Obama's HUGE space gamble

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
wrote:

Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.


As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? Probably nobody.
The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

.... Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?


They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter.

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?


No party agenda involved. As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.


If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop, even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world. Along the way, we learned he's only human.
He and the dems have major political problems, no question. Can he
get around them? Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. What matters is when the rubber meets the
road.

On Feb 6, 1:17*pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.

As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

Obama would have to do lots of stupid stuff to enter the Twilight Zone
left behind by the Bush administration. I find it really fascinating
how the Republicans blame Obama for Bush's mess. The fact that things
haven't gotten worse and that we have hit bottom indicates that Obama
has managed to do something positive after many years of Bush's
negatives.


....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: *Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? *Probably nobody.

No, the actual rocket scientists thought it a poor design as well. You
know, the ones that have to actually build the thing.

The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." *You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

Right, that goes both ways. Your points are just as worthless and good
as mine.


.... *Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?

They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

The have area to put any size launch pads.


.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter. * *

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?

No party agenda involved. *As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. *That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. *But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.

The reuse of the SRBs as mandatory doomed Ares I. You don't make that
kind of decision and then work around it. It smacks of an economic
decision instead of a engineering one driving the design.




If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. *The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. *

That is the Rush Limbaugh wish. People said similar things about
Clinton and then we had the best economy in decades.

Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop,

No, just be better than Bush and as good as Clinton without the moral
failings and we'll all be fine except for Republicans' egos. But in my
experience when Republicans aren't bitching is when we are headed into
trouble. The deafening silence during the last few years of Bush were
tell tale signs.

even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). *Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world.

Bush screwed things up badly. Bush was not qualified to run the
country for 4 years much less 8.

*Along the way, we learned he's only human.

All intelligent people knew that all along. Don't let the media sway
you. The biggest brainwash the media has done is make Republicans feel
that the media is liberal.

He and the dems have major political problems, no question. *Can he
get around them? *Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. *What matters is when the rubber meets the
road. *

Yep, we'll see.

On Feb 17, 9:33*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:17*pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.

As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

Obama would have to do lots of stupid stuff to enter the Twilight Zone
left behind by the Bush administration. I find it really fascinating
how the Republicans blame Obama for Bush's mess. The fact that things
haven't gotten worse and that we have hit bottom indicates that Obama
has managed to do something positive after many years of Bush's
negatives.



....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: *Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? *Probably nobody.

No, the actual rocket scientists thought it a poor design as well. You
know, the ones that have to actually build the thing.

The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." *You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

Right, that goes both ways. Your points are just as worthless and good
as mine.



.... *Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?

They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

The have area to put any size launch pads.



.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter. * *

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?

No party agenda involved. *As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. *That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. *But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.

The reuse of the SRBs as mandatory doomed Ares I. You don't make that
kind of decision and then work around it. It smacks of an economic
decision instead of a engineering one driving the design.



If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. *The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. *

That is the Rush Limbaugh wish. People said similar things about
Clinton and then we had the best economy in decades.

Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop,

No, just be better than Bush and as good as Clinton without the moral
failings and we'll all be fine except for Republicans' egos. But in my
experience when Republicans aren't bitching is when we are headed into
trouble. The deafening silence during the last few years of Bush were
tell tale signs.

even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). *Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world.

Bush screwed things up badly. Bush was not qualified to run the
country for 4 years much less 8.

*Along the way, we learned he's only human.

All intelligent people knew that all along. Don't let the media sway
you. The biggest brainwash the media has done is make Republicans feel
that the media is liberal.

He and the dems have major political problems, no question. *Can he
get around them? *Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. *What matters is when the rubber meets the
road. *

Yep, we'll see.

ZNRs are always so faith-based and republican mindset predictable,
especially of those contributing within this global public information
medium of publishing via Google/NOVA and Usenet/newsgroup plus private
groups doing their own independent research, deductive analogy and
free thinking (unmoderated dot connecting) thing of sharing their
interpretation.

Of course there are a good number of our social/political and
religious special-interest cabals that have strictly moderated their
Usenet/newsgroups and otherwise protecting their private groups
whereas essentially nothing is open or much less representing free
speech.

~ BG