|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 21:15:30 -0800, in a place far, far away, (william mook) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Hmm... read the following then; "in the field of space--there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries." I see. So he was a socialist, who didn't believe at all in any realistic notion of settling outer space. Clearly, you are changing the original point of our argument, and debasing JFK, merely to continue the argument on different terms. Plainly, you've abandoned the notion that JFK had only the moon in mind and only for military purposes. Obviously, JFK had notions of settling outer space beyond landing on the moon, beyond direct military benefit - regardless of how you wish to characterize those notions from this quote alone. Equally obviously you have no love for JFK and will stick at nothing to denigrate him and his memory. Shame on you. He was clearly avoiding the expense of actually settling the high frontier by signing up to the intent of what was to become the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The State Department loved this, because it removed the pressure to have to spend significant resources on the space program. That which belongs to everyone belongs to no one. No one who supported that treaty, or its philosophy, had any interest in expanding humanity into space. This only further buttresses the notion that he had no true interest in that. Only an absolute fool, such as yourself, would read a statement like the one above which says in part, " Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the conquest of space" and conclude JFK had "no true interest" in space. Sheez. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
Helium-3, also known as astrofuel, is found in abundance in the Moon's soil. It is the most efficient known source of power -- 99 percent of its energy can be converted into electricity. ...using processes which we have not yet managed to develop. There is a present use for it. Helium-3 would make for a cleaner thermonuclear bomb. Perhaps if the Defense Department were to insist on using Helium-3/Deuterium fusion bombs instead of Deuterium/Trintium fusion bombs, this would create a powerful incentive to exploit the lunar resources. The Helium-3/Deuterium reaction releases less free neutrons and leave less radioactive residue in the process, environmentalist groups should be pleased. Tom Now your taking some sort of serious WMD, that'll place ants in the pants of our NSA/DoD cloak and dagger folks. Could even incorporte that sort of Helium-3/Deuterium fusion bomb technology into those stealth donkey-carts, as then they'll never see us coming. If you're interested, I've got a few too many pages on the LSE-CM/ISS: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm Although, I also have a few recent comments on the H2O2/C12H26 thing: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-irrce.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm The page on the LM-1 is pertaining to the lunar metro bus that's track driven and capable of circumventing that moon, along with fending off those pesky micro-meteorites and of whatever radiation. This bus is H2O2/C12H26 fueled, operating the IRRC engine that's a happy camper in space as it is under water. If we're going to have the LSE-Lobby, by all means we'll need a transporter that'll survive, and for doing such in good style. The LSE-CM/ISS, as a means to an end, is all about going places, such as off to visit those frozen and irradiated to death Mars microbes, or off to visit those nice Venus Cathar lizard folk, at least from the safety of out outpost at VL2, where we'll deploy the TRACE-II as our first interplanetary communications platform, or sort of laser transponder. Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
Rand,
One must clearly watch you because your most recent tack is highly dishonest. For that reason I've elected to ignore your most recent remarks because they have no bearing on our earlier discussions (and because as you say, life is to short) So, let's recap, Your points about President's negotiating, made on December 15, 2003 are completely refuted. Clearly, the President routinely negotiates with agencies to get them to take less money and do more than they otherwise might. This fact has substantial impact on your interpretation of the unfortunate remarks made public recently form secret tapes made during one such negotiating process with Fletcher of NASA following the President's moon speech. Obviously the President must say things that helps him in the negotiating process that might be impolitic to say publicly. The JFK library points this out clearly in the material which introduces the tape - and which you ignore totally in an effort to quote the material out of context. As to your points which allege that Kennedy focused only on the moon and had larger vision beyond beating the Russians, this is clearly refuted by the fact Kennedy was a strong supporter of the nuclear rocket program. The nuclear rocket program was recognized by the President as having no impact on his immediate goal of a moon landing in the 60s. Despite this he strongly supported it because JFK also understood that nuclear propulsion had great impact on future missions to the moon and mars and even to 'the end of the solar system itself.' While the President lived he strongly supported nuclear propulsion development with both money and time and the expending of political capital. As to your more recent points about JFK embracing a vision of space as a field of conflict between the Russians and the US, this is completely refuted by his talks to the UN and his many comments during Press Conferences where he expressed a hope, and an invitation to the Soviets and other nations, for joint cooperation in the development of space. I'll leave you all with one final word from JFK himself where he first used the term (the first person to do so in my researches)'space-faring nation'; The final portion of; Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort President John F. Kennedy Houston, Texas September 12, 1962 Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency. **** Clearly the other things JFK was talking about 'the planets beyond' the moon, and 'the coming age of space' wherein the United States is 'a space-faring nation.' Plainly JFK's vision is far larger than Rand would have us believe with his misdirections and lies. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On 23 Dec 2003 22:33:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, (william mook) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand, One must clearly watch you because your most recent tack is highly dishonest. For that reason I've elected to ignore your most recent remarks because they have no bearing on our earlier discussions (and because as you say, life is to short) So, let's recap, Your points about President's negotiating, made on December 15, 2003 are completely refuted. Clearly, the President routinely negotiates with agencies to get them to take less money and do more than they otherwise might. This fact has substantial impact on your interpretation of the unfortunate remarks made public recently form secret tapes made during one such negotiating process with Fletcher of NASA following the President's moon speech. Obviously the President must say things that helps him in the negotiating process that might be impolitic to say publicly. He could easily have simply said, "Jim, I'd love to fund that program, but I'll never get Congress to go for it." Instead, he said what he said. Good enough for me. Sheez. You will stick at nothing to maintain the lie you are promoting from the outset - that JFK somehow was unsupportive of a grand vision of space travel. You concentrate on trifles while ignoring broad solidly based facts like JFK's support of nuclear propulsion even though it would be useful only for development of the moon and planets beyond Apollo, and JFK's promotion of the vision of the US being a space-faring nation. As to your current lame attempt to deflect this discussion into trifles - Rand, you know less about the specifics of what might be easily said under these circumstances since you didn't know that this conversation needed to take place for the program to go forwrd. It boggles the mind that you would first argue that JFK would just tell Fletcher what the budget would be without negotiation and now would have us believe that during this negotiation you know what's easiest or best. All in a vain attempt to promote the lie you are promoting single mindedly that JFK didn't support a larger vision of space development. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Moon key to space future?
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
... Brad Guth ) wrote: : JFK would have been proud of what I'm offering, though still : thoroughly dead because of the cold-war moon-race was everything, as : in all or nothing. So JFK was killed because of the cold war moon race? Please elaborate on this theory as it seems to be unique. And I thought I heard all the JFK assassination theories, be they conspiratorial or otherwise. well duh, you didn't know that JFK was about to publicly reveal NASA's secret technology-transfer treaty with teh Grays? Which brings up another crucial question: where was Phil Corso on 11/22/63? -- Terrell Miller "It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |