I said nothing of the sort. I don’t know the individuals involved (you didn’t name them) so I can’t have an opinion.

If you choose to take the “my way or the highway” attitude

I didn’t.

Leaving HEFT out of it (as it is an ongoing effort and I will form opinions on it when I see the final product), the ESAS effort (after an equally frustrating one headed by Admiral Steidle) had many “unhappy campers” among the line engineers when its results were put forward including the SDHLV people I know who were very much skeptical of the Ares I/Ares V Archetecture.

“ And I consider several of the (unnamed) individuals making SDHLV proposals I’ve had the misfortune of interacting with as dishonourable. I’m thinking of things like making repeated misleading statements after they’ve been shown to be misleading, presenting arguments they know to be false, making false promises, misrepresenting opposing viewpoints etc.’”

Since I cannot possibly be familiar with all these previous conversations, I cannot have an opinion (worth anything) on them. I can tell you that none (as in NONE) of the people I know have ever posted on any of these boards (I am about as close as you will get and I am only an onlooker who happens to have had employment that allowed me to get to know them). Since you choose not to believe me (it is only, as you say, my opinion – apparently in your world there can be no fact or truth that does not coincide with what you want to believe) there is not much else to say about this.

“I’m not so sure everybody shares the same long term goals, but even if they did fundamental disagreement on short term goals remains a fundamental obstacle. You have to go through the short term to reach the long term after all.”

I never said that everybody shares the same long term goal only that many do. You are correct that that the short term implementation must be worked out, that is why people need to stick to facts and also be willing to compromise. That is one of the reasons I came to a board like this to see if I could (in my own humble way) bridge some of these gaps. It is obviously a very tough job.

If you choose to take the “my way or the highway” attitude that is your choice, you will be playing right into the hands of the people who would like there to be no American Human Spaceflight (Government or Commercial) at all and if you are “successful” you will achieve only the long term grounding of any chance of creating the spacefaring civilization you say you desire. That is of course your privilege.

I now an going to move on from this discussion, hopefully more productive ones will happen in the future.

Well, I’ll take your word for it that that is your opinion of these unnamed individuals. But personally I don’t believe ESAS or HEFT is/was run by honest people, although there may have been honest people who were involved with it. And I consider several of the (unnamed) individuals making SDHLV proposals I’ve had the misfortune of interacting with as dishonourable. I’m thinking of things like making repeated misleading statements after they’ve been shown to be misleading, presenting arguments they know to be false, making false promises, misrepresenting opposing viewpoints etc.

Additionally it really irritates me that people who actually share the same long range goals are turned into bitter enemies engaging in destructive bouts of name calling that can only make achieving that long term goal more difficult.

I’m not so sure everybody shares the same long term goals, but even if they did fundamental disagreement on short term goals remains a fundamental obstacle. You have to go through the short term to reach the long term after all.

OK, I will move on slowly too.

“Unfortunately, in the two years that I’ve been following and participating in the space policy debates I’ve come to believe that there is much less honesty on the pro-SDLV side of the debate. You’re free to feel differently of course, but that’s how I feel.”

Given the signal to noise ratio in most of these “debates” that is not hard to believe. I could just as easily take the position that everybody opposed to HLV are arrogant character assassins, but that would be wrong.

Seriously I obviously cannot take responsibility for everyone who posts on one of these websites, but I can assure you that the engineers actually working on the SDHLV proposals are honorable people (because I know some of them). They have worked to keep the shuttle operating for years (some of them decades) they have been though the good times and bad with the hardware and understand its strengths and weaknesses. Based on that experience they believe that overall an SDHLV is the best path forward in the interim (in terms of cost, schedule, risk). It might surprise you to learn that many of them (myself included) are not adverse to Orbital Fuel Depots, etc. it is more a matter of when the phasing of them in should occur (and that does not imply wanting to put such phasing off twenty years).

“There is another side to it too though. I don’t know about you but I’m offended if people repeatedly tell outright lies in a public forum and that seems to happen a lot. Note that I’m not talking about Spudis here.”

I am not sure we are talking about the same people ( ), but yes I am put off by some of the over the top rhetoric. Additionally it really irritates me that people who actually share the same long range goals are turned into bitter enemies engaging in destructive bouts of name calling that can only make achieving that long term goal more difficult.

What I have not done (and absent evidence would not do) is accuse them of slanting their research in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Many advocates of propellant depots (myself included), are very open about their reasons for wanting to use them, namely achieving the holy grail of cheap lift and commercial development of space. Not everybody may believe in the possibility of cheap lift or the desirability of commercial development of space or in the ability of depots to further either cause, but some of us honestly do and openly say so. That’s not hard to do of course, since they seem to be perfectly honourable goals.

Unfortunately, in the two years that I’ve been following and participating in the space policy debates I’ve come to believe that there is much less honesty on the pro-SDLV side of the debate. You’re free to feel differently of course, but that’s how I feel.

By that logic I could accuse you of murdering your wife

I don’t have a wife you insensitive clod!

saying someone is intentionally saying something they know is not true is calling them a liar

Sort of, but there can be extenuating circumstances, justifications and exculpations, such as compromising and not wanting to upset the apple-cart or risk being fired. In politics it is generally believed that the way to tell if a politician is lying is to check whether his or her lips are moving and yet there are very few open accusations of lying in public debate. In some jurisdictions members of parliament are even sent from the chamber for that. And thus pious fictions about honest people with differing ideologies are created and people pretend to believe in them. In my opinion that too is lying and I find that distasteful, but I believe I’ve been criticised as an extremist for that. There is also a continuum from misleading to outright lying.

There is another side to it too though. I don’t know about you but I’m offended if people repeatedly tell outright lies in a public forum and that seems to happen a lot. Note that I’m not talking about Spudis here.

With due respect to these “others above” (and I mean that) IF they are accusing someone of “slanting” their research without providing evidence (beyond disagreeing with the results) that is happening then their statements are in the same category as yours. An infinite number of accusations times zero content is still zero content.

I will try to give you an example. A team within Lockheed has written a paper presenting a Lunar Architecture using only EELVs and Orbital Fuel Depots. I disagree with this as much as you disagree with anything using HLVs and have debated the plans technical merits in other forums. What I have not done (and absent evidence would not do) is accuse them of slanting their research in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

“Accusing implies finding fault and while I did indeed suggest the article was deliberately unduly favourable to SDLV, I did not say or imply it would be unethical if true.”

By that logic I could accuse you of murdering your wife and it would be OK as long as I ended the accusation with the phrase “not that there is anything wrong with that”.

“I was surprised you even responded, since I thought the bias would be obvious to you too and you wouldn’t want to criticise Spudis.”

If you really believe bias is obvious because you disagree with the conclusions, it might be a good idea to get out of the echo chamber more often. I do not mean that to be snarky. I come to this board (as an example) because I know a majority of those who post here are “anti HLV” and it is a chance to be exposed to differing points of view. It is therefore not my echo chamber, but it may well be yours.

“You also say that Boeing and Lockheed are doing the same thing.

Yes they are, they are playing along and saying HLV is necessary even when they know it isn’t. But it serves their purpose not to rub influential members of Congress the wrong way.”

So both Boeing and Lockheed (actually real people who happen to work for those companies) are “saying HLV is necessary even when they know it isn’t”. This may come as a surprise to you, but saying someone is intentionally saying something they know is not true is calling them a liar (whether you say you are being judgmental about it or not) and is considered a very serious insult. Apparently this kind of Drive by Character Assassination has become such second nature to you that you do not even notice when you do it and that is sad.

Anyway I think we have just about “beat this issue to death”. I only responded to your first “assessment” of Dr. Spudis because you used a “cut and paste” from one of my other postings as a starting place. It has already gone on longer (and become more contentious) than I had intended. I wanted to find out if you had any facts to back up your “assessment” and I got my answer.

I suggest we both move on to other (hopefully more productive) activities.

See the remarks made by others above, they’ve seen it too, even if you can’t or won’t.

That is the tactic of the sleaziest of demagogues (Oh, I never accused anybody of anything I just said it seemed “pretty darn obvious” and asked an “innocent” question).

Kindly watch your language. Accusing implies finding fault and while I did indeed suggest the article was deliberately unduly favourable to SDLV, I did not say or imply it would be unethical if true. You were the one who suggested that and the first one to bring it up.

Also the repeated attempts to suggest I am somehow critical of Spudis would be laughable if it were not so crudely manipulative.

You were the person putting words into people’s mouths, not I. And I’m not saying you are critical of what Spudis did, since we disagree on what he did. I just said that you would be critical of what I think he did if you believed it too. I was surprised you even responded, since I thought the bias would be obvious to you too and you wouldn’t want to criticise Spudis. But you say (or imply) you don’t think he showed any bias. I’ll take your word for that.

You also say that Boeing and Lockheed are doing the same thing.

Yes they are, they are playing along and saying HLV is necessary even when they know it isn’t. But it serves their purpose not to rub influential members of Congress the wrong way.

In civilized societies the burden of proof lies with the accuser (which in this case is you no matter how you try to weasel your way out of it).

Also the repeated attempts to suggest I am somehow critical of Spudis would be laughable if it were not so crudely manipulative. The only one casting aspersions on him is you, even though you do not have the courage to take “credit” for your own actions.

You also say that Boeing and Lockheed are doing the same thing. I would ask what evidence you have to support that accusation (or are you just asking another “innocent” question?), but I’m sure I would get the same disingenuous answer.

I never said it was unethical, that was your opinion, but if true I do believe it strongly undermines his credibility in this article. I asked people if they thought it was a coincidence without saying it would be unethical if true. You jumped in an said I was falsely accusing Spudis. I replied by pointing out that if Spudis was doing what I think he was doing (the same thing that Boeing & LM are doing by the way), then apparently in your mind he was doing something unethical. So if Spudis did slant his article towards SDLV (and it seems pretty darn obvious to me, but only Spudis will know for sure), he will now have the pleasure of knowing that you would consider such behaviour unethical. Of course you can say you don’t believe he slanted his article towards SDLV, but you too cannot know that for sure.

“There is no population or “prosperous destination to terminate at” in Low Earth Orbit.”

The Satellite Industry Association calculates that the commercial satellite industry had a revenue of $161B in 2009 and has maintained double digit growth rates right through the recession. Yes, Earth orbit between LEO and GEO is relatively prosperous – it just doesn’t involve people. If you want to get people into the picture it makes sense to build off of the infrastructure that exists to serve these markets – medium class launch vehicles – rather than building a whole separate infrastructure.