We choose to go to the Moon?

Brian Gaff wrote:

because????



He tried to be like Reagan with the Trickle-Down Economics.
Then he tried to be like his father with the Iraq war.
Now he's trying to be like Kennedy.

"Brian Gaff" wrote:

Not political debate for me, being British, merely an observation.

An ignorant and bigoted one too. (As well as cowardly to make such an
observation, not as an aside, but as a topic statement, then refuse to
adress discussion on it.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Hallerb) wrote:
Obviously he had no weapons of mass destruction,

It's a wonder that you know what thousands of informed people didn't.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Hallerb" wrote:

And you claim *Bush* is the idiot? Your credibility is just a tad
stretched here.

Brian

No Bush is going to be a one termer. He has now mired us in another
vietnam
mess. The arabs of been fighting for centuries. What made him think we
could
clean it up?

First no one knows what the future holds so you are just speculating about
the length of service of our current President.

President Bush is not trying to "clean it up." He is trying to establish an
Arab republic surrounded by theocracies, kingdoms, and a significant amount
of anarchy. The democratic process in Iraq, if it succeeds, will
destabilize several "governments" and could destroy the fabric that has held
millions of people in poverty just so a few priveledged people, their
families, and cronies, could live in high style. If that is what it takes
to knock terrorism on its ass, great. Doing nothing certainly did not work
well as we can tell from 911. Appeasement in today's world will work no
better than it did in 1939. The difference is that terrorists can do much
more damage with the weapons of today than they could in the 1940s. Don't
fall into the liberal media trap that the sky is falling. The only sky that
is falling is that above what remains of Saddam's loyalists. We are now
playing hardball, and the U.S. has the biggest damn hardballs on the planet.

Saddam was a terrible leader. But we need to keep our nose in our own
business,
or at minimum have good intelligence. Obviously he had no weapons of mass
destruction, and after his sons died we knew he had no terrorist capabilty
here.

Obviously? I believe they found ricin at a terrorist training camp in Iraq.
The media has played that down. If I take a gallon of ricin which is
extracted from the common castor bean, I could do much to disrupt the U.S.
economy. Have you ever seen someone die of ricin poisoning? Do you know
what it does to their tissues? Oh and by the way it is quite a painful and
irreversible way to go.

Bush junior just wanted to fix his dads mistake and now we have deaths
there
nearly every day.

I for one will be forever thankful for all of the men and women serving in
Iraq. It bothers me greatly every time I hear about one of our troops
dying. They are our best hope to avoid having the terrorists among us and
it does no good to politicize a war that was thrust upon us on 911.

If bush doesnt get it together he should step aside and not run, give
another
republican a chance.

If the economy continues to rebound and things improve in Iraq then what?
Crown him King?

Sad I voted for him he is a war monger

Oh, Gore would have been great, right?

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:17:41 GMT, Kenneth- wrote:

He tried to be like Reagan with the Trickle-Down Economics.
Then he tried to be like his father with the Iraq war.
Now he's trying to be like Kennedy.

Er, I don't see a single negatifve in any of those comparisons...

Brian

"Charleston" wrote:

First no one knows what the future holds so you are just speculating about
the length of service of our current President.

Mark your calendars and alert the media, Dan and I are in near 100%
agreement. g

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

The last time this return to the Moon/let's go to Mars stuff reared its head
was 20 July 1989, the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11. That day Dubya's daddy
announced that he was starting his Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) that
envisioned Moon bases and Mars colonies by 2020.

I worked at McDonnell Douglas on that ill-fated effort off and on from
1989-91. Needless to say, nothing useful came out of it and the incoming
Clinton administration put it out if its misery in Feb 1993.

NASA wanted nothing to do with the SEI, but had to defer to the President,
despite it's manned spaceflight plate being overloaded at that time with
post-Challenger return to flight headaches, the Space Station Freedom (SSF)
mess, along with NASP, ASRM, ALS/NLS (three more expensive losers that did
nothing to help our manned spaceflight effort). Dick Truly, the NASA
Administrator at the time, knew that any request for meaningful funding for
SEI hardware (i.e. for tens of billions of bucks) would be dead on arrival
at Congress.

So NASA and the SEI contractors went through the motions. We dragged the old
Apollo Applications Program (AAP) reports from the late 1960s out of the
filing cabinets and spiffed them up a little. NASA-JSC did its "90-Day
Study," and RAND, under a NASA contract, set up an "Outreach" program to
solicit ideas from everyone and anyone. Tom Stafford's "Synthesis Group" was
given the job of making sense out of all of this stuff. Actually, this was
all eyewash, smoke and mirrors to satisfy the White House. The final result
was essentially von Braun's idea for moon bases and a "space armada" Mars
missions, ideas that date from the early 1950s. The price tag was $500B in
today's bucks.

Dubya knows that Congress isn't going to put hundreds of billions of bucks
into a manned Mars program while tossing $86B down the Iraqi rathole. So I'm
not expecting him to stick his foot into that Moon/Mars crap bucket on
17Dec2003 like his daddy did in July 1989.

All of that SEI ancient history is covered in Chapter 52 of my 2002 book on
U.S. manned spaceflight in the 20th century.

Later
Ray Schmitt


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
because????

Well, maybe cos Bushykins needs a diversion from his war mongering and his
transparent agenda for making sure oil supplies are kept cheap.

:-)

Cynic? moi?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
Not political debate for me, being British, merely an observation.
Unfortunately, as research has no profit margin, it will always be
Government funded, thus you cannot separate politics from space exploration.


Private individuals and corporations also fund research. Some companies
have research and development (R&D) divisions... also when researchers
at universities (for instance) develop something with practical applications
that something is licensed to businesses for profit. This happens all
the time although I'm mostly familiar with the software end of stuff.

-McDaniel

Kenneth- wrote in message et...
Brian Gaff wrote:

because????



He tried to be like Reagan with the Trickle-Down Economics.
Then he tried to be like his father with the Iraq war.
Now he's trying to be like Kennedy.

For anybody who has dreamed of people one day colonizing space,
I don't see how pushing for a return to the moon can be a bad
thing.

-McDaniel

"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message

For anybody who has dreamed of people one day colonizing space,
I don't see how pushing for a return to the moon can be a bad
thing.

-McDaniel

Space.com has an article posted this morning called "Top 10 Reasons to Go
Back to the Moon":

http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-1.html

I'm not saying I agree with any or all of them -- they do include the
expected arguments. Some of the reasons seem agreeable at first glance. In
any case, I suspect if you ask 10 people what ought to be next up for us in
space, you'll get ten different answers.

Jon