A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 19th 07, 10:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?


"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!



One time I watched Quayle give a rare interview with a
childrens show, some eleven year old girl
got ten minutes of Q and A with him.

It was astonishing, she chose abortion to quiz Quayle
on, and she just tore him up one side and down
the other.

After several minutes of berating him with all kinds of specific
examples where abortion should be allowed, she finally
cornered him on the issue of banning abortions
even for rape, and his response....

"You're a very strong woman... Though this would be a
traumatic experience that you would never forget, I think
that you would be very successful in life."

Strong woman? I remember thinking he only said that
because of how clearly he lost the debate with the
....little girl.







He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.


And Bush and Quayle let him? Gee, I guess JFK was lucky Webb liked the
Apollo proposal rather than kill IT like Truly killed SEI.

(Yeah, you make about that much sense).


Ads
  #32  
Old November 20th 07, 12:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy
rhw007
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 19, 2:00 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:57 am, Monte Davis wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:
Congress never funded SEI, and Clinton crushed it and
disbanded the space council once he was in office...
since Bush Sr. didn't have a
second term, the program didn't get a fighting chance to get started
on some hardware...


Read Thor Hogan's "Mars Wars" at


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...070031234_2007...


For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Face it, when Bush Sr. relied on Dan Quayle for his space plans it was
doomed from the get-go.

Yes, Gallagher is such a passionate conservative he's smacks of a
bleeding heart about it. Or is that "bleating heart"?


Anybody still thinking Republicans are your "saviors" are still
drinking the cool-aid.

And by NO MEANS am I saying the Democratic party is any better.

I think we should elections like Canada with multiple parites and
whoever gets the MOST votes wins...no 'electoral college'.

We NEED educated people with some COMMONSENSE in Washington.

Instead we get pigs feeding at the trough of taxpayer and borrowing
money from China and Russia as if they will never ask for their money
back.

HAH...if you think the huosing and economy is in trouble now....wait
until the chips are called in and oil is sold in Euros rather than US
dollars.

Who KNOWS how much money the US government has been running through
the presses since he STOPPED by executive order the publishing of that
information?

Bob...
http://commonsensecentral.net/
  #33  
Old November 20th 07, 05:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy, sci.space.history
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 19, 3:41 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Face it, when Bush Sr. relied on Dan Quayle for his space plans it was
doomed from the get-go.


It was NASA, and Dick Truly, who killed SDI. It had nothing to do
with Quayle, you moron.


From Dan Quayle's wiki bio:


snip


You typed SDI, I was referring to SEI and Quayle's role in it.


It was a typo (the two keys are next to each other). I meant SEI.


A significant typo given the context of the subject. Perhaps you have
typos all the time? It would explain a lot.


No, it's relatively rare. There is zero significance other than, as I
already noted (apparently you were too stupid to read it) that they
"D" and "E" keys are adjacent.


Right, and I was pointing out other mistakes you have made that you
can't as easily toss off.


It appears that Quayle is not the only moron in this thread, Rand.


It only appears that way to the actual only moron in this thread. It
would have been obvious to a non-moron that I was referring to SEI,
since NASA and truly had nothing to do with SDI (though Quayle did--he
was the one who initiated the DC-X program).


Yet, Quayle was chairman of the Space Council and if you read the
section that you deleted (you ALWAYS do that when you are wrong, btw)
you will see exactly how he was connected to SEI.


I never denied that he was connected to SEI, you moron.


So, why did Truly kill SEI?


(Perhaps Quayle was just too dumb to kill SEI and Truly was called in.)


This is the stupidest thing you've typed yet in this thread.


Which still manages to be more intelligent than anything you've typed
on this thread.


I was going to state that VPs are often used to implement a
president's vision of space, etc. It would appear that only Cheny was
clearly NOT picked whereas LBJ for JFK, Quayle for Bush Sr. and Gore
for Clinton actually were.


All of which has nothing to do with what killed SEI. It was Dick
Truly who did so.


Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!


No, it had absolutely nothing do with with what Dan Quayle knew about
either Mars, or potatoes.


You doubt Quayle is dumb? Perhaps he is sort of a folk hero of yours.
THAT, too, would explain a lot.


He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.


And Bush and Quayle let him?


How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.


So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again? Or did his
firing allow SEI to die?


Gee, I guess JFK was lucky Webb liked the
Apollo proposal rather than kill IT like Truly killed SEI.


(Yeah, you make about that much sense).


No answer here, huh?

Rand, if SEI was worth a crap, Truly would have been fired for trying
to kill it, perhaps, but another hired to take his place and then
revamp it. To allow Truly to "win" and fire him makes no sense. But
that is often the case of stuff you state so I am not surprised.

Oh, and please provide a reference to killing SEI being the case for
Truly's firing. Yes, I want to read the context of the event and you
are not to be believed otherwise. Note, I am not calling you a liar, I
am calling you to produce a reference to back up your claim.

  #34  
Old November 20th 07, 05:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:57:02 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote:

Read Thor Hogan's "Mars Wars" at

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2007032394.pdf


Thanks for the link; I looked at the abstract. I don't know if/when
I'll get to the whole thing. But it looks worth it.

For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Well, the aforementioned abstract alludes to the conflict between the
Republican Bush white House and the Democratice congress. (I don't
remember if Democrats held both houses at the time, but they did hold
the House IIRC.) Bush Jr., another Republican, is the only
politician since Bush Sr. to broach the idea again. No Democrat has
been friendly to the idea. If I am wrong about that, please let me
know.

So based on that aspect of SEI's history, it still does not appear as
VSE will last very long if at all if a Democrat succeeds Bush. I
could be wrong. Please name the Democratic presidential contendor who
has already promised to continue VSE if elected. Meanwhile, I will go
and not hold my breath.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #35  
Old November 20th 07, 05:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:10:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


You typed SDI, I was referring to SEI and Quayle's role in it.


It was a typo (the two keys are next to each other). I meant SEI.


A significant typo given the context of the subject. Perhaps you have
typos all the time? It would explain a lot.


No, it's relatively rare. There is zero significance other than, as I
already noted (apparently you were too stupid to read it) that they
"D" and "E" keys are adjacent.


Right, and I was pointing out other mistakes you have made that you
can't as easily toss off.


No, you weren't. You were just stupidly attempting to do so.


It appears that Quayle is not the only moron in this thread, Rand.


It only appears that way to the actual only moron in this thread. It
would have been obvious to a non-moron that I was referring to SEI,
since NASA and truly had nothing to do with SDI (though Quayle did--he
was the one who initiated the DC-X program).


Yet, Quayle was chairman of the Space Council and if you read the
section that you deleted (you ALWAYS do that when you are wrong, btw)
you will see exactly how he was connected to SEI.


I never denied that he was connected to SEI, you moron.


So, why did Truly kill SEI?


I don't know, ask him.

I was going to state that VPs are often used to implement a
president's vision of space, etc. It would appear that only Cheny was
clearly NOT picked whereas LBJ for JFK, Quayle for Bush Sr. and Gore
for Clinton actually were.


All of which has nothing to do with what killed SEI. It was Dick
Truly who did so.


Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!


No, it had absolutely nothing do with with what Dan Quayle knew about
either Mars, or potatoes.


You doubt Quayle is dumb?


What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant. He had nothing
to do with the death of SEI, unless it was to not get rid of Truly
faster.

He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.


And Bush and Quayle let him?


How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.


So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?


No.

Or did his firing allow SEI to die?


SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

There are actual history books that have been written about this,
Eric, like this one:

http://history.nasa.gov/sp4410.pdf

You might want to crack one sometime, though the words will probably
be too big for you.
  #36  
Old November 20th 07, 05:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 20, 12:16 pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:57:02 GMT, Monte Davis

wrote:
Read Thor Hogan's "Mars Wars" at


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...070031234_2007...


Thanks for the link; I looked at the abstract. I don't know if/when
I'll get to the whole thing. But it looks worth it.

For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Well, the aforementioned abstract alludes to the conflict between the
Republican Bush white House and the Democratice congress. (I don't
remember if Democrats held both houses at the time, but they did hold
the House IIRC.) Bush Jr., another Republican, is the only
politician since Bush Sr. to broach the idea again. No Democrat has
been friendly to the idea. If I am wrong about that, please let me
know.


JFK had the original idea of going to the moon. Also notice that both
GOPers to which you refer come from Texas, where manned spaceflight
mission control comes from. Perhaps JFK's vision for the moon was
based upon the Cold War, but clearly The Bushs' visions are to give
tax money to Texans as their plans lack substantive details. I
seriously doubt the Bushes would care for returning to the moon if JSC
was in Massachusetts.


So based on that aspect of SEI's history, it still does not appear as
VSE will last very long if at all if a Democrat succeeds Bush.


Convenient excuse for a DOA plan. It is "blame Clinton" all over
again.

I could be wrong. Please name the Democratic presidential contendor who
has already promised to continue VSE if elected. Meanwhile, I will go
and not hold my breath.


Maybe because Bush isn't really commited to it? If you can find a
Texas Democrat running for the presidency, then you might have your
person.


  #37  
Old November 20th 07, 05:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:16:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:57:02 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote:

Read Thor Hogan's "Mars Wars" at

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2007032394.pdf


Thanks for the link; I looked at the abstract. I don't know if/when
I'll get to the whole thing. But it looks worth it.

For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Well, the aforementioned abstract alludes to the conflict between the
Republican Bush white House and the Democratice congress. (I don't
remember if Democrats held both houses at the time, but they did hold
the House IIRC.)


They controlled both houses until 1994.

Bush Jr., another Republican, is the only
politician since Bush Sr. to broach the idea again.


There is no such thing as "Bush Jr." and "Bush Sr." They have
different names.

No Democrat has been friendly to the idea.


George Miller. Bill Nelson. Nick Lampson. There are others.

So based on that aspect of SEI's history, it still does not appear as
VSE will last very long if at all if a Democrat succeeds Bush. I
could be wrong. Please name the Democratic presidential contendor who
has already promised to continue VSE if elected. Meanwhile, I will go
and not hold my breath.


Hillary! is the only candidate who has a position on it. It's not
exactly a hot campaign issue.
  #38  
Old November 20th 07, 05:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 20, 12:32 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:10:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You typed SDI, I was referring to SEI and Quayle's role in it.


It was a typo (the two keys are next to each other). I meant SEI.


A significant typo given the context of the subject. Perhaps you have
typos all the time? It would explain a lot.


No, it's relatively rare. There is zero significance other than, as I
already noted (apparently you were too stupid to read it) that they
"D" and "E" keys are adjacent.


Right, and I was pointing out other mistakes you have made that you
can't as easily toss off.


No, you weren't. You were just stupidly attempting to do so.


You're plenty stupid to make your own stupid mistakes without my help.


It appears that Quayle is not the only moron in this thread, Rand.


It only appears that way to the actual only moron in this thread. It
would have been obvious to a non-moron that I was referring to SEI,
since NASA and truly had nothing to do with SDI (though Quayle did--he
was the one who initiated the DC-X program).


Yet, Quayle was chairman of the Space Council and if you read the
section that you deleted (you ALWAYS do that when you are wrong, btw)
you will see exactly how he was connected to SEI.


I never denied that he was connected to SEI, you moron.


So, why did Truly kill SEI?


I don't know, ask him.


Translation: You have no fricken clue.


I was going to state that VPs are often used to implement a
president's vision of space, etc. It would appear that only Cheny was
clearly NOT picked whereas LBJ for JFK, Quayle for Bush Sr. and Gore
for Clinton actually were.


All of which has nothing to do with what killed SEI. It was Dick
Truly who did so.


Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!


No, it had absolutely nothing do with with what Dan Quayle knew about
either Mars, or potatoes.


You doubt Quayle is dumb?


What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.


Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

He had nothing
to do with the death of SEI, unless it was to not get rid of Truly
faster.


Total bull****! You don't fire a guy and still let him have what he
wanted unless what he wanted was worthless and he was right and you're
left holding the bag emotionally.


He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.


And Bush and Quayle let him?


How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.


So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?


No.


Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.


Or did his firing allow SEI to die?


SEI had already died by the time he got fired.


So why did he get fired again? You are contradicting yourself. (Not
that that has been the first time).


There are actual history books that have been written about this,
Eric, like this one:

http://history.nasa.gov/sp4410.pdf

You might want to crack one sometime, though the words will probably
be too big for you.


Except that I actually learned something in college whereas you and
Dan Quayle, who majored in golf and beer, did not.

  #39  
Old November 20th 07, 05:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 20, 12:36 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:16:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:57:02 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote:


Read Thor Hogan's "Mars Wars" at


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...070031234_2007...


Thanks for the link; I looked at the abstract. I don't know if/when
I'll get to the whole thing. But it looks worth it.


For better or worse, SEI was dead for all practical purposes by
mid-1991, 18 months before Clinton took office. Sorry if that doesn't
suit your polticial preferences.


Well, the aforementioned abstract alludes to the conflict between the
Republican Bush white House and the Democratice congress. (I don't
remember if Democrats held both houses at the time, but they did hold
the House IIRC.)


They controlled both houses until 1994.

Bush Jr., another Republican, is the only
politician since Bush Sr. to broach the idea again.


There is no such thing as "Bush Jr." and "Bush Sr." They have
different names.


But everyone with a brain knows:

George H.W. Bush = Bush Sr.
George W. Bush = Bush Jr.

It is much easier to use the latter designation then to decipher
"Herbert Walker" form simply "Walker". Your nitpick is akin to a
spelling flame.


No Democrat has been friendly to the idea.


George Miller. Bill Nelson. Nick Lampson. There are others.


Are they running for president?

So based on that aspect of SEI's history, it still does not appear as
VSE will last very long if at all if a Democrat succeeds Bush. I
could be wrong. Please name the Democratic presidential contendor who
has already promised to continue VSE if elected. Meanwhile, I will go
and not hold my breath.


Hillary! is the only candidate who has a position on it. It's not
exactly a hot campaign issue.


Yeah, I can see Rand voting for Hillary Clinton....NOT!

  #40  
Old November 20th 07, 06:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 20, 12:32 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:10:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,


[...]

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

There are actual history books that have been written about this,
Eric, like this one:

http://history.nasa.gov/sp4410.pdf


Hey thanks for the link. The irony is that it supports my original
claim and not yours. I quote from page 107:

Throughout the fall of 1989, had not been heavily engaged in the
evolution of SEI within his administration. He had largely delegated
responsibility for the initiative to Vice President Dan Quayle, while
he addressed more pressing issues on the international stage...


I find the $500 billion budget an ironic number to implement SEI in
lieu of W's war. See he http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Co...-of-War-3.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breaking News: Scott "Doc" Horowitz, the Constellation head, the INVENTOR of the "stick" (a.k.a. Ares-I) and one of the father of the ESAS/VSE plan, is leaving NASA !!! gaetanomarano Policy 2 July 13th 07 06:03 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan Policy 9 December 22nd 06 07:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.