"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:39:03 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

At least Nasa has the priorities right. Putting four people on
the Moon to do....ah...well...to build...something important for
....oh...I think...something else, or somewhere else... sometime..
But it must be important, that reason for going to the Moon, or else
they wouldn't go and spend eleventy billion dollars of their money
and decades of their time doing it.

Where in NASA's charter does it state that it's responsible
for...doing something else?


The National Aeronautics and Space Act

Sec. 102.

(a) ...yada yada peace and love

(b) ....yadya yada air and space

(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States
requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as
established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum
extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be
conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following
objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in
the atmosphere and space;

(e) The Congress declares that the...... Such development shall be conducted
so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and
petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing
the environmental degradation caused by such systems.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/abou...t1.html#POLICY


Tell me how Nasa's primary mission, it's most expensive and longest
term goal.....to the Moon and Mars....has anything to do with
commercializing space? And the next detailed objective, our
biosphere, is currently being trashed. So we can afford
a Vision that is the antithesis of it's primary mandate.


Let's review now. The first three detailed objectives would be....

a) finding a market for space activity
b) tending to our biosphere
c) finding solutions to the energy crisis.

Now a rational mind might try to find a /single/ space goal
that can satisfy /all three/ at once. Wouldn't that be snappy~

This is the point I'd link to Nasa's Space Solar Power home page
But the page, that had been up for years, went away
a few weeks after threads appeared here on SPS.

Funny about that.

The only thing I see in space in abundance that we need
here on earth is clean and cheap energy.
A huge potential market!

And a market that would do two things.

a) tend to our biosphere
b) find a solution to the energy crisis

Gee!

But don't listen to reason. Since Nasa is now a Faith-based
organization. Do I need to look up the quote from the administrator?
Ya know, where he's trying to justify the Vision and he finally
concludes the reason is 'Faith', that if we go something great
will/should/might hopefully happen. Say your prayers, this
goal is counting on them.

Why is it you science types can build the most complicated
hot rods ever seen, but when it comes to designing a ....goal....
you suddenly turn into the keystone-cops?

What's that old saying....'garbage in...garbage out'

I'm sorry, but if the goal isn't thoughfully done, everything
after is one big flippin waste of time.

Ya know, like the ISS.




s















I mean I've gotten used to hurricanes, and everyone else can
get used to an occasional flood or pesky drought. Besides
everyone knows if we just forget about it for awhile the whole
thing will go away. The global warming thing that is.

It's better not to know anyways, why scare people when we can
just sweep it under the rug and let them lives their lives
without worry.

I mean I certaintly don't care about the future, and I'm
sure most people if you ask them will agree, that they
couldn't care less what kind of world their children
live in. That's their problem.

By what broken thought process have you come to believe that people
who don't agree with you or Algore don't care about the future?