NASA cancels soil moisture satellite

http://tinyurl.com/res5k

a écrit :
http://tinyurl.com/res5k


I remember that there was a big public relations problem with
environmental scientists at NASA.

The problem with scientists is that they could tell the facts, so the
best solution is to cancel all their stuff so that we have no
data to worry about.

This continues the environmental policy of the U.S. government
to its logical consequences.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
a écrit :
http://tinyurl.com/res5k


I remember that there was a big public relations problem with
environmental scientists at NASA.

The problem with scientists is that they could tell the facts, so the
best solution is to cancel all their stuff so that we have no
data to worry about.

This continues the environmental policy of the U.S. government
to its logical consequences.




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.

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.

What's important is that all of us understands who owns Nasa.

The huge margin of victory by Bush gives him a mandate
to do whatever he damn well pleases. It's his decision, and
his alone, and we should understand that anyone
that doesn't play ball has to be emasculated so that
no one else dare to criticize his vision for our future.
Chaos would follow if they allowed any dissent at all.

Anyways we serve at his pleasure, he's the boss and
it's his way or the highway. That's just the way God
wants it.

Our leader has a dream, it's his dream, and it must be good.

Who are we to challange the scientific and philosophical
wisdom, the technical expertise and judgement, of our
President?


s

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?

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?

"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?

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:29:12 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

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?

Not being a "science type," I couldn't say. Please direct your
question to someone who actually meets your strawman, fantasy
description.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:05:16 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:

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

I think he is concerned that the President and/or Congress aren't doing
the things that *they're* responsible for.

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?

While Al Gore may be in favor of some pretty nutty environmental causes,
the threat of global warming seems to be real enough. It certainly has
achieved mainstream recognition by the scientific community.

Of course, what with the Russian peat bogs, it may *well* be too late to
do anything about it now.

The good news is this: we can stop emitting carbon dioxide _without_
going back to the Middle Ages and destroying the economy. The bad news
(well, not *really* bad) is that the environmental activists aren't
going to be happy when we do it.

Because the way to do it is, of course, to start building a lot of
nuclear power plants.

But I think we can now identify the "broken thought process" in
question: if one starts from the assumption that Al Gore is right, and
that any reasonably intelligent person can see that Al Gore is right,
then if someone doesn't want to do what Al Gore says, then either he is
not reasonably intelligent, or he doesn't care about the disastrous
consequences for the future of not doing what Al Gore says is necessary.

Given the current economic downturn, and the menace of AIDS, I think
that a rise in the cancer rate is a small price to pay for altering the
sex ratio in favor of more female births, so as to reduce the chances of
desperate lonely single men turning to crime or union militancy, and so
I think we shouldn't ban PCBs... and so I can understand if you feel
reasonable people who *do* care about the future really _can_ disagree
with Al Gore. But you should be able to understand that Al Gore is a
persuasive writer, and some people can believe him, and feel differently
from you.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

John Savard a écrit :
The good news is this: we can stop emitting carbon dioxide _without_
going back to the Middle Ages and destroying the economy. The bad news
(well, not *really* bad) is that the environmental activists aren't
going to be happy when we do it.

Because the way to do it is, of course, to start building a lot of
nuclear power plants.


NONSENSE!

We can use solar energy to satisfy all our needs. Solar energy provides
enough energy to fill ALL our needs:

1) Gather solar energy in the Sahara and other deserts. You can use
indirect ways (rising hot air current) or direct photovoltaics.
2) Break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Throw away the oxygen
in the atmosphere and store the hydrogen in bottles.
3) Transport the hydrogen to consumption places.
4) Burn hydrogen in batteries or in cars with oxygen to form water
again.

Please do not answer with "economics". Price of oil is kept artificially
low, and that is ending anyway. Price of nuclear power doesn't take
into account the problem of managing waste products during thousands of
years!

Solar power is free, non-polluting, and will fix our energy problems.
There is no need to build nuclear / carbon power, we can live from
the sun as the plants are doing since more than 3 billion years.