Moon key to space future?

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
Jack Kennedy, whom he lost a bid for the presidency to in 1960.

yeah, just look at how he distanced himself from teh Apollo 11 mission...


This is all absolute nonsense and rot! Nixon called the trip to the
moon the greatest week in history - and he got a lot of flack for that
statement! Part of it from his close friend evangelist Billy Graham,
who reminded the President that the creation of the world in Seven
days was a pretty good week too.

Terrell, you're just being an ass. Because the record clearly shows
that Nixon supported the Space Shuttle program at the expense of the
Saturn program largely because the Saturn launcher was a legacy of
Kennedy, and Shuttle would be something that was all his.

Nixon wanted the United States to be a small humble nation, and sending people
to the Moon sounded like Hubris to him, so he wanted the US to take its
rightful place right next to Chile. The second part of his great agenda was to
lose the Vietnam War, so he can prove the the World what a meek and mild
country the US is. So Nixons 2 great accomplishment were to get the United
States out of manned planetary exploration and to be defeated by a Third World
Power. Nixon certainly deserves to have his portrait on a three dollar bill!

Tom


You are all being asses here with this commentary. The record is
clear that Nixon wanted to make *his* mark on space history that would
be distinctly different than Kennedy's. That's why he supported the
Space Shuttle.

As for the other bull- I presume its tongue in cheek. It largely
because of Nixon that the US now dominates the economic future of
China. Apollo 13, despite its successful and heroic conclusion, left
a very clear impression of the negative PR moon travel could generate,
this further deepened Nixon's resolve to support the Shuttle, which he
believed would dramatically lower the cost of orbital access, and
change the focus to missions closer to home. Nixon said during the
retreat from Vietnam that accepting defeat even temporarily, goes
against every fiber of his being and he knows against the feelings of
all Americans. Nixon lost in Vietnam not for lack of trying.

What Nixon did do wrong is he got caught at was fixing the 1972
election by running a variety of intelligence ops against the
Democrats. There is some speculation - some by Nixon himself - that
if J Edgar Hoover hadn't died on May 2, 1972 - he would likely have
fixed the problems Nixon later encountered.

Of course, the success of Nixon dirty tricks to prune the opposition
down to McGovern - whom Nixon could easily beat, and the nearly
successful Watergate burglary, suggests that other presidents at other
times may have been more successful in similar attempts to throw an
election. The fact that Bush the elder, was formerly Director of
Central Intelligence - suggests this may have played a role in the
2000 election - especially since Clinton/Gore was highly unpopular in
certain segments of the US intelligence community.

Re-elect Gore in 2004...

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 05 Dec 2003 16:52:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There's ample reason to believe that. He was willing to spend what it
took to beat the Russians to the moon, but no more.


Its fairly easy to put words into JFKs mouth, he can't say otherwise. T

I'm saying what he said.

Out of context, sure. The tape you keep quoting from was recorded
during a meeting to review the supplementary budget NASA needed to
support a manned landing before 1970. JFK was positioning himself as
anyone who is negotiating on price - namely, showing a willingness to
'walk away' in order to get a better price.

You claim to know through 'logic' that JFK would spend what it took to
go to the moon and no more. This is absolutely true of LBJ, but not
JFK.

Clearly the fact that JFK was a strong supporter of ROVER and NERVA
programs and continued to support these programs publicly with
powerful visionary statements - plainly shows he was willing to spend
money in support of a larger vision. Obviously shows that he viewed
the moon landing as just the first step in a bright future of space
development for the United States.

Check it out;


News Conference #10
By President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Friday, April 21, 1961, 10:00 a.m. EST


QUESTION: Mr. President, you don't seem to be pushing the Space
Program nearly as energetically now as you suggested during the
campaign that you thought it should be pushed. In view of the feeling
of many people in this country that we must do everything we can to
catchup with the Russians as soon as possible, do you anticipate
applying any sort of crash program?

THE PRESIDENT: We have added, I think it was 130 million dollars to
the budget on Space several weeks ago, which provides some speed-up
for Saturn, and some speed-up for Nova, and some speed-up for Rover.
And I will say that the budget for space next year will be around two
billion dollars.

Now we are now, and have been for some time, attempting to make a
determination as to -- in developing larger boosters, whether the
emphasis should be put on chemical, nuclear rockets or liquid fuel,
how much this would cost, and some of these programs have been
estimated to be between twenty and forty billion dollars. We are
attempting to make a determination as to which program offers the best
hope before we embark on it, because you may commit a relatively small
sum of money now for results in 1967, 8 or 9, which will cost you
billions of dollars. And therefore the Congress passed yesterday the
bill providing for a Space Council which will be chaired by the Vice
President. We are attempting to make a determination as to which of
these various proposals offers the best hope. And when that
determination is made we will then make a recommendation to the
Congress.

In addition, we have to consider whether there is any program now,
regardless of its cost, which offers us hopes of being pioneers in a
project. It is possible to spend billions of dollars in these projects
in Space to the detriment of other programs and still not be
successful. We are behind, as I said before, in large boosters. We
have to make a determination whether there is any effort we could make
in time or money which could put us first in any new area.

Now I don't want to start spending the kind of money that I am talking
about without making a determination based on careful scientific
judgments as to whether a real success can be achieved or whether
because we are so far behind now is this particular race we are going
to be second in this decade.

So I would say to you that it is a matter of great concern, but I
think that before we break through and begin a program which would not
reach a completion, as you know, until the end of this decade; for
example, trips to the moon, may be ten years off, maybe a little less,
but are quite far away and involve, as I say, an enormous sum, I don't
think we ought to rush into it and begin them until we really know
where we are going to end up. And that study is now being undertaken
under the direction of the Vice President.


News Conference Number 46
President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
December 12, 1962
4:00 PM EDT (Wednesday)
332 In Attendance

QUESTION: Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New
Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project
Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space?

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to let these tests go on of the reactor.
These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then
we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva
and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until
July, however, to see if these tests are successful.

It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most
favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar
landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or '71. It would be
useful for future trips to the moon or trips to Mars. But we have a
good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have
to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result,
first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars.

******
DECLASSIFIED TAPE FROM JFK LIBRARY - Description;

The President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) meeting on November
20, 1962 is also included in this tape. This PSAC meeting provides
updates on the Rover Project, a nuclear powered propulsion system. The
case is made that despite the lack of a specific mission for Rover,
the resulting advance in technological capability would be necessary
for future manned exploration of the near solar system. It would also
provide an alternative system in case of failure of the Apollo
Program, and that the scientific breakthrough would enhance national
prestige. The NASA/DOD budget projections for space programs, civil
defense and civil defense shelters are also discussed.

*******

Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs
President John F. Kennedy
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 1961

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving
the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and
returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this
period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the
long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or
expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of
the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate
liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being
developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional
funds for other engine development and for unmanned
explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one
purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man
who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will
not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment
affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to
put him there.

Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7
million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the
Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means
for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps
beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our
present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for
world-wide communications.

Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million
dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest
possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the
Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the
Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course
of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very
heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to
nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to
go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in
my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

On 14 Dec 2003 21:17:38 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Its fairly easy to put words into JFKs mouth, he can't say otherwise. T

I'm saying what he said.

Out of context, sure. The tape you keep quoting from was recorded
during a meeting to review the supplementary budget NASA needed to
support a manned landing before 1970. JFK was positioning himself as
anyone who is negotiating on price - namely, showing a willingness to
'walk away' in order to get a better price.

This is lunacy. Why in the world would the President have to
"negotiate" with someone who worked for him, and could be removed at
will?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 14 Dec 2003 21:17:38 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Its fairly easy to put words into JFKs mouth, he can't say otherwise. T

I'm saying what he said.

Out of context, sure. The tape you keep quoting from was recorded
during a meeting to review the supplementary budget NASA needed to
support a manned landing before 1970. JFK was positioning himself as
anyone who is negotiating on price - namely, showing a willingness to
'walk away' in order to get a better price.

This is lunacy. Why in the world would the President have to
"negotiate" with someone who worked for him, and could be removed at
will?

Rand, this is asinine even for you! JFK wasn't negotiating with a
person, he was negotiating with NASA about the supplemental budget
they submitted in response to his request. This sort of thing goes on
all the time!

Look, the President got the skinny on likely prices for various space
objectives from his interviews with the likes of vonBraun and others
following the flight of Gagarin. He then went public with his request
to Congress a few weeks later setting this nation on a goal of sending
a man to the moon and returning him to Earth in the decade of the
1960s. NASA then sent the President a supplemental budget to
implement this vision. JFK then had this meeting wherein he spoke
about price. In this meeting he positioned himself as one might in
buying a car one wants. He varied the parameters to see how the price
might change and acted like he could 'walk.' That is, abandon his
earlier commitments if the price was too high. He would do this even
if he had no intention of walking. Just as one might when negotiating
for a car one really wants. This process leads to unfortunate sound
bites - which is likely one of the reasons it was classified for so
long - but such a head-to-head process is essential to get prices that
aren't needlessly inflated.

On 15 Dec 2003 15:18:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is lunacy. Why in the world would the President have to
"negotiate" with someone who worked for him, and could be removed at
will?

Rand, this is asinine even for you! JFK wasn't negotiating with a
person, he was negotiating with NASA about the supplemental budget
they submitted in response to his request. This sort of thing goes on
all the time!

I repeat the question. Why would a president "negotiate" with an
agency?

Look, the President got the skinny on likely prices for various space
objectives from his interviews with the likes of vonBraun and others
following the flight of Gagarin. He then went public with his request
to Congress a few weeks later setting this nation on a goal of sending
a man to the moon and returning him to Earth in the decade of the
1960s. NASA then sent the President a supplemental budget to
implement this vision. JFK then had this meeting wherein he spoke
about price. In this meeting he positioned himself as one might in
buying a car one wants. He varied the parameters to see how the price
might change and acted like he could 'walk.' That is, abandon his
earlier commitments if the price was too high. He would do this even
if he had no intention of walking. Just as one might when negotiating
for a car one really wants. This process leads to unfortunate sound
bites - which is likely one of the reasons it was classified for so
long - but such a head-to-head process is essential to get prices that
aren't needlessly inflated.

You write this as though NASA Fletcher were a used-car salesman. An
estimate of a program cost is just that--an estimate. It's not
negotiable.

If Kennedy really thought that it was, he was a fool. But I don't
think that he was a fool. I believe him when he says that he didn't
care that much about space.

"william mook" wrote in message
om...

yeah, just look at how he distanced himself from teh Apollo 11
mission...


Terrell, you're just being an ass. Because the record clearly shows
that Nixon supported the Space Shuttle program at the expense of the
Saturn program largely because the Saturn launcher was a legacy of
Kennedy, and Shuttle would be something that was all his.

No, the record clearly shows that STS was all that NASA could squeeze from
Nixon's bean counters after they got through gutting the rest of AAP.

You are all being asses here with this commentary. The record is
clear that Nixon wanted to make *his* mark on space history that would
be distinctly different than Kennedy's. That's why he supported the
Space Shuttle.

again: he didn't support it, he just couldn't totally shut down NASA so
that's all that got funded.

snip

Nixon lost in Vietnam not for lack of trying.

well, Vietnam was lost before Nixon ever took office, he was just the
second-stringer who gets to play the second half of a blowout game is all.

Of course, the success of Nixon dirty tricks to prune the opposition
down to McGovern - whom Nixon could easily beat, and the nearly
successful Watergate burglary, suggests that other presidents at other
times may have been more successful in similar attempts to throw an
election.

?!? You're suggesting that a series of events that led to the only
resignation from the Presidency *ever* is somehow proof that it's been done
successfully many times?!?

Then again, looking at your business plans no wonder you believe that

The fact that Bush the elder, was formerly Director of
Central Intelligence - suggests this may have played a role in the
2000 election - especially since Clinton/Gore was highly unpopular in
certain segments of the US intelligence community.

dude, Clinton/Gore was unpopular in a lot more than the intelligence
community, and WTF does the CIA have to do with a close vote in Florida? Jeb
being governor, yeah I can see that as a..contributing factor. But leave the
old man out of it, there's no reason to think he had anything at all to do
with his son's victory other than the usual politicking.

--
Terrell Miller


People do not over-react. They react, by definition, appropriately to the
meaning a situation has for them. People have "over-meanings," not
"over-reactions."
- Martin L. Kutscher

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 15 Dec 2003 15:18:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is lunacy. Why in the world would the President have to
"negotiate" with someone who worked for him, and could be removed at
will?

Rand, this is asinine even for you! JFK wasn't negotiating with a
person, he was negotiating with NASA about the supplemental budget
they submitted in response to his request. This sort of thing goes on
all the time!

I repeat the question. Why would a president "negotiate" with an
agency?


You can imagine how much it hurts to say this Rand, but Bill's right and
you're wrong on this one specific point.

Managers don't have absolute authority, and to be a good manager you have to
constantly make little deals with your staff. Give them a little leeway on
their pet project to get their buy-in for your own pet project, or just to
keep the knives out of your own back, or simply to keep them productive
little happy campers, stuff like that.

Now add that JFK was dealing with an extremely popular and *vital* federal
agency which already possessed quite a bit of bureaucratic capital *and was
founded before JFK even got elected*. It was a negotiation, pure and simple.

Back to the way the world is supposed to be: Rand's right and Bill's full of
**** as usual on the bigger question about how much support JFK was really
giving NASA.

--
Terrell Miller


People do not over-react. They react, by definition, appropriately to the
meaning a situation has for them. People have "over-meanings," not
"over-reactions."
- Martin L. Kutscher

"william mook" wrote in message
om...

Terrell's annual PSA: don't give this schmuck any of your money, you'll
never see it again...

This goes beyond non-responsiveness and borders on the delusional.
Who's asking for money where? There's nothing useful I could say
about this sort of statement. shrug

*ahem*

sounds like you've got your hand out these days, just like every other time
you've posted here.

--
Terrell Miller


People do not over-react. They react, by definition, appropriately to the
meaning a situation has for them. People have "over-meanings," not
"over-reactions."
- Martin L. Kutscher

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

Terrell's annual PSA: don't give this schmuck any of your money, you'll
never see it again...

This goes beyond non-responsiveness and borders on the delusional.
Who's asking for money where? There's nothing useful I could say
about this sort of statement. shrug

*ahem*

sounds like you've got your hand out these days, just like every other time
you've posted here.

As I said, your hearing such things in our discussion about JFKs'
vision of America's future in space borders on the delusional. Who's
asking for money in this thread? No one.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 15 Dec 2003 15:18:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is lunacy. Why in the world would the President have to
"negotiate" with someone who worked for him, and could be removed at
will?

Rand, this is asinine even for you! JFK wasn't negotiating with a
person, he was negotiating with NASA about the supplemental budget
they submitted in response to his request. This sort of thing goes on
all the time!

I repeat the question. Why would a president "negotiate" with an
agency?

Because a President cannot tell an agency what it will cost them to do
something. The agency tells the President what it will cost to
achieve a goal the President sets. Now, the President recognizes that
the agency uses this opportunity to enlarge its budget at the public's
expense.

Look, the President got the skinny on likely prices for various space
objectives from his interviews with the likes of vonBraun and others
following the flight of Gagarin. He then went public with his request
to Congress a few weeks later setting this nation on a goal of sending
a man to the moon and returning him to Earth in the decade of the
1960s. NASA then sent the President a supplemental budget to
implement this vision. JFK then had this meeting wherein he spoke
about price. In this meeting he positioned himself as one might in
buying a car one wants. He varied the parameters to see how the price
might change and acted like he could 'walk.' That is, abandon his
earlier commitments if the price was too high. He would do this even
if he had no intention of walking. Just as one might when negotiating
for a car one really wants. This process leads to unfortunate sound
bites - which is likely one of the reasons it was classified for so
long - but such a head-to-head process is essential to get prices that
aren't needlessly inflated.

You write this as though NASA Fletcher were a used-car salesman. An
estimate of a program cost is just that--an estimate. It's not
negotiable.

Right, politics has nothing whatever to do with the budget process in
Washington.

Bull. People play politics all the time. ESPECIALLY the agencies.

Look, the President announced a bold new program and NASA positioned
itself to benefit greatly from this commitment by the new President.
The only way to get them to back off with their estimates is to play
the game. Change the scope of work say you're not *that* interested
and so forth - and see how the budget changes when you do. Then, to
try to come at some conclusion as to what the price will really be -
before submitting your final budget - and then going through *that*
political process with Congress.

If Kennedy really thought that it was, he was a fool.

No, you're the fool who doesn't know a damn thing about politics and
game playing that routinely goes on since the beginning of time.

But I don't
think that he was a fool.

Yet, I think you a fool. Interesting how that works out.

I believe him when he says that he didn't
care that much about space.

I believe him when he says, "The point of the matter always has been
not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon; but the
capacity to dominate space, which would be demonstrated by a moon
flight, I believe, is essential to the United States as a leading free
world power. That is why I am interested in it and that is why I think
we should continue"

this at


News Conference Number 58
President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
July 17, 1963
4:00 P.M. EDST (Wednesday)
410 In Attendance


Now, which is it? Is it as you believe that he lies to the public?
Or is it as I believe that he lies to Fletcher to get a better
estimate?

I believe the President when he says its essential for America as a
world power to dominate space - and the moon is but the first step.