...Article...Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:07:29 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The Bloomberg story as spectacularly uninformed. The Atlas and Delta
EELVs are not purely military rockets: NASA can purchase them
commercially from United Launch Alliance (ULA) any time they want.
EELVs carry commercial satellites and NASA payloads like the GOES
series. What NASA would have to pay ULA to do is build a man-rated
version, which the Pentagon has no interest in. It's also not clear
where NASA and DoD ties need to be closer: they cooperate every day on
everything from range operations to the significant military support
to shuttle launches to missions like Orbital Express and vehicles like
the X-43.

I agree. In fact, I'll have a piece tomorrow at Pajamas Media
completely debunking this nonsense.


Good luck, Obama trial balloons are floating all over the place
right now, from one end of his agenda to the other. This has
all the earmarks of the administration floating early policy
to see the reaction.

No, it has all the earmarkings of a completely clueless reporter, as I
note in the piece with a quote from a member of the transition team.

But then, who would expect you to know the difference?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:07:29 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The Bloomberg story as spectacularly uninformed. The Atlas and Delta
EELVs are not purely military rockets: NASA can purchase them
commercially from United Launch Alliance (ULA) any time they want.
EELVs carry commercial satellites and NASA payloads like the GOES
series. What NASA would have to pay ULA to do is build a man-rated
version, which the Pentagon has no interest in. It's also not clear
where NASA and DoD ties need to be closer: they cooperate every day on
everything from range operations to the significant military support
to shuttle launches to missions like Orbital Express and vehicles like
the X-43.

I agree. In fact, I'll have a piece tomorrow at Pajamas Media
completely debunking this nonsense.


Good luck, Obama trial balloons are floating all over the place
right now, from one end of his agenda to the other. This has
all the earmarks of the administration floating early policy
to see the reaction.

No, it has all the earmarkings of a completely clueless reporter, as I
note in the piece with a quote from a member of the transition team.

But then, who would expect you to know the difference?


Politics isn't your strong point I see. A trial balloon would be given
to some administration friend, someone deserving or owing a favor.
So we should expect to see this kind floating from a left leaning
journalist that doesn't know a whole lot, if anything at all, about
rocket science. Which fits this article rather well.


s

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:35:26 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:07:29 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The Bloomberg story as spectacularly uninformed. The Atlas and Delta
EELVs are not purely military rockets: NASA can purchase them
commercially from United Launch Alliance (ULA) any time they want.
EELVs carry commercial satellites and NASA payloads like the GOES
series. What NASA would have to pay ULA to do is build a man-rated
version, which the Pentagon has no interest in. It's also not clear
where NASA and DoD ties need to be closer: they cooperate every day on
everything from range operations to the significant military support
to shuttle launches to missions like Orbital Express and vehicles like
the X-43.

I agree. In fact, I'll have a piece tomorrow at Pajamas Media
completely debunking this nonsense.


Good luck, Obama trial balloons are floating all over the place
right now, from one end of his agenda to the other. This has
all the earmarks of the administration floating early policy
to see the reaction.

No, it has all the earmarkings of a completely clueless reporter, as I
note in the piece with a quote from a member of the transition team.

But then, who would expect you to know the difference?


Politics isn't your strong point I see.

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.

Even bush didnt say or do much for the moon program except announce it
to get votes.........

program was DOA at birth.

ARES is a poor conception unworkable and not affordable.

theres zero need for a dedicated manned booster, expendables cold use
the increased production rate and man rating upgrades. thats a win win
for everyone

moon program will get lip service, manned expendable booster will get
fast tracked, shuttle will likely fly till it either kills again or
the new expendable booster is flying.

with the out of control budget troubles mars is a definte no go. no
bucks no buck rogers

On Jan 7, 8:45*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:35:26 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:







"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:07:29 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The Bloomberg story as spectacularly uninformed. The Atlas and Delta
EELVs are not purely military rockets: NASA can purchase them
commercially from United Launch Alliance (ULA) any time they want.
EELVs carry commercial satellites and NASA payloads like the GOES
series. What NASA would have to pay ULA to do is build a man-rated
version, which the Pentagon has no interest in. It's also not clear
where NASA and DoD ties need to be closer: they cooperate every day on
everything from range operations to the significant military support
to shuttle launches to missions like Orbital Express and vehicles like
the X-43.

I agree. *In fact, I'll have a piece tomorrow at Pajamas Media
completely debunking this nonsense.

Good luck, Obama trial balloons are floating all over the place
right now, from one end of his agenda to the other. This has
all the earmarks of the administration floating early policy
to see the reaction.

No, it has all the earmarkings of a completely clueless reporter, as I
note in the piece with a quote from a member of the transition team.

But then, who would expect you to know the difference?

Politics isn't your strong point I see.

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.

Leave it to Rand to be totally unaware how ambiguous his posts can
be.

I suspect that both forms of "intelligence" escape you as well.

If you actually planned to be vague by using the term "intelligence"
here, then you're even dumber than I thought rather than simply naive
as I suspect.

Eric

On Jan 7, 11:42*pm, OM wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:45:21 GMT, (Rand

Simberg) wrote:
Politics isn't your strong point I see.

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.

...Now, if only we could expose "jonathan" in the same way Elfnazi got
exposed. It probably wouldn't work on Bbo Hallr, but for someone like
"jonathan" a little personal info goes a long way towards
exterminating a troll.

What about your personal info? You already admitted to being RTVF hack
rather than a true engineer. You're nothing but a second-hand informed
amateur.

Me? Go ahead expose me. I dare you!

Eric


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *OM

--

* ]=====================================[
* ] * OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld* [
* ] * * * *Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* * * * * [
* ] * * * * *an obnoxious opinion in your day! * * * * * [
* ]=====================================[

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.


What Rand doesn't realize is that when he ends a debate
with a personal insult it's an admission of defeat.

What would you call the article today which was
'floating' various names for administrator?
Another trial balloon? Just like the article I posted over
policy direction?

I always clean up on you everytimeyou try to argue with
me, why do you keep trying???




jonathan


s

Perhaps bringing back a few of those physics and science smart Zionist/
Nazis could prove effective. They'd certainly be a touch old, but
could overview and teach others as to what does and what doesn't work.

ARPA DARPA NASA+USAF could turn things around.

Offer a $1M/box (no questions asked) bounty for those 700 missing
Apollo boxes of mission data might also get that part of their job
done.

However, if China is smart (which they are), we're screwed.

~ BG


jonathan wrote:
Looks like a classic trial balloon to me, to cancel the stick and go
with EELV's to me! Contrary to what the article says, cancelling
the stick means cancelling the moon...imho.

I've said many times, it's the Chinese that's driving our space policy now
and right into the hands of the Pentagon.

................................

Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link
Demian Mclean - Fri Jan 2, 3:58 pm ET

(Excerpts)

Obama's transition team is considering a collaboration between
the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready
sooner than the space agency's planned launch vehicle, which isn't
slated to fly until 2015, according to people who've discussed the
idea with the Obama team.

Obama has said the Pentagon's space program -- which spent
about $22 billion in fiscal year 2008, almost a third more than
NASA's budget -- could be tapped to speed the civilian agency
toward its goals as the recession pressures federal
spending.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising
over China's space ambitions because of what is perceived as an
eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes
of the military.

To boost cooperation between NASA and the Pentagon, Obama
has promised to revive the National Aeronautics and Space Council,
which oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents, most
actively from 1958 to 1973.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/aovrno0oj41g

On Jan 8, 3:52*pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.

What Rand doesn't realize is that when he ends a debate
with a personal insult it's an admission of defeat.

What would you call the article today which was
'floating' various names for administrator?
Another trial balloon? Just like the article I posted over
policy direction?

I always clean up on you everytimeyou try to argue with
me, why do you keep trying???

jonathan

s

Rand Simberg simply isn't who you think he/she is. There are
conventional mainstream borgs, and then there are Simberg borgs.

~ BG

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:52:32 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Intelligence isn't your strong point, I see.


What Rand doesn't realize is that when he ends a debate
with a personal insult it's an admission of defeat.

I see that you snipped all context, showing that you "ended the debate
with a personal insult." Mine was simply a response to yours, with
much more basis. And it didn't (obviously) "end the debate." Nor was
it intended to. The only purpose was to point out your illogic and
stupidity.

Here is what you snipped out (we can all see why):

No, it has all the earmarkings of a completely clueless reporter, as I
note in the piece with a quote from a member of the transition team.

But then, who would expect you to know the difference?


Politics isn't your strong point I see.

My response about your intellligence was to that last...


What would you call the article today which was
'floating' various names for administrator?

I would call it exactly what we would expect when a new administrator
was being selected. Do you have a point?

Another trial balloon? Just like the article I posted over
policy direction?

No.

I always clean up on you everytimeyou try to argue with
me, why do you keep trying???

You are sounding as stupid as Chomko now.