No pity for "broke" NASA

On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie
either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

On Feb 9, 5:42*pm, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie
either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for
it is truly a joke. The federal goverment ran up bills during
administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative,
so of course im laughing. The punch line is that you really think
what you said is true. So unless you are attempting to shift the
political spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not
even close to reality. And if you are attempting to shift the
spectrum, you would have to go so far to the right, one might conclude
you are a reactionary.

On Feb 9, 9:14*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:42*pm, wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie
either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for
it is truly a joke. *The federal goverment ran up bills during
administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative,
so of course im laughing. *The punch line is that you really think
what you said is true. *So unless you are attempting to shift the
political spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not
even close to reality. *And if you are attempting to shift the
spectrum, you would have to go so far to the right, one might conclude
you are a reactionary.

Your problem is that you want to fit everyone somewhere on a political
spectrum that does not allow for, or even recognize, the concept of
limited government powers. Your spectrum places those who favor
government ownership of industry on the "left" and then places those
who favor strong government control of industry on what you call the
"right." Then the less addle-brained among your ilk try to call those
who fall in between those extremes "moderates" or the "center."
Left, right or center, you are all nothing but collectivists. You
merely argue about how to go about being collectivists.

What you don't seem to be able to recognize is that when the
government has too much control over business, factories and farms,
seeks to raise taxes, increase spending and to control everything
including health care, education, gun ownership, free speech, and even
what we can eat in restaurants (thanks Michelle, but restaurant meals
are already too small) it is the individual who suffers.

True conservatives aren't buying what you're selling. We are not on
your political spectrum.

On Feb 10, 2:22*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:14*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:42*pm, wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie
either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for
it is truly a joke. *The federal goverment ran up bills during
administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative,
so of course im laughing. *The punch line is that you really think
what you said is true. *So unless you are attempting to shift the
political spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not
even close to reality. *And if you are attempting to shift the
spectrum, you would have to go so far to the right, one might conclude
you are a reactionary.

Your problem is that you want to fit everyone somewhere on a political
spectrum that does not allow for, or even recognize, the concept of
limited government powers. *Your spectrum places those who favor
government ownership of industry on the "left" and then places those
who favor strong government control of industry on what you call the
"right." *Then the less addle-brained among your ilk try to call those
who fall in between those extremes "moderates" or the "center."
Left, right or center, you are all nothing but collectivists. You
merely argue about how to go about being collectivists.

What you don't seem to be able to recognize is that when the
government has too much control over business, factories and farms,
seeks to raise taxes, increase spending and to control everything
including health care, education, gun ownership, free speech, and even
what we can eat in restaurants (thanks Michelle, but restaurant meals
are already too small) it is the individual who suffers.

True conservatives aren't buying what you're selling. *We are not on
your political spectrum.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, thats logic only goes so far. People like you just discovered the
budget and the constitution in 2008, and will rubber stamp any and all
defense projects. That bs you are spouting would hold a little more
weight if you would address reality.

On Feb 10, 5:22*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:14*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation



wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:42*pm, wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie
either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for
it is truly a joke. *The federal goverment ran up bills during
administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative,
so of course im laughing. *The punch line is that you really think
what you said is true. *So unless you are attempting to shift the
political spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not
even close to reality. *And if you are attempting to shift the
spectrum, you would have to go so far to the right, one might conclude
you are a reactionary.

Your problem is that you want to fit everyone somewhere on a political
spectrum that does not allow for, or even recognize, the concept of
limited government powers. *Your spectrum places those who favor
government ownership of industry on the "left" and then places those
who favor strong government control of industry on what you call the
"right." *

Huh? Nope, right-wingers want no gov't control of industry -- they
want industry to be free to pollute, exploit their workers, cheat
customers, sell tainted products, etc.


Then the less addle-brained among your ilk try to call those
who fall in between those extremes "moderates" or the "center."
Left, right or center, you are all nothing but collectivists. You
merely argue about how to go about being collectivists.

What you don't seem to be able to recognize is that when the
government has too much control over business, factories and farms,
seeks to raise taxes, increase spending and to control everything
including health care, education, gun ownership, free speech, and even
what we can eat in restaurants (thanks Michelle, but restaurant meals
are already too small) it is the individual who suffers.

Does that apply to things like abortion laws? Laws banning gay
marriage?



True conservatives aren't buying what you're selling. *We are not on
your political spectrum.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:22:59 -0800, wsnell01 wrote:

On Feb 9, 9:14Â*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:42Â*pm, wrote:

On Feb 9, 8:37Â*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:52Â*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't
run up bills...that's why we are called Â*conservatives. Â*We don't
lie either."

now thats funny, good joke.

For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument.

na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for
it is truly a joke. Â*The federal goverment ran up bills during
administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative,
so of course im laughing. Â*The punch line is that you really think what
you said is true. Â*So unless you are attempting to shift the political
spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not even close
to reality. Â*And if you are attempting to shift the spectrum, you would
have to go so far to the right, one might conclude you are a
reactionary.

Your problem is that you want to fit everyone somewhere on a political
spectrum that does not allow for, or even recognize, the concept of
limited government powers. Your spectrum places those who favor
government ownership of industry on the "left" and then places those who
favor strong government control of industry on what you call the
"right." Then the less addle-brained among your ilk try to call those
who fall in between those extremes "moderates" or the "center." Left,
right or center, you are all nothing but collectivists. You merely argue
about how to go about being collectivists.

What you don't seem to be able to recognize is that when the government
has too much control over business, factories and farms, seeks to raise
taxes, increase spending and to control everything including health
care, education, gun ownership, free speech, and even what we can eat in
restaurants (thanks Michelle, but restaurant meals are already too
small) it is the individual who suffers.

True conservatives aren't buying what you're selling. We are not on
your political spectrum.

Thank you. That was very well put.

Without government power to regulate businesses, politicians have no
power to extort corrupting campaign contributions from them. The
founders knew exactly what they were doing when they limited the powers
of the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution. When
we lose sight of that, we risk the Republic.

Apparently about 80% of us think we can regulate ourselves, and the other
20% feel qualified to regulate us.

If we snooze, we're gonna lose.

On Feb 8, 7:33*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:34*pm, Rich wrote:





tunderbar wrote in news:326da898-f3ea-421e-8031-
:

On Feb 8, 8:16*am, Rich wrote:
They should never had wasted $150B on the worthless ISS and they
shouldn't be wasting money pandering to the global warming kooks.
Look UP, NASA not DOWN!

NASA says its pockets not deep enough for new rocket

(CNN) -- The marching orders from Congress and the White House to NASA
were pretty straightforward.

Go out and build a new big rocket to replace the retiring space
shuttle fleet.

Unlike the shuttle, the new rocket has to be powerful enough to get
out of low Earth orbit and carry humans to an asteroid and eventually
Mars, perhaps even the moon. There must also be a test flight by 2016.

But at this point, NASA officials are warning of a potentially
devastating setback to future space exploration.

Its first new rocket in 40 years may not happen because the agency
doesn't think the $8 billion budgeted over the next three years is
enough.

"We have done calculations with current models and approaches to doing
this type of development and it doesn't work with funding constraints
combined with schedules that were laid out in the Authorization Act,"
Doug Cooke, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems,
told CNN.

Congress has already responded that unless NASA can prove there's not
enough money, the rocket must -- by law -- be built.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a key space agency supporter, was adamant
when he spoke to CNN: "NASA must stop making excuses and follow this
law. I believe the best and brightest at the space agency can build
upon the $9 billion we've already invested in advanced technology to
design a new heavy-lift rocket, while taking a stepping-stone, pay-as-
you-go approach."

"We're doing everything we can to get there," Cooke said.

The $9 billion was for the now-defunct Constellation program, planned
to take astronauts to the moon and on to Mars. It was cut from the
federal budget last year after being called behind schedule and over
budget.

After the last shuttle flight later this year, NASA will be out of the
space taxi business. Commercial companies are expected to take over
ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

NASA, no longer burdened with an aging vehicle and costly flights, has
again been told to focus on building a new rocket.

Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz is not
confident: "NASA is unfortunately becoming a black hole for the
taxpayers and something needs to be done to turn things around," he
said. "The Constellation program has taught us the things that work,
the things that we could have done better."

The vehicle most likely to be presented to Congress would have solid
rocket boosters like the shuttle, only larger; would use shuttle main
engines and would also, like the shuttle, have a liquid fuel stage,
Cooke told CNN. Early test flights would use a lot of existing
hardware.

"We have engines that will be freed up when shuttle retires. We do
have solid rocket casings that are from the shuttle program that we
can use," he said.

NASA says it will tell Congress by the spring or early summer whether
the rocket can be built with the money available and meet the 2016
deadline.

"Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a key space agency supporter, was
adamant when he spoke to CNN: "NASA must stop making excuses and
follow this law."

Innovation and development of advanced space technologies by state
decree. If only the real world worked like that. Only a democrat could
believe that that would work.

Hearing a democrat telling someone to work within a budget or save money
is a real laugh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, what party was in office during both shuttle accidents? *Maybe
you need to learn some facts, before you spout your idiocy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

why do you insist on making this a left vs right issue? LOL.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:03:30 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Feb 8, 2:15*pm, Desertphile
wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:16:38 -0800 (PST), Rich
wrote:

NASA says its pockets not deep enough for new rocket

(CNN) -- The marching orders from Congress and the White House to NASA
were pretty straightforward.

Go out and build a new big rocket to replace the retiring space
shuttle fleet.

Unlike the shuttle, the new rocket has to be powerful enough to get
out of low Earth orbit and carry humans to an asteroid and eventually
Mars, perhaps even the moon. There must also be a test flight by 2016.

But at this point, NASA officials are warning of a potentially
devastating setback to future space exploration.

Its first new rocket in 40 years may not happen because the agency
doesn't think the $8 billion budgeted over the next three years is
enough.

Bush2 and the Bush2 Regime spent THREE TRILLION DOLLARS invading
Iraq and Afghanistan, 1.5 trillion of which Congress approved.
NASA could have been well on its way to their goals if the Bush2
Regime had not bankrupt the country and put every citizen more
than $50,000 into dept.

That's on top of the TWELVE TRILLION DOLLARS the Bush2 Regime
promised to the extremely wealthy in his "bail out" wealth
redistribution scam, 3.9 billion of which has already been dolled
out.

America is no longer in space chiefly because of Bush1 and Bush2.

Your view is accurate.

Unfortunately. I weap for my country.

The United States will not be a serious contender in space for the
next few decades.

The ESA has been taking up the slack. Very soon the USA will have
to look towards ESA and Russia for its boost capabilities.

We will be watching China walking on the moon... on our Chinese
televisions and computers.

China has a great deal of Rare Earth Minerals, many of which are
used in high technologies such as computer monitors and super
conductors. The USA will be forced to pay whatever China demands
for such things.

TMT


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

wsnell wrote:
Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called
conservatives. *We don't lie either.

Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your
assertion that you *don't* lie.

(Come on, really? You don't have to rise to the bait with
yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X,
never do bad thing Y.")

The government, as a whole, runs up bills. It also lies. (It
doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth
sometimes. More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler
if it always lied.) No different from people in general that
way. What we do as voters is decide which group of
people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion,
according to our lights.

In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is
so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the
whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out
so many exciting plans. It's that way, to some extent,
because many people (rather reasonably, given what they
are taught) demand a certain level of return on investment.
The ISS is more tangible--people can see it!--and I think
that makes it somewhat easier to defend than other, more
abstract scientific proposals.

--
Brian Tung (posting from Google Groups)
The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/
Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

On Feb 10, 8:26*am, tunderbar wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:33*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:34*pm, Rich wrote:

tunderbar wrote in news:326da898-f3ea-421e-8031-
:

On Feb 8, 8:16*am, Rich wrote:
They should never had wasted $150B on the worthless ISS and they
shouldn't be wasting money pandering to the global warming kooks.
Look UP, NASA not DOWN!

NASA says its pockets not deep enough for new rocket

(CNN) -- The marching orders from Congress and the White House to NASA
were pretty straightforward.

Go out and build a new big rocket to replace the retiring space
shuttle fleet.

Unlike the shuttle, the new rocket has to be powerful enough to get
out of low Earth orbit and carry humans to an asteroid and eventually
Mars, perhaps even the moon. There must also be a test flight by 2016.

But at this point, NASA officials are warning of a potentially
devastating setback to future space exploration.

Its first new rocket in 40 years may not happen because the agency
doesn't think the $8 billion budgeted over the next three years is
enough.

"We have done calculations with current models and approaches to doing
this type of development and it doesn't work with funding constraints
combined with schedules that were laid out in the Authorization Act,"
Doug Cooke, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems,
told CNN.

Congress has already responded that unless NASA can prove there's not
enough money, the rocket must -- by law -- be built.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a key space agency supporter, was adamant
when he spoke to CNN: "NASA must stop making excuses and follow this
law. I believe the best and brightest at the space agency can build
upon the $9 billion we've already invested in advanced technology to
design a new heavy-lift rocket, while taking a stepping-stone, pay-as-
you-go approach."

"We're doing everything we can to get there," Cooke said.

The $9 billion was for the now-defunct Constellation program, planned
to take astronauts to the moon and on to Mars. It was cut from the
federal budget last year after being called behind schedule and over
budget.

After the last shuttle flight later this year, NASA will be out of the
space taxi business. Commercial companies are expected to take over
ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

NASA, no longer burdened with an aging vehicle and costly flights, has
again been told to focus on building a new rocket.

Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz is not
confident: "NASA is unfortunately becoming a black hole for the
taxpayers and something needs to be done to turn things around," he
said. "The Constellation program has taught us the things that work,
the things that we could have done better."

The vehicle most likely to be presented to Congress would have solid
rocket boosters like the shuttle, only larger; would use shuttle main
engines and would also, like the shuttle, have a liquid fuel stage,
Cooke told CNN. Early test flights would use a lot of existing
hardware.

"We have engines that will be freed up when shuttle retires. We do
have solid rocket casings that are from the shuttle program that we
can use," he said.

NASA says it will tell Congress by the spring or early summer whether
the rocket can be built with the money available and meet the 2016
deadline.

"Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a key space agency supporter, was
adamant when he spoke to CNN: "NASA must stop making excuses and
follow this law."

Innovation and development of advanced space technologies by state
decree. If only the real world worked like that. Only a democrat could
believe that that would work.

Hearing a democrat telling someone to work within a budget or save money
is a real laugh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wow, what party was in office during both shuttle accidents? *Maybe
you need to learn some facts, before you spout your idiocy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

why do you insist on making this a left vs right issue? LOL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the shuttle program has lasted longer than many administrations, of
both parties, so its more of an attention span problem than anything
else. But if either party wants to increase funding for the next
generation vehicle, im all for it!