NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

SBC Yahoo wrote:

[snip]

So how many minisculons of carbon dioxide is that?

see the earth stumbling around like a drunken bum - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_wobble

Gee, thanks for sharing, I never heard of this Milankovitch guy before.

Was he related to Wegener?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
Jan Panteltje wrote:
...Space is not a partisan issue to any great extent...

Would it not have made sense to keep project Prometheus (nuke propulsion,
later changed to nuke power), and then with that make VASIMIR (plasma engine)
possible.

Keeping nuclear propulsion and/or power would make sense, if you have a
program that's thinking far enough ahead to plan beyond the next mission.

Even assuming you want a plasma thruster, though, it's far from clear that
VASIMR is the thruster of choice. (For one thing, it is still a paper
engine, and there are other such technologies that are much more mature.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:55:02 GMT) it happened
(Henry Spencer) wrote in :

In article ,
Jan Panteltje wrote:
...Space is not a partisan issue to any great extent...

Would it not have made sense to keep project Prometheus (nuke propulsion,
later changed to nuke power), and then with that make VASIMIR (plasma engine)
possible.

Keeping nuclear propulsion and/or power would make sense, if you have a
program that's thinking far enough ahead to plan beyond the next mission.

OK, and that could be a sustainable bi-partisan plan!

Even assuming you want a plasma thruster, though, it's far from clear that
VASIMR is the thruster of choice. (For one thing, it is still a paper
engine, and there are other such technologies that are much more mature.)

This is what made me mention VASIMIR:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/spa...eut/index.html

It seems they are now working on it in a private company in Costa Rica,
quote
A prototype of the rocket, to be built in Ad Astra's Houston laboratory, should be completed by the end of 2007 with a price tag of $10 million.

Ad Astra hopes to unveil two operational rockets by the end of 2010 and 2011
at a cost of $150 million.
/end quote

Well, time will tell...
What other engine did you have in mind?

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
I survey postings relating to climate imbalances, such as global
warming, to see if one person has enough intelligence to recognise that
the big institutions are still working with 15th century astronomical
notions for climate norms .Even with 21st century data and observence
from space,NASA and NOAA will still use the explanation given by
Copernicus in chapter 11 of De revolutionibus even though that
explanation is counter-productive where global climate is concerned

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/yea...opernicus.html

Temperature signatures reflecting global climate norms are derived from
changing orbital orientation whereas Copernicus explains only
hemispherical cyclical meteorological patterms.The upshot is that
modern observations based on oscillating global temperature signatures
reflect climate norms from astronomical causes whereas human activity
affecting those temperature signatures would be reflected in a
widening of the temperature bands



What also seems to be missing from discussions on global
warming is that the big risk it poses for the future is
an early ice age. The general impression appears to
be the climate will just get warmer.

When a self organized system is pushed fast and hard enough
from equilibrium, it's behavior can become chaotic.
Which means sudden and wild swings in behavior. Bubbles burst
with little warning. It only takes one swing into an ice age
to pretty much wipe our slate clean.


s

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...

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


Main Entry: pure
Pronunciation: 'pyur
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): pur·er; pur·est

b (1) : ABSTRACT, THEORETICAL pure research
(2) : A PRIORI pure mechanics c : not directed toward
exposition of reality or solution of practical problems



It's hard to call searching for life on other planets, or building
telescopes to see the other end of the universe, applied science.

Nasa specializes in pure science. As such it is held to a higher
standard since such science is more than merely guarding the
quality of our ketchup or auto emmissions.

Pure science is about Truth.

It's about the Future, it's about the big answers.
Those agencies specialize in small questions.

And as the agency responsible for the 'high ground', it's
about doing /only/ what those other agencies cannot.

Nasa is completely unlike all those other agencies.
Exactly the opposite.

Or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.


Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance


Nasa just had it's environmental mission stolen from it.
Late one night, quietly, and in some anonymous
smoke-filled room, Nasa lost it's heart and soul.

Nasa's mission to help save the planet?

It's been deleted from the charter by some 'clerk'
casually and without notice, like we delete spam.


Jonathan











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

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
I survey postings relating to climate imbalances, such as global
warming, to see if one person has enough intelligence to recognise that
the big institutions are still working with 15th century astronomical
notions for climate norms .Even with 21st century data and observence
from space,NASA and NOAA will still use the explanation given by
Copernicus in chapter 11 of De revolutionibus even though that
explanation is counter-productive where global climate is concerned

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/yea...opernicus.html

Temperature signatures reflecting global climate norms are derived from
changing orbital orientation whereas Copernicus explains only
hemispherical cyclical meteorological patterms.The upshot is that
modern observations based on oscillating global temperature signatures
reflect climate norms from astronomical causes whereas human activity
affecting those temperature signatures would be reflected in a
widening of the temperature bands



What also seems to be missing from discussions on global
warming is that the big risk it poses for the future is
an early ice age. The general impression appears to
be the climate will just get warmer.

When a self organized system is pushed fast and hard enough
from equilibrium, it's behavior can become chaotic.
Which means sudden and wild swings in behavior. Bubbles burst
with little warning. It only takes one swing into an ice age
to pretty much wipe our slate clean.

It only takes one going space colony complex to pretty much wipe out the
overall catastrophic scenario. The oldest lowest order form of life on Earth
billions of years ago [came with the wisdom to know] that spreading out,
expansionism, expansion from one mudhole (i.e., 'one world'), had no
superior whatsoever for continuity of and gain in the survival and the
prosperity of life generally across the board: To mean the continuity of,
and gain in, strengthening of positive orders. No addition of interest to
the principal, no principal, or no positive to the principal as was, sooner
than you could believe possible.

GLB

jonathan wrote:

snip
Nasa specializes in pure science.
snip

That statement is so incorrect, I don't know where to even start to
correct it. NASA got involved in "pure science" in the 80's under Dan
Goldin, and has suffered ever since. NASA should get out of the "pure
science" business as soon as possible. NASA should do what NASA does
best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.

Ask any NASA or NASA contractor employee their favorite scene from
"Apollo 13" and they will tell you the exact same thing- when the team
has to construct an adapter for an oxygen generator, and a pile of parts
gets dumped on the table. That's what NASA does best, better than any
organization I have ever worked with.

snip




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

Andy Resnick a écrit dans le message ...
jonathan wrote:

snip
Nasa specializes in pure science.
snip

That statement is so incorrect, I don't know where to even start to
correct it. NASA got involved in "pure science" in the 80's under Dan
Goldin, and has suffered ever since. NASA should get out of the "pure
science" business as soon as possible. NASA should do what NASA does
best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.

Ask any NASA or NASA contractor employee their favorite scene from
"Apollo 13" and they will tell you the exact same thing- when the team
has to construct an adapter for an oxygen generator, and a pile of parts
gets dumped on the table. That's what NASA does best, better than any
organization I have ever worked with.

snip




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

Quite right and if NASA stuck to it's mission maybe the flight crews would
live longer!!

JL

Andy Resnick wrote:

NASA makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build.

So what kind of bull**** is this you're selling?

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

Nasa specializes in pure science.

Since when? And even if so, why should it be that way?

Nasa's mission to help save the planet?

It's been deleted from the charter by some 'clerk'
casually and without notice, like we delete spam.

No, I'm quite sure this came down from on high (i.e., the Bush
administration). But in this particular case, I don't disagree with it
-- understanding climate change should be NOAA's job, not NASA's.

Best,
- Joe