| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Henry Spencer
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins Shitting Her |
 |
|
In article <ptq7i.16654$px2.12211@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Jonathan <write@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.
Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon.
|
Which hadn't happened yet at the time of the decline. The *goal* was to
re-establish clear technological superiority over the Soviets. Once the
US began to clearly pull ahead in space -- which happened with Gemini, not
Apollo -- the bizarre combination of political forces that supported
large-scale spaceflight came apart. Actually, it was unsustainable and
was already beginning to unravel, but the collapse of the Soviet image of
space superiority killed it. Apollo was running on fumes and momentum by
the time it actually reached the Moon.
| Quote: |
SSP would take quite a bit longer...
|
Which means that a large-scale program directed at achieving it is a
political impossibility. A commitment on that scale won't happen until
the uncertainties are greatly reduced, and the time scale shortened to
yield first tangible results within 5-6 years.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
robert casey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins Shitting Her |
|
|
| Quote: |
Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon.
SSP would take quite a bit longer, and as it developed
the benefits would too. SSP would generate more support
over time.
|
But there'd be people who would worry that the microwave beam would cook
flying birds that happen to use a poor choice of flight plan...
Actually you'd pick a frequency that wouldn't heat the water in the the
atmosphere or other objects... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dave Michelson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins Shitting Her |
|
|
Henry Spencer wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no>,
Dave Michelson <davem@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance,
nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention.
Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed.
Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.
|
I'm not sure how that contradicts the text that you snipped, i.e., that
| Quote: |
Eisenhower and, initially, Kennedy, were quite disinterested in NASA.
JFK was even ready to dissolve the National Space Council had
Johnson > not stepped in and taken it over. |
However, the surge associated with Apollo was more due to the Johnson's
strong interest (and his congessional colleagues') than anything else.
People wanted to believe that Kennedy was enthusiastic about space if
only because it seemed to fit his image as a young president leading
America into the New Frontier. It's unfortunate that the significance of
Johnson's role as vice-president took longer to be fully appreciated.
And once he became president, his attention was diverted by other
matters, especially Vietnam.
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Henry Spencer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha I |
|
|
In article <86q7i.16640$px2.7898@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Jonathan <write@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how feeble
his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others.
...it's hard not to place the responsibility on the
President. I think he provided the overall goal, and the details
are left to others.
|
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
No, this is not his pet project -- it's something he was reluctantly
talked into, and so he gives it a bare minimum of support when his arm is
twisted hard enough, and ignores it otherwise.
I haven't followed VSE's politics in detail, but *that* much is just
falling-down obvious.
| Quote: |
...NASA scores poorly on almost every
measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect
much of his attention.
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
|
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
| Quote: |
And how can this sad situation be changed?
|
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets  ,
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
| Quote: |
But space solar power?
|
Too uncertain and too long-term. If you're going to sink a lot of money
into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more
attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long
run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better.
Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets ,
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
|
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
We will get into space in a big way when people are spending their own
money to do so, and not the taxpayers'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Doe
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
Henry Spencer wrote:
| Quote: |
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
|
But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare,
all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that
would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars.
The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any
funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different.
Was it just a boost of funding to Boeing/Lockheed dor the development of
yert another attempt at replacing the shuttle ? Or was it a way to
shutdown the manned space programme by returing shuttle and promising
some CEV that will never materialise ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ0ur8.G2J@spsystems.net...
| Quote: |
But space solar power?
Too uncertain and too long-term. If you're going to sink a lot of money
into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more
attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long
run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better.
Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons.
|
The only way I see the government funding space solar power is if:
1. The project will have guaranteed results- that is, will actually produce
significant amounts of power- within 5 years.
2. It's completely impossible for any person to ever even stub a toe in
order to build it.
3. Construction costs can be born out of existing NASA funds without cutting
any other programs.
4. A majority of the money will be spent in each of the following: Robert
Byrd's West Virginia, as well as Alaska, Texas, California, Florida, New
York and Ohio.
5. Absolute proof that not even a microbe will be harmed in the lifetime of
the project.
Private industry won't touch it because it will cost more money to prepare
the Environmental Impact Statement and undergo years of litigation from the
enviromentalist whackos than it will cost to actually build the thing. After
groundbreaking ceremonies for the receiver have occured and after the space
portion is completed, some worm will be found on the property and declared
endangered, stopping the entire project. Or, a spotted owl will be found,
even though there aren't any trees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Henry Spencer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
In article <6e406$4661ecee$cef8887a$32582@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare,
all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that
would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars.
|
Uh, no, with very minor fanfare. This *wasn't* a big deal; the President
of the USA announces lots of things. The way he announces something with
great fanfare is to give the first speech about it to a joint session of
Congress. The way he show that something is important to him is that he
keeps mentioning it and asks Congress for lots of money for it.
| Quote: |
The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any
funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different.
|
"Never ascribe to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity."
Presidents make lots of compromises, and this undoubtedly was one too.
There's no reason to suppose that he was ever gung-ho about it, and
therefore no reason to look for hidden motives behind his more recent
neglect of it.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
John Doe wrote:
| Quote: |
Henry Spencer wrote:
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare,
all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that
would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars.
The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any
funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different.
Was it just a boost of funding to Boeing/Lockheed dor the development of
yert another attempt at replacing the shuttle ? Or was it a way to
shutdown the manned space programme by returing shuttle and promising
some CEV that will never materialise ?
|
Yes.
I would appreciate it if anyone could find a single instance in which
George Bush mentioned the Vision for Space Exploration since the speech.
I can't think of a *SINGLE* mention of the VSE since the speech.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ0ur8.G2J@spsystems.net...
| Quote: |
In article <86q7i.16640$px2.7898@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Jonathan <write@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how
feeble
his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others.
...it's hard not to place the responsibility on the
President. I think he provided the overall goal, and the details
are left to others.
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
No, this is not his pet project
|
I think it was his fathers pet project. And when he realized the
support was slim also walked away from it. But his father let it die
while George W. make it official policy with the Presidential order.
-- it's something he was reluctantly
| Quote: |
talked into, and so he gives it a bare minimum of support when his arm is
twisted hard enough, and ignores it otherwise.
|
I would agree he isn't very committed to the idea of going back to
the moon. And also agree there are other forces behind the idea.
And it's probably those that would benefit from scraping SSP
in favor of another moon shot. This policy keeps the contracts
with the larger players, while diverting a larger share of the
NASA budget to them also. SSP would open up things
to the start ups.
| Quote: |
I haven't followed VSE's politics in detail, but *that* much is just
falling-down obvious.
|
And the fact he barely supports it anymore shows the weakness of the policy.
So why is there any argument that a new direction is needed?
| Quote: |
...NASA scores poorly on almost every
measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect
much of his attention.
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets
,
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
|
Right, the cold war gave the technological race great urgency.
And today that very same urgency can be installed
in a NASA goal from global warming and oil shortages.
Thirty years they say for both to come to a climax.
When you combine the anxiety of oil supplies and the wars
that issue can cause, SSP has just as much potential to
create a similar kind of urgency.
And that is only on the tangible side of the popularity equation.
The other side is the potential benefits to our standards
of liviing and of the world. To name just a couple.
Those inspirational and patriotic appeals sell very well.
| Quote: |
But space solar power?
Too uncertain and too long-term.
|
That's just not the case. The SERT study, the largest to date
set out the following initial timetable. If the program were
to begin in 2002, then...
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971
"Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are
scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016."
From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively
$88million
$124million
$211million
$282million
$312million
| Quote: |
If you're going to sink a lot of money
into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more
attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long
run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better.
|
As a single answer to Global warming and dependence on
fossil fuels and the Middle East, it makes an easy sell to
politicians on the left or right, dove or hawk, tree-hugger
of NRA.
| Quote: |
Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons.
|
Four years to first SSP flight demonstration might be shorter
then the CEV and stick. And that would make sense as
SSP demonstrator wouldn't be nearly as complex as
an entirely new set of moon capable manned rated
spacecraft.
Big oil and big aerospace are against SSP for obvious reasons.
But only or self-serving reasons. Everyone else will benefit
from SSP. The choice is between who benefits, a few CEO's
that are well connected to this administration, or the rest
of the world?
What is obvious is that the moon and mars idea is dying, if not dead.
What is also obvious is the only viable alternative goal is SSP.
A goal that by any measure is easier to sell, fund and maintain
for the long term. A goal that by any measure has far more
potential benefits to society.
I find it odd for someone to cling to that which is dying, while
trying to destroy the only alternative. That's a recipe for
completely abandoning the manned space program.
| Quote: |
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Borderline
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:44 pm, h...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <6e406$4661ecee$cef8887a$32...@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
John Doe <j...@doe.org> wrote:
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare,
all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that
would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars.
Uh, no, with very minor fanfare. This *wasn't* a big deal; the President
of the USA announces lots of things. The way he announces something with
great fanfare is to give the first speech about it to a joint session of
Congress. The way he show that something is important to him is that he
keeps mentioning it and asks Congress for lots of money for it.
The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any
funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different.
"Never ascribe to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity."
Presidents make lots of compromises, and this undoubtedly was one too.
There's no reason to suppose that he was ever gung-ho about it, and
therefore no reason to look for hidden motives behind his more recent
neglect of it.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | h...@spsystems.net
|
The problem is that 1) the American people dont care ANYTHING about
going back to the Moon or really doing any human spaceflight program...
2) the administration has no real idear about how to integrate a space
effort with federal dollars into some attempt to create a private
sector which can stand independent of the federal dole and 3) the only
consitutency for this is well the pigs at the trough...and that
includes the federal government agency.
If I recall correctly when he was Gov, Bush didnt pay a single visit
to the JSC...so his interest personally isnt that high...and his
advisors have demonstrated time and time again...two dimensional
vision in terms of "vision" and one dimnensional thinking in terms of
execution of policies.
The odd thing is that Bush has about 8 more months as President...oh
he stays in the saddle until Jan 20 2009...but in 8 months or so there
will likely be a Dem and GOP nominee and the "future" is going to
quickly start shifting to them.
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4672d887.33918772@news.giganews.com...
| Quote: |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets
,
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
|
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
| Quote: |
We will get into space in a big way when people are spending their own
money to do so, and not the taxpayers'.
|
No, we'll fill the new niche of space as soon as our currect niches
are filled. Just as it has been with naturally evolving systems for
eons. Or, we'll move into space big time when that is the best
solution for our needs.
We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
Jonathan wrote:
| Quote: |
Four years to first SSP flight demonstration might be shorter
then the CEV and stick. And that would make sense as
SSP demonstrator wouldn't be nearly as complex as
an entirely new set of moon capable manned rated
spacecraft.
Big oil and big aerospace are against SSP for obvious reasons.
But only or self-serving reasons. Everyone else will benefit
from SSP. The choice is between who benefits, a few CEO's
that are well connected to this administration, or the rest
of the world?
What is obvious is that the moon and mars idea is dying, if not dead.
What is also obvious is the only viable alternative goal is SSP.
A goal that by any measure is easier to sell, fund and maintain
for the long term. A goal that by any measure has far more
potential benefits to society.
I find it odd for someone to cling to that which is dying, while
trying to destroy the only alternative. That's a recipe for
completely abandoning the manned space program.
|
And just in case the obvious hasn't occurred to some of you just yet,
since it takes a rocket to launch anything into space, let alone some
solar panels, and that rocket will then be in space where it belongs,
then the entire backlog of necessary space demonstration projects yet to
be completed by mankind : the SPS (SSP) solar power satellites, the SSTO
(single stage to orbit), CELSS (closed ecological life support systems),
RLV (reusable launch vehicles via nose cone engine return), and the IPD
(integrated propulsion demonstration), can be easily accomplished by one
integrated development program, utilizing engines that we already
possess (without an engine development program) and which will soon be
available for immediate use - the SSMEs (space shuttle main engines).
Plus, we even have a new destination : Ceres.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=302
Thus, with a suitable chief executive, all of the futile and incompetent
efforts of the Bush administration in space, are negated in an instant.
If that isn't reason for optimism in space (ignoring the national debt)
then I just don't know what is. Griffin has utterly destroyed NASA. We
have exactly one chance to put this back onto the right track again.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4672d887.33918772@news.giganews.com...
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets
,
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues?
|
No.
| Quote: |
You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
|
Not in any credible way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4677e12f.101671195@news.giganews.com...
| Quote: |
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues?
No.
You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
Not in any credible way.
|
But going back to the moon and to mars does?
By holding on to a senseless policy, and dismissing
the only viable alternative goal, you leave nothing for
the future of NASA. And your opinion paves the way
for the many that say the NASA budget is better used
for, say, prescription health benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
122 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
