Howard Dean on manned Mars effort

Presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) is currently answering
questions online at WashingtonPoet.com.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...s_dean1103.htm

Here's one of interest to this group:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and the
Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and move on to
bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars, or returning to
the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program
that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the shuttle
program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have
manned flights to Mars. this of course assumes that we can change presidents
so we can have a balanced budget again.

"Joe Knapp" wrote
Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program
that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the
shuttle
program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to
have
manned flights to Mars.

Another confederate flag blunder, Howard, losing the feminist vote.

There are no 'manned' flights anymore, buddy.

In article , JimO wrote:
"Joe Knapp" wrote
Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program
that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the
shuttle
program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to
have
manned flights to Mars.

Another confederate flag blunder, Howard, losing the feminist vote.

There are no 'manned' flights anymore, buddy.

Hmm.

Whilst this is true - and it's also true that, regardless of most other
details, we can place accurate bets on the *demographic* makeup of any
future NASA Mars flight g - is it really relevant or significant?

A quick google suggests that NASA uses the terms "human spaceflight"
and "manned spaceflight" (or similar) reasonably interchangeably,
although at about a 2:1 ratio. I don't believe this is controversial.

(figures found by googling on nasa.gov; doing the same to senate.gov
gives ~3:1, whitehouse.gov ~3.5:1 (although *very* few uses of the
phrase), and senate.gov ~4.5:1. Numbers mean what you want them to... I
suspect they're skewed by large amounts of archive stuff in nasa.gov.
Just FYI, and all that. Over the whole google search field, it's about
even and very slightly in favour of "manned". Google news, very heavily
in favour of "manned" by about 2-3:1. These later figures are less
useful g)

Is there anyone out there who's likely to a) notice (okay, you did), b)
kick up a fuss, and c) wouldn't be more motivated to go beat up someone
else? I can't quite see it...

--
-Andrew Gray

I think NASA's usage in the past 10-12 years has been for the 'human flight'
term, with occasional lapses. They've also tried 'crewed flight', without
any sense of humor. I played around with 'humanned flight' for awhile.

As for beating up on Dean, I've never felt I needed much excuse...

"JimO" wrote in message
...
As for beating up on Dean, I've never felt I needed much excuse...


Ahaaaa....

Rather surprising & encouraging he is pushing manned flight though, no? Bush
axed the Prometheus/Mars talk from the State of the Union this year,
disappointingly. Seems like a leadership vacuum re manned flight that other
politicians (at least Dean) are filling.

Joe

"JimO" wrote in message
...

I think NASA's usage in the past 10-12 years has been for the 'human
flight'
term, with occasional lapses. They've also tried 'crewed flight', without
any sense of humor. I played around with 'humanned flight' for awhile.

I've taken to using "piloted" in place of "manned".

Ted Molczan

"Joe Knapp" wrote in
.com:

Presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) is currently answering
questions online at WashingtonPoet.com.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...itics_dean1103
.htm

Here's one of interest to this group:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and
the Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and
move on to bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars,
or returning to the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government
program that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should
close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively
begin a program to have manned flights to Mars. this of course assumes
that we can change presidents so we can have a balanced budget again.



Boilerplate response -- he strongly supports scientific research and
NASA, and likes the idea starting work on manned flights to Mars.
Nothing here that really goes beyond Bush41's Space Exploration
Initiative.

But what's the priority of this goal? Answer in the last sentence --
AFTER he balances the budget... which means (effectively) never.

Better question would have been whether he supports O'Keefe's nuclear
propulsion initiative...


--
Reed

In article rs.com,
"Ted Molczan" wrote:

"JimO" wrote in message
...

I think NASA's usage in the past 10-12 years has been for the 'human
flight'
term, with occasional lapses. They've also tried 'crewed flight', without
any sense of humor. I played around with 'humanned flight' for awhile.

I've taken to using "piloted" in place of "manned".

Ted Molczan



As recently as 1993, NASA still used "Permanently Manned Capability" as
an assembly milestone for Space Station Freedom.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

I've taken to using "piloted" in place of "manned".

As recently as 1993, NASA still used "Permanently Manned Capability" as
an assembly milestone for Space Station Freedom.


So, you want NASA to setup a comission and multiple task forces to decide on
what is the politically correct way to refer to manned mission because it has
been decided that "manned" is sexist ?

Actions speak louder than words. I would much rather see NASA (or any
organisation) have the right attitudes towards equality of sexes rather than
seing an organisation that spends millions on a PR exercise that may yield
nice documents that have no effect on how the organisation functiosn on a day
to day basis.

Anyone with a half decent education will realise that "manned mission" doesn't
refer to "man" as a sex but rather "man" as species.

In article , JimO wrote:
"Joe Knapp" wrote
Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program
that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the
shuttle
program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to
have
manned flights to Mars.

Another confederate flag blunder, Howard, losing the feminist vote.

There are no 'manned' flights anymore, buddy.

As far as Mars and the Moon are concerned, the way things are going,
this statement may be true in a wider form, i.e.
no manned, personed, humaned, bipeded, ... flights at all.

Unless some Martians decide to come to Earth.

BTW is "Martians" politically correct? Maybe we should say SBFM instead
(sentient beings from Mars). Come to think of it even that may not
be PC, after all they don't call their planet Mars, we do. So I guess
we cannot refer to them till we ask them.

**vp

PS how about one-ed flights (as in "where no one has gone before") :-)