 | | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Heck, It's An Election Year
|
|
O-T.debate is a place I'll browse once in a while but this time I felt I had to pass this along. (URL) NOTE: If you disapprove of Bush, then you'll get a kick watching this stuff (I sure did!). Adr. (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) We don't yet have fusion reactors, much less ones that use He3, so He3 doesn't yet help us much. Yet. I'd rather stick to tech thats closer to proven (though I acknowledge bootstrappable manufacturing facilities aren't yet in commmon use I see (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Speaking of which, (URL) here's> an interesting tidbit I've found. I don't know about the accuracy of the details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the discussion. Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
|
|
(...) I thought it wasn't legally possible to trademark generic terms. This would be like McDonalds tradmarking the term 'hamburger'. Allister (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Yeah, thats what trademarks are for
|
|
(URL) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of space exploration. I'm an even bigger fan of universal state funded healthcare & education. Who in society will benifit most from a manned trip to Mars? Who in society benifits most from a lack of universal state funded (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) *SIGH* Did you even read the cite I gave in that post? My comment referred to that fact that a lot of legitimate criticism of the Israeli right is simply labelled as "anti-Semitism" by blind supporters of Sharon. Neither the term (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk (Scott A) wrote in <Hrs768.1LwG@lugnet.com>: (...) In view of your response somewhere else in this topic, [quote] JO: I think the correct phrase should be "Anti-Israelism", and not JO: "Antisemitism". SA: I prefer the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) *Sigh* The item cited above is the result of an academic study which was published in a peer reviewed journal by a respected academic. Do you have something similar to support your argument, or are you just "shooting from the hip"? Scott A (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
(...) I prefer the term "pro-justice". (...) Indeed; not content with suppressing free speech in the occupied territories, Sharon is now using the call of “anti-Semitism” to curtail it (URL) elsewhere>. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | You know, I'm not altogether convinced that this is a terrible idea.
|
|
(URL) could become a libertarian paradise! Well, it has these things going for it: * Unequal distribution of money -- those with larger families can pool their resources and thus have an advantage over their inferior (e.g. infertile or gay) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
dr_scott_arthur@yahoo.co.uk (Scott A) wrote in <HrKu9v.2Jw@lugnet.com>: (...) The situation in continental Europe (where I live) is rather different. (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Babies who threaten to topple Israel?
|
|
"Harro de Jong" <hdejong@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:HrHCB9.67E@lugnet.com... (...) I think the correct phrase should be "Anti-Israelism", and not "Antisemitism". And yes, it is getting bigger. Israel is hiding behind what the call (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | space policy backgrounder
|
|
Found this interesting reading. (URL) has more info on what went into the new policy than one usually sees. There are some biases and conclusions there that not everyone will necessarily agree with but it's worth reading in my view. It says part 3 (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) "lugnet.off-topic.geek (group): Geeking and geek toys (computing, games, peripherals, hacking, science, etc.): discussions of a generally (but not necessarily always) positive and serious or helpful nature." You may not agree, but it seems (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're here to go
|
|
(...) Why? I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for the parts where you are starting a debate. Any reason we can't talk about NASA here? (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
