.....Griffin Announces "To the Moon and Mars" a Religious Quest !!!

Remarks by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin at the
National Space Symposium
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189


"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
an act of faith, not an act of science."


Oh my God!


Main Entry: 1faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
:
a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF in faith : without doubt or question :
VERILY




I was afraid it would boil down to this. Verily we go!

Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.
A mish-mash of small reasons, and inappropriate
historical analogies. A little something for everyone.
Nothing substantial for any of us.

Hasn't science always taught us that the truth of
an idea lies in it's simplicity? His compilation of
numerous small reasons are the opposite of that.

Where's the big idea the public can rally around?

As usual the world has it all backwards.
We should use science and rational thought
to design our /goal/. Then have faith we'll figure
out how to accomplish it. I have infinite faith
that our scientists will come up with the needed
breakthroughs for any ...rational...goal.

I have no faith whatsoever that scientists can
design a religious quest. They are not qualified.

The people should decide the goal.


Jonathan




"HE preached upon "breadth" till it argued him narrow,
The broad are too broad to define:
And of "truth" until it proclaimed him a liar,-
The truth never flaunted a sign.

Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
As gold the pyrites would shun.
What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
To meet so enabled a man! "



E Dickinson



s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.

If he had any power to accomplish this, then it might be impressive. *You*
have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and have done so again.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"jonathan" wrote in message
...
Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.

If he had any power to accomplish this, then it might be impressive. *You*
have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and have done so again.


Just remember, in the Jupiter and Saturn systems, there is always a
full moon.

8-0

-Rusty

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.


If he had any power to accomplish this, then it might be impressive. *You*
have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and have done so again.

At least he has something to say,

as opposed to you ...

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

jonathan wrote:

Remarks by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin at the
National Space Symposium
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189


"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
an act of faith, not an act of science."


Oh my God!


Main Entry: 1faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
:
a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF in faith : without doubt or question :
VERILY




I was afraid it would boil down to this. Verily we go!

Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.
A mish-mash of small reasons, and inappropriate
historical analogies. A little something for everyone.
Nothing substantial for any of us.

Hasn't science always taught us that the truth of
an idea lies in it's simplicity? His compilation of
numerous small reasons are the opposite of that.

Where's the big idea the public can rally around?

Er ... space colonization ...

with large hydrogen and solar powered SSTOs.

As opposed to say, war and death and extinction and stuff.

As usual the world has it all backwards.
We should use science and rational thought
to design our /goal/. Then have faith we'll figure
out how to accomplish it. I have infinite faith
that our scientists will come up with the needed
breakthroughs for any ...rational...goal.

I have no faith whatsoever that scientists can
design a religious quest. They are not qualified.

The people should decide the goal.

Er ... space ... preferably near Earth.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.

If he had any power to accomplish this, then it might be impressive.


When Griffin says

".....my priorities....Establishing a lunar return program having the
maximum
possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations."


He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.




*You*
have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and have done so again.


Make me the issue? That's a dodge and you know it.
The issue is why are we going to the Moon. This speech
lays out his answer. Are you happy with a "faith-based"
justification?

It's his statements that are nonsense. He has 'faith' that the past success
of great explorations will repeat with 'To the Moon and Mars".
His faith is misplaced. He uses the exploration of the west as
his historical template. Back then it was certainly ...foreseeable...
that countless people would follow the explorers, as the technology
of the day could already transport waves to the new worlds.
And it was certainly ...foreseeable...that once that happened
tremendous tangible benefits would flow.

It is NOT foreseeable when millions of people will follow
Nasa to Mars. And since that must happen for the benefits
to reach....billions here on earth....it's even less...foreseeable
when we will benefit. Less than foreseeable is just as much
nonsense as this goal.

This goal is designed to perpetuate Nasa and the industry.
It is literally a SELF SERVING goal.

An agency like Nasa is supposed to do the opposite.
It's supposed to lead us to the high ground and to
a better future.

Griffin has faith that history will repeat itself. The problem is that
the history that will be repeated is the decades and hundreds of billions
wasted on the now useless space station.

The most informative thing he says in this, and almost every
speech on this issue, is ...."consistent with the President's
Vision for Space Exploration,".

As if to say, "don't blame me I'm just following orders".

He seems to value history, but history has made it's
judgement on the excuse "just following orders".

This is about our future. It's too important to accept
blind obedience to irrational orders as good enough.


Jonathan


s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Griffin gives us his Sermon on the Mount to
justify Nasa's future for the next forty years.

If he had any power to accomplish this, then it might be impressive.


When Griffin says

".....my priorities....Establishing a lunar return program having the
maximum
possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations."


He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.

Good for you. It offends me not. It just doesn't mean what you claim it
does. *Griffin* has no authority to do anything he is not instructed to do
*and funded* by Congress.

*You*
have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and have done so again.


Make me the issue? That's a dodge and you know it.

*You* are nothing. You have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and
have done so again.

The issue is why are we going to the Moon. This speech
lays out his answer. Are you happy with a "faith-based"
justification?

What has that got to do with anything Griffin said?

An agency like Nasa is supposed to do the opposite.
It's supposed to lead us to the high ground and to
a better future.

Based on what? Please provide a relevant cite to NASA's charter that
supports this.

This is about our future. It's too important to accept
blind obedience to irrational orders as good enough.

As opposed to your irrational nonsense, eh?

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:30:56 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.

I think your syllogism is busted.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:30:56 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.

I think your syllogism is busted.


So his conclusion that Nasa's goal is based on faith, NOT science
to use his words, is acceptable to you? Why won't anyone answer
that simple question? The answer is obvious, because there's no
reasoning with faith.


Main Entry: sheep
Pronunciation: 'shEp

2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially :
one easily influenced or led

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.

I think your syllogism is busted.


So his conclusion that Nasa's goal is based on faith, NOT science
to use his words, is acceptable to you?

Yet another busted syllogism.

Maybe you don't know what the word "syllogism" means?

Why won't anyone answer
that simple question? The answer is obvious, because there's no
reasoning with faith.


Main Entry: sheep
Pronunciation: 'shEp

2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially :
one easily influenced or led

And another one.

But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
works.