
figures for putting stuff into space the old way usually count development cost
instead of just marginal cost... but that launching stuff into space is
enormously expensive and somewhat dangerous is something I don't expect anyone
to be able to _really_ change.
Given current trends, though, if it _did_ get changed, the immediate result
would be launching so much junk into Earth orbit that instead of becoming
easier, space travel would become impossible.
John Savard
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already. He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

Lynn
danny burstein
2019-10-17 19:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already. He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
Has anyone interviewed NASA's Donald Kessler about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 22:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already. He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
Has anyone interviewed NASA's Donald Kessler about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Have you seen the movie "WALL-E" ? Future space ships may need to be
armor plated.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-18 01:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already.  He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
Has anyone interviewed NASA's Donald Kessler about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Have you seen the movie "WALL-E" ?  Future space ships may need to be
armor plated.
Or a little more resources put behind the various junk clearing projects
under development.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
D B Davis
2019-10-18 13:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already. He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
Has anyone interviewed NASA's Donald Kessler about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
The cumulative effect of ~42,000 sooty kerosene exhaust plumes in the
stratosphere can't be good:

If rockets are a minuscule contributor to the problem of
climate change, they do have a significant potential to
become a significant contributor to the problem of
stratospheric ozone depletion. This follows from three
unique characteristics of rocket emissions:

1. Rocket combustion products are the only human-produced
source of ozone-destroying compounds injected directly
into the middle and upper stratosphere. The stratosphere
is relatively isolated from the troposphere so that
emissions from individual launches accumulate in the
stratosphere. Ozone loss caused by rockets should be
considered as the cumulative effect of several years
of all launches, from all space organizations across
the planet.

2. Stratospheric ozone levels are controlled by catalytic
chemical reactions driven by only trace amounts of
reactive gases and particles. Stratospheric concentrations
of these reactive compounds are typically about one-thousandth
that of ozone. Deposition of relatively small absolute
amounts of these reactive compounds can significantly modify
ozone levels.

3. Rocket engines are known to emit many of the reactive gases
and particles that drive ozone destroying catalytic reactions.
This is true for all propellant types. Even water vapor
emissions, widely considered inert, contribute to ozone
depletion. Rocket engines cause more or less ozone loss
according to propellant type, but every type of rocket
engine causes some loss; no rocket engine is perfectly
"green" in this sense.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777620902768867
☮

Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-18 18:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
SpaceX has launched 62 internet relay satellites into orbit already. He
is planning on launching up to 12,000 more internet relay satellites in
the near future and 30,000 more after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
Has anyone interviewed NASA's Donald Kessler about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
The cumulative effect of ~42,000 sooty kerosene exhaust plumes in the
...

That is way, way, way too many rocket launches. The SpaceX Falcon just
launched 60 of the Starlink satellites in one shot. The Falcon Heavy
should be able to launch hundreds of them. Maybe thousands.

Lynn

J. Clarke
2019-10-17 23:55:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I find it rather sad that someone who participates in a science
fiction newsgroup is so horribly uninformed about recent developments
in space technology.
I know that Elon Musk and his competitors have ambitious plans to reduce the
barriers to access to space. Even if they are fully successful, though, surely
they're not going to manage to reduce the cost of getting to space by more than
_one_ order of magnitude.
You really aren't paying attention. In 1991 launching on the Space
Shuttle cost 85,000 a kilogram. In 2006, launching on Falcon 9 cost
9,930 a kilogram. Falcon Heavy is around $950 a kilogram. So that's
nearly two orders of magnitude already. And Starship should take down
another one.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, there's also a second order of magnitude as
figures for putting stuff into space the old way usually count development cost
instead of just marginal cost... but that launching stuff into space is
enormously expensive and somewhat dangerous is something I don't expect anyone
to be able to _really_ change.
Well, then you aren't paying attention. How much does it cost to fly
from New York to Los Angeles if you throw away the plane at the end?
How about if you fuel it up and fly it again and keep going until it
wears out?
Post by Quadibloc
Given current trends, though, if it _did_ get changed, the immediate result
would be launching so much junk into Earth orbit that instead of becoming
easier, space travel would become impossible.
That is a current concern.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-18 00:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I find it rather sad that someone who participates in a science
fiction newsgroup is so horribly uninformed about recent developments
in space technology.
I know that Elon Musk and his competitors have ambitious plans to reduce the
barriers to access to space. Even if they are fully successful, though, surely
they're not going to manage to reduce the cost of getting to space by more than
_one_ order of magnitude.
You really aren't paying attention. In 1991 launching on the Space
Shuttle cost 85,000 a kilogram. In 2006, launching on Falcon 9 cost
9,930 a kilogram. Falcon Heavy is around $950 a kilogram. So that's
nearly two orders of magnitude already. And Starship should take down
another one.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, there's also a second order of magnitude as
figures for putting stuff into space the old way usually count development cost
instead of just marginal cost... but that launching stuff into space is
enormously expensive and somewhat dangerous is something I don't expect anyone
to be able to _really_ change.
Well, then you aren't paying attention. How much does it cost to fly
from New York to Los Angeles if you throw away the plane at the end?
How about if you fuel it up and fly it again and keep going until it
wears out?
Post by Quadibloc
Given current trends, though, if it _did_ get changed, the immediate result
would be launching so much junk into Earth orbit that instead of becoming
easier, space travel would become impossible.
That is a current concern.
Plus Musk is planning on using a ballistic version of Starship to
transport 200 people from New York City to Tokyo in 30 minutes or less.
That is a total game changer and why a supersonic commercial airliner
will not be built again. But it has got to be super reliable. And a
free zero gee interval at the top of journey, barf bags for all !

Lynn
danny burstein
2019-10-18 00:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus Musk is planning on using a ballistic version of Starship to
transport 200 people from New York City to Tokyo in 30 minutes or less.
That is a total game changer and why a supersonic commercial airliner
will not be built again. But it has got to be super reliable. And a
free zero gee interval at the top of journey, barf bags for all !
very little demand for passenger flight on that.

Much more... for high value, time critical, cargo.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-18 01:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus Musk is planning on using a ballistic version of Starship to
transport 200 people from New York City to Tokyo in 30 minutes or less.
That is a total game changer and why a supersonic commercial airliner
will not be built again. But it has got to be super reliable. And a
free zero gee interval at the top of journey, barf bags for all !
very little demand for passenger flight on that.
Much more... for high value, time critical, cargo.
I have flown from Houston to Tokyo twice. And back. Totally suck trip.
30 minutes would be awesome. And more people would go then.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 23:44:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:58:11 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by danny burstein
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
No, because the rockets carrying the radioactive waste to the moon would, every
now and then, explode on the launch pad, which would be very bad.
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?

And suppose it does explode, what horrible consequence do you foresee?
You really should study up on the technology that has been developed
for nuclear waste containers. They aren't fragile.
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 00:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!

John Savard
The Doctor
2019-10-17 00:17:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <244a118f-4185-455b-a4db-***@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

9 lines no content.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 14:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
9 lines no content.
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-17 15:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Doctor
9 lines no content.
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
And how many (in commercial production) have blown up since? Relative to the
number that _haven't_ blown up.
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 23:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Doctor
9 lines no content.
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Look how many Jumos burned up before the Me-262 intercepted its first
bomber.

Atlas was a second-generation throwaway system. What leads you to
believe that it is representative of anything today?
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 00:29:37 UTC
Permalink
On 10/16/2019 7:04 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

Weird, I am not seeing your reply. I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.

Lynn
Jay E. Morris
2019-10-17 01:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 01:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
There's something going wrong with posts from Google Groups, and I THINK
it's just with the mobile version of the site.
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
There's something going wrong with posts from Google Groups, and I THINK
it's just with the mobile version of the site.
Google is at issue.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Timothy Bruening
2019-10-17 12:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
There's something going wrong with posts from Google Groups, and I THINK
it's just with the mobile version of the site.
I have been posting from stationary computers without Yads seeing my text.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 02:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
And Kevrob.

I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.

Lynn
Jay E. Morris
2019-10-17 02:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 02:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
It's all over the place.

The one common denominator is Google Groups.
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
It's all over the place.
The one common denominator is Google Groups.
A Google groups problem.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Moriarty
2019-10-17 02:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.

-Moriarty
D B Davis
2019-10-17 04:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org

The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru

☮

Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-10-17 04:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org
The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru
Sounds like a murder mystery..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-18 01:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org
The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru
Subject line changed to spam I think I got once.
I wasn't interested but I was intrigued...

Message cancelling or rejecting wouldn't leave a message
with a blank body.

Some services might mistake the body for more header
lines if Google has done something goofy.
Paul S Person
2019-10-18 17:18:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by D B Davis
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org
The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru
Subject line changed to spam I think I got once.
I wasn't interested but I was intrigued...
Message cancelling or rejecting wouldn't leave a message
with a blank body.
Some services might mistake the body for more header
lines if Google has done something goofy.
Not in Agent.

Although the headers include
Lines: 16

while the number of line shown is zero.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
D B Davis
2019-10-17 04:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org

The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru

Addendum:

The body appears on news.eternal-september.org

The body's missing on news.i2pn2.org

☮

Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-17 06:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org
The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru
The body appears on news.eternal-september.org
The body's missing on news.i2pn2.org
I'm on Eternal September and the body is missing for me.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Titus G
2019-10-17 06:35:46 UTC
Permalink
On 17/10/19 7:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
snip
Post by Dimensional Traveler
I'm on Eternal September and the body is missing for me.
The only bodies missing for me are from are kevrob and Moriarty.
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Dimensional Traveler
I'm on Eternal September and the body is missing for me.
The only bodies missing for me are from are kevrob and Moriarty.
Cancelbot or misconfiguration?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.? I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
I'm on google groups and I've had no issues today.
The body's missing on nntp.aioe.org
The body appears on news.easynews.com and news2.neva.ru
The body appears on news.eternal-september.org
The body's missing on news.i2pn2.org
☮
Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
cancelbot attack?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:22:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <035c6e18-f724-40bb-ad0c-***@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty <***@ivillage.com> wrote:

30 lines and yet another blank Google Groups post.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Carl Fink
2019-10-17 16:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
30 lines and yet another blank Google Groups post.
Get a real newsreader. The content is there, your software is just not
displaying it.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
Jay E. Morris
2019-10-17 16:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by The Doctor
30 lines and yet another blank Google Groups post.
Get a real newsreader. The content is there, your software is just not
displaying it.
I am so glad you figured out what the propagation problem is.
James Nicoll
2019-10-17 16:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by The Doctor
30 lines and yet another blank Google Groups post.
Get a real newsreader. The content is there, your software is just not
displaying it.
I still use my panix shell account and everything is showing up just fine.
21st century tech: failing at tasks 20th century software handled easily.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Carl Fink
2019-10-17 17:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Carl Fink
Post by The Doctor
30 lines and yet another blank Google Groups post.
Get a real newsreader. The content is there, your software is just not
displaying it.
I still use my panix shell account and everything is showing up just fine.
21st century tech: failing at tasks 20th century software handled easily.
I'm posting this from my Panix shell account, of course.

Maybe "The Doctor" has a bad news server instead of a bad newsreader, but
we've both found a solution in any case.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just
don't load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Could be. I'd had no problems with Kevrob's earlier today but now am not
seeing the body. But others are so who knows.
This is the case.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
And Kevrob.
I wonder if Google Groups is not propagating new messages properly to
the rest of Usenet.
Lynn
Exactly the issue!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
Google Groups is at issue.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Paul S Person
2019-10-17 17:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Jay E. Morris
Weird, I am not seeing your reply.  I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
I've had that problem with a few of Qudibloc's postings. They just don't
load.
Google Groups is at issue.
Since when is it /not/ at issue?

BTW, here, with Agent, the blank messages have exactly zero ("0")
lines.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2019-10-17 01:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Weird, I am not seeing your reply. I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
In another group someone is pointing the finger at

feeder.usenetexpress.com

as a common element, and not all from Google Groups.

I'm going to log out and switch to another network,
and maybe try to post a half-hour to an hour from now.

Kevin R
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 01:47:21 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-10-16 6:45 p.m., Kevrob wrote:

Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
IT was from Google Groups and it does not matter what device!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Kevrob
2019-10-17 17:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
From GG, from the full desktop version.

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-17 21:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alan Baker
Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
From GG, from the full desktop version.
Kevin R
Hey! I see you! :)
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Jay E. Morris
2019-10-17 22:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
 From GG, from the full desktop version.
Kevin R
Hey!  I see you!  :)
Keven is Waldo?!
Kevrob
2019-10-17 22:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Was this posted from Google Groups on a mobile device?
 From GG, from the full desktop version.
Kevin R
Hey!  I see you!  :)
Keven is Waldo?!
Nah. I'm not tall enough, nor slim enough.
I assume you don't mean Heinlein's Waldo.

Kevin R
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:19:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <6b8e3bf4-96c5-47ce-9fde-***@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote:

17 lines and no Google Groups post.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
The Doctor
2019-10-17 12:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Weird, I am not seeing your reply. I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Lynn
google Groups is at issue.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-17 13:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Weird, I am not seeing your reply. I wonder if Usenet is having a
problem tonight.
Eternal-september and giganews are having problems.
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 01:17:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Quadi, the time that has elapsed between then and now is almost the
same as the time that elapsed between the Wright Flyer and John
Glenn's flight.

And yet you think that nothing has been learned in the interim.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 02:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Quadi, the time that has elapsed between then and now is almost the
same as the time that elapsed between the Wright Flyer and John
Glenn's flight.
And yet you think that nothing has been learned in the interim.
Do you think that SpaceX will get below the failure rate of the Space
Shuttle of 1 in 99 ?

Of course, SpaceX will have to be extremely reliable when they start
flying their 30 minute ballistic shuttle from New York City to Tokyo
daily. And back.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-18 00:00:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:08:11 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Quadi, the time that has elapsed between then and now is almost the
same as the time that elapsed between the Wright Flyer and John
Glenn's flight.
And yet you think that nothing has been learned in the interim.
Do you think that SpaceX will get below the failure rate of the Space
Shuttle of 1 in 99 ?
Sure. For one thing they aren't using solid boosters sealed with
o-rings, for another they're actually reusing the heaviest part of the
system, which has the most propellant, and the most potential for
explosion. If it doesn't blow the first time odds are that it won't
blow on a subsequent flight.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Of course, SpaceX will have to be extremely reliable when they start
flying their 30 minute ballistic shuttle from New York City to Tokyo
daily. And back.
Why would they be less reliable than, say, Boeing?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-18 00:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:08:11 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Quadi, the time that has elapsed between then and now is almost the
same as the time that elapsed between the Wright Flyer and John
Glenn's flight.
And yet you think that nothing has been learned in the interim.
Do you think that SpaceX will get below the failure rate of the Space
Shuttle of 1 in 99 ?
Sure. For one thing they aren't using solid boosters sealed with
o-rings, for another they're actually reusing the heaviest part of the
system, which has the most propellant, and the most potential for
explosion. If it doesn't blow the first time odds are that it won't
blow on a subsequent flight.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Of course, SpaceX will have to be extremely reliable when they start
flying their 30 minute ballistic shuttle from New York City to Tokyo
daily. And back.
Why would they be less reliable than, say, Boeing?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
I ain't flying on a Boeing 737 MAX today. Probably not tomorrow.

I know a 737 MAX captain. He has the copilot ready to kill the power to
the MCAS on all takeoffs. At least until the plane was grounded.

Ballistic Starship, maybe.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-10-18 17:14:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:00:16 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:08:11 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
When was the last time an airliner spontaneously exploded on the
runway? Why do you think that with mature technology rockets will be
any different?
A space rocket isn't an airliner. Look at how many Atlas rockets blew up before
John Glenn's flight!
Quadi, the time that has elapsed between then and now is almost the
same as the time that elapsed between the Wright Flyer and John
Glenn's flight.
And yet you think that nothing has been learned in the interim.
Do you think that SpaceX will get below the failure rate of the Space
Shuttle of 1 in 99 ?
Sure. For one thing they aren't using solid boosters sealed with
o-rings, for another they're actually reusing the heaviest part of the
system, which has the most propellant, and the most potential for
explosion. If it doesn't blow the first time odds are that it won't
blow on a subsequent flight.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Of course, SpaceX will have to be extremely reliable when they start
flying their 30 minute ballistic shuttle from New York City to Tokyo
daily. And back.
Why would they be less reliable than, say, Boeing?
Because it's simply not possible?

Because Boeing has set a new standard for incompetence?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 22:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.

Lynn
Kevrob
2019-10-16 22:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.
That's wasteful, if we find a good use for the byproducts.

Kevin R
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 22:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.
That's wasteful, if we find a good use for the byproducts.
Kevin R
Safer is better than reusability. You never know what some idiot will
be doing 10,000 years from now.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 00:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Safer is better than reusability. You never know what some idiot will
be doing 10,000 years from now.
If one is worried about what will happen to cavemen 10,000 years from now - unless
civilization regresses, after all, maps will continue to indicate radioactive
waste sites, they will remain guarded, and the signage will be kept well painted -
then bury it in Ellesmere Island. Ignorant people aren't going to be wandering up
there by horse and buggy. And it can be transported most of the way by rail,
part of the way by boat, which vastly reduces the chance of catastrophic failure
associated even with air transport, never mind rockets.

I don't think Canada would argue, because if the United States is taking glbal
warming seriously, surely Canada would be even further along in this
recognition.

John Savard
The Doctor
2019-10-17 00:18:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <51c54667-cf23-404f-a322-***@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

17 lines no content.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 14:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
17 lines no content.
Safer is better than reusability. You never know what some idiot will
be doing 10,000 years from now.
If one is worried about what will happen to cavemen 10,000 years from now - unless
civilization regresses, after all, maps will continue to indicate radioactive
waste sites, they will remain guarded, and the signage will be kept well painted -
then bury it in Ellesmere Island. Ignorant people aren't going to be wandering up
there by horse and buggy. And it can be transported most of the way by rail,
part of the way by boat, which vastly reduces the chance of catastrophic failure
associated even with air transport, never mind rockets.

I don't think Canada would argue, because if the United States is taking glbal
warming seriously, surely Canada would be even further along in this
recognition.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-18 09:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Safer is better than reusability. You never know what some idiot will
be doing 10,000 years from now.
If one is worried about what will happen to cavemen 10,000 years from now - unless
civilization regresses, after all, maps will continue to indicate radioactive
waste sites, they will remain guarded, and the signage will be kept well painted -
then bury it in Ellesmere Island. Ignorant people aren't going to be wandering up
there by horse and buggy. And it can be transported most of the way by rail,
part of the way by boat, which vastly reduces the chance of catastrophic failure
associated even with air transport, never mind rockets.
I don't think Canada would argue, because if the United States is taking glbal
warming seriously, surely Canada would be even further along in this
recognition.
John Savard
Is the background to this that nuclear reactors
are very tightly restricted as to how many people
they're allowed to kill... and that includes people
foreseeably born in the next few million years
who may stumble across a radioactive waste dump?
Who may be your relatives, by the way. Or mine.

Granted... grandchildren are only as close to you
genetically as first cousins, and so onwards...
depending on which cousins marry and how often...
so maybe we should not care so much about those
people.

(But what would Abraham think of that argument...)
Quadibloc
2019-10-18 14:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
(But what would Abraham think of that argument...)
If we put the radioactive waste near the poles, no ignorant cavemen are going to
be wandering around such places. The only people who could get there are people
with technology, and if technology survives, so do the maps of where all the
radioactive waste dumps are.

That's why I think this solves the problem. Of course, there are minor quibbles,
such as it could happen within the lifespan of the radioactive materials that
civilization collapses, but then gets rebuilt, or the existence of the Inuit,
who demonstrate that one can get fairly far north without high technology.

Antarctica didn't have indigenous people, and for that matter, the northern tip
of Ellesmere Island was also too challenging for the Inuit. (By the time
continental drift makes those locations into tropical rainforests, the hazard
will presumably be lessened.) As well, even a reborn technological civilization
would be likely to recognize one of the proposed designs for a warning monument
that would last for a long time.

So I think this is the cheapest and safest option for the waste that is left
after reprocessing. Even though there are private companies working to
significantly improve the cost and safety of space travel, they can only do so
much.

John Savard
danny burstein
2019-10-18 14:57:14 UTC
Permalink
In <72459b46-44dd-4f3b-b852-***@googlegroups.com> Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

[looooottttsss snipped]
Post by Quadibloc
If we put the radioactive waste near the poles,
no ignorant cavemen are going to
be wandering around such places. The
only people who could get there are people
Best suggestion I've seen was in New Scientist's "Ariadne"
column a bunch of decades ago [a], namely to place
this material in the continental drift "subduction zones".

[a] It wasn't their own proposal. They gave credit
to the original source, but damn if I could even
guess at it these days.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Quadibloc
2019-10-18 15:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Best suggestion I've seen was in New Scientist's "Ariadne"
column a bunch of decades ago [a], namely to place
this material in the continental drift "subduction zones".
But what goes down will come up!

Unless it doesn't. After all, uranium is one of the heaviest metals. Then we have
the stuff accumulating at the Earth's core.

So, while it's a tempting suggestion, it _may_ not be ideal.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-10-18 15:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Best suggestion I've seen was in New Scientist's "Ariadne"
column a bunch of decades ago [a], namely to place
this material in the continental drift "subduction zones".
[a] It wasn't their own proposal. They gave credit
to the original source, but damn if I could even
guess at it these days.
There's Bostrom and Sherif (1971), and then there's a Canadian who holds a
patent on the idea from 1989.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-18 15:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
[looooottttsss snipped]
Post by Quadibloc
If we put the radioactive waste near the poles,
no ignorant cavemen are going to
be wandering around such places. The
only people who could get there are people
Best suggestion I've seen was in New Scientist's "Ariadne"
column a bunch of decades ago [a], namely to place
this material in the continental drift "subduction zones".
[a] It wasn't their own proposal. They gave credit
to the original source, but damn if I could even
guess at it these days.
David Brin?

:-)
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-17 13:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.
That's wasteful, if we find a good use for the byproducts.
Kevin R
Safer is better than reusability. You never know what some idiot will
be doing 10,000 years from now.
So reprocess it.

Who knows; the isotopes you discard into the sun may be required to
support human existence 100 years from now.
The Doctor
2019-10-17 00:17:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <047c5704-f7f8-4168-a627-***@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote:

28 lines no content.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Canada - Choose Forward on 21 Oct 2019 !
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-10-17 02:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.
And it will be easy if we do it at night!
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 02:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by danny burstein
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
One of them is against it. He sees it as a waste of money and so on.
At the end of the story it's revealed... they're having this
discussion on the Moon!
a) it's ironic, and
b) isn't it ironic people are, in America, part of the New World found
by Columbus, are arguing against going to the Moon as this was written?
Not especially. We've already been to the Moon after all. It's not
exactly overflowing with reasons to go back.
The moon would make a great space station.
It would also be a great place to dump our
radioactive waste.
I like the idea of throwing our radioactive waste into the Sun better.
And it will be easy if we do it at night!
You crack me up.

Lynn
Loading...