|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
While I agree that the current Ares - Constellation config is
overweight and incapable, it hardly qualifies a Thiokol conspiracy. After all, if Horowitz was just looking out for his old buds at TKS, wouldn't he have jumped all over the proposals featuring two 4-5 segment SRB's over the single, 5-segment TKS SRB on tap for Ares I? The fact that Horowitz declined to endorse the proposal most likely to make money for TKS tells me that while Ares I may be a bad booster, its selection ain't no conspiracy. Cheers. On May 28, 4:51 pm, kT wrote: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=8071&start=1 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...?tid=7647&post... Better get some more depends, Marsha. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
Frank wrote:
While I agree that the current Ares - Constellation config is overweight and incapable, it hardly qualifies a Thiokol conspiracy. After all, if Horowitz was just looking out for his old buds at TKS, wouldn't he have jumped all over the proposals featuring two 4-5 segment SRB's over the single, 5-segment TKS SRB on tap for Ares I? The fact that Horowitz declined to endorse the proposal most likely to make money for TKS tells me that while Ares I may be a bad booster, its selection ain't no conspiracy. Cheers. We aren't questioning any of that crap. We are questioning why they did not consider *ANY* all liquid proposals. Thus the conspiracy is clear. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=8071&start=1 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...?tid=7647&post... Better get some more depends, Marsha. http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007...etter.edit.pdf We're talking about extra heavy duty diapers pants here. What did Marsha Ivins know, and when did she know it. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no,
Dave Michelson wrote: ... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention. Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed. Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had *some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of LBJ's presidency. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Jonathan wrote: It's just what we do with the new hardware, George W shouldn't be allowed to decide. He's just not qualified. Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how feeble his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others. By who though? I spent some time trying to figure that out. The Vision was started by some junior White House staffers. And Nasa wasn't even consulted at first, they were brought in later and told what the plan would be. And when you combine that with the fact it mirrors so closely his fathers initiative, 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. I bet our President hasn't spent more than half a day /in total/ discussing/reading/meeting about the future of NASA. You are being unrealistic if you expect very much more. Even an alert, attentive President is a really, really, really, really busy guy, with a thousand issues vying for his time. 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? And how can this sad situation be changed? It's because NASA doesn't get many votes. To the moon and mars has had its shot to inspire the public and failed. We can change that by using some common sense to design a goal. And ask ourselves the following questions. What are the greatest concerns of the voters? Out of that list, what concerns could NASA provide a realistic answer for? And like any max/min equation you try to solve the maximum amount of problems with the fewest or one program. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. "How important is it to you that the President and Congress deal with each of the following issues in the next year? Is it extremely important, . . ." http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm The situation in Iraq 59% Terrorism 54 Health care policy44 The economy 38 The federal budget deficit 37 Energy policies 34 Illegal immigration 32 Taxes 31 Global warming 29 Stem cell research 18 How many of those national priorities would the moon and mars connect to? Answer zero. But space solar power? Future energy costs, global warming, wars over oil. Our meddling in the Middle East is a big source of terrorism, in fact 911 was a direct result of our military presense in Saudi Arabia. A brighter energy future effects our future budgets and ability to afford other societal needs such as health care, pure research and so on. Why I'll be damned. Space solar power can be a potential solution to ALL of our national priorities to one extent or another. And a primary solution to some of our greatest ones. And that's not even mentioning the effect on jump starting commercial space flight or all the other space projects and colonies SSP could enable. Why isn't this obvious? SSP could do more than just get votes, it could do more than just make NASA relevant again. It could make NASA the focus of our national aspirations. Just as it was not all that long ago. You can't recapture the glory days with a simple do-over. As the times have changed. A simple repitition won't have the same effect. You have to figure out the qualities that made it work before in the ...abstract. So you can redesign a new goal that will work as well for todays problems. I dare anyone to find a different goal that could rival SSP in potential votes/support...importance to society and our future. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no, Dave Michelson wrote: ... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention. Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed. Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had *some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of LBJ's presidency. Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon. SSP would take quite a bit longer, and as it developed the benefits would too. SSP would generate more support over time. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
In article ,
Jonathan wrote: Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had *some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of LBJ's presidency. Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon. Which hadn't happened yet at the time of the decline. The *goal* was to re-establish clear technological superiority over the Soviets. Once the US began to clearly pull ahead in space -- which happened with Gemini, not Apollo -- the bizarre combination of political forces that supported large-scale spaceflight came apart. Actually, it was unsustainable and was already beginning to unravel, but the collapse of the Soviet image of space superiority killed it. Apollo was running on fumes and momentum by the time it actually reached the Moon. SSP would take quite a bit longer... Which means that a large-scale program directed at achieving it is a political impossibility. A commitment on that scale won't happen until the uncertainties are greatly reduced, and the time scale shortened to yield first tangible results within 5-6 years. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon. SSP would take quite a bit longer, and as it developed the benefits would too. SSP would generate more support over time. But there'd be people who would worry that the microwave beam would cook flying birds that happen to use a poor choice of flight plan... Actually you'd pick a frequency that wouldn't heat the water in the the atmosphere or other objects... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no, Dave Michelson wrote: ... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention. Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed. Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had *some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of LBJ's presidency. I'm not sure how that contradicts the text that you snipped, i.e., that Eisenhower and, initially, Kennedy, were quite disinterested in NASA. JFK was even ready to dissolve the National Space Council had Johnson not stepped in and taken it over. However, the surge associated with Apollo was more due to the Johnson's strong interest (and his congessional colleagues') than anything else. People wanted to believe that Kennedy was enthusiastic about space if only because it seemed to fit his image as a young president leading America into the New Frontier. It's unfortunate that the significance of Johnson's role as vice-president took longer to be fully appreciated. And once he became president, his attention was diverted by other matters, especially Vietnam. -- Dave Michelson |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
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 -- 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 haven't followed VSE's politics in detail, but *that* much is just falling-down obvious. ...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." 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. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)
|
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 |