Space shuttles carry two tons of lead blocks to compensate for designerror

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:18:21 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Yes, right.

Back when George Bush was governor of Texas, he persuaded the Clinton
administration to cancel X-33, so that several years later, he could
arrange for the Columbia to be blown up, and then, after a couple more
years, issue a major contract to Lockheed for the crew module of the
new moon mission that resulted.



"Many viewed this vehicle as the latest bright hope for a single-stage-to-orbit
approach to human spaceflight-a concept that seems simple enough but has
eluded the U.S. for decades. The space agency also killed Orbital Sciences'
X-34 vehicle, seen by some observers as a more modest and realistic
approach to finding a new way to get astronauts aloft."

Many were clueless, like you.

"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin has acknowledged that the agency really
"had no choice," given the Bush administration's decision to clamp a
$14.5-billion limit on the agency's budget for FY02, leaving a $1-billion
shortfall in funding for the International Space Station."
http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...hiveIssueID=13

And the evidence that this was because the Bush administration wanted
to kill the nonsensical X-33 program to provide Lockheed with a lunar
program is...?

On Dec 14, 9:10�pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:
:military has had a 2 stage to orbit for years, using a airliner for
:first stage.
:
:all black ops, we are redicovering the wheel for no reason

You're just really not quite sane, are you?

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

news of this leaked out after columbia disaster, shakey but possible
info the crew could of been rescued.

incidently it was discussed here. thats where my info came from

" wrote:

:On Dec 14, 9:10?pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: " wrote:
:
: :
: :military has had a 2 stage to orbit for years, using a airliner for
: :first stage.
: :
: :all black ops, we are redicovering the wheel for no reason
:
: You're just really not quite sane, are you?
:
: --
: "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
: ?only stupid."
: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Heinrich Heine
:
:news of this leaked out after columbia disaster, shakey but possible
:info the crew could of been rescued.
:

Credible cite?

:
:incidently it was discussed here. thats where my info came from
:

Yes, but you shouldn't believe everything Ian Random Loon posts to
Usenet. The fact that a loon might have posted it once is *NOT* a
'cite' when you bring it up a second time.

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

On Dec 14, 5:27*pm, " wrote:
military has had a 2 stage to orbit for years, using a airliner for
first stage.

all black ops, we are redicovering the wheel for no reason

More Haller BS

wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 9:10?pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:
:military has had a 2 stage to orbit for years, using a airliner for
:first stage.
:
:all black ops, we are redicovering the wheel for no reason

You're just really not quite sane, are you?

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

news of this leaked out after columbia disaster, shakey but possible
info the crew could of been rescued.

incidently it was discussed here. thats where my info came from

wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 9:10?pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:
:military has had a 2 stage to orbit for years, using a airliner for
:first stage.
:
:all black ops, we are redicovering the wheel for no reason

You're just really not quite sane, are you?

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

news of this leaked out after columbia disaster, shakey but possible
info the crew could of been rescued.

incidently it was discussed here. thats where my info came from




Ummm, West Wing ain't a documentary.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:18:21 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Yes, right.

Back when George Bush was governor of Texas, he persuaded the Clinton
administration to cancel X-33, so that several years later, he could
arrange for the Columbia to be blown up, and then, after a couple more
years, issue a major contract to Lockheed for the crew module of the
new moon mission that resulted.



"Many viewed this vehicle as the latest bright hope for a
single-stage-to-orbit
approach to human spaceflight-a concept that seems simple enough but has
eluded the U.S. for decades. The space agency also killed Orbital Sciences'
X-34 vehicle, seen by some observers as a more modest and realistic
approach to finding a new way to get astronauts aloft."

Many were clueless, like you.

"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin has acknowledged that the agency really
"had no choice," given the Bush administration's decision to clamp a
$14.5-billion limit on the agency's budget for FY02, leaving a $1-billion
shortfall in funding for the International Space Station."
http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...hiveIssueID=13

And the evidence that this was because the Bush administration wanted
to kill the nonsensical X-33 program to provide Lockheed with a lunar
program is...?


I guess you're not aware of the long standing relationships between
Lockheed and Bush. With Bush, what Lockheed wants, Lockheed
gets. So let's just ask; what does Lockheed want? And then let's
see how much of it they....got.

There were two very large lobbying efforts in favor of the Vision
and another moon shot. The two largest and most noticeable were

The Coalition for Space Exploration, and The Citizens for Space Exploration.

The Coalition for Space Exploration

About the Coalition
The Coalition for Space Exploration is a diverse group of companies,
nonprofit organizations, trade associations and unions dedicated to
supporting the nation's Vision for Space Exploration, which will
ensure America remains a leader in space, science and technology -
key factors that create jobs, promote the nation's economy, contribute
to our national security, and gratify humanity's need to explore.
For more information please visit
http://www.spacecoalition.com.

Sounds innocent enough, but the old saying....'follow the money'
shows much more.

So who are these guys that so vigorously champion the Vision?
Their member list is here.
http://www.spacecoalition.com/Member.cfm

How we are organized:

Co-Chairs: Michelle Robbins (Lockheed Martin)
Roselee Roberts (Boeing)

Funny about that~ Look which name is on top!

And what is it they /brag about/ and clearly want???

2004 Accomplishments:
Full Support for Vision in Sen. Authorization Bill
Nearly Full Funding in Senate Appropriations Bill
Victory in Final Appropriation Conference Bill
$16.2B for NASA
-Supportive Words on Vision
- Flexibility & Latitude for NASA in
Implementation of Vision


And the other major pro-vision Lobby is The Citizens for Space Exploration.


Who are these guys, and what do they want???

"The Citizens for Space Exploration mission is to promote awareness
of the benefits of human space exploration and support for NASA
and the US Space Exploration Policy.
Citizens is a multi-state organization comprised of U.S. taxpayers who
support America's investment in space exploration. We are private citizens,
small business owners, students, teachers, space and non-space
business representatives, and county and municipal officials.


Sounds innocent enough, until you dig and dig to find out
who runs the thing. And guess who that might be?

The CSE Committee is chaired by Joe Mayer, senior manager of
Business Development for Lockheed Martin
http://www.citizensforspaceexploration.org/dctrip.htm


Funny about that too~ So I guess we know who is behind
all the lobbying for the Vision, yes it's Lockheed.

Lockheed has spent millions since '04 pushing hard for the Vision.
That is indisputable. Bush is in bed with Lockheed that is also
indisputable. Lockheed got exactly what they've been lobbying
for, that is indisputable.

As for what, who and how all this came to be is something only
those behind the oval and smoke-filled rooms know.

But it's rather obvious to anyone that Lockheed has been calling
the shots with our space policy since day one with the Bush
administration. I mean grow up Rand.
With Bush, big business calls the shots.
And with NASA the elephant is Lockheed.


Jonathan


s

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:54:24 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin has acknowledged that the agency really
"had no choice," given the Bush administration's decision to clamp a
$14.5-billion limit on the agency's budget for FY02, leaving a $1-billion
shortfall in funding for the International Space Station."
http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...hiveIssueID=13

And the evidence that this was because the Bush administration wanted
to kill the nonsensical X-33 program to provide Lockheed with a lunar
program is...?


I guess you're not aware of the long standing relationships between
Lockheed and Bush. With Bush, what Lockheed wants, Lockheed
gets.

So, if Lockheed (by the way, in case you haven't been able to keep up,
it's Lockheed Martin) was so "in bed with Bush," why didn't they get
both X-33 and the lunar mission?

Geez, what an idiot you are.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:54:24 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin has acknowledged that the agency really
"had no choice," given the Bush administration's decision to clamp a
$14.5-billion limit on the agency's budget for FY02, leaving a $1-billion
shortfall in funding for the International Space Station."
http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...hiveIssueID=13

And the evidence that this was because the Bush administration wanted
to kill the nonsensical X-33 program to provide Lockheed with a lunar
program is...?


I guess you're not aware of the long standing relationships between
Lockheed and Bush. With Bush, what Lockheed wants, Lockheed
gets.

So, if Lockheed (by the way, in case you haven't been able to keep up,
it's Lockheed Martin) was so "in bed with Bush," why didn't they get
both X-33 and the lunar mission?

Geez, what an idiot you are.


You have no business or political common sense at all.

Are you asking me why wouldn't Lockheed want to develop
the technology that allows start-ups to take over the launch
business? Is that what you're asking???

Are you asking me why Lockheed would rather have
a long term highly exclusive and very expensive project
like the Vision instead???

Please tell me you're not asking questions with such
obvious answers.


s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


Ya know, every time you try to argue with me, I just murder you.
Time and time, so why do you keep trying?

Are you a masochist?