A really great essay by Keith Cowing

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: I thought only liberal politicians get assassinated?

: All kinds of politicians get shot at, but liberals seem to have a
: higher mortality rate. Compare Wallace, Ford, and Reagan to JFK and
: RFK, frex...

Didn't Wallace turn into a bleeding heart (figuratively) on this death
bed?

Only on this issue of race; he remained a populist-conservative on most
other issues.

Your analysis (accurate) begs the question whether amatuers shoot at
conservatives and professionals shoot at liberals?

I think, given the small sample size, that the trend isn't statistically
significant. All five politicians above were shot by amateur assassins, but
one (Oswald) happened to be a trained shooter, and another (Sirhan) managed
to get within point-blank range of his target in a crowded room.

--
JRF

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

(Eric Chomko) writes:

In cases like this the truth undoubtedly lies (heck of word in this
context -damn English Language!) in between some place.

In this case, it's clear that reality lies close to JFK's private,
frank, conversation with the NASA Administrator and far away from a
speech tailored to "inspire" the public. To think otherwise is
foolish.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Eric Chomko) writes:

jeff findley ) wrote:
: History has shown that his comments to Webb were far more accurate, in
: terms of actual funding, than anything that was implied to the public,
: or any of the grand plans that came from NASA. The political reality
: is that government funding for manned space exploration will not
: return to the "glory days" of Apollo.

I thought the funding got cut in 1967 during LBJ's elected term? How could
JFK have affected that cutback having been dead for 3+ years?

The inertia of his "legacy" required that the goal be met. When it
became clear that the goal would be met (with some degree of
certainty), the budget got cut. This is in no way contrary to JFK's
views on space. Given what we know now, from JFK's own words, it
seems likely he would have cut the budget also.

Also, it shows the commitment of the scientists and engineers of the day
to actually go forth giving the cutback scenario at the time.

Not really. The hardware was largely developed and built when the
cuts came. The entire program was "over the hump" in terms of budget
anyway. What surprised NASA was the depth of the cuts to the Apollo
program (requiring planned missions be canceled) and the lack of
funding for a follow-on program of similar, or larger, size than
Apollo. Specifically, the AAP program was completely gutted, except
for Skylab and ASTP.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:45:58 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:45:07 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: : glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : : The fall was steep, too. By the time LBJ left office in 1969, NASA's budget
: : : had dropped 36% from its 1966 peak, and 12% since JFK's assassination.
: :
: :
: : Yet we still managed to implement Apollo.
:
: : Everything had been pretty much built and paid for by then.
:
: You still must support and run the missions.

: Yes, but that was paid for out of current overhead (which was
: supporting everything that NASA was doing). The "space program"
: continued, but Apollo was over.

So Apollo-Soyuz was a figment of my imagination?

Eric

: --
: 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:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:51:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : I'll tend to take private conversations over public,
:
: ...out of context? One DOES wonder...

: What out of context? The context is there.

Yes, JFK stated that going to the moon was important, possibly the most
important program in the govt., but he himself was that interested in
space. Interested but not THAT interested.

:
: when it comes to
: : determining presidents' true views.
:
: I'd like to see the whole transcript. I wonder if the word "that"
: (interested in space) was in relationship to something else? Also, the
: exact date of the conversation with Webb micght shed some light on the
: seemingly blantant contradiction to other communications by JFK.

: There is no contradiction, except with public speeches for public
: consumption.

I listened to the whole thing. Granted he is no scientist and clearly a
politician. Despite that, it is clear he set a high priority on going to
the moon. I just think we wasn't going to commit the entire US budget to
it and that if other projects were competing for funds to push them out 6
or 9 months into the future. As he was not THAT interested in space (to
commit huge sums of money to it).

This whole thing makes me wonder what the VietNam War cost in comparison
to the Apollo project. I also wonder where the secret tapes are that JFK
made that commits us to the VietNam War?

Perhaps that is on another newsgroup?

Eric

: --
: 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:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : I thought only liberal politicians get assassinated?
:
: : All kinds of politicians get shot at, but liberals seem to have a
: : higher mortality rate. Compare Wallace, Ford, and Reagan to JFK and
: : RFK, frex...
:
: Didn't Wallace turn into a bleeding heart (figuratively) on this death
: bed?

: Only on this issue of race; he remained a populist-conservative on most
: other issues.

: Your analysis (accurate) begs the question whether amatuers shoot at
: conservatives and professionals shoot at liberals?

: I think, given the small sample size, that the trend isn't statistically
: significant. All five politicians above were shot by amateur assassins, but
: one (Oswald) happened to be a trained shooter, and another (Sirhan) managed
: to get within point-blank range of his target in a crowded room.

Oswald was in the marines but wasn't a very good shot I understand.

The problem with the point blank range wounds on RFK are that they are on
the backside of him and near the head. Sirhan was in front of him and
about 4 feet away. "Who Shot RFK", by Phil Melanson(sp) has a nice account
of all that.

Eric

: --
: JRF

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

jeff findley ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) writes:
:
: In cases like this the truth undoubtedly lies (heck of word in this
: context -damn English Language!) in between some place.

: In this case, it's clear that reality lies close to JFK's private,
: frank, conversation with the NASA Administrator and far away from a
: speech tailored to "inspire" the public. To think otherwise is
: foolish.

Did he not say that going to the moon was a top, if not the top priority
of the govt.?


Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
: If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) writes:
:
: jeff findley ) wrote:
: : History has shown that his comments to Webb were far more accurate, in
: : terms of actual funding, than anything that was implied to the public,
: : or any of the grand plans that came from NASA. The political reality
: : is that government funding for manned space exploration will not
: : return to the "glory days" of Apollo.
:
: I thought the funding got cut in 1967 during LBJ's elected term? How could
: JFK have affected that cutback having been dead for 3+ years?

: The inertia of his "legacy" required that the goal be met. When it
: became clear that the goal would be met (with some degree of
: certainty), the budget got cut. This is in no way contrary to JFK's
: views on space. Given what we know now, from JFK's own words, it
: seems likely he would have cut the budget also.

Are you convinced that had he lived we would NOT have gone to the moon?

: Also, it shows the commitment of the scientists and engineers of the day
: to actually go forth giving the cutback scenario at the time.

: Not really. The hardware was largely developed and built when the
: cuts came. The entire program was "over the hump" in terms of budget
: anyway. What surprised NASA was the depth of the cuts to the Apollo
: program (requiring planned missions be canceled) and the lack of
: funding for a follow-on program of similar, or larger, size than
: Apollo. Specifically, the AAP program was completely gutted, except
: for Skylab and ASTP.

I asked this before in another post: What was the cost comparison of the
Apollo program versus the VietNam War?

Also consider the timing of both the war and the NASA cutbacks.

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
: If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:12:57 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : 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.
:
: So Viking and Voyager were boring to you guys? The 1970s planetary probes
: don't rate? Man, I'd like to see what would have gotten you folks excited
: back then given that those two programs didn't rate on your scales.

: Lots of people going into space. Science is interesting, but not "big
: and exciting." There's more to life than science (something that NASA
: never seems to learn).

Of course there is but are they not in the business of science?

You ought to question how well the DOD, NOAA and NASA are going to get
along on NPOES, follow on to EOS.

Eric

: --
: 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:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: I thought only liberal politicians get assassinated?

: All kinds of politicians get shot at, but liberals seem to have a
: higher mortality rate. Compare Wallace, Ford, and Reagan to JFK and
: RFK, frex...

Didn't Wallace turn into a bleeding heart (figuratively) on this death
bed?

Only on this issue of race; he remained a populist-conservative on most
other issues.

He flipped around on race right from the beginning. He lost an early election
in Alabama against a hardline segregationist and was reported to have said
that he would never be "out-segged" again. He ran for governor and won
as a strong segregationist who said "He would stand in the schoolhouse door
and go to jail" before allowing Alabama schools to be de-segregated. He
did stand in the door, but had better discretion than keeping his pledge about
going to jail.

I was living in Huntsville, Alabama after he was elected and heard a number
of his rabble rousing speeches. I assumed he would make a fool of himself
on a national scale, but he changed his pitch completely outside of the
South. He pushed segregationist views, but moderated his statements and
sounded much like any other Southern Democratic politician, less rabid
than a lot of them.

His conversion to integration seems to have coincided with civil rights
legislation that guaranteed black voting rights and a large increase in
the number of black voters in Alabama. He won his last term as
governor with strong black support as he had completely changed his
tune.

George Wallace was a political chameleon. I rate him as quite
low in real political principles.

Mike Walsh