mmm yeah

There are a lot of changes going on in the Pentagon. I don't pretend to know how the brass get to their positions exactly.

String Theory is more understandable than Spook-speak.

Nice link: http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpB ... hp?t=24578

It seems they are trying to bury Medaris' brilliance and are still praising his enemy:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zd.html
http://www.spacewar.com/news/abm-05d.html

Not that Bernie did bad work--except he had ABMA killed because Jupiter was simpler than their Thor--the 100s length version with the nice white filter being what we call Delta II today.

Jumper is about ready to jump off. It seems that in a recent article--he actually said something nice about space-based laser.

I'm surprised.

Still...the damage is done.

Here is my ranking of the men who hurt spaceflight the most.

#1 Proxmire *
#2 Dan Goldin
#3 John Jumper
#4 Richard Nixon
#5 Admiral Steidle (JSF/EELV hack)

* thankfully dead

General Jumper actually said something good about Space-Based Laser in last weeks Av Week--or at least nothing negative.

Too late now--he's out.

Interesting: This might be helpful as a chase plane:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 64&posts=7

Make that Space Based Radar beams.

Latest news:
http://www.rocketracingleague.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4307538.stm

And more from the clueless file:
http://www.reason.com/hod/tb100405.shtml

Looks interesting. It'd be better if the spectators could actually watch the proceedings, like the somewhat-controversial Red Bull events.



A good laugh. Doesn't help my confidence in general human intelligence very much, though.

From www.nasaspaceflight.com

Meanwhile, SpaceX's Falcon 1 has also suffered a delay - and won't launch until the middle of November.

When in doubt, sue:

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsAr ... ived=False

From NASAWATCH:

Space Frontier Foundation departs from the Space Exploration Alliance

"... Instead, the SEA has reverted to blind cheerleading for whatever design bureau government-centric approaches the agency has put forward..."

Editor's note: Of course, these folks and their "alt.space"companies also want government money and tax breaks - they just don't want Boeing and LockMart to get them too.

BINGO! Look's like he just broke the code:

Long live SEA--and may SFF go rot!!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericaSpace/message/381

Hey, there's the publius that I know and love! Where've you been? We need people like you and DKH to keep us in line around here.

Me, oh, I've been around:

http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/po ... ght=#16839

OT Maybe the X-cup will give these away as prizes:
http://www.bornintheussr.com/space.htm
http://www.russarmy.com/subcategory.cfm ... ory_id=286

Heh. Yeah, I just read that... And I must admit that you're right: if he's got that good of a product, he shouldn't have to resort to a lawsuit. Especially since he runs such a risk of ruffling too many blue feathers that way.....

Nah, can't agree with that assessment Pub'. Business is business and if you're new to the game and little to boot, then you can't afford to let anyone ride roughshod over you. Besides which if you read through the case, then Elon's seems to have pretty good grounds for launching (sorry about the pun ) the action. The only downside that I can see (and it really doesn't concern the action itself, only perception of SpaceX) is that he doesn't yet have anything successfully flying.

I am not sure if the talk currently is about the lawsuit against Lookheed's and Boeing's joint venture, merger or what you want to call it.

But if the talk really is about that then the follwoing has to be clarified:

The competiton at markets has to occur by performance - production at low or least costs and prices low because of that instead of because of financial ressources - but it mustn't occur by using power - financial ressources, practices like those of Microsoft (Internet Explorer in Windows98 and the like), agreement on prices between competittors etc.

No company - including SpaceX - can survive by performance against pther companies which use power instead of performance. Only performance increases wealth, freedom and the like - and so using power to compete out performance-using companies decreases freedom and establishes exhaustion.

It may be that Boeing and Lockheed don't have the performance SpaceX has achieved - and so joind now to abuse the then created power.

If they wouldn't be stopped then they will exhaust NASA which menas to exhaust the government, the Parliament und thus the taxpayers and voters.

And so it's completely right that SpaceX initiated or joined the lawsuit and it doesn't mena that they don't have´suifficient performance.

In Germany the competition agency really call upon comapnies to initiate lawsuits against companies like Lockheed and Boeing - especially if they join. And the agency sometimes initiate lawsuits themselves. In the first half of the 1980es the agency forced a foreign company to sell a german company owned by the foreigner - simply because it was to expected that performance would be substituted by power in competiton leading to exhaustion of the people.

So what SpaceX does is positive and honorable and doesn't mean lack of required performance - it's reverse: what Boeing and Lockheed do means that they miss the required performance. Else they wouldn't need to join - they are rivals normally...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

They are wrapping themselves up in a cyst to be sure. If I were Musk, I would wait until I had some better evidence before a lawsuit was filed.

We know that Boeing is dirty--Druyen proved that. If Musk could find evidence that someone from ULA was paying some folks who run the launch range to make life difficult for Musk under the aegis of 'safety,' then Musk has a valid case in that Gov't power is being unfaily used by big business, and he would be right in seeing that end.

My whole point is that it is the same folks (alt.spacers) who talk about how bad gov't is for not letting business get away with murder, when it is protection for the little guy and some measure of fair play that we Americans should enjoy.

To wit, if Musk prevails, it will not be a victory of private business, but of American judisprudence.

But I'm sure Musk and others will spin it to say "gov't is bad, look what these bad regulations did, etc." --when in point of fact it will be Uncle Sam looking out for the little guy that is his last hope.

Funny, that.

For any of you who may know Musk--here is a suggestion.

As you know Boeing and Lockheed-Martin had this ugly lawsuit going awhile back, which was pulled out of court thanks to ULA. If Musk, who is a bit lawsuit happy what with the TRW deal, could make some contacts to get case details away from Lockheed-Martin, (which was looking for a judgement against Boeing), he might have a chance.

Satchel and Alexio were part of the tech-theft against Lock-Mart, and they might have info that, along with the Druyen tanker business--would show a precident for dishonest business practices. So he should try to dig up as much as he can--and get disgruntled Lock-Mart workers to testify.

The Decatur Delta IV plant will be home for both EELVs soon--and I think there are some in Lock-Mart who really do not want to move.

Musk needs to do some digging around, and make the most of Boeings legal troubles.

As it stands now, if I were the judge, I would throw Musk's claims out of court as frivolous nonsense.

"I've got murderers and molesters on my docket, and I don't need to waste time on millionaire playboys."

And with the urge to pass 'loser pays' lawsuit changes, Musk better be careful.

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 780-1.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 889088.htm
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0 ... boeing.php

This is the best! http://www.the-catbird-seat.net/BoeingBound.htm