YOU can come up with a better way to the Moon.

In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje wrote:

Some viewpoints:

In a way we seem to be in a post-technology era.
Technology had a big flight in the previous century, but was
then shackled by all sorts of environmental nutters and what have you.
No more Concorde supersonic flights, no more men on the moon,
no nuclear powered spacecraft...


Apollo was killed mostly by economics and competition for funds. If NASA
hadn't done Skylab, we could have had two or three more Apollo missions.

Agreed on the first part, but I disagree on the second. It's highly
doubtful we'd have flown additional Apollo flights to the Moon, since we had
the hardware for 2 more missions and they were already cancelled before
Skylab was flown.

Actually, we had most of the stuff for three more missions with parts for
Apollo 19 and 20 under contruction when everything was cancelled.

We had three complete Saturns.

Various parts were reassigned to other projects such as Skylab and the
Apollo-Soyuz test project, e.g. the SA-513 Saturn for Apollo 18 was
used to launch Skylab.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 23, 1:41*pm, gabydewilde wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:



Exactly how much of the public funded Apollo era R&D, technology and
expertise was lost and/or stolen from us?

Here, this is worth seeing.

http://blog.go-here.nl/5768
The Case for Antigravity

My internet is only 0.1% fast enough. Give me a link to the typed
context.

~ BG

On Aug 23, 8:58*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:38*am, Robert Clark wrote:





*This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma.
posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM
By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
"WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review
NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping
the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket
program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the
moon.
But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a
troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope
of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or
more."
...
"But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program
by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they
saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it,
“infeasible.”
"But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for
another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.
"Even the panel members themselves were surprised.
"Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-
member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option
that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the
committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020."http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/pre...

*It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100
billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up
with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years?
*According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6
successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted
dollars:

Apollo program.
7 Program costs and cancellation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ts_and_cancell...

*You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than
that?
*Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned
missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates
led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly
1/10th that amount.
We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon
missions.

* * Bob Clark

With far better fly-by-rocket and payload applied technology, at
roughly 10% less inert mass than any of their original Apollo era GLOW
(gross lift-off weight), and roughly consuming 1% of the electrical
energy demand for accomplishing better and more reliable science, as
such I too do not understand where the problem is.

Exactly how much of the public funded Apollo era R&D, technology and
expertise was lost and/or stolen from us?

I think we need a far reaching retroactive (multi-generation) GAO
investigation into the whole freaking mess that's DARP and NASA.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We can wait. We are in no position to do otherwise.

Mitch Raemsch

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...
This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Even President Bush walked away from the Vision just after it
was announced. After the unveiling, Bush never once mentioned
the program in any speech that I can recall. If the original sponsor
of a program isn't interested enough to life a finger even once
for some six years, then why would anyone else spend a bit
of political capital for the thing?

The Vision was officially DOA the minute Bush left office.


Jonathan

s

On Aug 24, 5:12*pm, "Jonathan1" wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message

...

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Even President Bush walked away from the Vision just after it
was announced. After the unveiling, Bush never once mentioned
the program in any speech that I can recall. If the original sponsor
of a program isn't interested enough to life a finger even once
for some six years, then why would anyone else spend a bit
of political capital for the thing?

The Vision was officially DOA the minute Bush left office.

Jonathan

s

Too bad folks fell for it, as well as for everything else that brought
us 9/11 and other nasty stuff before that.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 5:12 pm, "Jonathan1" wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message

...

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Even President Bush walked away from the Vision just after it
was announced. After the unveiling, Bush never once mentioned
the program in any speech that I can recall. If the original sponsor
of a program isn't interested enough to life a finger even once
for some six years, then why would anyone else spend a bit
of political capital for the thing?

The Vision was officially DOA the minute Bush left office.

Jonathan

s


Too bad folks fell for it, as well as for everything else that brought
us 9/11 and other nasty stuff before that.

I'll never forgive Bush for what he did to NASA. Did you know when
Pres Bush was gov of Texas, he was so close to Lockheed he tried
to force through a bill giving Lockheed the Texas ...welfare... program
to administer. Welfare? And Cheney's wife was given a seat on the
board of Lockheed. Gee, I wonder what she knew about aerospace???

The two were obviously in bed with Lockheed long before they came
to DC. And given all that, Cheney was the original source of the Vision.
He got two of his jr staffers to type it up and only talked to Lockheed, not
NASA, about what the goal should be. It so f'ing corrupt. You think
Cheney and Halliburton was absurd? At least Halliburton benefited from
Cheney corruption. His corruption left the manned program and NASA
in tatters.

So Lockheed got to write their own ticket with the Vision, just like Bush
allowed big oil, big pharma big military etc etc to do the same thing.
And of course Lockheed said...."hell then, let's build some Saturn V's!"
"lunar landers and all that good 'ol stuff, ...un-reusable....un-low cost
....un-commercial and un-needed.

All the things that un-endear NASA to the public and Congress.

All the forward looking ideas, single stage to orbit, space ports,
space solar power etc all gone or militarized. Thanks to Lockheed
et all, and a Bush/Cheney administration that couldn't care less
except for how it effected Lockheed stock.

When Bush came into office, Locheed stock was about $30.
Three months before Bush left office it peaked at $120.
It's been crashing ever since Bush left.
http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...eq=2&ti me=13

All I can say is thank god the Vision isn't going to happen
and waste the next twenty years too.


Jonathan







~ BG

Jonathan1 wrote:

You were right OM, here comes #3.

Howard Johnson
Rock Ridge

On Aug 24, 7:04*pm, "Jonathan1" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Aug 24, 5:12 pm, "Jonathan1" wrote:



"Robert Clark" wrote in message

....

This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Even President Bush walked away from the Vision just after it
was announced. After the unveiling, Bush never once mentioned
the program in any speech that I can recall. If the original sponsor
of a program isn't interested enough to life a finger even once
for some six years, then why would anyone else spend a bit
of political capital for the thing?

The Vision was officially DOA the minute Bush left office.

Jonathan

s
Too bad folks fell for it, as well as for everything else that brought
us 9/11 and other nasty stuff before that.

I'll never forgive Bush for what he did to NASA. Did you know when
Pres Bush was gov of Texas, he was so close to Lockheed he tried
to force through a bill giving Lockheed the Texas ...welfare... program
to administer. Welfare? *And Cheney's wife was given a seat on the
board of Lockheed. Gee, I wonder what she knew about aerospace???

She likely knew how to buff her way to the top, better than most.


The two were obviously in bed with Lockheed long before they came
to DC. And given all that, Cheney was the original source of the Vision.
He got two of his jr staffers to type it up and only talked to Lockheed, not
NASA, about what the goal should be. It so f'ing corrupt. *You think
Cheney and Halliburton was absurd? At least Halliburton benefited from
Cheney corruption. His corruption left the manned program and NASA
in tatters.

What do Zionist Nazis care about leaving Earth, especially when
there's so much left to pillage, plunder and rape without ever leaving
LEO?


So Lockheed got to write their own ticket with the Vision, just like Bush
allowed big oil, big pharma big military etc etc to do the same thing.
And of course Lockheed said...."hell then, let's build some Saturn V's!"
"lunar landers and all that good 'ol stuff, ...un-reusable....un-low cost
...un-commercial and un-needed.

All the things that un-endear NASA to the public and Congress.

All the forward looking ideas, single stage to orbit, space ports,
space solar power etc all gone or militarized. Thanks to Lockheed
et all, and a Bush/Cheney administration that couldn't care less
except for how it effected Lockheed stock.

When Bush came into office, Locheed stock was about $30.
Three months before Bush left office it peaked at $120.
It's been crashing ever since Bush left.http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...asp?symb=lmt&s...

All I can say is thank god the Vision isn't going to happen
and waste the next twenty years too.

Jonathan

Now we get to see if our replacement warlord and his younger team of
wizards can still manage to pull any of those live rabbits out of that
same Republican bankrupted hat.

~ BG

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jonathan1 wrote:

You were right OM, here comes #3.

Howard Johnson
Rock Ridge


You're the one hanging with someone, OM, that's been
banned from just about every moderated ng and blog
around. I wonder why?

I'll never forget OM's timeless wisdom when he compared
blacks to ....Ice age men. Do you feel the same way Pat?
Just curious.


co.uk wrote in message

"Ice age Man lived quite peacably most of the time and looked after each other
as Mans survival was marginal and men absolutely relied on each other for
survival."

Just like Detroit and N.Y.C.



....Or LA, or Gary, or East St. Louis, or Detroit, or certain sections
of Chicago not controlled by the Blackstone Rangers.

OM

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


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...ry +author:om


s

On Aug 24, 3:59*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:41*pm, gabydewilde wrote:

On Aug 23, 6:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Exactly how much of the public funded Apollo era R&D, technology and
expertise was lost and/or stolen from us?

Here, this is worth seeing.

http://blog.go-here.nl/5768
The Case for Antigravity

My internet is only 0.1% fast enough. *Give me a link to the typed
context.

*~ BG

The author ( http://www.checktheevidence.com ) collected a lot of
science/governmental bits of info. Most of the sites where the
information comes from are gone. The original video footage doesn't
seem to be around either.

Half way the excursion there is a clip of some government gate keepers
discussing the technology to be used for the mars mission. They
mention various working concepts that do not exist officially.
Eventually they decide to stick with combustion / explosive based
technology. There is a silence while they gaze at another then they
laugh about it. One of them mentions he never seen a situation where
the worse technology is the best for the job.

They worked down the list, the best way to do it was considered to
fast, it would give the public the impression it was easy. The
downsides of burning solid state propellant was the lack of payload
and the much greater expenses. But from a "security" perspective they
decided to keep us in the illusion that space is something much much
to complicated to go to. Unless it is a nuclear gun ship of course.

They sit there at a public press conference laughing about how they
are going to keep us dumb about the technology.

:-(
____
http://blog.go-here.nl/spacecraft
http://blog.go-here.nl/spacetravel
http://blog.go-here.nl/antigravity

PS:

If you are on a slow connection. Can you see this?

http://waterauto.go-here.nl/andrija-puharich.avi

If you can get that to work I can dwarf the other video for you if you
like. It to me seems like reasonable resolution and reasonable
duration (1 hour) without much file size (25 mb)