Kerry's "Space Policy"

Read it and weep:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

If JFK were alive today, he probably would have voted for George W.
Bush. Kerry has absolutely no goals for space exploration, just a lot of
rhetoric with no clear purpose on what he would set out to do. What
about manned exploration? Not much there. He has no concept about
history either. Kerry claims everything was done in secret, with no
consultations, etc. etc. The Apollo program was initially a secret when
it was first envisioned, and in the end, it was a great success. GWB's
plan has the support of every major space lobbying group in America.
Even Neil Armstrong has come out in favour. I wonder what Kerry's voting
record is like when it came to voting for various space endeavours. I'm
Canadian, so I wouldn't know for sure, but didn't he vote to try and
kill the ISS some years back? GWB's plan for NASA and the future of
space exploration may not be perfect, but at least he has a vision and
it's a start, just like JFK had one back in 1961. Kerry on the other
hand, has no vision. And on Nov. 2, if the polls are correct, we will
have at least 4 more years to work on GWB's plan and get the ball
rolling for a whole new start in space exploration.

Mark Whittington wrote:

Read it and weep:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

"Mark Whittington" schrieb im Newsbeitrag om...
Read it and weep:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.
Didn't see any problem. More money, less flag planting stuff.
Sounds like exactly what NASA needs for the next few years.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

In article ,
(Mark Whittington) wrote:

Read it and weep:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

Sorry, the best I can manage is to read it with relief.

(1) Increase funding for NASA. Well, I no longer pin all my hopes on
humanity's development of space on NASA, but on the other hand, NASA
does still have an important role to play. It will help to have them
fully funded.

(2) Pursuing a balanced space program. This will certainly be
considered a good thing by space scientists, who saw their opportunities
slipping away under the Bush plan. I'm lukewarm on this, but even
though space science isn't my own particular interest, I can respect the
need for it.

(3) Including other nations in space exploration. Maybe not a bad idea
-- if we had done ISS unilaterally, it would probably have tumbled into
the ocean by now. Only the Russians are keeping it alive.

Now granted, some people will argue that ISS falling would be a good
thing. But when it comes to (say) a lunar base, I'd much rather see one
that survives than one with only an American flag that gets abandoned
the first time one of our craft explodes.

(4) Emphasis on aeronautics R&D. Here is a truly appropriate, useful
role for NASA, and for the government in general -- doing the
cutting-edge, high-risk research that most commercial investors can't
justify. Once NASA research has developed something, it can be
transferred to the private sector, just as the inflatable techniques
transferred to Bigelow for example.

(Not sure what the bit here about an air traffic management system has
to do with NASA -- I'm willing to hope that that was just the flub-up of
a junior staffer, and it will get sorted out when they start looking at
it in more detail.)

(5) Improving the management of NASA. Can't argue with that.

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

The ghost of John Kennedy has been in tears since 1973. Presidents who
make a speech about big plans, then utterly fail to support them in any
way, certainly aren't going to stop that.

--
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." - George W. Bush [8/30/00]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:10:56 -0500, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
(Mark Whittington) wrote:

Read it and weep:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

Sorry, the best I can manage is to read it with relief.

(1) Increase funding for NASA. Well, I no longer pin all my hopes on
humanity's development of space on NASA, but on the other hand, NASA
does still have an important role to play. It will help to have them
fully funded.

Not if they're not spending the money effectively. What does "fully
funded" mean, outside the context of a program plan or goal? Kerry
appears to have none, at least as far as manned spaceflight goes.

(3) Including other nations in space exploration. Maybe not a bad idea
-- if we had done ISS unilaterally, it would probably have tumbled into
the ocean by now. Only the Russians are keeping it alive.

If we'd done it unilaterally, it wouldn't have happened, since most of
the political justification for it was to promote international
cooperation (and provide foreign aid to the Russians). It would have
died in the 1993 vote.

Now granted, some people will argue that ISS falling would be a good
thing. But when it comes to (say) a lunar base, I'd much rather see one
that survives than one with only an American flag that gets abandoned
the first time one of our craft explodes.

That's an interesting false choice. Can you justify it?

(5) Improving the management of NASA. Can't argue with that.

By the people who kept Dan Goldin on for eight years?

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

The ghost of John Kennedy has been in tears since 1973.

The ghost of John Kennedy is even more indifferent to space
exploration than the live version was, and that's saying something.

Paul wrote:
If JFK were alive today, he probably would have voted for George W.
Bush. Kerry has absolutely no goals for space exploration, just a lot
of
rhetoric with no clear purpose on what he would set out to do. ...

But look at what George Bush has done. His incompetant
mismangement caused the distruction of shuttle Columbia!
Bush surely knew about "shuttle problem" before the
disaster occurred - and he lied to the American people
about it! Would JFK have looked the other way while NASA
underestimated the foam shedding problem? I think not!

Kerry has a plan to mismanage the shuttle program in a
smarter way. A better way. His plan is secret, yes, but
you can be certain that it is smarter. Much, much smarter
because Kerry got better grades than Bush at Yale.

- Ed Kyle

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

The ghost of John Kennedy has been in tears since 1973.

If the ghost of JFK is crying about anything, it sure wouldn't be a space
program that he seems to have cared about, while alive, only insofar as it
could show up the Russians. JIMO.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Now granted, some people will argue that ISS falling would be a good
thing. But when it comes to (say) a lunar base, I'd much rather see one
that survives than one with only an American flag that gets abandoned
the first time one of our craft explodes.

That's an interesting false choice. Can you justify it?

It's an analogy with the (now trimmed) space station. We are currently
in a situation where, if not for the Russians, we have been forced to
abandon ISS (if you disagree with that part, let's examine that in
detail).

So, I was suggesting that we could get into a similar situation on a
lunar base -- some disaster might cause us to ground our lunar-capable
fleet, and if that is the only way we have to get to the base, then it
will be abandoned. But if the effort includes other nations with launch
capability (currently Russia, but perhaps China or India or the EU by
the time we get around to it), then the base might be maintained by
leaning more heavily on those partners -- just as ISS is being
maintained thanks to Russian launchers now.

Obviously that's not the only way it could play out, but it's happened
before, and I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

(5) Improving the management of NASA. Can't argue with that.

By the people who kept Dan Goldin on for eight years?

No. Different people. It's a mistake to think that all Democrats (or
all Republicans, for that matter) are the same.

(As an aside: politically, I'm an independent; it's only because the
Bush administration is so demonstrably evil that I'll be voting entirely
Democrat for the first time in my life next week, with the hope that if
I can't cut off the head, perhaps I can at least weaken the legs.)

I know the ghost of John Kennedy must be in tears.

The ghost of John Kennedy has been in tears since 1973.

The ghost of John Kennedy is even more indifferent to space
exploration than the live version was, and that's saying something.

Heh, good point.

--
"We need a president who will again embrace the tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear"
- John Kerry, endorsed by 48 American Nobel laureates

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:33:05 -0500, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Now granted, some people will argue that ISS falling would be a good
thing. But when it comes to (say) a lunar base, I'd much rather see one
that survives than one with only an American flag that gets abandoned
the first time one of our craft explodes.

That's an interesting false choice. Can you justify it?

It's an analogy with the (now trimmed) space station. We are currently
in a situation where, if not for the Russians, we have been forced to
abandon ISS (if you disagree with that part, let's examine that in
detail).

So, I was suggesting that we could get into a similar situation on a
lunar base -- some disaster might cause us to ground our lunar-capable
fleet, and if that is the only way we have to get to the base, then it
will be abandoned.

Of course we could, if we're dumb. But there are many alternatives.

(5) Improving the management of NASA. Can't argue with that.

By the people who kept Dan Goldin on for eight years?

No. Different people. It's a mistake to think that all Democrats (or
all Republicans, for that matter) are the same.

Except that Kerry's space advisors (like his defense and foreign
policy advisors) seem largely to be Clinton-era retreads. One of the
few times he made any extended statements about the subject, he
praised the Clinton-era program.

(As an aside: politically, I'm an independent; it's only because the
Bush administration is so demonstrably evil

Joe, you crack me up.

edkyle99 wrote:
Paul wrote:

If JFK were alive today, he probably would have voted for George W.
Bush. Kerry has absolutely no goals for space exploration, just a lot

of

rhetoric with no clear purpose on what he would set out to do. ...


But look at what George Bush has done. His incompetant
mismangement caused the distruction of shuttle Columbia!
Bush surely knew about "shuttle problem" before the
disaster occurred - and he lied to the American people
about it! Would JFK have looked the other way while NASA
underestimated the foam shedding problem? I think not!

Kerry has a plan to mismanage the shuttle program in a
smarter way. A better way. His plan is secret, yes, but
you can be certain that it is smarter. Much, much smarter
because Kerry got better grades than Bush at Yale.

- Ed Kyle

I guess LBJ knew beforehand that there were problems with electrical
system aboard the spacecraft and so it fully responsible for the
destruction of the Apollo 1 capsule and the loss of the Apollo crew. And
I guess that means that Ronald Reagan is also responsible for the
destruction of the shuttle Challenger and crew. Everyone knew from day
one that there would be potential disasters in space. You have to be a
fool to think otherwise. And it is literary impossible to foresee what
kind of disaster will occur. As for Kerry being smarter. If he was that
smart, he would not have admitted to committing war-crimes while in
Vietnam and then calling all the other soldiers who were over there, war
criminals when he testified before Congress back in ’71. Smarter does
not mean better.