Bush to announce new missions to moon

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: If the centers were built in 1961 when were they planned? MSFC has already
: been shown to be dedicated by Ike in 1960.

: Both MSFC (Marshall) and KSC were fairly straightforward site
: selections, as MSFC took advantage of the existing US Army Redstone
: Arsenal, and KSC took advantage of the nearby Cape. So it isn't
: surprising that NASA facilities there appeared relatively quickly.

: MSC (Manned Spacecraft Center, now Johnson Space Center)
: was a much more complex site selection. The main factors were a
: temperate climate that allowed good year-round operations and nearby
: university-class research and library facilities. Houston was selected
: with a site at Rice University. Kennedy's "We choose to go to the
: moon..." speech was at the groundbreaking for MSC at Rice in September
: 1962.

Yes, you would thought he was loved in Texas.

: Carter continues to do more than all ex-GOP presidents do combined.

: Carter is very showy, but what exactly has he actually *done*? He won
: a Nobel Peace Prize for, um, not achieving peace anywhere that I know
: of. Ford was always just the "interim president", so he's never
: commanded more than just mild respect.

Ford was on the Warren Commission and swears by the outcome. uh-huh...

Reagan, of course, has been in
: very poor health since shortly after leaving office. Bush 41 didn't
: exactly set the world on fire during the Clinton years, agreed,
: although he's been somewhat more visible since his son became
: President. Clinton hasn't done much during the Bush 43 administration.

We'll have to wait and see.

Eric

: Brian

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: : Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: :
: : : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : Why NIH and DOD and not NASA?
: :
: : : More vocal constituents, and more money spent in more
Congressional
: : : districts.
: :
: : : Right, leave them as contractor employees and instead of
building
: the
: : war
: : : machine bigger than it needs to be
: :
: : : Exactly how big, in terms of personnel (which are the real
cost),
: should
: : it
: : : be? Please provide verifiable documentation for your number.
: :
: : Lets say we continue all space exploration and add the moon base?
It
: could
: : be donein 10 years if we double the NASA budget and reduce the DOD
: budget
: : by the same numbers.
:
: : *Once again* you are assuming that the value of services provided by
the
: DOD
: : are less than what NASA could provide for the same money.
:
: I assume nothing here. I am passing judgement. And I stand behind it.

: Based on what?

Well The moon landing was probably the biggest achievement for the US
since WWII. The former happened in 1969 the later in 1945. Korea, VietNam,
the Gulf War pale in comparison to Apollo. We need defense but we need
space more.

We need to educate kids even more than we need space. If it's a matter of
priorities, why haven't you suggested that we gut NASA and give it to
education?

: : You haven't shown
: : that the DOD would still be able to perform its job just as well by
: cutting
: : its budget,
:
: EVERY other aspect of life that costs money is going through that
right
: now as per the GOP leadership, why does the DOD get a pass? Could it
be
: that it is their grand social program??

: Why should the DOD get a pass? That doesn't answer my question. Why are
: *you* concentrating so much on the DOD, as opposed to social programs?

The DOD has a $402 billion budget. It is a good place to start when
reallocating funds.

Why? NASA can spend a dollar from the Department of Education just as easily
as it could a dollar from the Department of Defense. You *still* haven't
shown why, if your intent is *merely* to provide more money for NASA, it is
more important to damage the ability of the country to defend itself rather
than eliminate expensive vote-buying programs such as Medicare, which also
has a budget many times the size of NASA.

: What's *your* agenda?

No agenda. Just trying to show that the GOP likes social programs too. And
their pet is the DOD. It is way bigger than it needs to be.

*Exactly* how big does it need to be? Please provide your verifiable
references.

There is
enough for it AND space.

Perhaps, but you haven't taken into account how much of the DOD budget is
already allocated to space. Suppose, as a result of the cuts you have yet to
justify, the DOD then decides to stop funding the range safety equipment
around KSC? That would put NASA out of the space business for years, since
NASA would then need to build its own equipment and unnecessarily duplicate
what's already there. It also eliminates the unmanned program, since the ELV
launch pads don't belong to NASA.

: : and that the value produced by adding those funds to NASA would
: : be at least as much as the value lost by cutting DOD.
:
: Yes, I think you are catching on?

: No, since you didn't answer my question. I'd like to see your
*evidence*.

Reread above regarding VietNam and Korea and Apollo.

You didn't provide a single verifiable cite. Please provide some *evidence*.

: : Instead of cutting
: : DOD, why not cut Medicare by that same amount?
:
: Because the babyboomers are NOW becoming seniors. Cutting medicare
will
: effect they babyboomers getting older too much.

: If the mission is to add money to NASA, why should that matter?

Because other things matter, too. It is not about going about getting
funds in a blind dogged manner.

Yet you continue to insist that DOD be raided, without any justification.

: Why not actually become the kinder and gentler nation that Bush Sr.
: claimed we should be?

: If *that* is your mission, then why not cut NASA and transfer that money
to
: social programs?

What social programs do you have in mind?

*I* don't have any in mind. I'm asking you why you insist that the *DOD* be
cut, when the budget for social programs dwarfs that of the DOD. Wouldn't we
be even more of a kinder and gentler nation if we scrapped NASA and gave the
money to social programs? We might not be in space, but there will be a lot
more people who feel good about themselves.

Besides $15 billion is not
enough to run a space program.

Depends on what you want to do. It's not enough to go to the moon and Mars
and have a space station and still do science.

: : : let's expand the space exploration
: : : initiative. Not political talk to appease moderates during an
: election
: : : year, but actually do it!
: :
: : : When *you* write a big enough check, it will happen.
:
: : Naw, when the Chinese write a big enough check it will happen.
:
: : I don't see China paying for the US space program. They are better
off
: : building components and having us pay for them, which is in part
what
: they
: : do anyway.
:
: China will develop their own space program.

: Then why would you expect China to write a check for the American
program?

I'm not.

THen why, when I said it will happen when *you* write a big enough check,
did you say (as quoted above) "Naw, when the Chinese write a big enough
check it will happen."?

What I am saying is that when China builds their space program we
will then react and build up ours.

If "we" react, then "we" will be writing the checks, which makes *my*
statement correct.

: The reactionary right will
: want to start another space race as a result.

: I don't see any evidence that any part of the China political spectrum
wants
: to start a space race.

Agreed. But we will once they get started.

The "reactionary right" in China doesn't have a space program, so I don't
see them getting started any time soon.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:19:16 -0500, Scott Hedrick wrote:

There's a
real problem with insisting that "affordable housing" also comply with every
building code that anyone could possibly think of. Houses constructed
according to the building codes *are* "affordable housing"- they are simply
priced out of the range of most people.

Good idea, let's exempt "affordable housing" from the building codes, if
the houses fall or burn down, this is good since it will serve to
"decrease the excess population."

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:
GSFC was conceived under Eisenhower, by NASA's first management. It was
meant to be *the* NASA spaceflight center... Langley, Lewis,
and Ames would stick to aviation, and would not get distracted by space.

...You also omitted Flight Research Center, formerly the High Speed
Flight Test Station, and eventually Dryden Flight Research Center...

That's because it wasn't mentioned in the source I was tapping. Which is
not surprising, because this was early 1959, and That Place Out In The
Desert :-) wasn't a Center yet, and so wasn't the social equal :-) of the
older Centers. That changed in September 1959.

And while I'm commenting, I should correct a more subtle but more serious
mistake I made in my posting. The distinction wasn't aviation/aeronautics
vs. space, but research vs. operations. Note that the three old places I
mentioned (and Dryden!) are not just Centers, but Research Centers, and in
the early days of NASA that was intended to be quite significant.

The N.A.C.A. did research in aeronautics -- the technology of building
and operating aircraft -- and that was *all* it did. It didn't build
aircraft, except occasionally as research tools. It didn't run an
airline, not even a research-oriented one. It didn't, so to speak, do air
research, never mind air travel -- the fact that your research had to be
done in the air did not make it of interest to the N.A.C.A., not even if
your research was about the air itself. (In fact, even within its field
it didn't fund outside researchers to any extent; its research was done at
its own labs by its own staff.)

Early NASA management came from within the old N.A.C.A., and wanted to
preserve the research orientation of the old Centers, even if they were
now going to do astronautics as well as aeronautics. NASA had a mandate
to do operations as well as research -- build and launch rockets, build
operational spacecraft, do space science -- but management wanted to
cleanly separate that from the traditional research work. So that side of
NASA was going to be at Goddard, which was a Space Flight Center, not a
Research Center.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Not space, but many other things like habitat for the homeless
projects
: and the like.

: This is completely off-topic, but related to the above comment. There's
a
: real problem with insisting that "affordable housing" also comply with
every
: building code that anyone could possibly think of. Houses constructed
: according to the building codes *are* "affordable housing"- they are
simply
: priced out of the range of most people. It isn't possible to continually
: jack up the requirements and expect the price of the home to go down. If
I
: can't make a profit, I don't have any incentive to build. Most so-called
: "affordable housing" projects aren't- the true cost is subsidized
through
: government programs, which only means that someone else other than the
: purchaser is forced at the point of a gun (don't pay your taxes and see
if
: the people who come to take you away don't have guns) to pay part of the
: cost of the house. Houses that are perfectly adequate and far better
than
: what most of the planet survives with are considered "substandard", and
: often can't be sold without spending unjustifiable amounts of money to
: rehab. Sorry, Eric, but Bush didn't cause this. It really began to crank
up

I never said that he did.

I never said that you said he did. You have an as-yet-unexplained dislike of
him, and blame him for a great many things that he had nothing to do with.

: in so-called liberal areas, such as California. There's a reason why
people
: can't afford housing. While the excuse is safety, the real reason for
: restrictive building codes is to keep out the riff-raff, defined as
anyone
: who can't afford what the powers-that-be and their constituents think a
: person should be able to afford.

And that is a "liberal" thing?

The tremendous increase in restrictive building codes began in traditionally
liberal areas of California in the mid-60s. How ironic that the areas that
are so proud of their *inclusiveness* began to find ways to *exclude* those
with less money. Witness Barbara Streisand's recent losing lawsuit over
pictures of her home. The judge's dismissal was very interesting. I read it
on thesmokinggun.com, about a month ago.

I sort of thought that rich, be they
conservative or liberal, didn't want riff-raff living next door.

"Rich" and "riff-raff" are relative terms in this case. For example, in
Florida now a window must be able to withstand being hit by a 2x4 travelling
at 34 miles per hour. This has added at least $1000 to the average home,
without adding any real safety. Particularly in the Miami area, restrictions
were placed on the use of staples to apply base roofing paneling. The *real*
problem was ****-poor workmanship, since a properly-applied staple provides
better holding power than a similarly-sized nail. However, it takes more
skill to apply the staple properly, and it takes a worker who actually cares
about doing the job right. There is instant audio feedback if the staple is
applied wrong. The fact is, if the steps were taken to fix the real problem
were taken, a lot of people wouldn't have been reelected. It's easier to
pretend to do something by blaming the materials, since they don't vote and
blaming an object means that nobody has to take personal responsibility.
There's nothing unique about this process- after all, it's not really
different that what happened with Challenger.

Correct
me if I'm wrong on this.

Consider yourself corrected. "Rich" isn't really the issue, since even poor
folks look down on those who are even poorer than themselves, and live in
poorer housing. It's a very subtle form of discrimination, since the people
making these rules genuinely believe they are making things better by
eliminating "substandard" housing (i.e., housing that isn't at least as good
as theirs), even though that has the effect of preventing some people from
becoming homeowners. The assumption often is that folks will automatically
be able to pony up the money for "better" housing (and those that can't are
riff-raff).

: I recently read an article on the Christian Science Monitor's website
about
: the use of shipping containers for low-cost housing. With the trade
deficit,
: they are just piling up at ports. They are sturdy and could be turned
into
: living quarters for a few thousand dollars. They would sure beat living
: under a bridge, but they suffer from one problem: somewhere, someone
would
: cry about the "dignity" of the homeless, and how wrong it would be to
: "force" someone to live in a home that is anything less than what Donald
: Trump lives in. This will get enough media play that eventually the idea
: would be dropped. Somehow it's more dignified to live in a cardboard box
: than in a rehabbed former shipping crate with indoor plumbing and
heaters.

Nice long winded compliant. Is there a solution in there anywhere?

The use of converted shipping containers would help solve both the
affordable housing problem *and* the buildup of empty shipping containers.
It's a plausible, practical and fairly inexpensive solution to a real
problem, but it won't happen because it isn't politically correct.

More
homeless and more creative ways for them to make their own homes?

Heck, I've considered using one as a reasonably portable office. It just
happens to cost a little bit more for transport than it would cost me to
build a room addition, since I'm about 150 miles away from the nearest port.
However, to take a 40 foot shipping container and convert it into two or
even three small but decent apartments would cost a lot less than building
from scratch, and have the advantage of being portable when the time comes
to use the land for something else.

: My point is that even though he wasn't the greatest
: president, he's become quite a good ex-president.

: Yes, he has.

: As for the others (GOP),
: well I just bought Gerald Ford's joke book about the presidency, so
I'll
: refrain from judgement about him just yet.

: He's busy whacking his balls these days. He's turned into an old duffer.

Must be tough towing the lie about the Warren report as he does.

He just ties it to the golf cart.

: Two shuttles blew up and they happened on the wathes of the GOP.

: But they were *built* under the Carter watch.

: Christ, do you see working with the Russians in space as a liability?

: The evidence clearly shows that it *is*. They don't have the money to
keep
: their promises, and many of the flaws of ISS comes directly from
depending
: on the Russians. One of the *first things* that needed to be done to the
: Russian work was to install sound mufflers on fans because they were too
: loud and out of spec. Don't the Russians have sound meters? Shouldn't
they
: have figured out that their module was too loud while it was on the
ground?
: If something so clearly obvious was missed, what other things were?

Well, that they are the only ones that can get us to ISS and back at
present.

Which says nothing whatsoever about the substantial costs incurred as a
direct result of depending on this "partner". It's not an issue so much with
their space program as it is with their government. Of course, since the
Russians seem to have started with a tax system that makes the US income tax
look like a kindergarten primer and no enforcement system in place, I
understand why the government has a hard time funding the program. This
should have been accounted for before involving the Russians in critical
path elements.

: Did W mention his space plan last night in the SOU at all?!?!

: Yes. It just wasn't- and rightfully so- the most important thing he had
to
: say last night, since he had already recently presented it.

When did he address space in the SOU?

Read the transcript. It was briefly mentioned. I don't think he expended
more than two sentences on it, but that was more than enough considering how
soon it's been since he gave his space speech.

You really can't feel REAL confident
with these days can you?

Far, *FAR* more confident than I would have under a Gore administration.

Remember this- the *Democrats* haven't ever done anything for you.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Better to have them with us in space rather than at odds in a cold war,
no?

Better to have them not involved with us in space at all than to become
dependent on them for critical path elements that they can't deliver.

Make "them" = US and "us" = Europe and it still holds.

Would it now? I kind of think his lack of mentioning space makes the
speech six days earlier more the suspect.

Why? Mentioning it in the State of the Union speech would have been
redundant, since he had just talked about it in far more depth a few days
before. Space was and should have been pretty far down the list of
importance in things to talk about in the State of the Union.

Right now, there are more important issues facing the United States.
Government spending on space is a luxury, albeit one that would be among the
last I'd cut. NASA isn't being funded enough for the programs it already
has. Far better to leave it alone than to toss an ever greater burden on
NASA while adding pocket change to the budget. This is hardly a Republican
issue- since the 60s the Federal government has been adding serious unfunded
mandates to the state and local governments, now it's doing the same to
itself.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Ford was on the Warren Commission and swears by the outcome. uh-huh...

Unless and until *you personally* are able to provide real evidence to the
contrary, then there's no reason not to accept it. Anecdotes and "what ifs"
do not constitute evidence.

: President. Clinton hasn't done much during the Bush 43 administration.

We'll have to wait and see.

Nono, he's doing fine as he is. I'm surprise we haven't seen him playing his
sax more. He's not bad at all, especially for having so little time to
practice while he was in office. Some people condemned him for playing on
Arsenio Hall's show, but I saw it as a good thing.

"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:19:16 -0500, Scott Hedrick wrote:

There's a
real problem with insisting that "affordable housing" also comply with
every
building code that anyone could possibly think of. Houses constructed
according to the building codes *are* "affordable housing"- they are
simply
priced out of the range of most people.

Good idea, let's exempt "affordable housing" from the building codes, if
the houses fall or burn down, this is good since it will serve to
"decrease the excess population."

That's one way to think of it, if you want to keep people from getting into
their own homes. If your goal is to help people become homeowners, then you
*don't* keep doing things that increase the cost of building, particularly
things that feel good but add little or nothing to the safety of the home,
such as increasing minimum lot sizes.

If a builder cannot make a profit, then there's no incentive for the builder
to build. There's also something wrong with forcing taxpayers to fund the
construction of private homes. Without the subsidy, however, it's impossible
to build housing that complies fully with the housing codes and also is
priced so that those with low incomes can afford them in most areas. Because
of these "feel good" policies, many people are forced to remain renters. The
government insists on serving champaign to people who can barely afford
beer. This effectively calls the people who can only afford beer
"riff-raff".

In part, in the background for the role playing game Cyberpunk 2020, this is
what led to great numbers of the technical staff of the space habitats to
come from third-world areas: people who were willing to learn, some of whom
had technical training, and were willing to work cheap for a better life
than they could afford on Earth.

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Not quite right. Historically, KSC does test and launch, MSFC does rocket
: : engineering, JSC does manned spacecraft engineering. The lines have
: : blurred a bit over time, especially on the space station...
:
: Blurred. indeed, but wasn't their a big push about 10 years ago to go back
: to traditional roles?

: There was a certain amount of that, but I'm not sure how successful it
: was. It's easier said than done. For example, one big stumbling block
: is that it's been many years since there was much *demand* for MSFC's
: traditional role.

As I remember it, both JSC and MSFC laid claim to ISS. JSC won out due to
being traditionally connected to mission control. When that happened MSFC
was ticked to say the least and took what was left of GSFC's manned work,
Spacelab. As a result of trying to heal wounds, the "traditional role"
aspect was reemphasized.

: : Aren't these the ones that will most benefit
: : from the current space policy set forth by W Bush?
: : Unless drastic changes are made, yes.
:
: The changes? That would be voting W out of office, right?

: The drastic changes I was thinking of would be within NASA, e.g. starting
: a new center to do manned exploration.

Why not share the load? There seems to be this occillation effect with
contracts, i.e. Centralized contracts are too big and hard to manage,
split them up. Followed by, these split up contracts are spread out too
far and it makes managing them is too difficult, let's centralize them.
I have seen several cycles.

The point is that your premise might get challenged to start out seperate.
Either way, an occillation will occure seems to be the reality of things.

: Wasn't there a decision to spread the NASA centers around the US so as not
: to have one state be the only pro-NASA state and the others be anti or at
: least not pro as they gained nothing by it?

: Not so much a conscious decision as just an awareness that it's generally
: the right thing to do. This is something politicians have known for a
: long time.

Others claim that the decision wasn't political but practical. I'm
inclined to believe both.

: Centralization of NASA's spaceflight work might conceivably have happened,
: even so, if Redstone Arsenal had been located on the East Coast, instead
: of inland. Then it probably would have had its own launch facilities,
: instead of relying on the USAF's. The presence of the rocket engineering
: group at the launch site, in turn, would have encouraged putting the
: spacecraft engineering group either there or at least nearby.

A slight change in subject here, but how does Wallops Island fit into all
this? I understand they have an unmanned lauch facility there as well. I
guess it is sort of like Vandenburg out west, less being part of the DOD?
I do believe that near by Chincoteague, VA has a Navy facility, though,
but not(?) connected? NOAA has a presence there as well.

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
: since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

wlhaught ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
:
: Because the babyboomers are NOW becoming seniors. Cutting medicare
: will
: effect they babyboomers getting older too much.
:

: Around 2008 they'll be pot-smoking, no-more-nukes Trotsky socialists
: all over again, unlike their peak earning years (30-60 years of age).
: This version of conservatism seems self-serving and mean-spirited.
: Can't we find an alternative to the Communism-Fascism continuum?
: That's right, Boomers and the previous loud generation between the GI
: generation and the Boomers are the "Youth on a Pendulum"

I have absolutely no idea what you said.

Eric