Moon key to space future?

On 22 Dec 2003 09:42:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I believe him when he says that he didn't
care that much about space.

I believe him when he says, "The point of the matter always has been
not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon; but the
capacity to dominate space, which would be demonstrated by a moon
flight, I believe, is essential to the United States as a leading free
world power. That is why I am interested in it and that is why I think
we should continue"

Now, which is it? Is it as you believe that he lies to the public?

Well, yes, though not necessarily in this case.

Or is it as I believe that he lies to Fletcher to get a better
estimate?

I believe the President when he says its essential for America as a
world power to dominate space - and the moon is but the first step.

He didn't say that the moon was but the first step. Again, he doesn't
care about space per se, except as a matter of national security (to
dominate it). He said that the moon was to demonstrate such
dominance, not as a stepping stone to anything beyond.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 09:42:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I believe him when he says that he didn't
care that much about space.

I believe him when he says, "The point of the matter always has been
not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon; but the
capacity to dominate space, which would be demonstrated by a moon
flight, I believe, is essential to the United States as a leading free
world power. That is why I am interested in it and that is why I think
we should continue"

Now, which is it? Is it as you believe that he lies to the public?

Well, yes, though not necessarily in this case.

I believe the President spoke honestly when he made his statement
above.

Or is it as I believe that he lies to Fletcher to get a better
estimate?

I believe the President when he says its essential for America as a
world power to dominate space - and the moon is but the first step.

He didn't say that the moon was but the first step.

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."

Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations
President John F. Kennedy
New York
September 20, 1963



Again, he doesn't
care about space per se, except as a matter of national security (to
dominate it). He said that the moon was to demonstrate such
dominance, not as a stepping stone to anything beyond.

You're just dead wrong Rand, consider the following Q&A;

QUESTION: Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New
Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project
Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space?

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to let these tests go on of the reactor.
These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then
we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva
and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until
July, however, to see if these tests are successful.

It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most
favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar
landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or '71. It would be
useful for future trips to the moon or trips to Mars. But we have a
good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have
to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result,
first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars.

News Conference Number 46
President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
December 12, 1962
4:00 PM EDT (Wednesday)
332 In Attendance



Clearly JFK had a vision of space being the moral equivalent of war in
the nuclear age a field of competition and cooperation among nuclear
nations, to quote again from another UN speech;

" As we extend the rule of law on earth, so must we also extend it
to man's new domain--outer space.

All of us salute the brave cosmonauts of the Soviet Union. The
new horizons of outer space must not be driven by the old bitter
concepts of imperialism and sovereign claims. The cold reaches of the
universe must not become the new arena of an even colder war.

To this end, we shall urge proposals extending the United Nations
Charter to the limits of man's exploration of the universe, reserving
outer space for peaceful use, prohibiting weapons of mass destruction
in space or on celestial bodies, and opening the mysteries and
benefits of space to every nation. We shall propose further
cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and
eventually in weather control. We shall propose, finally, a global
system of communications satellites linking the whole world in
telegraph and telephone and radio and television. The day need not be
far away when such a system will televise the proceedings of this body
to every corner of the world for the benefit of peace."

Address Before the General Assembly of the United Nations
President John F. Kennedy
New York City
September 25, 1961


JFK also clearly indicated his vision was much larger than the moon in
the following statement;

" 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."

Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort
President John F. Kennedy
Houston, Texas
September 12, 1962

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.

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.

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.

On 23 Dec 2003 12:58:46 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"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.

Plainly, I've done so only in your mind.

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.

That isn't at all obvious.

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.

His vision was implemented. We've made very little progress in space.

Sheez.

Indeed.

(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

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.

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.

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.

"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