[extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?

[spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration
> spaceflight?
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>  >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it
>  >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends,
>  >> he really did mean *never*.
...
> 
> >And someone like Davids friend
> 
> While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends
> who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I
> chatted with once...
> 
> 
> -- David Lubkin...

David if you see your astronomer acquaintance, do point out
that altho the Iridium satellite constellation was an
*business* failure, the Lockheeed-Martin-built satellites
were a smashing success from a spacecraft reliability
point of view.  We knew when we were building them that
they would not come: the handsets were a couple thousand
bucks and needed a heavy battery that had to be carried in
a small briefcase.  Cell phones were already available
by then and getting cheap, so Iridium didn't sell.  

Well duh!  The Motorola board of directors were smoking 
crack if they ever believed otherwise.  But the 66 Iridium
birds worked, and they still do.  If you are traveling in 
Antarctica and need to call the office, it is the way to 
go.  Otherwise, cell phones: lighter, a tenth the price,
a bunch of companies competing for your business.  {8-]

spike