.....Moon mission, Lockheed, Dick and Lynne Cheney, oh what a tangled web!!!

Now it all makes sense. Why we're going to the Moon.

Just about everyone is scratching their heads over
the reasoning for trashing Nasa science and putting all
it's eggs in the ....moon-basket.

So I looked at Lockheed's stock price, it has doubled in
the last two and a half years. Then I wondered if anyone
in the administration has any business connections to
Lockheed.

Damn if Lynne Cheney didn't used to be a director of Lockheed.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1071

Damn if President Bush tried to get Lockheed to run the
Texas welfare program. ( huh, lockheed and welfare???)
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/...ockheedgop.htm


I'll be Goddammed if a former VP of Lockheed is one of the
President's most trusted friends, and a very big player
in the republican party.

Now it all makes sense.


Bruce P. Jackson

Lockheed Martin: Former VP for strategy
Republican National Convention: Chair of Platform Subcommittee
on Foreign Policy, 2000 Presidential Campaign )
Republican National Convention: Platform Committee and Platform
Subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy, 1996
Center for Security Policy: Adviser
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Founder
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1233



How's it feel to have our beloved space program trashed for the
next twenty years so that a few insiders can cash out on their
stock options.

I feel pretty upset about it.



Jonathan

s

Lockheed Martin VP Bruce Jackson is a finance chair of the Bush
for President campaign, and was heard to brag at a conference
last year that he would be in a position to "write the Republican platform"
on defense if Bush gets the nomination
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/...ockheedgop.htm

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:24:11 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

Now it all makes sense. Why we're going to the Moon.

Because Columbia went down and the CAIB told the President that NASA
needed a clearly-defined goal?

Just about everyone is scratching their heads over
the reasoning for trashing Nasa science and putting all
it's eggs in the ....moon-basket.

This is getting preposterous. Spending $5 Billion a year on space
science, not including Constellation spending, is *not* "trashing NASA
science" no matter how many times critics repeat the assertion.

So I looked at Lockheed's stock price, it has doubled in
the last two and a half years. Then I wondered if anyone
in the administration has any business connections to
Lockheed.

So did Boeing's. So did Northrop-Grumman's. So did Buffalo Wild
Wings'. So did CVS Pharmacies'... oh, wait...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:




Now it all makes sense. Why we're going to the Moon.



Because Columbia went down and the CAIB told the President that NASA
needed a clearly-defined goal?



As if getting all of our astronauts back alive from our remaining
Shuttle missions wasn't a sufficiently challenging and clearly-defined
goal? :-)

pat

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:24:11 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

Now it all makes sense. Why we're going to the Moon.

Because Columbia went down and the CAIB told the President that NASA
needed a clearly-defined goal?

Just about everyone is scratching their heads over
the reasoning for trashing Nasa science and putting all
it's eggs in the ....moon-basket.

This is getting preposterous. Spending $5 Billion a year on space
science, not including Constellation spending, is *not* "trashing NASA
science" no matter how many times critics repeat the assertion.


Critics?
You mean NASA Advisory Council's science committee members right?

Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A08

CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations
this week, officials said Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081701929.html



So I looked at Lockheed's stock price, it has doubled in
the last two and a half years. Then I wondered if anyone
in the administration has any business connections to
Lockheed.

So did Boeing's. So did Northrop-Grumman's. So did Buffalo Wild
Wings'. So did CVS Pharmacies'... oh, wait...


Uh hum.... and if the head of CVS was married to the head of, oh say, the
.....FDA?







Brian

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:27:26 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

This is getting preposterous. Spending $5 Billion a year on space
science, not including Constellation spending, is *not* "trashing NASA
science" no matter how many times critics repeat the assertion.

Critics?
You mean NASA Advisory Council's science committee members right?

Yep. That's them. Boy, scientists can whine with the best of 'em.
"Wah! We didn't get a raise this year, so WE QUIT!"

CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081701929.html

That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.
It's more than ESA's entire budget. In fact, it pretty much equals
what every other country on Earth spends on space, combined. If these
whiny a-holes don't want it, I have serious doubts NASA can't find
someone else who does.

So did Boeing's. So did Northrop-Grumman's. So did Buffalo Wild
Wings'. So did CVS Pharmacies'... oh, wait...

Uh hum.... and if the head of CVS was married to the head of, oh say, the
....FDA?

Okay, Walgreen's doubled, too. They're all in on it I guess.
Must be easy for you, living in a world where everything is one big
Bush Conspiracy. Okay, so what's Buffalo Wild Wings' link to Shrub?

And you conveniently ignored that Boeing and N-G are making out great
too. Oh right, that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:27:26 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

This is getting preposterous. Spending $5 Billion a year on space
science, not including Constellation spending, is *not* "trashing NASA
science" no matter how many times critics repeat the assertion.

Critics?
You mean NASA Advisory Council's science committee members right?

Yep. That's them. Boy, scientists can whine with the best of 'em.
"Wah! We didn't get a raise this year, so WE QUIT!"

Yes, neo-conservatives like you aren't anti-science at all.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081701929.html

That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.
It's more than ESA's entire budget. In fact, it pretty much equals
what every other country on Earth spends on space, combined. If these
whiny a-holes don't want it, I have serious doubts NASA can't find
someone else who does.

So tell us then mister free market asteroid discovery advocate, how many
high Torino number near earth asteroids have you discovered this year?

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/torino_scale.html

THE TORINO IMPACT HAZARD SCALE

Assessing Asteroid And Comet Impact Hazard Predictions In The 21st Century

No Hazard (White Zone)

0 - The likelihood of a collision is zero, or is so low as to be
effectively zero. Also applies to small objects such as meteors and
bodies that burn up in the atmosphere as well as infrequent meteorite
falls that rarely cause damage.

Normal (Green Zone)

1 - A routine discovery in which a pass near the Earth is predicted that
poses no unusual level of danger. Current calculations show the chance
of collision is extremely unlikely with no cause for public attention or
public concern. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to
re-assignment to Level 0.

Meriting Attention by Astronomers (Yellow Zone)

2 - A discovery, which may become routine with expanded searches, of an
object making a somewhat close but not highly unusual pass near the
Earth. While meriting attention by astronomers, there is no cause for
public attention or public concern as an actual collision is very
unlikely. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to
re-assignment to Level 0.

3 - A close encounter, meriting attention by astronomers. Current
calculations give a 1% or greater chance of collision capable of
localized destruction. Most likely, new telescopic observations will
lead to re-assignment to Level 0. Attention by public and by public
officials is merited if the encounter is less than a decade away.

4 - A close encounter, meriting attention by astronomers. Current
calculations give a 1% or greater chance of collision capable of
regional devastation. Most likely, new telescopic observations will lead
to re-assignment to Level 0. Attention by public and by public officials
is merited if the encounter is less than a decade away.

Threatening (Orange Zone)

5 - A close encounter posing a serious, but still uncertain threat of
regional devastation. Critical attention by astronomers is needed to
determine conclusively whether or not a collision will occur. If the
encounter is less than a decade away, governmental contingency planning
may be warranted.

6 - A close encounter by a large object posing a serious but still
uncertain threat of a global catastrophe. Critical attention by
astronomers is needed to determine conclusively whether or not a
collision will occur. If the encounter is less than three decades away,
governmental contingency planning may be warranted.

7 - A very close encounter by a large object, which if occurring this
century, poses an unprecedented but still uncertain threat of a global
catastrophe. For such a threat in this century, international
contingency planning is warranted, especially to determine urgently and
conclusively whether or not a collision will occur.

Certain Collision (Red Zone)

8 - A collision is certain, capable of causing localized destruction for
an impact over land or possibly a tsunami if close offshore. Such events
occur on average between once per 50 years and once per several 1000 years.

9 - A collision is certain, capable of causing unprecedented regional
devastation for a land impact or the threat of a major tsunami for an
ocean impact. Such events occur on average between once per 10,000 years
and once per 100,000 years.

10 - A collision is certain, capable of causing global climatic
catastrophe that may threaten the future of civilization as we know it,
whether impacting land or ocean. Such events occur on average once per
100,000 years, or less often.

Note: the Torino Scale was recently revised according to this recent
publication:

Morrison, D., Chapman, C. R., Steel, D., and Binzel R. P. "Impacts and
the Public: Communicating the Nature of the Impact Hazard" In Mitigation
of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids,(M.J.S. Belton, T.H. Morgan, N.H.
Samarasinha and D.K. Yeomans, Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2004.

A graphic of the Torino Scale is also available he

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/torino_scale.jpg

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:27:26 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:
"
Critics?
You mean NASA Advisory Council's science committee members right?

Yep. That's them. Boy, scientists can whine with the best of 'em.
"Wah! We didn't get a raise this year, so WE QUIT!"


You've got me on the debate 'ropes' with that one.



CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...17/AR200608170
1929.html


That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.


Neither is one billion. Or two. So any amount at all spent on space science
is enough with your reasoning.



It's more than ESA's entire budget. In fact, it pretty much equals
what every other country on Earth spends on space, combined.


And would you be satisfied if Nasa were reduced to the level
of every other country in the world?



If these
whiny a-holes don't want it, I have serious doubts NASA can't find
someone else who does.

So did Boeing's. So did Northrop-Grumman's. So did Buffalo Wild
Wings'. So did CVS Pharmacies'... oh, wait...

Uh hum.... and if the head of CVS was married to the head of, oh say, the
....FDA?

Okay, Walgreen's doubled, too. They're all in on it I guess.
Must be easy for you, living in a world where everything is one big
Bush Conspiracy. Okay, so what's Buffalo Wild Wings' link to Shrub?


You don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.
The links between Lockheed and the inner circle
at the White House including the President are clear.
And it's clear Lockheed has benefited mightily by
defense and Nasa policy...changes...since Bush
took office.

By definition that is the appearance of conflict of interest.
Which is enough to be suspicious, especially considering
the very pro-business attitudes of the administration.

It's not a stretch at all to ask these questions.

And it's ESPECIALLY appropriate to ask such questions
when the policy change, to the Moon, makes such little sense
except for the effect on the contractors.

It makes absolutely NO SENSE for the taxpayers, for Nasa
or for space science.

To the Moon and Mars doesn't pass the smell test, it doesn't, and
I think most rational people would agree.


Jonathan

ps ...It's almost October before a general election. Time to
get the political juices flowing. Please Lord, let at least
one branch fall to the demoncrats.

And make it the House.


Please God! I don't ask for much, but we need it bad.


s






And you conveniently ignored that Boeing and N-G are making out great
too. Oh right, that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Now it all makes sense. Why we're going to the Moon.


Because Columbia went down and the CAIB told the President that NASA
needed a clearly-defined goal?

Being clearly defined was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
Clearly, one can construct an unlimited number of clearly defined,
but stupid, goals. Why is this not one of them?

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Clearly, one can construct an unlimited number of clearly defined,
but stupid, goals. Why is this not one of them?

I smell a rhetorical question :-)

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com