Barack Obama Publishes His Space Policy

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:04:45 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Well, I Iived in that America, too, but unlike you, it didn't drive me
around the bend.

....That's because his wife, Fred McCall, would have gotten jealous and
hit him with a frying pan when he got home with your hair on his
lape...

Oh. I forgot. You don't *have* hair. If we buy you a toupee, will you
put Chumpko in your killfile, then?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Eric Chomko wrote:
Al Capp the cartoon character?

Lil' Abner was the cartoon character. Al Capp was the real person who
drew him.

Heinlen was for the most part of civil
libertarian.

In most of his more recent writings, he appeared to be a LIbertarian
or close to one, but in some of his early works - and in his
Depression-era political career - he sought expanded government action
on behalf of the poor.

Coincidence? Sure I don't doubt that it was, but I for one won't just
shrug it off.

I'm not sure how you can believe something is a coincidence, and yet
think it is still a good idea to treat it as if it was a conspiracy.
In any case, assassinating liberals to move America to the right
wouldn't have led to my problem - that the liberals have moved so far
to the left that I can no longer support them. Yesterday, they wanted
to free the oppressed - today, they want to push around old-fashioned
people to make sure they know who is boss.

John Savard

On Jan 18, 2:10*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:
Al Capp the cartoon character?

Lil' Abner was the cartoon character. Al Capp was the real person who
drew him.

Ah yes, Andy Capp was the cartoon character.


Heinlen was for the most part of civil
libertarian.

In most of his more recent writings, he appeared to be a LIbertarian
or close to one, but in some of his early works - and in his
Depression-era political career - he sought expanded government action
on behalf of the poor.

I have his book discussing getting our government back through action
in politics.


Coincidence? Sure I don't doubt that it was, but I for one won't just
shrug it off.

I'm not sure how you can believe something is a coincidence, and yet
think it is still a good idea to treat it as if it was a conspiracy.

I do not believe that JFK, RFK and MLK were killed by lone nuts as we
have been told.

In any case, assassinating liberals to move America to the right
wouldn't have led to my problem - that the liberals have moved so far
to the left that I can no longer support them. Yesterday, they wanted
to free the oppressed - today, they want to push around old-fashioned
people to make sure they know who is boss.

Well I guess that is one interpretation.

Eric

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:53:43 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

Mankind isn't able to send 4 people to the moon since the seventies.


Only because of political decisions that had nothing to do with
technical matters.

Preparation for the next trip of just 4 people will take 15 years.


You mean "the first four." The Moon base is meant to be a going
concern.


.... I prefer looking at the pictures sent by robots. At least
I can look at the pictures. If 4 guys go there I can't
even see the pictures unles they bring some back.


Assuming that the four guys don't take state of the art video cameras
along, which, of course, they will.


Nonsense. You can't go to Venus ....

Nope. But no one is planning to. So it's a straw man.

.... Mercury ....

Maybe not. Very hot but don't have Venus' high air pressure. But
then again, no one is planning a mission to Venus.

.... Jupiter ....

But you can go to the Jovian moons. Same for the moons of Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune. But again, no one is talking about these
missions now. The only destinations under consideration for
Constellation (in addition to the Moon) are Mars and/or a near Earth
orbit asteroid. All mentioning the rest does is help you burn
calories by knocking over straw men.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Jan 19, 10:07 am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:53:43 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

Mankind isn't able to send 4 people to the moon since the seventies.

Only because of political decisions that had nothing to do with
technical matters.

He is being too kind, actually. In the 1970s, we were able to send
only *3* people on a rocket to the Moon, and only two of them reached
the Moon itself.

So, since the 1970s, it is the ability to send 2 people to the Moon
that has been lost and forgotten and will require countless billions
of dollars to regain.

As far as sending 4 people to the Moon - obviously that is impossible,
and if we try, the great Space Monster will eat them up.

John Savard

On Jan 19, 10:39 am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:07 am, Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:53:43 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

Mankind isn't able to send 4 people to the moon since the seventies.

Only because of political decisions that had nothing to do with
technical matters.

He is being too kind, actually. In the 1970s, we were able to send
only *3* people on a rocket to the Moon, and only two of them reached
the Moon itself.

So, since the 1970s, it is the ability to send 2 people to the Moon
that has been lost and forgotten and will require countless billions
of dollars to regain.

As far as sending 4 people to the Moon - obviously that is impossible,
and if we try, the great Space Monster will eat them up.

John Savard

Just the gauntlet of unavoidable gamma and hard-X-ray dosage, along
with the double-IR roasting by day should keep anyone looking to live
(w/o their having banked bone marrow and spare organ implants), from
ever setting a human DNA filled moonboot worth of taking any such foot
steps upon our physically dark, crystal dry kind of dusty and
extremely electrostatic charged moon.

Perhaps one quick orbit, much like Apollo 13, is about as close and of
as much radiation dosage as our frail human DNA can manage to survive
without extensive DNA trauma. Of an earthshine illuminated surface
EVA mission might afford a few hours at best, but don't count on it.

Can any of you say ANTICATHODE ?

There's also the pesky matter of your moonsuit butt getting summarily
nailed by debris trekking past or arriving into the lunar surface at
30+ km/s. Sure thing, why the hell not take those kinds of naked
EVAs, as what else could possibly go wrong?

- Brad Guth

OM wrote:

:On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:04:45 GMT, h (Rand
:Simberg) wrote:
:
:Well, I Iived in that America, too, but unlike you, it didn't drive me
:around the bend.
:
:...That's because his wife, Fred McCall, would have gotten jealous and
:hit him with a frying pan when he got home with your hair on his
:lape...
:
:Oh. I forgot. You don't *have* hair. If we buy you a toupee, will you
ut Chumpko in your killfile, then?
:

If we buy you a brain will you stop posting to 'sci' groups?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

As far as sending 4 people to the Moon - obviously that is impossible,
and if we try, the great Space Monster will eat them up.


No, he won't. He's camped out at Mars, remember? And likes to munch
on Russian spacecraft more than ours for some reason.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Jan 19, 4:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Can any of you say ANTICATHODE ?

In English, I think that's ANODE.

John Savard