Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : No, the additional redundancy provided by the Russians has made the station
: : more survivable. But that has nothing to do with the reasons why Clinton
: : brought them in (ISS cost reduction, foreign aid to Russia, provide an
: : incentive for Russia not to sell nuclear tech to Iran), all of which
: : failed.
:
: Better to have them with us in space rather than at odds in a cold war,
: no?

: The Cold War was already over when that decision was made--it had no
: effect on that.

But while we had a cold war we still had Apollo-Soyuz. Go figure! I guess
even the best laid plans to keep the war going allowed us to move forward
in space, jointly.

: : : and Carter *not* cancelling a Republican space
: : : initiative (STS) when he had the chance. That's pretty pathetic, if
: : : you ask me. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why you'd
: : : *want* to change the subject... :-)
: :
: : Did W mention his space plan last night in the SOU at all?!?!
:
: : No, but he had introduced it in a standalone speech only six days before,
: : and gave the topic a lot more time in that speech than he possibly could
: : have given it at the SOU. Since NASA hasn't fleshed out any details of the
: : program beyond what was given in the first speech, any mention in the SOU
: : would have been superfluous.
:
: Would it now? I kind of think his lack of mentioning space makes the
: speech six days earlier more the suspect.

: Yes, but then you kind of "think" (to be generous with the word) that
: everything he does is "suspect." No rational person would think so.

Rational people are going to vote his ass out of office this fall.

Eric