A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 23rd 06, 10:56 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

In article ,
jonathan wrote:
It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough
to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the
moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party.
Fat chance.


You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great
extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the
strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan
support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and
that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities
might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #22  
Old July 24th 06, 12:07 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

The big issues in the upcoming elections should be
immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming.

All are issues that favor the dems.


Well, that's good news regardless of what happens to NASA -- which I'm
thinking is of only marginal relevance to space development in the 21st
century anyway.

But, if global warming does become an important issue, then it could be
very good for space development. Perhaps NASA could be, at least
partly, directed to research & develop space solar power, and to deliver
this technology to the commercial sector as quickly as possible. Surely
some good would come of that.

Best,
- Joe
  #23  
Old July 24th 06, 01:26 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Blitzkreig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

The big issues in the upcoming elections should be
immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming.

All are issues that favor the dems.


Well, that's good news regardless of what happens to NASA -- which I'm
thinking is of only marginal relevance to space development in the 21st
century anyway.

But, if global warming does become an important issue, then it could be
very good for space development. Perhaps NASA could be, at least
partly, directed to research & develop space solar power, and to deliver
this technology to the commercial sector as quickly as possible. Surely
some good would come of that.

Best,
- Joe


Oh, what a bunch of drips you all are. Forget the mission objective,
and focus entirely on the money issue. Change the science, and
focus inward towards pin-headedness. Forgive the Communists,
and let Humanism rule the world. What a bunch of drips. Why
don't you all go back to living in earthen huts on the reservation
with your handwarmers and free marijuana and wait for Newton's
apple to hit you in the head again, and maybe a new age will
dawn in science. Or better yet, why don't you all go find a cave
to hide in until the next asteroid hits planet earth. You people
have become completely rused by liberalism. You're so duped,
you can't offer anything substantive, can you?

I think that black holes have invaded your conscious minds,
and sucked your brains out to "the other side". Your policies
speak of confusion and dumbfoundedness, because you feel
that you have been betrayed by your former ruse, so you resort
to "dumbing down" NASA instead of focusing on viable alterna-
tives. You guys just plain stink. Are you envious of Al Gore?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton? If the answer is yes, then you
have eaten the "green weenie" of environmentalism - Do you
believe that the Chinese will rule the earth? Then you are
definitely NOT a U.S. citizen, even if you try to act like one.

Do you think that the role of NASA has been corrupted by
the good people from within NASA? Think again, stupids, it's
by environmentalists like you - communists - the 'green party'
that capitalism is an evil sin that must be wiped off the face
of the earth. Nobody believes that by reducing capitalism,
we can improve the space-based R&D that will redefine the
environment in which we live. Competition for LEO infra-
structure for a bloated environmental satellite bureaucracy
can only tighten authoritarianism over the current PAC ene-
mies who have got too much to deal with already w/ fulfilling
the current vision, debunking any naysaying or defeatism on
your part. What a pity.

  #24  
Old July 24th 06, 01:32 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 403
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Blitzkreig wrote:

What a pity.


Such a dumb****.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
  #25  
Old July 24th 06, 01:35 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough
to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the
moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party.
Fat chance.


You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great
extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the
strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan
support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and
that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities
might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely.



The democrats have been pretty silent on Nasa for some time.
Their 04 platform didn't even mention Nasa. But the likes
of Barney Franks, a couple of weeks ago, got 169 votes
in the House in a failed amendment to stop funding for
early moon and mars planning.

But we shouldn't worry first about how things are now, we
should always think about how things should be in the
future.

In a perfect world....our scientists and engineers would all
pull together and come up with that big fix, that one
Big Idea, that would save the future of the planet
from global warming, energy nightmares and
constant war. And all that at once.

All I know is in that Big Idea somewhere will be
the sun and space. Everyone knows that, or at least
will believe it. And that is enough. Did Kennedy
solve all the problems of going to the moon before
announcing his goal? No, of course not. He initiated
a self organizing system from the inspiring and imaginative
goal he set. And let the solutions find themselves from
all the talent, urgency and excitement the goal
set in motion.

It's the goal that matters.

If not Nasa then who? It has to be Nasa.



Jonathan

s







--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |



  #26  
Old July 24th 06, 02:10 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 403
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

jonathan wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough
to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the
moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party.
Fat chance.

You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great
extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the
strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan
support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and
that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities
might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely.



The democrats have been pretty silent on Nasa for some time.
Their 04 platform didn't even mention Nasa. But the likes
of Barney Franks, a couple of weeks ago, got 169 votes
in the House in a failed amendment to stop funding for
early moon and mars planning.

But we shouldn't worry first about how things are now, we
should always think about how things should be in the
future.

In a perfect world....our scientists and engineers would all
pull together and come up with that big fix, that one
Big Idea, that would save the future of the planet
from global warming, energy nightmares and
constant war. And all that at once.

All I know is in that Big Idea somewhere will be
the sun and space. Everyone knows that, or at least
will believe it. And that is enough. Did Kennedy
solve all the problems of going to the moon before
announcing his goal? No, of course not. He initiated
a self organizing system from the inspiring and imaginative
goal he set. And let the solutions find themselves from
all the talent, urgency and excitement the goal
set in motion.

It's the goal that matters.

If not Nasa then who? It has to be Nasa.


It should be NASA and NOAA, but these are the Bush years.

They don't give a **** about anything but their jobs.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
  #28  
Old July 24th 06, 12:41 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
G. L. Bradford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth


"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Blitzkreig wrote:

What a pity.


Such a dumb****.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


Win and we will easily see -- again -- who the real "dumb****" was. Only
this time may be the last time of too many times even for such a country,
and such a civilization, as ours [was]. Remember, Tip O'Neill said there was
no going back, no getting back, no backing up or backing out, anymore.
Deliberately made so: No room whatsoever to maneuver left anymore.
Deliberately made so: No margin whatsoever for error left anymore.
Conservatives own them all now. All the maneuver room. All the margins for
error. Made so by Liberalism. The cost of continuously promising and never
even coming close to delivering "A Better World" on Earth. The cost of
accelerating the whole world ever farther from it, confusing, complicating,
frustrating, angering, ever larger numbers of people, every time your in
power.

GLB


  #29  
Old July 24th 06, 02:02 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

In article m,
"greysky" wrote:
Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely
rejected:

"You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..."

Or this one:

"NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our
Stuff to wherever the money comes from."




"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...=7a71420a9103f
ea3&hp=&ex=1153627200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&ad xnnlx=1153543120-I5g0T4aFiti
KrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7



Unfortunately, NASA has become "UPS in Space."
  #30  
Old July 24th 06, 02:28 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics
Andy Resnick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw


http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7


I don't understand- you are surprised that a government agency is acting
like a government agency? Or did you think NASA is, for some reason,
different than every other government agency?

How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA
or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that the
administration believes should be (de-)funded.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 [email protected] History 0 January 28th 06 01:42 AM
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 28th 06 01:42 AM
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 [email protected] News 0 January 28th 06 01:41 AM
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 May 26th 05 04:47 PM
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 [email protected] History 0 March 25th 05 04:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.