Pres. Kerry's NASA

TKalbfus ) wrote:
: Kerry's vision of the Future is definitely not "2001 a Space Odyssey" or
: anything like it. Most liberals imagine a continuation of 20th century
: technologies with a reorganization of social programs with more spending. The
: Democratic "Futureland" looks much like today with perhaps more bicycles in the
: streets, mass transit, but no new technologies. Mass transit will more likely
: be buses than maglevs. Government will be bigger and more people will be
: working for it, businesses will be more regulated and heavily unionized while
: industries will be protected by tarriffs. To the casual stroller the Future
: would look much like today except the prices would be higher.

Or, we will reallocate some of that DOD money for space exploration and do
W's moon plan on a faster schedule.

Eric

: Tom

(Henry Spencer) wrote in
:

In article ,
Reed Snellenberger wrote:
And even [JFK] had Cold War based motivations. There's nothing
like that
now, and it might well take us in a direction that would be
unproductive in the long term, if there were.

Nothing like that now? Do you remember anything significant happening
in 2001?

Nothing like that now. Anyone who compares 9-11 and subsequent events
to the Cold War either doesn't remember what the Cold War was like, or
is lying to you.

You're right, of course -- I thought I might have misunderstood her point;
upon reviewing the the thread after a good night's sleep... Sheesh! I sure
*did* misunderstand her point!

--
Slinking Reed

Gregg Germain writes:

If you think the President or even Congress can do something about
that without spinning the nation into deep Socialism, you need to
think again.

It's an unstoppable economic event and there's nothing anyone can do
about it.

There are minor things:

Such as inventing new stuff which, for a while can only be
manufactured here.

I was talking about jobs that have *no* physical product as their
output. Jobs who's only product is electronic CAD drawings or a bunch
of bits that represent a CAM program or a PowerPoint presentation or a
Word document.

there are long term things:

Once the economic level of the rest of the world rises to the First
World nations, or even second, then US workers become more
competitive.

Increased productivity can keep manufacturing here, but that's
usually accomplished without increases in payroll.

For jobs that don't produce a product that's solid (i.e. any job who's
product is some sort of computer file), increased productivity doesn't
mean much. Management has a hard time measuring the productivity of
many of these tasks. How can they tell if the CAD drawings they
receive in electronic form are any good or not? How do you tell if
the thousands of lines of code someone writes is any good once it's
merged into an executable that has hundreds of people working on it?

These jobs are going overseas with very little in the way of
cost/benefit analysis because the productivity and quality that comes
from these jobs is so hard to measure.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

We created the Washington/Moscow Hotline as a result of the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Get a history lesson!!


And the future first graders at Neil Armstrong Elementary School at Luna City
will remember Kennedy for that, and by the way he also sent men to the Moon?

And the assassination looks very much like a domestic coup in the US, not
some banana republic where things like that ONLY occur. Haven't you heard
about having lost our innocence after the JFK assassination?


Presidential murder mystery, but what did JFK accomplish that first graders
will learn about, the Moon missions will be most prominent. Avoiding World War
III with a country that no longer exists will be something that students who
delve deeper will learn about. Stand JFK next to Abe Lincoln and measure their
accomplishments next to each other. Lincoln saved the Union and ended slavery.
JFK sent men to the Moon. Those are the thumb nail sketches that children will
learn about.

Yes JFK avoided World War III, but so did Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and George Bush. JFK will be remembered for almost having World
War III but not quite, if World War III actually occured he would be famous for
that, and if the Civil War did not happen, Abe Lincoln would not be famous.

The Kennedy's one claim to fame is the Apollo Program, as much as Ted would
like to disown it.

Tom

Or, we will reallocate some of that DOD money for space exploration and do
W's moon plan on a faster schedule.

Eric


We'd just have to find a good military reason. A missile silo on the Moon to
protect us from asteroids comes to mind.

Tom

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:10:18 -0800, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.


Correct... and neither was Johnson.

--
Reed

I read, once again, the usual nonsense about just what constitutes
a liberal Democrat.

Kennedy was a supply sider. That's a classical liberal position, but
not a modern one. He would probably also be appalled at the foreign
policy notions of the twenty-first century Democrat party.

You continue with the same nonsense that defines liberal democrats
as extreme left wingers and then tries to tag the leading Democrats
with that label.

You are more likely to find them at colleges than in politics,
with a few exceptions.

Sort of like the number of extreme conservatives in the
Republican party, except they are more likely to hang out
at country clubs than colleges.

Mike Walsh

jeff findley wrote:
: Gregg Germain writes:
:
: If you think the President or even Congress can do something about
: that without spinning the nation into deep Socialism, you need to
: think again.
:
: It's an unstoppable economic event and there's nothing anyone can do
: about it.
:
: There are minor things:
:
: Such as inventing new stuff which, for a while can only be
: manufactured here.

: I was talking about jobs that have *no* physical product as their
: output. Jobs who's only product is electronic CAD drawings or a bunch
: of bits that represent a CAM program or a PowerPoint presentation or a
: Word document.

And others were talking about computer programmer jobs, and *I* was
talking about all jobs that are being sent overseas. I felt no
compunction to limit myself to the CAD world.


: there are long term things:
:
: Once the economic level of the rest of the world rises to the First
: World nations, or even second, then US workers become more
: competitive.
:
: Increased productivity can keep manufacturing here, but that's
: usually accomplished without increases in payroll.

: For jobs that don't produce a product that's solid (i.e. any job who's
: product is some sort of computer file), increased productivity doesn't
: mean much. Management has a hard time measuring the productivity of
: many of these tasks. How can they tell if the CAD drawings they
: receive in electronic form are any good or not? How do you tell if
: the thousands of lines of code someone writes is any good once it's
: merged into an executable that has hundreds of people working on it?

You are arguing the merits/negatives of jobs going overseas. I am
not.

I'm simply talking about the entire phemomenon of jobs going overseas.


: These jobs are going overseas with very little in the way of
: cost/benefit analysis because the productivity and quality that comes
: from these jobs is so hard to measure.

That may be true. but it's irrelevant to my points. You might have
felt that I was limiting myself to only your shpere of the topic
because I replied to you. I can see why you'd think that, but I
really wasn't. I have to reply to someone's post and yours was it
;^)


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that
he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but
will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle?

- Ed Kyle

Wow, I can't believe how many conservative nutcases there are! You
know, the "all Democrats are evil, tree hugging, socialists who will
kill NASA and undermine national security" crowd. Give me a break!
I, for one, hope that Kerry wins. I think this country needs a
president who will restore our credibility in the international
community, who will show some fiscal responsibility, who will promote
environmentally responsible policies, and who will put the needs of
American citizens above the needs of Halliburton! But I digress...

I agree with others here that the CEV would likely continue, but any
roles beyond ISS support would probably be put on the back burner.
Lunar missions would not be a priority.

t_mark wrote:
In my opinion, the western democracies achieving energy independence
would be the biggest blow against the crazy Wahabbis. We're funding
terrorism every time we fill our gas tanks. Of course you won't see
oilmen Bush or Cheney trying to end our petroleum addiction.


I know, man. It's a shame how they put all that work Clinton did in the 8
years he and Algore had at the helm to an abrupt end.

Oh, wait, Clinton and Algore didn't do a thing.



Neither party has done much to wean us from petroleum.

But it should be a high priority on both sides of the aisle.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...

and if the Civil War did not happen, Abe Lincoln would not be famous.

If he had ended slavery without war, he would be famous for that and be
remembered as a even greater president. Of course, the probability of that
happening was low, because war broke out before he outlawed slavery.