..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

So, I guess after another FIFTY GODDAMMED YEARS
we'll end up with nothing more to show than the last
FIFTY YEARS IN SPACE.

Lots of really cool..very..expensive weapons we'll probably
never use. And a bunch of completely useless hardware
lying about on the moon.

Just like the ISS, the Grand Accomplishment of the last
FIFTY YEARS in space.

What a ****ing... excuse my lanquage, but it's so incredibly
infuriating to think about, no other word will do....
...what a ****ing waste.

We should demand NASA return to the plan it had
for the future of space BEFORE BUSH.

Space Solar Power...

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=10202&page=1

And we should do so...times ten.

But then, maybe I'm the only one that thinks we should
use NASA to pave the way solutions to global warming
and diminishing fossil fuels INSTEAD of paving the way
for friggin ...space ships with laser beams attached.

I mean, it can't be possible no one else sees the absolute
LUNACY of current policy??
Shirly it can't be the Iranians or N Koreans that frighten
us so much we need to militarize the moon?

Must be China eh?

****ing communists need to go, once and for all.




s

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
at Jonathan's postings too?

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Joe Strout wrote:

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to
swing harder at Jonathan's postings too?

He's a strange one, certainly.

Jim Davis

Joe Strout wrote:
:
:Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
:at Jonathan's postings too?
:

It's just you. Jonathan pegged most people's loon meters long, long
ago...


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Joe Strout wrote:
:
:Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
:at Jonathan's postings too?
:

It's just you. Jonathan pegged most people's loon meters long, long
ago...


Only because you're mind is unable to grasp the concepts
I'm talking about. You do know everything I say is from
established courses taught at almost every respectable
university in the world. You DO KNOW THAT RIGHT?

Because ridiculing science because you can't understand it
is generally the domain of the religious and ignorant.

Which are you?





--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
at Jonathan's postings too?



I neglected to link to the article my post was based on.
Perhaps the loon you're referring to is the expert from
the Naval War College? Or perhaps you folks are
unable to comprehend a rather simple statement?

The space race to the moon isn't about us, it's
about power. It's a military race. Are you folks
that ignorant about politics? Or are you just
afraid to think for yourself?

Which is it? If you disagree with my characterization
of our space policy, how so, and why?

I mean can't anyone here even put forward a
coherent rebuttal? Even a simple-minded one?

Simply replying ..."you're full of it" is what children do
in the playground. Tell me someone here is above
that level. Because I don't see it.


China now part of space race
BY TIM JOHNSON
McClatchy News Service

"Fifty years after the first space race pitted the United States
against the Soviet Union, the three Asian nations are locked
in their own space race of sorts. The competition isn't only
about scientific achievement; it's also about regional
dominance."

''Technology is being used to convince other countries in
the region of who is the regional leader,'' said Joan
Johnson-Freese, an expert on China's space program
at the Naval War College in Rhode Island"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/286321.html



Let's see, based on the responses to this post so far
I expect the next replies to be along the lines of...
....I smell bad, my mommie is stupid, sticks and stones
and oh yes, taking their bat and ball and going home.

Bunch of children...sheez. As usual, unable to
distinquish between meaning and form.


s










--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually
work.
Learn more and discuss via:
http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
at Jonathan's postings too?

Which is it? If you disagree with my characterization
of our space policy, how so, and why?

Because, Jonathan, the Moon is useless for missile defense. Absolutely
useless. Has no use for it whatsoever. None. To think that it does
displays such a deeply profound ignorance that one hardly knows where to
begin to correct it.

Now, a merely ignorant but otherwise reasonable person might post a
query like, "Hey, could it be the superpowers are planning on using the
Moon for missile defense?" At which point we'd all politely reply "No,
Newbie, the Moon is much too far away; kinetic countermeasures launched
from there would miss their targets by half a day or more, and optical
ones would have far too much spread to be effective." At which point,
the reasonable newbie would say "Oh, I see, thanks for the explanation."

But you didn't do this. Instead, you posted alarmist nonsense about
MISSILE DEFENSE (caps original), and when rebuttals are put forth, you
ignore them and reply with insults, irrelevant news quotes, and dark
hints of conspiracies.

It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth,
as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you
were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for
space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've
gone off the deep end, alas.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing
harder
at Jonathan's postings too?

Which is it? If you disagree with my characterization
of our space policy, how so, and why?

Because, Jonathan, the Moon is useless for missile defense. Absolutely
useless. Has no use for it whatsoever. None. To think that it does
displays such a deeply profound ignorance that one hardly knows where to
begin to correct it.


Then why did Putin recently refer to discussions with Bush
over a future missile defense base on the moon?
Do you keep up with current events?


''Of course we can sometime in the future decide that
some anti-missile defense system should be established
somewhere on the moon,'' Putin said. ``But before we
reach such arrangements, we will lose the opportunity
for fixing some particular arrangements between us.''


No headway in U.S.-Russia missile talks

Frosty relations between the United States and Russia
continued as a meeting aimed at resolving a missile
defense dispute made little progress.

Posted on Sat, Oct. 13, 2007
BY NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy News Service

MOSCOW -- A much anticipated meeting Friday between
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates and top Russian officials made no progress
toward resolving the disputes over missile defense and other
issues that have sunk relations between the two nations to
their lowest level since the end of the Cold War.

Instead, the meeting exposed how the high hopes that
Russia and America would cooperate on missile defenses,
international arms control treaties and counterterrorism
have given way to fear that their differences over those
issues and others, such as Iran, have recharged the
rivalry between the two countries.

The day began on a sour note. When asked by reporters
whether the talks could lead to a breakthrough, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov replied: ''Breaks definitely,
[but] through or down, I don't know.'' Russian President
Vladimir Putin then kept Gates and Rice waiting for
40 minutes and mocked some of the U.S. proposals
on missile defense as the two looked on, at times
appearing to be taken aback.

''Of course we can sometime in the future decide that
some anti-missile defense system should be established
somewhere on the moon,'' Putin said. ``But before we
reach such arrangements, we will lose the opportunity
for fixing some particular arrangements between us.''

Gates and Rice tried to reassure the Russians that the
U.S. proposal to deploy ballistic missile defenses in the
Czech Republic and Poland is intended to protect
Europe from a possible Iranian threat, not to counter
Russia's nuclear missiles.

''It would have no impact on Russia's strategic deterrent,''
Gates said. In an effort to assuage Russian concerns,
he and Rice proposed that observers and a system
of ''transparency'' accompany the new missile defenses.

But the Russians' problem was geography, not transparency.
Lavrov called on the United States to freeze its deployment
plans, which he and Russian Defense Minister Anatoly
Serdyukov called ''anti-Russian.'' The Russians also
threatened to respond to any deployments, but didn't
suggest how they might do so.

The United States also proposed adjustments to the
Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which limits key
categories of conventional weapons and forces. Lavrov
called the latest U.S. proposals nothing new, saying
that although they're a step in the right direction,
``this step is insufficient.''

U.S. officials traveling with Rice and Gates rejected
suggestions that the meeting was a failure, calling the
agreement to discuss these issues again and to consider
the U.S. proposals progress.

''I don't think we expected the Russians to agree with
these proposals today,'' said a senior administration
official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

The United States also introduced specifics of a ''Joint
Regional Missile Defense Architecture,'' or missile
defense cooperation, with their Russian counterparts,
who agreed to consider the proposal. If embraced, the
plan could take relations between the two countries
''to quite a new level,'' the official said.

The Kremlin leader also said that the Cold War-INF
treaty, which limits Russian and U.S. short- and
medium-range missiles, was outdated because other
nations are acquiring those weapons. He said it should
be updated.

''If we are unable to make such a goal of making this
treaty universal, then it will be difficult for us to keep
within the framework of such a treaty, especially
when other countries do have such weapons systems,''
Putin said.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/270162.html



s



Now, a merely ignorant but otherwise reasonable person might post a
query like, "Hey, could it be the superpowers are planning on using the
Moon for missile defense?" At which point we'd all politely reply "No,



That's because you don't read the paper, or read up on
US military policy. If you can't understand the following
why are you even trying to discuss this issue?


From Space Command Stategic Statememt for '07.


"Americans have come to rely on the unhindered use of
space-they will demand no less in the future. To protect
the space domain and deliver effects, Air Force Space Command
is pursuing investments in an array of capabilities. The United
States is committed to supporting the peaceful use of space
by all; however, prudence demands we ensure our Nation, Allies
and coalition partners have unobstructed access to space
capabilities."

"We know we will be challenged in the future-both by those who wish
to do us harm and by our own resource limitations. It no longer takes a
sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

"We have a duty to secure the entire space domain.not just for
our own military.but for our Nation and for the benefit of the
free world. To do this, we must focus our efforts on two
objectives - improved space situational awareness and
enhanced command and control. First, we must achieve true
space situational awareness.the ability to not only track
and catalog any object, but also to determine its capabilities,
purpose and intent. Only when we've obtained a clear picture
of the entire space environment will we fully realize our
second objective - enhanced command and control over
space assets.
http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media...070412-128.pdf







Newbie, the Moon is much too far away; kinetic countermeasures launched
from there would miss their targets by half a day or more, and optical
ones would have far too much spread to be effective." At which point,
the reasonable newbie would say "Oh, I see, thanks for the explanation."

But you didn't do this. Instead, you posted alarmist nonsense about
MISSILE DEFENSE (caps original), and when rebuttals are put forth, you
ignore them and reply with insults, irrelevant news quotes, and dark
hints of conspiracies.

It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth,
as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you
were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for
space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've
gone off the deep end, alas.


I'm just getting warmed up, but the post was really about
China and the need for democracy there. So we don't
have to waste our space program on a new military race.

If you don't think we're in one, especially since the Chinese
asat test, you're not paying attention to world affairs.




--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually
work.
Learn more and discuss via:
http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Joe Strout wrote:

It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth,
as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you
were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for
space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've
gone off the deep end, alas.


When he first arrived he stated that he did drugs, and that he intended
to post things he really didn't really belive in to see how people
reacted to them.
In short, he looks upon himself as the researcher and the people in the
newsgroups he posts to as something like mice running around in his maze.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Joe Strout wrote:

It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth,
as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you
were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for
space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've
gone off the deep end, alas.


When he first arrived he stated that he did drugs,

I'm smoking some pot right now, so what?

and that he intended
to post things he really didn't really belive in to see how people
reacted to them.

I said I do that sometimes. So what?


In short, he looks upon himself as the researcher

Student, asshole.

and the people in the
newsgroups he posts to as something like mice
running around in his maze.


Or...seeing what I can learn from others.
Yourself excepted, however. Your habit
of googling up details on some hardware
and them pretending you knew all those
details all along is rather obvious.

You should point out where you got the info
and when, else people might think you're
sadly trying to impress us with your google-sized
knowledge of rocket science.

If you can't take it, you shouldn't start dishing
it out


s








Pat