John Glenn Loses his Soul

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:04:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

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.

Then what kind of help should NASA have been providing? What should
NASA have been doing in aeronautics in the last decade that it didn't
do? Did Boeing really need NASA's help to make an A380-class airliner?
Or Sonic Cruiser?

Brian

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:43:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

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.

Then what kind of help should NASA have been providing? What should
NASA have been doing in aeronautics in the last decade that it didn't
do?

It should have been performing research in significantly reducing, if
not eliminating, shock, instead of funding Son of Concorde.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102403B.html

Did Boeing really need NASA's help to make an A380-class airliner?
Or Sonic Cruiser?

No, and no.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Is it his fantasy or his fear? It looks to like the later and it
seems all to likely. That I have the fear doesn't mean I
don't hope for things to get off the ground and on their
way to Mars and beyond.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
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!

??

jeez, rand.

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message thlink.net...
"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.


BTW, it would seem John Kerry, Mike W. and I violate your argument
that Democrats do not support Space stuff.

And I wonder if this was POTUS Kerry's space plan and some
ex-congressman from the GOP had given the same critic of it as Glenn
has where you would stand on the issue. I suspect you would be
praising him for his great insights.

--Chris Vancil

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in message ...
In article k.net,
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
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.

Both Glenn and O'Keefe can take a one-way trip to the moon, Mars, or
LEO for all I care. But don't worry, in the next 20 years there won't
be a moonbase, there won't be a manned mission to Mars, and the space
station will go nowhere. 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.

As recently as 3-4 years ago people on sci.space.* groups told me
that the Chinese would not put up a manned flight. I tend to doubt
predictions about the future, even near future, of spaceflight
made on Usenet since then.

Meanwhile unmanned missions continue to succeed spectacularly.

Success is determined by political reaction basically. And I
don't mean in the Democrat vs. Republican sense but in the
sense that if the voters and policy makers are happy then
NASA (or whoever is putting up a flight) is allowed to add
money to their pension fund, dental plan, company picnics,
office air conditioning, bi-weekly pay and so on.

-McDaniel

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:01:31 -0800, in a place far, far away, "William
A. Noyes" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Is it his fantasy or his fear?

No, it's his fantasy. He doesn't like the manned space program.

"CL Vancil" wrote in message
om...
BTW, it would seem John Kerry, Mike W. and I violate your argument
that Democrats do not support Space stuff.

I'll add my support to that.

And I wonder if this was POTUS Kerry's space plan and some
ex-congressman from the GOP had given the same critic of it as Glenn
has where you would stand on the issue. I suspect you would be
praising him for his great insights.

Mr. Whittington only sees party, not reality.

-Kim-

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
It should have been performing research in significantly reducing, if
not eliminating, shock, instead of funding Son of Concorde.

You mean doing stuff like this?

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Ne...003/03-50.html

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 18:16:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
It should have been performing research in significantly reducing, if
not eliminating, shock, instead of funding Son of Concorde.

You mean doing stuff like this?

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Ne...003/03-50.html

No.

They're on the wrong track. That just reduces the boom somewhat (and
I've never seen any reports that quantify how much reduction they're
getting). I'm talking about eliminating the shock and associated wave
drag.