LA Times calls for cancellation of space station

Cardman ) wrote:
: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:45:10 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: : Cardman, lighten up -- can't you see it's ME doing the teasing
: : of a leftwing editorial page, who would darned sure take
: : somebody ELSE to task for 'insensitive terminology' to please
: : its own political agenda? Criminy, guy, didn't the 'irony mode' light
: : come on over your PC screen?
:
: I dunno, looks like you went PC yourself out of convenience. Are you
: claiming the whole "manned" thing was a joke?

: This is a language adjustment problem.

: NASA uses the term "Human Spaceflight" when this is to ensure that
: there is no misplaced sexiest claims over "Manned Spaceflight", like
: in this case.

: The other factor is that terms like "manned" and "manhours" really did
: used to refer to the male gender, when women simply did not used to
: feature in situations where they usually applied.

: This is why older dictionaries mention men and modern dictionaries
: mention person. Language had to adjust some how and where it is better
: to avoid gender specific terms.

: My point would be that older aged people, and some interesting
: communities, would still see the old definition. As a result they can
: see a sexism problem.

: Unfortunately for them the vast majority of the younger generation
: will see these words and think "person", where like in my college
: example they can be used innocently without a second thought.

: Since that is what true gender equality is about, then as I said there
: is no problem here beyond those few people who need to simply catch
: up. And well it is not their fault that true gender equality occurred
: when they were looking in the wrong direction.

Yet, many conservatives write the whole thing off as being "PC" rather
than practical, as you state and which I agree.

: So I am sure that NASA manned spaceflight will be putting women on the
: Moon this time as well. Lunar assembly will take a lot of manhours and
: where this should benefit all of mankind.

: Things certainly changed since the 60s. :-]

You neglected to mention the ERA era...

Eric

: Cardman
: http://www.cardman.org
: http://www.cardman.com
: http://www.cardman.co.uk

Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: : Cardman wrote:
: :
: : "Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
: : a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
: : that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
: : seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
: : vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
: : Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.
: :
: : That is not true. Although Bush may not be on my Xmas card list but
: : his speech back then was very carefully planned and efficient to move
: : NASA in the right direction.
: :
: : There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
: : means whoever said that is a complete moron.
:
: : Bull****, someone in the Bush Administration UNILATERALLY decided
: : that the ISS and Shuttle should be killed (along with life sciences)
: : and that NASA should go back to the moon, using Mars as the excuse,
: : so that an election could be won, the space program could be killed,
: : and Bush could be remembered as being a bigger man than his daddy.
:
: : Then O'Keefe the bureaucrat fudged with all the numbers to make it
: : seem like it could work, and Griffin came in with his SCHTICK fantasy,
: : and Marshall came up with an idiot idea for expendable SSMEs and J2s.
:
: : The entire VSE ESAS scam is moronic from day one. A child's fantasy.
:
: : ------
:
: : What we need are reusable launch vehicles (SSTOs and RLVs)
: : and sustainable CELSS on practical equatorial, inclined
: : and geosychronous orbits, using solar power and fuel cells,
: : constructed out of cryogenic tankage and upper stages.
:
: : We could start right away with the Delta IV Medium and the
: : STS/ISS combination to service and retrieve SSTO test vehicles.
:
: : Above all, we need new engines. Guess what, we already have IPD.
:
: : NASA is a completely lost cause. It's only salvation now would
: : have to come from an internal revolution by employees fed up
: : with the complete and utter nonsense occurring at the top level.
:
: Are you saying that the unmanned sector is lost?

: No, but we need more asteroid missions.

: We need more space telescopes.

Agreed on both accounts. JWST is still on track last I looked.

: They killed Dawn.

Only neocons would kill the dawn...

: Near earth and deep
: space? Last time I looked all that was doing quite well. Sure manned SF is
: in trouble, but could that be because Texas and Flordia is going to get
: funded despite what they do?

: All space flights, manned and unmanned, need rockets.

: However, only asteroid missions will 'save the Earth'.

Please explain how asteroid missions are going to save the earth.
Deflection of impacts, need for mining, what?

: We definitely need more remote sensing here too.

NPOESS not enough with EOSDIS?!? Geez man, you sound like a Maryland
politician.

: : Boycott! Protest! DISSENT! Stand Up FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!
:
: Man if you're not a child of the 60s, then I don't know what you are! Put
: the bong down...

: What can I say. Madison, Wisconsin. I was there.

Sort of close to Kent State.

: Gulf of Tonkin? The commies won. WMD? The terrorists won.

Cons and neocons need enemies. All you have done is label them.

: Your average American is so dumbed down they don't know their
: ass from a smoking hole in the ground. Civilization ... augering in.

Will still have pockets of brigthness, you just have to look. It is tough
and frustrating at times.

: : Bring the *******s down. Vote the mother****ers out of office.
: : They are wasting your money, trampling down the environment and
: : burning the constitution in a frenzy of greed and corruption.
:
: : But by all means, do it peacefully and well within the law.
: : Don't stoop to the level of the neocon fascists in America.
: : The revolution started noon Friday in the basement with Conyers.
:
: : George Bush and Michael Griffin have demonstrated their incompetence.
:
: : TERMINATE VSE and ESAS NOW!
:
: In lieu of what?

: SSME - SSTO - RLV - CELSS - IPD. Anything reasonable. Anything new.

: But what do the Monkey Boys give US?

: VSE - Visiting Space Expensively

: ESAS - Exploring Space as Stupidly as Possible

: US - Unsustainable System

Yes, I'm afraid you have a point. Much of NASA in the manned SF sector
(i.e. Florida and Texas) is going to get funding regardless of lack of
results. Who in this administration is going to hold their feet to the
fire?

When JPL had those back-to-back Mars disaters in the 1990s they took a lot
of heat and there was this "we'll get it right just you watch" attitude.
And they did. Is JSC feeling the same sort heat, making the same "we'll be
back!" promise? Seems like the same old, same old to me...and THAT is
scarey!

Eric

: http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Cardman ) wrote:
: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:38:22 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: Cardman ) wrote:
: : I guess they missed the time when Bush "ordered" Congress to approve
: : his NASA funding plan... or else.
:
: What you're neglecting here is that Bush's NASA plan appears to be very
: Texas-centric. Surely, the news report is California-centric, but Bush
: does nothing to dispell the notion of red-state and blue-state NASA. Under
: him the division is clear as night and day as seen from a remote sensing
: EOS satellite in near polar orbit!

: Since I am English then so does this "Moon, Mars and Beyond" plan mean
: nothing to me in terms of how this will affect the individual US
: states. I do not see that the plan itself would be biased though, even
: if the allocation of work could be.

The point is that I can't help feel that Tom DeLay from Texas and by
extension, President Bush, wants to fund NASA to make sure Johnson Space
Center in Houston gets funded. Now, if JPL in California has screwups and
gets dinged for them, who is doing the same for JSC in Texas? No one...

If the allocation of work is bias, then how can the plan which set that
up, NOT be?!?

: : Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
: : President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
: : trip to Mars.
:
: As if one goes hand in hand.

: Well they can do some Mars trip training in it.

They can also test robotic repair technology for stuff like fixing Hubble.

: The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
: and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
: in 1989!!

: You may recall that Bush's daddy wanted NASA to go to Mars and where
: the price for this mission was too high for Congress to approve.

And now it has gotten cheaper?!

: : Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: : your shots and then take cover. :-]
:
: A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
: women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
: default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
: about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
: done in fun for humor and nothing more.

: Certainly, but things are not always this way.

: I bet that you did not know that our planet is currently "missing"
: between 113 and 200 million women. The inaccuracy in this figure would
: be due to gender selective abortions, and the killing in baby girls,
: in order to produce only male children.

: These other women, usually now deceased, would be classed as "missing"
: due to a combination of...

: Females being deprived of food or medical care in favour of males.
: Honour Killings.
: Dowry Deaths.
: Trafficking.
: Domestic based violence.

: So each year between 1.5 and 3 million females are "lost" due to
: gender selective violence.

I don't doubt this. But I don't see how this factors into the discussion.

Eric

: Cardman
: http://www.cardman.org
: http://www.cardman.com
: http://www.cardman.co.uk

Eric Chomko wrote:


What you're neglecting here is that Bush's NASA plan appears to be very
Texas-centric. Surely, the news report is California-centric, but Bush
does nothing to dispell the notion of red-state and blue-state NASA. Under
him the division is clear as night and day as seen from a remote sensing
EOS satellite in near polar orbit!

if they are doing a temporary easement that's essentially fine, but...
What if a worker gets hurt crossing to that spot . There needs to be
liability disclaimer that nothing but
nothing will allow them to sue for their workers crossing that polar
orbit. That
is what ingerss and egress means. They are taking the easement but
they also have
given themselves the right to cross the polar orbit. .
There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
documents or anything else that tells you
where they plan to put their trucks and portajohns. The last time they
pulled this
crap, they left their equipment and portajohns all over. And they
weren't
even fixing anything. They should say where they will locate that
garbage.


: And I do not see why he should need to comment on it since, when NASA
: is doing what is expected of them.

Is that so?

There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
documents that suggest what is meant by
"near" for the polar orbit . How do we agree what that means.
That doesn't mean a darn thing. It's crap as a matter of fact. After
they chop
off the orbit to do the drainage, do whatever damage they feel like
doing, they'll
just claim that they couldn't put it back together and this is as close
as you are
gonna get. The term " near" is under their control. Not ours.


: Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
: James Oberg, Houston, Texas
: Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
: and consultant to the national news media on
: spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
: to the LA Times opinion page.
:
: When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
: arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
: "Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
: an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
: intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
: referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
: spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
: Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
: 'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
: the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
: editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
: over its truth or falsehood.

: Sounds like a nit picking to me. Obviously they meant that meteorites
: can get hot.

: The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
: present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
: thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
: the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
: Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
: return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
: international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
: honestly.

: Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
: President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
: trip to Mars.

As if one goes hand in hand.

Restore as close as possible but how soon. 10 years from now, after we
finish
fighting them in court.


The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
in 1989!!

that part of the property that flanges out, are they saying they are
taking that forever, or that is just the temporary easement?

This is too vague. IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD SAY. And
if they cannot get it back to what it should be, then the document
should give the orbit the option
to consider it permanently converted by the US government to ITS
ownership for THEM to maintain
and fix.




: Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
:
: It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: "human space flight".

: I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
: to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
: "humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
: means "a person".

Yes, James Oberg, Mr. PC...

: This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
: hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
: on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
: honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!

: I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
: all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
: have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
: language.

: And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
: terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
: and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]

: So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
: problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
: include women in all things long ago.

Amen.

The agreement is unacceptable.



: Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
: and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
: have flown in space.

: Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: your shots and then take cover. :-]

A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
done in fun for humor and nothing more.



mk5000

"Know ya appalled bout it
But this my call about a false prophet, all profit
Harlem hustler
I cant at all knock it"--take em to church, diplomats

if they are doing a temporary easement that's essentially fine, but...
What if a worker gets hurt crossing to that spot . There needs to be
liability disclaimer that nothing but
nothing will allow them to sue for their workers crossing that polar
orbit. That
is what ingerss and egress means. They are taking the easement but
they also have
given themselves the right to cross the polar orbit. .
There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
documents or anything else that tells you
where they plan to put their trucks and portajohns. The last time they
pulled this
crap, they left their equipment and portajohns all over. And they
weren't
even fixing anything. They should say where they will locate that
garbage.


But we will need to also have entertianment. I think a small arcade and
a Pizza place would greatly improve relations.

There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
documents that suggest what is meant by
"near" for the polar orbit . How do we agree what that means.
That doesn't mean a darn thing. It's crap as a matter of fact. After
they chop
off the orbit to do the drainage, do whatever damage they feel like
doing, they'll
just claim that they couldn't put it back together and this is as close
as you are
gonna get. The term " near" is under their control. Not ours.

In the registry, I saw more facts, but I do not recall what the
specific cause is.


Restore as close as possible but how soon. 10 years from now, after we
finish
fighting them in court.


But they will have a class action lawsuit against the Class action
lawyers.

The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon

that part of the property that flanges out, are they saying they are
taking that forever, or that is just the temporary easement?

Maybe we can build a high-dollar post office on the spot?

This is too vague. IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD SAY. And
if they cannot get it back to what it should be, then the document
should give the orbit the option
to consider it permanently converted by the US government to ITS
ownership for THEM to maintain
and fix.

Great, now I need the PDF of the new file please.

marika wrote:

[anonymous randomizer snipped]

In the new American fascist police state,
I would expect a LOT more government and
corporate sponsored anonymous randomizer
attacks here on the usenet. We'll need to
start developing some good techniques to
avoid or circumvent these kinds of things.

Trim your headers, for starters.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

marika ) wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:

:
: What you're neglecting here is that Bush's NASA plan appears to be very
: Texas-centric. Surely, the news report is California-centric, but Bush
: does nothing to dispell the notion of red-state and blue-state NASA. Under
: him the division is clear as night and day as seen from a remote sensing
: EOS satellite in near polar orbit!

: if they are doing a temporary easement that's essentially fine, but...
: What if a worker gets hurt crossing to that spot . There needs to be
: liability disclaimer that nothing but
: nothing will allow them to sue for their workers crossing that polar
: orbit. That
: is what ingerss and egress means. They are taking the easement but
: they also have
: given themselves the right to cross the polar orbit. .
: There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
: documents or anything else that tells you
: where they plan to put their trucks and portajohns. The last time they
: pulled this
: crap, they left their equipment and portajohns all over. And they
: weren't
: even fixing anything. They should say where they will locate that
: garbage.

Wow, I had no idea what I typed would solicit THIS rsponse. Really! I was
comparing day-side earth and night-side earth to red and blue states, but
not necessarily respectively. Just that there was a sharp contrast of
which Bush does little to dispel.

But sure, tell us where the garbage is. shrug

:
: : And I do not see why he should need to comment on it since, when NASA
: : is doing what is expected of them.
:
: Is that so?

: There is nothing whatsoever in the legislation, regulations or policy
: documents that suggest what is meant by
: "near" for the polar orbit . How do we agree what that means.

We went through this before. A perfect pole to pole orbit in theory is the
best way to see the earth underneath you from a remote sensing, earth
science, point-of-view. But since the earth is not a perfect shere with
perfect mass/volume distribution, a sun synchronous, near polar orbit is
the best we can do.

: That doesn't mean a darn thing. It's crap as a matter of fact. After
: they chop
: off the orbit to do the drainage, do whatever damage they feel like
: doing, they'll
: just claim that they couldn't put it back together and this is as close
: as you are
: gonna get. The term " near" is under their control. Not ours.

Are we talking about satellites here that orbit the earth or something
else?

:
: : Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
: : James Oberg, Houston, Texas
: : Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
: : and consultant to the national news media on
: : spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
: : to the LA Times opinion page.
: :
: : When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
: : arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
: : "Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
: : an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
: : intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
: : referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
: : spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
: : Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
: : 'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
: : the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
: : editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
: : over its truth or falsehood.
:
: : Sounds like a nit picking to me. Obviously they meant that meteorites
: : can get hot.
:
: : The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
: : present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
: : thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
: : the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
: : Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
: : return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
: : international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
: : honestly.
:
: : Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
: : President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
: : trip to Mars.
:
: As if one goes hand in hand.

: Restore as close as possible but how soon. 10 years from now, after we
: finish
: fighting them in court.

Are you a lawyer in a science forum? Somehow I really don't think we are
speaking about the same topic.

:
: The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
: and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
: in 1989!!

: that part of the property that flanges out, are they saying they are
: taking that forever, or that is just the temporary easement?

In theory space belongs to no one and all of us.

: This is too vague. IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD SAY. And
: if they cannot get it back to what it should be, then the document
: should give the orbit the option
: to consider it permanently converted by the US government to ITS
: ownership for THEM to maintain
: and fix.

I'm pretty sure a lunar colony would be the responsibility of the
nation(s) that created it, to fix and maintain it.

:
:
: : Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: : an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: : assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: : them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
: :
: : It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: : sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: : "human space flight".
:
: : I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
: : to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
: : "humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
: : means "a person".
:
: Yes, James Oberg, Mr. PC...
:
: : This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
: : hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
: : on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
: : honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!
:
: : I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
: : all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
: : have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
: : language.
:
: : And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
: : terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
: : and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]
:
: : So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
: : problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
: : include women in all things long ago.
:
: Amen.

: The agreement is unacceptable.

In what way?

:
: : Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
: : and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
: : have flown in space.
:
: : Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: : your shots and then take cover. :-]
:
: A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
: women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
: default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
: about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
: done in fun for humor and nothing more.
:


: mk5000

: "Know ya appalled bout it
: But this my call about a false prophet, all profit
: Harlem hustler
: I cant at all knock it"--take em to church, diplomats

Why do I get the impression that English is not your first language and
that you spell much better than you comprehend?

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:

Are you a lawyer in a science forum?

Hush, no! NASA works in my building, on the 2nd floor so I am a real
estate scientist.

Somehow I really don't think we are
speaking about the same topic.

we are. as I said, Nasa works in my building, so we HAVE to be talking
about the same topic


:
: The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
: and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
: in 1989!!

: that part of the property that flanges out, are they saying they are
: taking that forever, or that is just the temporary easement?

In theory space belongs to no one and all of us.

isn't that what Arthur Dent thought, wrongly.'


: This is too vague. IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD SAY. And
: if they cannot get it back to what it should be, then the document
: should give the orbit the option
: to consider it permanently converted by the US government to ITS
: ownership for THEM to maintain
: and fix.

I'm pretty sure a lunar colony would be the responsibility of the
nation(s) that created it, to fix and maintain it.

yes but maybe the nations don't see it that way, so maybe we have to
make sure we get it in writing ahead of time?


:
:
: : Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: : an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: : assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: : them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
: :
: : It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: : sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: : "human space flight".
:
: : I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
: : to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
: : "humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
: : means "a person".
:
: Yes, James Oberg, Mr. PC...
:
: : This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
: : hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
: : on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
: : honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!
:
: : I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
: : all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
: : have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
: : language.
:
: : And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
: : terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
: : and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]
:
: : So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
: : problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
: : include women in all things long ago.
:
: Amen.

: The agreement is unacceptable.

In what way?

you are amening that guy in agreement. Modern society did NOT adjust
to include women in all things.
Show me one girl who has ever been allowed to play pro ball for the
NFL.
Til a girl gets to play in the Superbowl, you shouldn't be amening.


:
: : Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
: : and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
: : have flown in space.
:
: : Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: : your shots and then take cover. :-]
:
: A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
: women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
: default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
: about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
: done in fun for humor and nothing more.
:


: mk5000

: "Know ya appalled bout it
: But this my call about a false prophet, all profit
: Harlem hustler
: I cant at all knock it"--take em to church, diplomats

Why do I get the impression that English is not your first language and
that you spell much better than you comprehend?

because you are right. Thanks for the sweet compliment.

mk5000

"caught in the headlights of a very mixed up world
where everything you fear
where your shadow blocks your light
oh, beautiful world, to me"--beth orton, beautiful world

Lester Mosley wrote:

But we will need to also have entertianment. I think a small arcade and
a Pizza place would greatly improve relations.

it's de rigeuer that science fiction shows have cheesy sets

mk5000

"You talk to loners, you ask how's your week
You give love to all and give love to me
You're obsessed with hiding the sticks and stones
When I feel the unknown
You feel like home, you feel like home"--somersault - zero 7

marika ) wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:

: Are you a lawyer in a science forum?

: Hush, no! NASA works in my building, on the 2nd floor so I am a real
: estate scientist.

NASA works IN your building? I never knew NASA would rent private property
space rather than opt for a govt. base.

: Somehow I really don't think we are
: speaking about the same topic.

: we are. as I said, Nasa works in my building, so we HAVE to be talking
: about the same topic

The question about your building is whether the elevator goes to the
top...

:
: :
: : The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
: : and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
: : in 1989!!
:
: : that part of the property that flanges out, are they saying they are
: : taking that forever, or that is just the temporary easement?
:
: In theory space belongs to no one and all of us.

: isn't that what Arthur Dent thought, wrongly.'

But he ended up with Trillion was was proven right!

:
: : This is too vague. IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD SAY. And
: : if they cannot get it back to what it should be, then the document
: : should give the orbit the option
: : to consider it permanently converted by the US government to ITS
: : ownership for THEM to maintain
: : and fix.
:
: I'm pretty sure a lunar colony would be the responsibility of the
: nation(s) that created it, to fix and maintain it.

: yes but maybe the nations don't see it that way, so maybe we have to
: make sure we get it in writing ahead of time?

You think like a lawyer. First we have to integrate red and blue state
NASA.

: :
: : : Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: : : an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: : : assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: : : them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
: : :
: : : It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: : : sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: : : "human space flight".
: :
: : : I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
: : : to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
: : : "humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
: : : means "a person".
: :
: : Yes, James Oberg, Mr. PC...
: :
: : : This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
: : : hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
: : : on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
: : : honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!
: :
: : : I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
: : : all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
: : : have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
: : : language.
: :
: : : And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
: : : terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
: : : and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]
: :
: : : So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
: : : problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
: : : include women in all things long ago.
: :
: : Amen.
:
: : The agreement is unacceptable.
:
: In what way?

: you are amening that guy in agreement. Modern society did NOT adjust
: to include women in all things.
: Show me one girl who has ever been allowed to play pro ball for the
: NFL.
: Til a girl gets to play in the Superbowl, you shouldn't be amening.

The day a woman gets to play in the Superbowl is when men start having
babies. Again, men are superior at being men and women are superior at
being women, and that is that. Men play football and women have babies.
Both play tennis and basketball. If women want to form a woman's football
league, then have at it but don't try and force mens' football to,
necessarily, include women. You might as well try and get men to have
babies.

:
: :
: : : Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
: : : and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
: : : have flown in space.
: :
: : : Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: : : your shots and then take cover. :-]
: :
: : A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
: : women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
: : default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
: : about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
: : done in fun for humor and nothing more.
: :
:
:
: : mk5000
:
: : "Know ya appalled bout it
: : But this my call about a false prophet, all profit
: : Harlem hustler
: : I cant at all knock it"--take em to church, diplomats
:
: Why do I get the impression that English is not your first language and
: that you spell much better than you comprehend?

: because you are right. Thanks for the sweet compliment.

Your welcome. What is your first language?

Eric

: mk5000

: "caught in the headlights of a very mixed up world
: where everything you fear
: where your shadow blocks your light
: oh, beautiful world, to me"--beth orton, beautiful world