|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected President as Jerry
Brown - and Jerry's not even a legal resident of the planet Earth. Seriously, I prefer to spend time on candidates who are not asterisks in the polls. Paul is running to get a platform for his message, and good for him. The only serious candidate who's even put out a space policy so far is Senator Clinton, and she was careful to promise something for everyone and not talk budget numbers. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
"lab~rat :-)" wrote:
For the record, that has never stopped anyone from trying to sue in the past. I'm sure that the agreement for space travel has that language, but for some reason folks over here seem to think that kind of legalese is unenforceable. And it's probably because people get paid when they sue... Actually it's because black letter law as well as case law strictly limit the conditions under which, and the extent to which, one can sign one's rights away. Additionally, there is the legal principle (in the Anglo Saxon legal systems) that one is strictly limited to the amount one can bind ones heirs by a current contract. It's not because 'people get paid', it is also part and parcel of the legal principles that prevent debt bondage as well as natural collary of the principle of "sins of the father are not those of the son". D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
I like Paul - he says what he thinks, and he uses the campaign to draw
attention to his message. Democracy in action. But I'll spend any time and money concerning the election on a candidate who has a ghost of a chance to win. Paul has as much chance of being President as Jerry Brown (who should be disqualified on the grounds he's not a legal resident of the Earth). The only candidate to say anything about space is Senator Clinton, who said little of substance, but at least she said something. Hopefully others will follow that lead. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
Not quite true, Representative Ron Paul has a space policy statement too.
It's twenty years old and Ron Paul had only served in Congress for 10 years. The relevant part of the 1988 statement being "... and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators." This is when he was the Libertarian candidate for President. So, if his views haven't changed too much in 20 years as a Republican, the Space Shuttle could very well fly beyond 2010. And the Space Station beyond 2015, most likely with a Space Hotel attached. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ -- http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Position Paper (1988) Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon transport. The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style. Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarrassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortunately happens to be the Soviet Proton. NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better. Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The receipts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed. It is not the business of the defense department of a free society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage. Maybe, besides competition, that's what our government is afraid of. There is really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth: the protection of America. Otherwise, the new frontier of Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in their way. Matt wrote: Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected President as Jerry Brown - and Jerry's not even a legal resident of the planet Earth. Seriously, I prefer to spend time on candidates who are not asterisks in the polls. Paul is running to get a platform for his message, and good for him. The only serious candidate who's even put out a space policy so far is Senator Clinton, and she was careful to promise something for everyone and not talk budget numbers. I don't know what Hillary's space policy is, do you have a link. She sure has been giving away a lot of stuff lately, stuff that doesn't belong to her. If she were Bill Gates, yeah sure, go ahead and give every child born in the US $5000.00. She's not Bill Gates, so she must be a modern day Robin Hood, except she wants to work for the Government, to be Queen Hillary. I guess that would make her equivalent to "John of England", not Robin Hood... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England ....King John's reign has been traditionally characterised as one of the most disastrous in English history... She most definitely believes in the Nanny State, that the Government should take care of you from cradle to grave. That's not what freedom and liberty is all about. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
In the 20th century money became more important than people. In the
21st century money will become more important than the laws that are passed by elected officials, who owe money for their campaigns to major corporations. Thus big money will put itself in a position of total authority. The trade agreements that are signed between nations have small print that replace the laws of nations with decisions by international councils in the interest of trade. This is a continuing process and puts major corporations into a position where they don't have to follow the laws of any country or pay money from lawsuits to individuals even when lawsuits are brought prosecuted and won. Transfer pricing and transferring products from one nation to another through tax-havens, allow major corporations to avoid taxes. This has been used mostly by US firms against supplier nations, but the process is ongoing and will ultimately put all major global firms in absolute control of world affairs. On September 11, 1973 the democratically elected President of Chile was killed by people hired by the CIA because he promised to raise the salaries of copper miners to a level equal to half that of the US copper miners. A right wing puppet government was installed by the United States after the killing. The torture and murder of so many Chilean people that followed was shameful to the world. But most Americans who never saw the story accurately reported in the US on our television networks, controlled by the corporations who instituted the killing in the first place, are unaware of this and US culpability. Over the past 20 years, following our military's failure in Vietnam, which was largely blamed on the media by military planners, there has been a concerted effort to change the nature of news reporting in America to bring it under tighter control of the corporations beyond that in 1973. And this effort has succeeded in undermining any critical analysis and often any critical knowledge of what is going on in the world, totally making the stage managed elections an exercise in public entertainment - with the outcome known well in advance, sort of like wrestlemania. The experts are in charge, and they listen primarily to the experts within corporations. The idea that ordinary untutored citizens could contribute meaningfully to this process is laughable in their view. The only protection offered the average citizen is that afforded by 'tradition' - tradition that is redefined and eroded with each passing generation. In this environment there is always introduced new scientific and technical information and capabilities. Rockets are a simpler version of jet engines. But because rockets can orbit the Earth, they can be used to project weapons from any point on the Earth to any other in a matter of minutes. So, rockets, naturally are important strategic weapons. So, missile proliferation is a legitimate government issue. Prohibting and controlling that proliferation of rocket technology is one of the things the US government is committed to. Another is prohibiting and controlling the proliferation of nuclear technology. This means that rockets and especially nuclear rockets are infeasible for anyone to develop. Anyone, anywhere become targets. Because an effective rocket of this type destroys US nuclear and military hegemony. Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara decided in December 1963 to end serious nuclear rocket programs, also to end the cooperation between the nuclear weapons labs and civilian space labs, and to end serious development of any launchers larger than that and more capable than that needed to get to the moon, and once the moon landing was assured, funding for NASA was dramatically cut. This was all done for very important national security reasons. To control missile proliferation, and also for political reasons. In the 1960s there was an air of unlimited potential and possibility for the world. Kennedy's vision of the US being first among equals, of converting the cold war to a space race - the same way that Europe avoided wars for centuries by competing on the oceans and in foreign lands - we could compete against one another in the development of the solar system. And the US would curtail intelligence operations and replace them with operations like the Peace Corps to build trust and understanding, and address the issues of disparity of income around the world. This stood in stark contrast to the then secret commitment by the US to maintain and exacerbate disparities of income for the sole purpose of maintaining military and economic dominance. So, Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin in Dallas in November 1963, and his plans for space and a peaceful coexistence on Earth were undone by December 1963 by LBJ and McNamara. In today's environment, where the elected President of the US in 2000 receives a Nobel Prize for his work to help the world against corporate excesses, while the son of a former CIA director usurps power from the true winner and leads the country from one disaster to another - it is not an environment where anyone who does not follow the corporate party line will have true power in the world. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
President Ron Paul might let the Space Shuttle flying beyond 2010. :-)
David Smith wrote:
It was 15 Sep 2007, when Craig Fink commented: Hopefully, President Ron Paul would privatize the Space Shuttle Program. Private Enterprise, first thing I'd do after purchasing Enterprise on E-Bay would be to move the LOX, LH2 lines inside the Orbiter. The first thing a privatized space program would do would be to decide there's no immediate profit in it, break it up into smaller pieces, and sell it to other folks who would shortly go out of business. Unless they had a generous customer (like NASA) to tide them over until they could make the modification necessary to make the Shuttle operate in an efficient (cost) and reusable manner. NASA has spent billions on the Shuttle to get that extra pound of performance, and very little on get reducing costs. The original concept of what the shuttle was to be, isn't a bad one. It's implementation by NASA was. A two stage winged reusable vehicle that is able to achieve a once or twice a day (or week) flight rate, would be competitive. Look at the SSMEs, sure they made some improvements, safety wise maybe, but they haven't done the things necessary to make them totally reusable. Doing that would have added weight to the SSMEs, to give them a reasonable flight rate between refurbishment. Removing, refurbishing, and re-installing many things because the objective was payload performance not re-usability or cost. The SSMEs are so bleeding edge, they are bleeding all the way to Orbit, tearing themselves apart. The first thing would be to fix first stage with liquid flyback booster, using a fully reusable engine. Something like the Russian kerosene/lox engine. Then a reusable Orbiter, one that incorporates an internal fuel tank and addresses all the other problem areas. NASA has had lots of proposals in the past for all kind of changes to move towards a truely reusable vehicle. None implemented and all changes to squeeze extra pound of payload into the bay. Get rid of the hydrazine, hydraulic fluid, old computer... This gets rid of an army of maintenance. Get rid of the army at the MCC. Get rid of the army of software maintenance. All the cost of the Shuttle really has to do with the army of people. These operating procedures and concepts developed by NASA are pretty much useless for any commercial company. Looking at where NASA is headed, Apollo II, is going to have the same army working on it. Nothing really reusable, same MCC crew, same maintenance crew, same modifications crew. Even the capsule called reusable but requiring an army to refurbish it. An airline could never operate like this. Private Enterprise would have worked on cost reduction for the past 30 years of the Shuttle Program, not maintaining a maintenance, operations, and modifications army of people. The difference between Private Enterprise and a relic of the Cold War called NASA. Our very own Communist Space Program, needs to be Privatized. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008, and we will have Private Enterprise flying in Space, sooner than later. On the so called scientific Media polls? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 Thank you Luntz, or is it F U Frank! -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Young: Fly Shuttle Beyond 2010 | ed kyle | Space Shuttle | 7 | April 10th 06 04:41 PM |
18 Shuttle flights between now and 2010 | Ray | Space Shuttle | 16 | October 14th 05 08:30 PM |