|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins****ting Her Diapers!)
Henry Spencer wrote:
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised. But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare, all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars. The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different. Was it just a boost of funding to Boeing/Lockheed dor the development of yert another attempt at replacing the shuttle ? Or was it a way to shutdown the manned space programme by returing shuttle and promising some CEV that will never materialise ? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... But space solar power? Too uncertain and too long-term. If you're going to sink a lot of money into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better. Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons. The only way I see the government funding space solar power is if: 1. The project will have guaranteed results- that is, will actually produce significant amounts of power- within 5 years. 2. It's completely impossible for any person to ever even stub a toe in order to build it. 3. Construction costs can be born out of existing NASA funds without cutting any other programs. 4. A majority of the money will be spent in each of the following: Robert Byrd's West Virginia, as well as Alaska, Texas, California, Florida, New York and Ohio. 5. Absolute proof that not even a microbe will be harmed in the lifetime of the project. Private industry won't touch it because it will cost more money to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement and undergo years of litigation from the enviromentalist whackos than it will cost to actually build the thing. After groundbreaking ceremonies for the receiver have occured and after the space portion is completed, some worm will be found on the property and declared endangered, stopping the entire project. Or, a spotted owl will be found, even though there aren't any trees. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins****ting Her Diapers!)
In article ,
John Doe wrote: Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised. But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare, all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars. Uh, no, with very minor fanfare. This *wasn't* a big deal; the President of the USA announces lots of things. The way he announces something with great fanfare is to give the first speech about it to a joint session of Congress. The way he show that something is important to him is that he keeps mentioning it and asks Congress for lots of money for it. The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different. "Never ascribe to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity." Presidents make lots of compromises, and this undoubtedly was one too. There's no reason to suppose that he was ever gung-ho about it, and therefore no reason to look for hidden motives behind his more recent neglect of it. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins****ting Her Diapers!)
John Doe wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised. But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare, all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars. The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different. Was it just a boost of funding to Boeing/Lockheed dor the development of yert another attempt at replacing the shuttle ? Or was it a way to shutdown the manned space programme by returing shuttle and promising some CEV that will never materialise ? Yes. I would appreciate it if anyone could find a single instance in which George Bush mentioned the Vision for Space Exploration since the speech. I can't think of a *SINGLE* mention of the VSE since the speech. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Jonathan wrote: Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how feeble his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others. ...it's hard not to place the responsibility on the President. I think he provided the overall goal, and the details are left to others. Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised. No, this is not his pet project I think it was his fathers pet project. And when he realized the support was slim also walked away from it. But his father let it die while George W. make it official policy with the Presidential order. -- it's something he was reluctantly talked into, and so he gives it a bare minimum of support when his arm is twisted hard enough, and ignores it otherwise. I would agree he isn't very committed to the idea of going back to the moon. And also agree there are other forces behind the idea. And it's probably those that would benefit from scraping SSP in favor of another moon shot. This policy keeps the contracts with the larger players, while diverting a larger share of the NASA budget to them also. SSP would open up things to the start ups. I haven't followed VSE's politics in detail, but *that* much is just falling-down obvious. And the fact he barely supports it anymore shows the weakness of the policy. So why is there any argument that a new direction is needed? ...NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention. NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our political leadership! Why is that? Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce, that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal, domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago. And how can this sad situation be changed? Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets :-), not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress." Right, the cold war gave the technological race great urgency. And today that very same urgency can be installed in a NASA goal from global warming and oil shortages. Thirty years they say for both to come to a climax. When you combine the anxiety of oil supplies and the wars that issue can cause, SSP has just as much potential to create a similar kind of urgency. And that is only on the tangible side of the popularity equation. The other side is the potential benefits to our standards of liviing and of the world. To name just a couple. Those inspirational and patriotic appeals sell very well. But space solar power? Too uncertain and too long-term. That's just not the case. The SERT study, the largest to date set out the following initial timetable. If the program were to begin in 2002, then... Executive Summary NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971 "Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016." From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively $88million $124million $211million $282million $312million If you're going to sink a lot of money into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better. As a single answer to Global warming and dependence on fossil fuels and the Middle East, it makes an easy sell to politicians on the left or right, dove or hawk, tree-hugger of NRA. Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons. Four years to first SSP flight demonstration might be shorter then the CEV and stick. And that would make sense as SSP demonstrator wouldn't be nearly as complex as an entirely new set of moon capable manned rated spacecraft. Big oil and big aerospace are against SSP for obvious reasons. But only or self-serving reasons. Everyone else will benefit from SSP. The choice is between who benefits, a few CEO's that are well connected to this administration, or the rest of the world? What is obvious is that the moon and mars idea is dying, if not dead. What is also obvious is the only viable alternative goal is SSP. A goal that by any measure is easier to sell, fund and maintain for the long term. A goal that by any measure has far more potential benefits to society. I find it odd for someone to cling to that which is dying, while trying to destroy the only alternative. That's a recipe for completely abandoning the manned space program. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
On Jun 2, 9:44 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article , John Doe wrote: Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised. But it was the President of the USA that announcedm with great fanfare, all those promises of returing shuttle and developping the CEV that would enable man to go to the moon and to Mars. Uh, no, with very minor fanfare. This *wasn't* a big deal; the President of the USA announces lots of things. The way he announces something with great fanfare is to give the first speech about it to a joint session of Congress. The way he show that something is important to him is that he keeps mentioning it and asks Congress for lots of money for it. The fact that he has since not mentioned this and not given it any funding or priority only outlines that the real goal was different. "Never ascribe to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity." Presidents make lots of compromises, and this undoubtedly was one too. There's no reason to suppose that he was ever gung-ho about it, and therefore no reason to look for hidden motives behind his more recent neglect of it. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | The problem is that 1) the American people dont care ANYTHING about going back to the Moon or really doing any human spaceflight program... 2) the administration has no real idear about how to integrate a space effort with federal dollars into some attempt to create a private sector which can stand independent of the federal dole and 3) the only consitutency for this is well the pigs at the trough...and that includes the federal government agency. If I recall correctly when he was Gov, Bush didnt pay a single visit to the JSC...so his interest personally isnt that high...and his advisors have demonstrated time and time again...two dimensional vision in terms of "vision" and one dimnensional thinking in terms of execution of policies. The odd thing is that Bush has about 8 more months as President...oh he stays in the saddle until Jan 20 2009...but in 8 months or so there will likely be a Dem and GOP nominee and the "future" is going to quickly start shifting to them. Robert |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our political leadership! Why is that? Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce, that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal, domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago. And how can this sad situation be changed? Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets :-), not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress." Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed. So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many more. We will get into space in a big way when people are spending their own money to do so, and not the taxpayers'. No, we'll fill the new niche of space as soon as our currect niches are filled. Just as it has been with naturally evolving systems for eons. Or, we'll move into space big time when that is the best solution for our needs. We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins****ting Her Diapers!)
Jonathan wrote:
Four years to first SSP flight demonstration might be shorter then the CEV and stick. And that would make sense as SSP demonstrator wouldn't be nearly as complex as an entirely new set of moon capable manned rated spacecraft. Big oil and big aerospace are against SSP for obvious reasons. But only or self-serving reasons. Everyone else will benefit from SSP. The choice is between who benefits, a few CEO's that are well connected to this administration, or the rest of the world? What is obvious is that the moon and mars idea is dying, if not dead. What is also obvious is the only viable alternative goal is SSP. A goal that by any measure is easier to sell, fund and maintain for the long term. A goal that by any measure has far more potential benefits to society. I find it odd for someone to cling to that which is dying, while trying to destroy the only alternative. That's a recipe for completely abandoning the manned space program. And just in case the obvious hasn't occurred to some of you just yet, since it takes a rocket to launch anything into space, let alone some solar panels, and that rocket will then be in space where it belongs, then the entire backlog of necessary space demonstration projects yet to be completed by mankind : the SPS (SSP) solar power satellites, the SSTO (single stage to orbit), CELSS (closed ecological life support systems), RLV (reusable launch vehicles via nose cone engine return), and the IPD (integrated propulsion demonstration), can be easily accomplished by one integrated development program, utilizing engines that we already possess (without an engine development program) and which will soon be available for immediate use - the SSMEs (space shuttle main engines). Plus, we even have a new destination : Ceres. http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=302 Thus, with a suitable chief executive, all of the futile and incompetent efforts of the Bush administration in space, are negated in an instant. If that isn't reason for optimism in space (ignoring the national debt) then I just don't know what is. Griffin has utterly destroyed NASA. We have exactly one chance to put this back onto the right track again. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our political leadership! Why is that? Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce, that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal, domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago. And how can this sad situation be changed? Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets :-), not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress." Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed. So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are NOT urgent political issues? No. You are the delusional one to think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many more. Not in any credible way. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed. So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are NOT urgent political issues? No. You are the delusional one to think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many more. Not in any credible way. But going back to the moon and to mars does? By holding on to a senseless policy, and dismissing the only viable alternative goal, you leave nothing for the future of NASA. And your opinion paves the way for the many that say the NASA budget is better used for, say, prescription health benefits. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins Shitting Her Diapers! | kT | Space Shuttle | 152 | June 26th 07 09:10 AM |
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! | kT | History | 6 | May 28th 07 06:53 AM |
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! | kT | Space Shuttle | 4 | May 27th 07 09:00 PM |
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! | kT | Space Station | 4 | May 27th 07 09:00 PM |
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! | kT | Policy | 4 | May 27th 07 09:00 PM |