| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:28:44AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > Um, no I don't. And stop resetting the FUT back to geek.
> >
> > 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?
>
> "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 pretty clear cut to me. Now, not every point of
> disagreement is necessarily debate fodder... if you were to focus on the merits
> of Hohman transfer orbits versus continuous boost, then sure, that'd be .geek.
> But that's not the case here.
>
> The question asked is framed in an economic context, not purely a technical one.
> As soon as someone says "wouldn't X be monstrously expensive", that, in my view,
> moves the topic right out of .geek and into .debate
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 money, but the primary question is about physics (i.e., geeking).
My subsequent question about the monstrous expense of building on the Moon is
likewise largely grounded in the physical realities of such a construction
project. Building off-world in that fashion *would* be very expensive, whether
Burt Rutan is at the helm or not. I didn't inject any commentary on NASA (which
was instead supplied by a subsequent poster), so I accept no blame for steering
the discussion to .debate. Even my comment about Dubya's Brave New Vision was,
I thought, a fairly obvious jape, and it was certainly tangential to the topic
of my question.
Regarding "bootstrap," I assert that linguistic quibbles are appropriate to
O-T.geek even if they're expressed not in the charter. I would as quickly take
issue with "proactive," "outside-the-box-thinking," "paradigm," and other
overused, jargonized buzz-words that pollute modern discourse. There's nothing
inherently wrong in the word, but its overuse is annoying to those geeks
interested in such matters.
If, however, you think that discussions of linguistic foibles are better suited
to .debate than to .geek, then I'll be happy to pursue the topic in that forum.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
