Subject:
|
Re: And now for something completely different...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:37:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman writes:
> > > > > perhaps you should enlighten me on what's being proposed. What research
> > > > > SHOULD I have done.
> > > >
> > > > Try this search string at Google: "moonbase cost estimates"
> > >
> > > okay.. let me get this straight. You *demand* cites from me, but then
> > > expect me to do research to support *your* claims.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > You asked me what research *you* should have done. I gave you a search
> > string you could use if you like. It doesn't matter to me whether you use it
> > or not.
>
> ACTUALLY, that question was in responce to the statement: "You haven't done
> your research." Implying I should have already done some research on "what's
> being proposed," whatever that means.
Lets try to go all the way back to the beginning. Dave K started a thread
asking a hypothetical about whether a person would want to know if an
asteroid was coming. Some people responded to that question but mostly we've
got off track.
We're off track because I said if we had a proper industrial infrastructure
it wouldn't be nearly as worrisome a problem, at which point you jumped in
with a whole bunch of "we have too many problems on earth, it's too
expensive to do that, the current ISS is expensive"... luddite ranting.
You're the one asserting how much it costs. You need to show that the costs
that NASA have incurred up to now are relevant to a private enterprise
industrial infrastructure, if you want to convince me that building
industrial infrastructure (out of native lunar/cometary/asteroidal
materials, except for the initial bootstrap) is a bad idea from a cost basis.
You haven't done that. And further, the thread is way off the rails to boot,
I expect Dave K meant it to be more of a fun/philosophical thread.
I'm ready to drop it because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking
about as far as how one goes about creating infrastructure from scratch and
you'd rather just take potshots at NASA and claim the money is better spent
on solving current problems. You haven't done the research and you would
rather not. That's fine but don't turn it around.
More generally than the cost question, I gave you a number of examples of
how such short sighted thinking turned out to be wrong in the past. You
chose to focus on one, Columbus, claiming that what he did was bad. I
answered that and asked for alternatives but you haven't replied there either.
Why don't you just drop the whole thing?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
