NASA's long-running 'Cover Story' Comes to an End!

Bob Myers wrote:

Oh, good; I fondly remember the 1951 original, although it
certainly wasn't up to the level of, say, the original
"The Day The Earth Stood Still." But I'll be looking
forward to this remake.

I'm keen to see how they explain Alpha Centauri heading our way at a
speed that would get it here within any reasonable timeframe.
(Sign at the Ark construction site: "Only 296,734,538 days to Alpha
Centauri! Waste anything but time!")
Do you think it would be in poor taste to show up at the premiere in a
wheel chair and start yelling at the audience that you are richer than
all of them put together and you hope they all get burned to death when
Earth is destroyed, for there is no room for the filthy poor on the new
planet?

Pat

We shouldn't have to keep throwing
away all of our current launch vehicle assets every time a new mission is
proposed. �Saturn V was a dead end. �

Jeff
--


Saturn shouldnt of been a dead end.

Shuttle could of used saturn as LFBB.

Which would of left the saturn infrastructure for heavy
lifting.........

"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...

"
Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!


to paraphrase LBJ - only if you wish to go to sleep to the light of a
Chinese Moon.

At a fifth of the world population, it's only a matter of time.
But I rest easy at night knowing that the only way for the
Chinese to overtake us for any length of time is if they
become a free market democracy.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...
Well, I'm not optimistic. This sounds almost as romantic as a science
fiction story to me.

The one salient fact about humans is there is no real reason to go out
there and explore. Nobody seems to know why we want to do it. Because its
there, as many say about mountains, but I think, much like the so called
arts, exploration is something humans need to do. I don't know why, and if
its all boiled down to money then nobody would invent anything unless it
was salable.


I think there's plenty of reasons to explore the solar system, but I'm
impatient. I know that if you put a human explorer and robotic one
side by side the human wins hands down. But that isn't worth the
extra time. Robots get there much faster and cheaper, and their
abilities are ...good enough given the rapid march of electronics.


So, lets just say, we have evolved in the way we have, and are still doing
so. For whatever reason, we have succeeded by going to new places. We have
no idea if the strategy is still useful when applied to off planet, but at
the very least, lets remove the bean counting aspect and go do it.


I agree, it needs to be the world which does it. We really do not want to
create the divisive borders and territories we have here on earth again.
Maybe this is the reason we are driven, is it to get away from it all, or
to cooperate in a new society?

One thing to me is certain though. We need a better less energy wasteful
and dangerous way to get off planet. Maybe the physicists can actually
find the source of gravity and let us harness the force instead of
fighting it.


They have, it's called lift! Lift can get a ship out of the bulk of the
atmosphere anyways. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of
air dropped launching ends up being the cheapest and easiet way.



Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

President Obama ends NASA's Moon missions.
Leaving the US manned space program in limbo.

I believe this decision signals the end of an significant
fifty year long era in space policy.

Unfortunately, the notion this Space-Era was about exploring, or
colonizing or various forms of pure research are the result
of looking at the US Space Program through nebula-colored glasses.
The 'Hank-ian' view, as in Tom.

Grow up please!

The manned space program is, and always has been, a military oriented
program. The civilian cover stories of the early rocket days became
institutionalized.

The finish line in the cold-war race with the Soviets was unabashedly
on the Moon. And it would be again, but this time a missile defense
race to the Moon with the Chinese. This decision brings hope that the
next fifty years will NOT be defined by the incredibly wasteful and
dangerous military spending spree between the two richest nations
of the world. A cold-war that helped generate a world full of
negative-sum games, or one ..horror.. after another.

Now we have an opportunity to not just change the focus of space policy.
But to entirely change the nature of superpower competition.
From military to economic, to positive-sum games.

The difference between positive and negative sum interactions
between the superpowers is nothing less that the difference
between ....Barbaric and Civilized.

Thank God this era is over!

Our space policy now has the opportunity to turn itself towards the
needs of the many, instead of the military. Such as creating a new
energy future.

Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!


Jonathan


s

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

The manned space program is, and always has been, a military oriented
program. The civilian cover stories of the early rocket days became
institutionalized.

This is absolutely false.


Oh come on, both the US and China have at times used H3
as their 'cover stories' just recently for going to the Moon.
You can't see through the propaganda? NASA has floated
just about every reason it can think of to justify the
Moon, they were all attempts at cover stories, civilian
justifications for a military project.

Anytime a reason for doing something is created /after the fact/
it's a false story. Why not just tell us the original reason they used
before the project began? Either they had a different reason
for going to the Moon, or none at all, which is worse?


Jonathan

s





Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

President Obama ends NASA's Moon missions.
Leaving the US manned space program in limbo.

I believe this decision signals the end of an significant
fifty year long era in space policy.

Unfortunately, the notion this Space-Era was about exploring, or
colonizing or various forms of pure research are the result
of looking at the US Space Program through nebula-colored glasses.
The 'Hank-ian' view, as in Tom.

Grow up please!

The manned space program is, and always has been, a military oriented
program. The civilian cover stories of the early rocket days became
institutionalized.

The finish line in the cold-war race with the Soviets was unabashedly
on the Moon. And it would be again, but this time a missile defense
race to the Moon with the Chinese. This decision brings hope that the
next fifty years will NOT be defined by the incredibly wasteful and
dangerous military spending spree between the two richest nations
of the world. A cold-war that helped generate a world full of
negative-sum games, or one ..horror.. after another.

Now we have an opportunity to not just change the focus of space policy.
But to entirely change the nature of superpower competition.
From military to economic, to positive-sum games.

The difference between positive and negative sum interactions
between the superpowers is nothing less that the difference
between ....Barbaric and Civilized.

Thank God this era is over!

Our space policy now has the opportunity to turn itself towards the
needs of the many, instead of the military. Such as creating a new
energy future.

Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!


Jonathan


s

"Jonathan" wrote in message

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

"Jonathan" wrote in message

The manned space program is, and always has been, a military oriented
program. The civilian cover stories of the early rocket days became
institutionalized.

This is absolutely false.


Oh come on, both the US and China have at times used H3
as their 'cover stories' just recently for going to the Moon.
You can't see through the propaganda? NASA has floated
just about every reason it can think of to justify the
Moon, they were all attempts at cover stories, civilian
justifications for a military project.

Anytime a reason for doing something is created /after the fact/
it's a false story. Why not just tell us the original reason they used
before the project began? Either they had a different reason
for going to the Moon, or none at all, which is worse?


Jonathan

s

and as Sun Tsu states "all war is deception".
To ignore that obvious truth is to invite war.

I have no problem with inclusion to allay a countries fears.
Just don't send narrow minded politicos who scare easily and have no
expertise.
Well... maybe a painter or a poet or a musician... but only one! and fully
vetted!
grin

Graystar
--
Conformity
When people are free to do as they please,
they usually imitate each other.
This is commonly known as Crayfish behavior.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

One thing to me is certain though. We need a better less energy wasteful
and dangerous way to get off planet. Maybe the physicists can actually
find the source of gravity and let us harness the force instead of
fighting it.

They have, it's called lift! �Lift can get a ship out of the bulk of the
atmosphere anyways. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of
air dropped launching ends up being the cheapest and easiet way.


YES YES YES, a air launched gigantic airplane air dropping a mini
shuttle at the very top of the atmosphere minimizes taking fuel tanks
and infrastructure 90% of the way to orbit..

refuel the airplane repeatedly on the way up, to launch release
altitude.

military can use the same system, and a airliner that could hold a few
thousand, or jumbo cargo hauling has advantages too. mean bomber to
level a miss behaving country. nice replacement for B52s

cruising at 70,000 feet would make shoot downs hard, with precesion
guidance to target destrruction.

say 5 or 6 times the size of that largest russian plane. only thing is
it would rquire dedicated airports for operation

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"The Big DP" wrote in message
...

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:34:44 -0800, "The Big DP"
wrote:

Brian....you know that Bob is incapable of a measured OR mature
response.
Don't you?

...Dougie, where trolls like "jonathan" are concerned, such responses
are insufficient and actually have no effect. They're not here for
rational discourse, they're here to annoy, harass and otherwise troll.
Why many of you refuse to accept this and treat the pathetic maladroit
accordingly totally escapes me.

OM

Well Bobbie....just like with Bob H, or Brad or any of the other folks
who annoy me, I can choose to ignore them. It is SO amazingly easy to do
that I am surprised a person such as yourself hasn't tried it.


It only bugs me when OM doesn't respond. He's a very reliable
indicator of whether I hit a 'NASA' nerve or not. And that
statement isn't meant as reverse psychology either on OM, it's
true. He is a good barometer.


Jonathan

Jonathan....please I REALLY don't need your support.

No offense, but you're a troll.

Doug

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:34:25 -0800, "The Big DP"
wrote:

WHY do you insist on going least common denominator all the time?

...One other thing: Why is it that the only contributions you've made
to this group in the past few years are to berate me for trying to
chase trolls out of here? A sense of kinship for trolls like
"jonathan", perhaps?

OM

Robert,

Defend? Um no, Bob.

Here's the deal, dude, I have stated more than once that there's very little
of note to contribute by me. I don't have a huge store of material to cull
from like say Pat or Scott Lowther or even you, Bob. I COULD be a fan boi
and say things like Me, TOO! or cool, dude, or whatever, but that would be
tiresome. So, I lurk like I do most groups and just enjoy contributions from
most folks. Yeah, Brad Guth usually goes sight unseen because, if for
nothing else his sentence structure and his 'interesting' combination of
words tire me out. Jonathan is too long winded (like American) and way too
much of a conspiracy theory nut job for my taste. Bob Haller I've killed
because I am driven to distraction by his crappy typing....and on an on.

But, Bob, you're somewhat different. When you aren't ranting and raving
about someone or other, you have PLENTY of interesting things to say or you
come up with really cool links to things that interest me and the other
folks here. That's why I take the time to cajole you because, at least in my
viewpoint, YOU are someone of value you here. Yeah, I know, big deal.

But, Bob, if I were the only one who felt this way you could consider me a
nut job. But, as we both know, I am NOT the only encouraging you to stop
your egregious behavior. Hell, Pat's killfiled you for gosh sakes and that
seems to really annoy you.

Oh and kinship remark was REALLY below the belt....I enjoyed it, but
still.......

Doug