On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...



So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.

Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.

I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. *
Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.

JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.

JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union). *

Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf

From above:

* *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
* *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
* *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
* *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
* *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
* *except for defense, the top priority of the United States
* *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.
* *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
* *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
* *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
* *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
* *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
* *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
* *these other domestic programs and the only justification for
* *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
* *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
* *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.

Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. *

Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most
at risk.

The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we
spend that?

~ BG