|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:59:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On 22 Jan, 07:32, William Elliot wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote: William Elliot wrote: Riddle of the day. *Which will cost US more? * * Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the costs for the Iraki people... Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs? Real rockets have been fired at Israel at least. What did Iraq do? Precisely nothing. Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers against Israel. rest of lunacy about Iraq snipped |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
There is one additional remark I would like to make and it is this. If
posters are cofusing Iraq with Palestine one wonders how competant they are in general. What about the costs for a manned expedition to Mars? $80 billion? No sir more like $300 billlion. The operation in Gaza was called "Cast Lead". I can't help remembering that the Shuttle carries 2 tons of the stuff! The issue to be is one of credibility quite apart from anything else. You can look at Mars in two ways. You ask yourself the question as to whether a manned expedition is sound Physics. Even if you think it is two questions remain. Is it worthwhile? Can it be delivered within cost. At some point ad hominem arguments enter. We know that virtually no space program has been delivered on time and on budget. We were told that the Shuttle would reduce the cost of spaceflight. It hasn't. Talking about the Middle East is both off topic and not off topic. As I say there must in any project be the ad hominem issue of confidence. Can we have confidence with the record shown. If a total incapacity to put forward logical and coherent arguments has been demonstrated, can they be trusted with billions of dollars? The answer must surely be "no". Now the stated goal of Constellation/Ares is for men to spend 4 days on the Moon. Big deal! Not even a credible Moon base is on the drawing board. To me it is abunantly clear that all the scientific informaton and more could be gained at much lower cost by sending things like Spirit and Opportunity to the Moon. Of course they could be made a lot more sophisticated as these designs are by now quite old. Do we have confidence that they can do it? - NO. Already the budget seems to have been stretched. To me the only rational decision is to pull the plug. - Ian Parker |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:35:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: There is one additional remark I would like to make and it is this. If posters are cofusing Iraq with Palestine one wonders how competant they are in general. People aren't doing that, you loon. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
Rand Simberg wrote:
Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers against Israel. This is a lie. Like the WMD lie. Like all republican lies, this one looks plausible to republicans only. And, even if this lie was true. Why should the PEOPLE of Irak be destroyed because of a bad decision of their leader? Now, Simberg, where you have this lie from? The same WMD sources ? And this justifies the killing of 100 THOUSAND Irakis? (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/: 90-98 thousand iraqis dead) -- jacob navia jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Jan 20, 6:00*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
Mr Obama's speechhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Inaugural_Address " We will restore science to its rightful place..." "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." Science and especially of our public funded science needs to be given the green light. We need to exploit science via full access to all of our public funded and otherwise intellectually invested science, with no more of this need-to-know or exclusion of evidence as policy. Even 50/50 (public match funded) science simply has to become publicly accessible unless specific national security (other than embarrassment or humility) is at risk. Only when and if the private sector has funded more than 50% is when secrecy or proprietary license on behalf of nondisclosure should be allowed. There should no longer be any significant truth lag, especially of whatever is 50% or more public funded. Let us hope and prey that BHO as our resident wizard of Oz agrees with this. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:05:54 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers against Israel. This is a lie. No, it's true. He not only offered them, he paid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm Like the WMD lie. That wasn't a lie, either. As usual, when I'm being called a liar by a leftist, it's probably projection. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Jan 21, 6:29*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. *Particularly in this case... I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess. The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation. Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will. What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have its budget slashed. Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has to show either :- 1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the dependency on forein oil etc. 2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent. This is what minds should be concentrating on. * - Ian Parker I fully agree, that we need to focus upon obtainable goals that will yield the most return for the greater good of humanity, not to mention the salvation of our frail environment that’s otherwise going to have a tough time at sustaining ten billion humans, especially with fossil and biological resources showing their stress and trauma as is. Science and especially of our public funded science needs to be given the green light. We as supposedly free Americans need to exploit science via having full access to all of our public funded and otherwise intellectually invested science, with no more of this need- to-know or exclusion of evidence as policy. Even 50/50 (public match funded) science simply has to become publicly accessible unless specific national security (other than embarrassment or humility) is at risk. Only when and if the private sector has funded more than 50% is when secrecy or proprietary license on behalf of nondisclosure should be allowed. There should no longer be any significant truth lag, especially of whatever is 50% or more public funded. Let us hope and prey that BHO as our resident wizard of Oz agrees with this. " We will restore science to its rightful place..." / BHO ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Jan 21, 7:34*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. *Particularly in this case... I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote] Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo. That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build mission, it's going to be a big lander. On your private nickle (meaning fully taxed private loot) there's no problem. Go right ahead. At best this spendy moon thing should become a 50/50 deal, of private and public loot. If you can't get at least 50% in private sponsors, then perhaps there's something wrong with the plan. ~ BG |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
Ian Parker wrote:
: :To me the only rational decision is to pull the plug. : The sane among us wish that you would. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
jacob navia wrote:
:Rand Simberg wrote: : : Saddam Hussein offered rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide : bombers against Israel. : : :This is a lie. : No, this is a fact. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I wonder what will happen to Constellation | Alan Erskine[_2_] | Policy | 11 | October 19th 08 02:52 PM |
Extracting Constellation from RA/Dec | Anthony Ayiomamitis[_3_] | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | September 28th 08 11:40 AM |
P.Constellation will be cancelled | Jörg | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 14th 08 07:59 PM |
How About Some New Constellation Boundaries? | Mark Lepkowski | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | December 2nd 04 03:54 AM |
Favorite constellation? | scroob | Amateur Astronomy | 42 | June 17th 04 01:27 PM |