|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Rand Simberg wrote: On 22 Jan 2004 17:47:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, (TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Then by what insane logic do you think that Bush II is doing it to help him get reelected? Here's a logical argument: Axioms: The public wants a Moon/Mars program. There's little evidence of that. Well try a bit of supposition. 1. A segment of the public wants a Moon/Mars program. 2. That segment is very interested in it and whether or not they get what appears to be a start toward that goal affects their vote. 3. The rest of the public doesn't really care much either way, but does feel that the money would be better spent on their own projects. However, they don't feel strongly about it so it doesn't have a very great affect on their vote. This is not a new situation and does not apply only to a Moon/Mars program. However, I don't think it is quite up their with the George Bush hyping of the economy to try to insure his re-election. I don't believe that my logic is either insane or incorrect. That doesn't mean it provides a correct answer. People aren't always predictable and suppositions about what they really believe frequently are not good. Try to get into an argument with me on that kind of wishy-washy premise. Mike Walsh |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:24:16 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote: On 22 Jan 2004 17:47:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, (TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Here's a logical argument: Axioms: The public wants a Moon/Mars program. There's little evidence of that. "I do" (calls out one little voice from the darkness) Cardman http://www.cardman.com http://www.cardman.co.uk |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:49:41 -0600, "Jon Berndt"
wrote: The American public doesn't seem to know what it wants, as a whole. I'm beginning to think that, as a country, we are not capable of mounting a mission of exploration -- even an "affordable" one -- outside of a fear-driven race. Maybe the correct answer is for your President to do this for reasons known to him. When as you have said the collective masses have views one way or the other, where even the majority view many not be correct. The media of course exploits that based upon the story that they are trying to create. In past centuries during the discovery of the new world and all that, then the people (usually the monarchy) who paid for these missions did not get the public view. They simply liked the idea and paid for it, when had they asked the commoners, then they more care about their turnips. Since exploration is good for society, where the United States would not exist without it, then having Moon missions sound good to me. Cardman http://www.cardman.com http://www.cardman.co.uk |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"TKalbfus" wrote in message ... Then by what insane logic do you think that Bush II is doing it to help him get reelected? Here's a logical argument: Axioms: The public wants a Moon/Mars program. Well, so far that doesn't appear to be all that true. I've been watching the local newspaper. Every letter to the editor that has mentioned the new initative has come out against it or mocked it. Today they ran a poll. Majority was against any plans for Mars or the Moon. (though a larger majority did favor a continued presence in space.) Seems the general consensus seemed to be, "we like space, but not that much." George Bush wants to be reelected Conclusion: Therefore George Bush promises a Moon/Mars mission to get reelected. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Axioms:
The public wants a Moon/Mars program. George Bush wants to be reelected. There's little evidence of that. In that case then Bush doesn't propose a Moon/Mars mission. The initial assumption is that George Bush did this to get reelected and is then going to renege. Now if what your saying is true, then why would George Bush announce it without intending on fulfiling the promise, when the announcement itself would not get him any votes? Either the public is for it or it is not. Tom |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
What's bad is that, now that it's been said -- i.e. the vision is to go back
to the moon and on to Mars -- those who really have their heart set on this will have much farther to "fall", should the cynics demolish the plan. Jon Whats important is to understand the motives of the cynics, they are not for the US being first or foremost in space, instead they'd rather have some other country do it. They are rooting for the other guy! Tom |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Today they ran a poll. Majority was against any plans for Mars or the Moon.
(though a larger majority did favor a continued presence in space.) What question was asked? Was the question biased such as: Do you want your government to spend $1 trillion on a manned mission to the Moon and Mars, or would you rather they spent it on something else? As often happens, people who conduct polls often have a predetermine outcome that they prefer, and so construct the polling questions so as to make it more likely they'll get the answer they want. People who want the Chinese to get to Mars first will write a polling question as above. Or Do you want to spend $1 trillion to go to the moon and Mars of continue to spend $7 billion dollars a year on the Shuttle? Now Joe Shmoe will scratch his head and conclude that $7 billion is less than $1 Trillion, and although he might think a Mars mission is interesting, he doesn't want to spend $1 Trillion on it and would rather spend the lesser amount of $7 billion a year. Of couse what's left unsaid is the fact that the Moon/Mar Mission would cost $1 Trillion over its 30 year life span. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
TKalbfus wrote:
Now if what your saying is true, then why would George Bush announce it without intending on fulfiling the promise, when the announcement itself would not get him any votes? Either the public is for it or it is not. It provides political cover for winding down pork barrel programs like the shuttle and ISS. This is true even if Bush does not expect the program to survive after he leaves office. Paul |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
TKalbfus wrote:
Whats important is to understand the motives of the cynics, they are not for the US being first or foremost in space, instead they'd rather have some other country do it. They are rooting for the other guy! Yep, that's me. GO CHINA! Better they deny their people basic human services, healthcare and education, and their science cost-effective robotic results in favor of non-productive crewed space efforts that teach us nothing but how to make crews more comfortable in space, than us. Just my opinion of course. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Pay For Performance
Joe Strout wrote...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote: But OTOH NASA needs to take a convervative stand on accomplishing these feats. That means it shouldn't try to invent wholly new technologies, but merely adapting existing technology to fit the need. I would argue it shouldn't do either one. Instead, it should act as a customer, offering to pay $X for the safe delivery and return of three crew members to a certain point on the Moon, $Y for a subsequent mission of the same requirements (where Y X), etc. Let the companies trying for these prizes decide whether it's better to invent new technology, or use something off the shelf. I wonder if O'Keefe has considered trying to change the way these contracts are let. Competitive bid is good, but multiple suppliers are better. If he didn't want to go all the way to a prize structure, could he at least get the contracts written so that the risk is assumed by the contractors? This focus on time & materials is too cushy. I prefer a structure under which the gov't buys enough of something that it doesn't wind up in the hands of only one entity. If one went the prize route, you'd want to structure in a sequence of prizes to encourage a field of competitors, and for different aspects of the problem. On the other hand the problem with gov't prizes seems to be the politics of awarding them to the winners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_Prize - Cris Fitch San Diego, CA http://www.orbit6.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions | [email protected] | Space Station | 144 | January 16th 04 03:13 PM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |