John Glenn Loses his Soul

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:51:11 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You would think that astronaut hero John Glenn would be the first to cheer
getting Americans back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.

Why would I think that? John Glenn has never shown any interest in
getting anyone into space other than John Glenn.

Meow!

??

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:50:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Meanwhile unmanned missions continue to succeed spectacularly.

You just continue to engage in your own delusions, Greg.

Ah, yes. My psychic senses tell me that his deluded fantasies include
the names "Sojourner", "Spirit", and "Opportunity".

I may have oversnipped. I was really responding to this fantasy:

The most likely outcome in this time frame is that manned
spaceflight will shrink from farce to fantasy. The second
possibility is that it will continue to limp along, at the most
with a re-enactment of Apollo.

"Mark R. Whittington" writes:

Rand, that's a good point. Maybe Glenn already sold his soul to get that
seat on the shuttle.

I thought this was a historical fact. At the time, there was much
discussion in these groups about how NASA suddenly came up with
experiments to perform on Glenn and how they could fly Glenn, but had
already told Musgrave he was "too old to fly again".

Glenn's shuttle flight was a political pay-off and a bit of pay-back
to him for never flying again after his one, and only, Mercury
mission.

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

In article ,
John Savard wrote:
Meanwhile unmanned missions continue to succeed spectacularly.
Ah, yes. My psychic senses tell me that his deluded fantasies include
the names "Sojourner", "Spirit", and "Opportunity".

Not to mention Chandra, Spitzer, and (hopefully) JWST.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...

Glenn made some valid points. He argued that NASA would save
little actual money by cutting ISS research. He argued that
NASA was likely to get sidetracked on Lunar exploration
(building a mini-Cape Canaveral on the Moon, etc.).

On the other hand, I see, from the NY Times story, that Glenn
said, "We have projects that are planned or in the queue now,
projects that people, academics and laboratories and companies,
have spent millions of dollars to get ready. ... That pulls
the rug out from under our scientists who placed their faith
in NASA, and our scientists within NASA who devoted years and
years to their work."

In addition, Dr. Lennard A. Fisk of the University of Michigan,
chairman of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of
Sciences, said that the Bush plan could cause "major collateral
damage" to NASA's science program.

The problem I have with both arguments is this: what exactly
has the "NASA science", that Glenn and Fisk defend,
accomplished? Both Glenn and Fisk seem to be defending these
programs on the sole basis that they support scientists who
devote years to their work. They make no mention of said
scientists having achieved any useful results.

Meanwhile, while all of this "science" was going on, NASA failed
to support U.S. aeronautics, aerospace, and propulsion research.
The result is that we know how spiders build webs in space, but
we can only watch helplessly while Airbus wins business (and
jobs) from Boeing, while Russia's Energomash takes U.S. taxpayer
money to build rocket engines for the Pentagon, while the
U.S. President is forced to consider flying in non-U.S.
helicopters, etc..

Glenn presided over part of this. Rather than address the
problem, he focused on getting himself a shuttle ride.

- Ed Kyle

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 06:36:06 +0000 (UTC),
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

Meanwhile unmanned missions continue to succeed spectacularly.

Um, except for the ones that don't (Mars 96, MCO, MPL, Beagle 2,
Contour...).

Just like the manned missions.

Brian

On 5 Mar 2004 08:36:49 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:


The result is that we know how spiders build webs in space, but
we can only watch helplessly while Airbus wins business (and
jobs) from Boeing,

NASA did try to help Boeing/Lockheed/McD in that area with the High
Speed Civil Transport project. They weren't interested. NASA also has
been doing work on Blended Wing Body designs... again, a big yawn from
industry, despite the great potential benefits of such a design. Both
Airbus and Boeing are stuck in the tube-and-wings mindset, and not
much more can be done to improve that design, NASA funding or not.
Until someone finally decides to break out of that mold, the winner of
the contest will be the one who can get the most government subsidies,
and that has been Airbus for nearly a decade now.

while Russia's Energomash takes U.S. taxpayer
money to build rocket engines for the Pentagon, while the
U.S. President is forced to consider flying in non-U.S.
helicopters, etc..

I don't have many qualms with that one. US-101 is a non-US helicopter
design, but it will still be largely US-built. The US spent most of
its rotary wing development money on XV-15 and the V-22, which will
probably pay big dividends once the V-22 and the BA-609 go into
production. Regardless, I suspect Sikorsky will win the Presidential
Helicopter contract, and 10 years from now they'll switch over to
BA-609s.

Brian

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:54:01 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On 5 Mar 2004 08:36:49 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:


The result is that we know how spiders build webs in space, but
we can only watch helplessly while Airbus wins business (and
jobs) from Boeing,

NASA did try to help Boeing/Lockheed/McD in that area with the High
Speed Civil Transport project.

With that kind of help, they didn't need hindrance. Like X-33, it was
a billion dollars down the drain for a flawed concept.

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote:

"Michael Walsh" wrote in message
...


ed kyle wrote:

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
hlink.net...
You would think that astronaut hero John Glenn would be the first to
cheer
getting Americans back to the Moon and eventually to Mars. However,
retired
politician John Glenn has other notions:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/space_bases
_dc_2

It says in the Good Book that a little profits a man to gain the whole
world
at the cost of his soul. But Mr. Glenn, for a John Kerry Presidency?

Of course. He's a Democrat, isn't he? Mr. Kerry has said
pretty much the same line (that ISS shouldn't be abandoned).
Glenn made some valid points. He argued that NASA would save
little actual money by cutting ISS research. He argued that
NASA was likely to get sidetracked on Lunar exploration
(building a mini-Cape Canaveral on the Moon, etc.). He liked
the idea of returning to the Moon, but believes that a more
sensible approach to send humans to Mars is via a direct assult.

- Ed Kyle

I believe it would be a good idea to concentrate on getting an
effective and moderate cost reusable transportation system to
orbit and a functional space station before or in parallel with
planning either Lunar or Mars exploration and basis.

I have not seen that in either the NASA plans for recovery
from the Columbia accident or the Bush plan for Lunar and
Mars exploration. So far I don't even see a coherent plan
being presented.

If we plan for a low orbit assembly of a Mars exploration
vehicle we need a functional space station in a better orbit
than the ISS. The old orbital maintenance and refueling
station idea remains a good one.

I note that I see metaphorical theology being advanced for
John Glenn's views. I presume Whittington will place me in
the same church.

After all, I am a Democrat.

Mike Walsh



Well, Mr. Walsh, what I was doing was highlighting Glenn's opposing a
project that he would surely support were it not proposed by a Republican
President. If you believe that this is a charecteristic of all Democrats,
then I cannot argue with you.

It is characteristic of both Republicans and Democrats about each others
proposals during an election year, unless the proposal has such political
is so politically popular that no one wants to go on record as opposing it.

You are making the assumption that Bush's proposals were so
excellent that every one who is a fan of a continuing manned space
program would support them unless they feel constrained by their
political beliefs. This works the other way too, some political leaders
in a party might very well not express their objections to what they thought
was a flawed policy to avoid affecting their candidate during the election.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that Glenn would surely
support the project if it had not been advanced by a Republican.

I might not have commented on your remarks if you hadn't gone for
the over-the-top religious metaphor. I know that it was intended strictly
as an attention getting device, and you did succeed in getting my
attention.

Mike Walsh

Doug Haxton wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:20:39 -0700, Hop David
wrote:



Mark R. Whittington wrote:

You would think that astronaut hero John Glenn would be the first to cheer
getting Americans back to the Moon and eventually to Mars. However, retired
politician John Glenn has other notions:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/space_bases
_dc_2

(some snipping and editing to keep URL intact)


It says in the Good Book that a little profits a man to gain the whole world
at the cost of his soul. But Mr. Glenn, for a John Kerry Presidency?


Glenn favors the direct-to-Mars rather than Moon-to-Mars. I can see
arguments for his viewpoint.


I can also see an argument that if Clinton had proposed it, he'd be
100% behind it.

Doug


If you attacked Glenn's arguments rather than his party affiliation, you
might have some credibility.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html