View Single Post
Old August 17 2013, 07:12 PM   #37
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

sojourner wrote: View Post
FreddyE wrote: View Post
Wouldnīt growing food mean to create a whole biosphere? We canīt even manage that on earth. See the disaster that was Biosphere 2.

No, your equating the failure of self sustaining biospheres with "growing food". You can grow food in Biosphere 2 quite well. The problem was that they couldn't ever get it to stabilize as a sealed environment. And while a stabilized bisophere would be ideal for colonization, there's nothing wrong with having to import some materials you run short on or dump materials you are in excess of. If you plan appropriately.

publiusr wrote: View Post
I think we just have too many space advocates drinking Ayn Rand Cool-Aid.
NASA should be in business of building rockets--the larger the better. That allows returns.

The folks here are just more examples of people falling all over themselves to keep from building heavy lift. One way missions--they think--require less mass. But they need constant supplies, otherwise you get the nightmare described here:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...63#post2150263
Ah here we go with the "NASA using it's entire budget to launch a REALLY COOL HLV every 7 years is the way to colonize space" argument. And what the hell does Ayn Rand have to do with anything? You really think Ayn Rand is a big influence on space advocacy??? You really are heading into conspiracy crazy town there.


NASA should be in the business of Aeronautics and Space. Business should be in the business of building rockets.
They are building rockets. Arsenal method uses contractors, they just kept them on the short leash--and its not going to be every seven years. The space libertarians suffer from the "we too did build that fallacy" in that you have to add the cost of building the Internet that Musk got rich off of and add that to the cost of the rocket. LV development is never cheap. Golden Spikes missions will also run into the billions--and they add complexity to boot.

I remember Griffin once talking about just how much NASA money went to Musk--and questioning just what is meant by "private" spaceflight.

He is no dummy, and was, after all invited here, despite his disagreement over ULA
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/05/...ates-50-years/

As an examle of how Ayn Rand types dissemble, I submit Andy Paztor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

Or take Robert Zimmerman's article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...953158510.html
He is a climate change denialist of the worst kind--and a frequent guest on the Coast to Coast AM, which has young earth creationists on without anyone challenging them.

They didn't leave much time for calls (I work late and its either this or sports talk) this time, but once I pointed out that the private firms he lauded were sub-orbital toys--and that COTS was also pork--and that Curiosity could also be called Pasadena pork, or that the Apollo8* Saturn rocket he was making book-money on was the SLS of its day--and also called pork by the same anti-gov't frauds trying to shut the country down today.

He didn't like that.

He is a lot like a certain poster from NASASPACEFLIGHT who told lies against Space based radar and who libeled ATK and Space News in many of his posts there, if you will recall.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote