A really great essay by Keith Cowing

Check it out here!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Tho, budget wise , I puzzle over what the White House and
the Congress really want to do?

I mean, at this late date, Nasa has yet to submit bill for
a supplemental to the 04 budget in order to Return to Flight!

In article ,
Al Jackson wrote:
Check it out here!
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

You have to read through 2/3 of this analysis before getting to the two
most important words: fiscal reality. Behind the scenes, this is fiscal
reality in Washington:

If we want smaller, less-intrusive government, we have to "starve the
beast." Cutting their allowance is the only way to put politicians
on a spending leash. And that means tax cuts, tax cuts and more
tax cuts. The recent Bush/Republican rebate was just a small
down-payment. Time to break out the meat cleaver.

- Chuck Muth, "Commentary: More tax cuts please,"

If you want a space policy that "goes somewhere", don't expect the Bush
administration to get any more work out of "the beast". They're already
whipping it hard and they plan to cut its rations further.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to boost our
military superiority.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

On 14 Nov 2003 02:06:28 GMT, in a place far, far away,
pamsuX (Allen Meece) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:00:30 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Al Jackson wrote:
Check it out here!
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

You have to read through 2/3 of this analysis before getting to the two
most important words: fiscal reality. Behind the scenes, this is fiscal
reality in Washington:

If we want smaller, less-intrusive government, we have to "starve the
beast." Cutting their allowance is the only way to put politicians
on a spending leash. And that means tax cuts, tax cuts and more
tax cuts. The recent Bush/Republican rebate was just a small
down-payment. Time to break out the meat cleaver.

- Chuck Muth, "Commentary: More tax cuts please,"

If you want a space policy that "goes somewhere", don't expect the Bush
administration to get any more work out of "the beast". They're already
whipping it hard and they plan to cut its rations further.

"Cut its rations"?

What planet have you been vacationing on, Greg? This is one of the
biggest-spending administrations and Congresses in the history of the
Republic.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On 14 Nov 2003 02:06:28 GMT, in a place far, far away,
pamsuX (Allen Meece) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

For that matter, is that *not* why Kennedy initiated the moon program?


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our military superiority.
Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

Yes, in the sense of military symbolism rather than direct military power.
Reagan intended the space station to remind the world that (a) America
deserved to win the cold War, and (b) it had the technology to do so.
It was a Kennedyesque calculation. Indeed, Reagan's State of the Union
alluded to Kennedy's speech in promising that the space station would be
completed "within a decade". (See http://history.nasa.gov/reagan84.htm .)
Military symbolism is also why it was called "Space Station Freedom".

You have a point in that the agenda of the space station was to cure
diseases and improve vehicle engines (by medical research and metallurgy
in microgravity). So maybe it should have been called "Space Station
Longevity and Transportation" rather than "Space Station Freedom".
But that's just the nature of symbolism. In fact, in his 1986 State
of the Union, Reagan explicitly connected civilian NASA with military
superiority. He said that NASA could invent a Mach 25 "Orient
Express" (the National Space Plane project), and he said
that "the same" technology would "render nuclear weapons obselete and
free mankind from the prison of nuclear terror". See

http://www.geocities.com/americanpresidencynet/1986.htm

In the end, it was the same technology: non-existent technology.
There is no national space plane and nuclear weapons aren't obselete.
That is the final conclusion of "Reaganesque" space policy.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On 14 Nov 2003 14:53:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

For that matter, is that *not* why Kennedy initiated the moon program?

Well, to be fair, not really. It was to win the Cold War by
non-military means. But it had little to do with space.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:28:46 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
If you want a space policy that "goes somewhere", don't expect the Bush
administration to get any more work out of "the beast". They're already
whipping it hard and they plan to cut its rations further.

"Cut its rations"?

What planet have you been vacationing on, Greg? This is one of the
biggest-spending administrations and Congresses in the history of the
Republic.

I'm well aware of that; you just misunderstood my metaphor. By rations I
meant *revenue*. The federal government is on course to tax ever less and
spend ever more, until it faces a fiscal crisis.

It's not taxing ever less. Tax revenues will increase now that the
economy's growing strongly.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:03:21 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Anyway, to get back to space policy: If you want NASA to do anything
big and exciting in this decade, forget it.

That's true for any decade other than the 1960s.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: