No pity for "broke" NASA

wsnell wrote:
True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among
so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in
America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an
attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay.

Really. You clearly have *no* idea what I think conservatism
is. You've never asked, and my point had nothing at all to do
with what I think it is. It's a group of actual people that numbers
over, oh, let's say 100 people, and as such, it will lie from time
to time. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, fascists,
communists, you name it, that group will lie.

I'm willing to say that most of that group doesn't lie materially,
most of the time. That's true of all of those groups. You'll
probably disagree, but it really doesn't matter. People will
continue to be generally trustworthy nevertheless.

Unfortunately, those who hold power, in any group, are those
who desire it more than others, and human nature being what
it is, they will lie to keep it.

Ideologies divide us, but they are horrible sieves for human
nature. We'd most of us like to believe that the groups to
which we cleave our more resistant to that, but we're just
way too similar in that way to be sifted out. It's also a
self-serving belief--yet another reason I give it enormously
short shrift, whether it comes from you, columbia, or any other
person. Or me.

I've got no problem with conservatism. I don't agree with it
much of the time, but I've got no problem with it. It's a policy
for dealing with a variety of wants and needs and limited
resources to apply to them. What I have a problem with is
the presumption that any such policy is objectively better
than all others.

--
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

Holding "black and white" beliefs is strictly for teenagers. You *are*
supposed to grow out of them as you break the bonds of youthful
comradeship and enter adulthood. Fundamentalist beliefs in politics
are no different from fundamentalist religious beliefs. There is
absolutely no basis for the belief other than the need to keep
reinforcing it to avoid questioning your own reality.

What better way to reinforce unreality than to form a closed group
completely isolated from society? The dangers of fundamentalism
escalate rapidly when a group reinforces its own fantasies by
deliberate isolation under a corrupt or lunatic leader. Religious
schools and political youth movements are extremely dangerous. Because
they isolate malleable youth from a mixed youthful society and from
natural integration into normal, adult society.

Moral standards are largely formed from those around you. If all hold
exactly the same views and no external "noise" is allowed how are
growing minds to judge anything? Which is why fundamentalists always
demand isolation of their own youth from "normal" society for their
own good. Usually on fictitious, moral grounds. Any dilution of the
message would force an unwelcome reality check. The corrupt leader
would lose power over the minds of his flock.

Much the same goes for the social classes keeping to themselves.
Dilution of their often, completely daft beliefs and habits would
begin to weaken the barricades they have all set up against other
people's realities.

Those who hold extreme views should try to mix as much as possible
either at work or socially. Everyday experience, of many other
lifestyles, is by far the safest therapy to become a more balanced
individual. Hate the Chinese or the Germans or the Russians? Try
working with them every day. It's far easier than working with a
religious or political nut. The former usually want to communicate to
get the job done. The nut only wants to crack your disbelief in his
fantasies.

On Feb 8, 12:07*pm, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...
On Feb 8, 6:16 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.

How about (since our moon is still taboo/voodoo nondisclosure rated) a
little refocus, such as focusing upon a nearby discovery via the
Magellan mission, like the discovery of possible other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus?

*http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
*A ten times resample/enlargement of the Guth Venus area in question:
*https://docs.google.com/File?id=ddsdxhv_4fdgd46df_b

It 400 degrees on the surface or something, no water, little sunlight!!???

So what?

Are you saying the regular laws of physics do not apply, and therefore
technology can not get the job done?

BTW; them thick and even cryogenic clouds offer a minimum of 500
teratonnes worth of pure water, though some might consider 5000
teratonnes doable, and otherwise there's always unlimited renewable
energy to do whatever with.

What did you think of that extremely large clover shaped reservoir?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 8, 12:16*pm, Desertphile
wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:28:21 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
How about (since our moon is still taboo/voodoo nondisclosure rated) a
little refocus, such as focusing upon a nearby discovery via the
Magellan mission, like the discovery of possible other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus?

Idiot.

*http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
*A ten times resample/enlargement of the Guth Venus area in question:
*https://docs.google.com/File?id=ddsdxhv_4fdgd46df_b

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

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

In other words, you are insane as well as blind.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 13 Feb., 22:25, Brad Guth wrote:

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:28:21 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
How about (since our moon is still taboo/voodoo nondisclosure rated) a
little refocus, such as focusing upon a nearby discovery via the
Magellan mission, like the discovery of possible other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

In other words, you are insane as well as blind.

Now there's an admission I never expected to hear from you!

Welcome to the real world.

On Feb 11, 2:10*pm, Brian Tung wrote:
wsnell wrote:
True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among
so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in
America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an
attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay.

Really. *You clearly have *no* idea what I think conservatism
is. *

Whatever you think it is, very likely you have it wrong.

You've never asked, and my point had nothing at all to do
with what I think it is. *It's a group of actual people that numbers
over, oh, let's say 100 people, and as such, it will lie from time
to time. *Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, fascists,
communists, you name it, that group will lie.

Conservatives will tend to have less to lie about as far as politics
is concerned.

I'm willing to say that most of that group doesn't lie materially,
most of the time. *That's true of all of those groups. *You'll
probably disagree, but it really doesn't matter. *People will
continue to be generally trustworthy nevertheless.

Unfortunately, those who hold power, in any group, are those
who desire it more than others, and human nature being what
it is, they will lie to keep it.

Conservatives don't actually seek "power" since that goal would be
inconsistent with conservatism.

Ideologies divide us, but they are horrible sieves for human
nature. *We'd most of us like to believe that the groups to
which we cleave our more resistant to that, but we're just
way too similar in that way to be sifted out. *It's also a
self-serving belief--yet another reason I give it enormously
short shrift, whether it comes from you, columbia, or any other
person. *Or me.

I've got no problem with conservatism. *I don't agree with it
much of the time, but I've got no problem with it. *It's a policy
for dealing with a variety of wants and needs and limited
resources to apply to them. *

IOW, let people tend to their own wants and needs, with just enough
government to maintain order.

What I have a problem with is
the presumption that any such policy is objectively better
than all others.

The great thing about limited government, as called for by
conservatives, is that it IS objectively better than intrusive
government, as called for by liberals.

On Feb 14, 12:36*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 13 Feb., 22:25, Brad Guth wrote:

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:28:21 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
How about (since our moon is still taboo/voodoo nondisclosure rated) a
little refocus, such as focusing upon a nearby discovery via the
Magellan mission, like the discovery of possible other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

In other words, you are insane as well as blind.

Now there's an admission I never expected to hear from you!

Welcome to the real world.

Your poor comprehension skills are noted.

On 16 Feb., 17:51, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 14, 12:36*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

In other words, you are insane as well as blind.

Now there's an admission I never expected to hear from you!

Welcome to the real world.

Your poor comprehension skills are noted.

You can't be sirius! It woz exactly what *you* wrote, Brenda. ;-)

On Feb 16, 12:34*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 16 Feb., 17:51, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 14, 12:36*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

In other words, you are insane as well as blind.

Now there's an admission I never expected to hear from you!

Welcome to the real world.

Your poor comprehension skills are noted.

You can't be sirius! It woz exactly what *you* wrote, Brenda. ;-)

Are you also going to start counterfeiting IOUs for NASA?

I (Brian Tung) wrote:
Really. *You clearly have *no* idea what I think conservatism
is. *

wsnell wrote:
Whatever you think it is, very likely you have it wrong.

Based on what you've said so far, in this thread and
others, very likely not. But I don't think that matters;
this discussion is going nowhere.

--
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