A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 12th 07, 04:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


"Several weeks ago I enjoyed the warmth of reflection on the
true meanings of the spirit of Apollo. I stood in the highlands
of this Nation, near the Continental Divide, introducing to
my sons the wonders of nature, and pleasures of looking for
deer and for elk. In their enthusiasm for the view they frequently
stumbled on the rocky trails, but when they looked only
to their footing, they did not see the elk. To those of you
who have advocated looking high we owe our sincere
gratitude, for you have granted us the opportunity to see
some of the grandest views of the Creator.
To those of you who have been our honest critics, we also
thank, for you have reminded us that we dare not forget
to watch the trail."


The lesson of Apollo, according to Armstrong, appears clear.
That our space program should be a balance between pure
discovery and tangible benefits to mankind.

After Apollo, the US manned program appeared to follow
that lesson by building reusable 'space-trucks' in order
to build an ambitious space station. Even if the first
attempt at lowering costs to orbit fell short, it should at least
lay the ground work for future more practical spacecraft.
Which could allow the space program to fullfill its destiny
of generating world-changing solutions to our future
global problems.

But in the last couple of years, we decided to abandon
all that. No 'new and improved' reusable spacecraft are to
be built. The space station no longer has any science
goals to fullfill or even a purpose for existing.

Apollo on Steriods.

The only reason 'they' can produce for repeating Apollo
is that "the sky might fall". That colonies on the moon
and mars will save mankind from acts of God, or acts
of our own ignorance. Either reason clearly demonstrates
a complete lack of Faith in either God, or in humanity.

Yet the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. But on Faith, and from an agency
that has no Faith, not in even science.

INCREDIBLE!

The only Faith demonstrated by our Space Agency is that
their very expensive projects will be spread around enough
and to those that matter to ensure its continued funding.

Nasa has Faith in only political corruption as a means
to complete their "Vision". "Hurry up" is Nasa's mantra
now, hurry up and build the moon ships before they
change their minds.

Nasa has a greater responsibility than to simply follow
their marching orders. They also have a duty to give
sound advice to Congress and the people in the
best use of their abilities. They have a duty to follow
their charter.

But that is not the case. Nasa is lying to Congress and
the American people, as demonstrated below, in order
to justify a goal for our space program that benefits
only Big Corporations and powerful politicians.

An agency that ignores its own charter, which instructs
Nasa, among other things, to care for our biosphere and
our future energy needs, should be disbanded.

Nowhere in this charter are colonies even mentioned.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/amendact.htm

An agency dependent upon, and devoted to, corruption
should be disbanded. And replaced with a clean sheet.
Nasa has abandoned the last thirty years, it has
abandoned the spirit of space exploration.
It has abandoned the American people.

We should abandon Nasa.

Of course, the American taxpayer may benefit someday
from this "Vision". That is, if someday the sky should
happen to fall, a few select astronauts will be able to
gaze upon the earth from their distant colonies, and
watch us all die.



Jonathan


s


.................................................. ..


Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa
Administrator Griffin and his claim of public support for
Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below


How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?


The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was
announced. The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return
the space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station
build a replacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then
on to Mars and beyond. If NASA's new budget did not exceed
one percent of the federal budget, to what extent would you
support or oppose this new plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacecoalition.com/Press%20Releases.cfm

To disagree with this statement, one would have to ...oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, ...oppose completing the ISS
....oppose a shuttle replacement, ...support an 'all at once'
approach and ...support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.

"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact
show a broad consensus in support of our new goals in space.
Assuming that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent
of the budget - and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths
of the American people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html


"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin


In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=


I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is. The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support is
the Big Lie.



s




  #2  
Old January 12th 07, 06:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Bill Haught[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default The US Manned Space Program Should Be Overhauled (was The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !)


"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....



After Apollo, the US manned program appeared to follow
that lesson by building reusable 'space-trucks' in order
to build an ambitious space station. Even if the first
attempt at lowering costs to orbit fell short, it should at least
lay the ground work for future more practical spacecraft.
Which could allow the space program to fullfill its destiny
of generating world-changing solutions to our future
global problems.

But in the last couple of years, we decided to abandon
all that. No 'new and improved' reusable spacecraft are to
be built. The space station no longer has any science
goals to fullfill or even a purpose for existing.

Apollo on Steriods.


The lack of focus and wandering in the dark is probably glaringly obvious to
everyone here.


The only reason 'they' can produce for repeating Apollo
is that "the sky might fall". That colonies on the moon
and mars will save mankind from acts of God, or acts
of our own ignorance. Either reason clearly demonstrates
a complete lack of Faith in either God, or in humanity.


Might, but very unlikely in any given two, four, or even six year
election/selection cycle -- a sure way to get nothing accomplished. No
wonder I have as much faith in either as NASA.


Nasa has a greater responsibility than to simply follow
their marching orders. They also have a duty to give
sound advice to Congress and the people in the
best use of their abilities. They have a duty to follow
their charter.


Maybe it needs reform.


An agency that ignores its own charter, which instructs
Nasa, among other things, to care for our biosphere and
our future energy needs, should be disbanded.


A lot can be done in the ecosystem area. Biosphere issues are directly
related to space settlement. It may be better to have goverment involvement
outside of some sort of incentive(s) in this area (in a more direct
fashion).


Nowhere in this charter are colonies even mentioned.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/amendact.htm


They have a legit excuse for existance and don't recognize it? See above.

An agency dependent upon, and devoted to, corruption
should be disbanded. And replaced with a clean sheet.
Nasa has abandoned the last thirty years, it has
abandoned the spirit of space exploration.
It has abandoned the American people.

We should abandon Nasa.


Didn't the Office of Mismanagement and Budget and the Offense Department do
that long ago?


  #3  
Old January 12th 07, 08:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Jonathan Schattke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


Jonathan wrote:
Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


Von Braun had the right of it: substantial permanently manned space
station, then the moon, then anything we cared to do. Orbital
manufacturing was essential long-range.

The space shuttle, well, they made a number of compromises rather than
build a crew module and an unmanned launch vehicle. At least they have
figured out that those compromises made something which ended up being
good for none of the tasks.

  #4  
Old January 12th 07, 09:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Michael Turner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


Jonathan wrote:
.... the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. [....] INCREDIBLE!


He didn't say they *shouldn't* be based on scientific reasoning, just
that they *can't* be. At least in the case of the U.S. space program,
he's merely stating a fact. (Though I can see where saying "a gamble"
would have been more accurate, albeit less politically palatable, than
saying "an act of faith".)

At best, you can select, using something like scientific principles,
areas of endeavor that appear more fruitful than others. Where the
gains are in political legitimacy for continued effort, they aren't
easy to predict. Who would have predicted, before it was even
launched, the massive public opposition to letting Hubble die a natural
death? Not me.

Science itself progresses (and stalls) through the appearance of the
unpredicted and the not easily predictable. It happens all the time,
and requires something like an act of faith -- or call it "gambling" if
you like -- to keep people from just quitting while they are ahead.
Acceptably efficient photovoltaics, which enabled satellite power
supplies, and thus the entire comsat industry, were an outgrowth of
research yielding semiconductor diodes and transistors at Bell Labs, at
a time when only a tiny handful suspected the potential of
semiconductors for electronics. Did that most famous of ex-RAF
electronics techs, Arthur C. Clarke, predict what could be done with
germanium and silicon? Far from it. He thought GEO satellites would
be the manned-spaceflight "killer app", because -- you can't make this
stuff up -- we'd have to have people up there to change the *vacuum
tubes* as fast as they burned out.

You cast aspersions on faith? Be wary of being the pot calling the
kettle black. A great deal of space advocacy (as well as its
opposition) truly is faith-based.

"Space is our future"? Well, prove it.

"We can't indefinitely prosper as a civilization without space
resources"? Prove it.

"The human race needs space as a new frontier or we will culturally
stagnate"? Prove it.

"We need to get off Earth to establish long-term safety and
perpetuation for the human race". Prove it.

You can't.

You can offer *arguments* for (or against) such propositions, and some
of them will sound very persuasive (especially to those predisposed to
believe them). But you can't prove any of them. Nor can your
opponents prove they are false.

-michael turner
www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com

  #5  
Old January 12th 07, 10:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !

Michael Turner wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
.... the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. [....] INCREDIBLE!


He didn't say they *shouldn't* be based on scientific reasoning, just
that they *can't* be. At least in the case of the U.S. space program,
he's merely stating a fact. (Though I can see where saying "a gamble"
would have been more accurate, albeit less politically palatable, than
saying "an act of faith".)

At best, you can select, using something like scientific principles,
areas of endeavor that appear more fruitful than others. Where the
gains are in political legitimacy for continued effort, they aren't
easy to predict. Who would have predicted, before it was even
launched, the massive public opposition to letting Hubble die a natural
death? Not me.

Science itself progresses (and stalls) through the appearance of the
unpredicted and the not easily predictable. It happens all the time,
and requires something like an act of faith -- or call it "gambling" if
you like -- to keep people from just quitting while they are ahead.
Acceptably efficient photovoltaics, which enabled satellite power
supplies, and thus the entire comsat industry, were an outgrowth of
research yielding semiconductor diodes and transistors at Bell Labs, at
a time when only a tiny handful suspected the potential of
semiconductors for electronics. Did that most famous of ex-RAF
electronics techs, Arthur C. Clarke, predict what could be done with
germanium and silicon? Far from it. He thought GEO satellites would
be the manned-spaceflight "killer app", because -- you can't make this
stuff up -- we'd have to have people up there to change the *vacuum
tubes* as fast as they burned out.

You cast aspersions on faith? Be wary of being the pot calling the
kettle black. A great deal of space advocacy (as well as its
opposition) truly is faith-based.

"Space is our future"? Well, prove it.

"We can't indefinitely prosper as a civilization without space
resources"? Prove it.

"The human race needs space as a new frontier or we will culturally
stagnate"? Prove it.

"We need to get off Earth to establish long-term safety and
perpetuation for the human race". Prove it.

You can't.

You can offer *arguments* for (or against) such propositions, and some
of them will sound very persuasive (especially to those predisposed to
believe them). But you can't prove any of them. Nor can your
opponents prove they are false.


Of course we can't, they aren't mathematical statements.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #6  
Old January 12th 07, 10:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Ken from Chicago
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


"Jonathan Schattke" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jonathan wrote:
Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


Von Braun had the right of it: substantial permanently manned space
station, then the moon, then anything we cared to do. Orbital
manufacturing was essential long-range.

The space shuttle, well, they made a number of compromises rather than
build a crew module and an unmanned launch vehicle. At least they have
figured out that those compromises made something which ended up being
good for none of the tasks.


What's needed is MORE AUTOMATED space exploration--including permanent
automated bases on the Moon and Mars. Natch, they would be the "seeds" from
which future populated bases grow. They don't need to be fancy or large. I
mean the base from which Mars landers roll from would be a nice start.

The moon would be easier of course. You can always send up more robots,
components, batteries, parts, supplies, to expand the base and to increase
exploration of the moon itself.

-- Ken from Chicago


  #7  
Old January 12th 07, 11:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Sorcerer Androcles[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


"Jonathan" wrote in message ...

Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


"Several weeks ago I enjoyed the warmth of reflection on the
true meanings of the spirit of Apollo. I stood in the highlands
of this Nation, near the Continental Divide, introducing to
my sons the wonders of nature, and pleasures of looking for
deer and for elk. In their enthusiasm for the view they frequently
stumbled on the rocky trails, but when they looked only
to their footing, they did not see the elk. To those of you
who have advocated looking high we owe our sincere
gratitude, for you have granted us the opportunity to see
some of the grandest views of the Creator.
To those of you who have been our honest critics, we also
thank, for you have reminded us that we dare not forget
to watch the trail."


The lesson of Apollo, according to Armstrong, appears clear.
That our space program should be a balance between pure
discovery and tangible benefits to mankind.

After Apollo, the US manned program appeared to follow
that lesson by building reusable 'space-trucks' in order
to build an ambitious space station. Even if the first
attempt at lowering costs to orbit fell short, it should at least
lay the ground work for future more practical spacecraft.
Which could allow the space program to fullfill its destiny
of generating world-changing solutions to our future
global problems.

But in the last couple of years, we decided to abandon
all that. No 'new and improved' reusable spacecraft are to
be built. The space station no longer has any science
goals to fullfill or even a purpose for existing.

Apollo on Steriods.

The only reason 'they' can produce for repeating Apollo
is that "the sky might fall". That colonies on the moon
and mars will save mankind from acts of God, or acts
of our own ignorance. Either reason clearly demonstrates
a complete lack of Faith in either God, or in humanity.

Yet the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. But on Faith, and from an agency
that has no Faith, not in even science.

INCREDIBLE!

The only Faith demonstrated by our Space Agency is that
their very expensive projects will be spread around enough
and to those that matter to ensure its continued funding.

Nasa has Faith in only political corruption as a means
to complete their "Vision". "Hurry up" is Nasa's mantra
now, hurry up and build the moon ships before they
change their minds.

Nasa has a greater responsibility than to simply follow
their marching orders. They also have a duty to give
sound advice to Congress and the people in the
best use of their abilities. They have a duty to follow
their charter.

But that is not the case. Nasa is lying to Congress and
the American people, as demonstrated below, in order
to justify a goal for our space program that benefits
only Big Corporations and powerful politicians.

An agency that ignores its own charter, which instructs
Nasa, among other things, to care for our biosphere and
our future energy needs, should be disbanded.

Nowhere in this charter are colonies even mentioned.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/amendact.htm

An agency dependent upon, and devoted to, corruption
should be disbanded. And replaced with a clean sheet.
Nasa has abandoned the last thirty years, it has
abandoned the spirit of space exploration.
It has abandoned the American people.

We should abandon Nasa.

Of course, the American taxpayer may benefit someday
from this "Vision". That is, if someday the sky should
happen to fall, a few select astronauts will be able to
gaze upon the earth from their distant colonies, and
watch us all die.



Jonathan


s


.................................................. .


Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa
Administrator Griffin and his claim of public support for
Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below


How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?


The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was
announced. The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return
the space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station
build a replacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then
on to Mars and beyond. If NASA's new budget did not exceed
one percent of the federal budget, to what extent would you
support or oppose this new plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacecoalition.com/Press%20Releases.cfm

To disagree with this statement, one would have to ...oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, ...oppose completing the ISS
...oppose a shuttle replacement, ...support an 'all at once'
approach and ...support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.

"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact
show a broad consensus in support of our new goals in space.
Assuming that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent
of the budget - and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths
of the American people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html


"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin


In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=


I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is. The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support is
the Big Lie.



s




"We" should abandon NASA...
Pity "we" didn't do it at the height of the cold war,
then the Russians would have ****ed all over "we"
and "we" could all have been good little communists.
Never mind, "we" can all be good little moslems instead.

Now get off the world wide web, it uses commercial satellites
that should have been launched by "them", you ****ing
hypocritical traitor.
  #8  
Old January 12th 07, 11:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !

Sorcerer Androcles wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message ...
Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


"Several weeks ago I enjoyed the warmth of reflection on the
true meanings of the spirit of Apollo. I stood in the highlands
of this Nation, near the Continental Divide, introducing to
my sons the wonders of nature, and pleasures of looking for
deer and for elk. In their enthusiasm for the view they frequently
stumbled on the rocky trails, but when they looked only
to their footing, they did not see the elk. To those of you
who have advocated looking high we owe our sincere
gratitude, for you have granted us the opportunity to see
some of the grandest views of the Creator.
To those of you who have been our honest critics, we also
thank, for you have reminded us that we dare not forget
to watch the trail."


The lesson of Apollo, according to Armstrong, appears clear.
That our space program should be a balance between pure
discovery and tangible benefits to mankind.

After Apollo, the US manned program appeared to follow
that lesson by building reusable 'space-trucks' in order
to build an ambitious space station. Even if the first
attempt at lowering costs to orbit fell short, it should at least
lay the ground work for future more practical spacecraft.
Which could allow the space program to fullfill its destiny
of generating world-changing solutions to our future
global problems.

But in the last couple of years, we decided to abandon
all that. No 'new and improved' reusable spacecraft are to
be built. The space station no longer has any science
goals to fullfill or even a purpose for existing.

Apollo on Steriods.

The only reason 'they' can produce for repeating Apollo
is that "the sky might fall". That colonies on the moon
and mars will save mankind from acts of God, or acts
of our own ignorance. Either reason clearly demonstrates
a complete lack of Faith in either God, or in humanity.

Yet the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. But on Faith, and from an agency
that has no Faith, not in even science.

INCREDIBLE!

The only Faith demonstrated by our Space Agency is that
their very expensive projects will be spread around enough
and to those that matter to ensure its continued funding.

Nasa has Faith in only political corruption as a means
to complete their "Vision". "Hurry up" is Nasa's mantra
now, hurry up and build the moon ships before they
change their minds.

Nasa has a greater responsibility than to simply follow
their marching orders. They also have a duty to give
sound advice to Congress and the people in the
best use of their abilities. They have a duty to follow
their charter.

But that is not the case. Nasa is lying to Congress and
the American people, as demonstrated below, in order
to justify a goal for our space program that benefits
only Big Corporations and powerful politicians.

An agency that ignores its own charter, which instructs
Nasa, among other things, to care for our biosphere and
our future energy needs, should be disbanded.

Nowhere in this charter are colonies even mentioned.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/amendact.htm

An agency dependent upon, and devoted to, corruption
should be disbanded. And replaced with a clean sheet.
Nasa has abandoned the last thirty years, it has
abandoned the spirit of space exploration.
It has abandoned the American people.

We should abandon Nasa.

Of course, the American taxpayer may benefit someday
from this "Vision". That is, if someday the sky should
happen to fall, a few select astronauts will be able to
gaze upon the earth from their distant colonies, and
watch us all die.



Jonathan


s


.................................................. .


Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa
Administrator Griffin and his claim of public support for
Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below


How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?


The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was
announced. The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return
the space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station
build a replacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then
on to Mars and beyond. If NASA's new budget did not exceed
one percent of the federal budget, to what extent would you
support or oppose this new plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacecoalition.com/Press%20Releases.cfm

To disagree with this statement, one would have to ...oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, ...oppose completing the ISS
...oppose a shuttle replacement, ...support an 'all at once'
approach and ...support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.

"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact
show a broad consensus in support of our new goals in space.
Assuming that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent
of the budget - and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths
of the American people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html


"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin


In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=


I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is. The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support is
the Big Lie.


Now get off the world wide web, it uses commercial satellites


Er ... no ... mostly it uses undersea cables.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #9  
Old January 12th 07, 12:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !

It would be stupid to abandon NASA, I think you are just looking at
this wrong. I've lost my expectations for NASA but I most certainly
haven't abandoned it. I know that if we truely want to suceed in
traveling through space, we cannot rely on NASA at all. I look to
private enterprises with innovation and ways of doing things other than
flying a peice of ineficient junk to the ISS and back until 2010.

I would combine the efforts of NASA and other people, but definitely
abandon NASA alltogether.

  #10  
Old January 12th 07, 02:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.written
Sorcerer Androcles[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default ....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned !


"kT" wrote in message ...
Sorcerer Androcles wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message ...
Just after the first moon landing, Sept 16 1969, Neil Armstrong
stood before a Joint Session of Congress and stated....


"Several weeks ago I enjoyed the warmth of reflection on the
true meanings of the spirit of Apollo. I stood in the highlands
of this Nation, near the Continental Divide, introducing to
my sons the wonders of nature, and pleasures of looking for
deer and for elk. In their enthusiasm for the view they frequently
stumbled on the rocky trails, but when they looked only
to their footing, they did not see the elk. To those of you
who have advocated looking high we owe our sincere
gratitude, for you have granted us the opportunity to see
some of the grandest views of the Creator.
To those of you who have been our honest critics, we also
thank, for you have reminded us that we dare not forget
to watch the trail."


The lesson of Apollo, according to Armstrong, appears clear.
That our space program should be a balance between pure
discovery and tangible benefits to mankind.

After Apollo, the US manned program appeared to follow
that lesson by building reusable 'space-trucks' in order
to build an ambitious space station. Even if the first
attempt at lowering costs to orbit fell short, it should at least
lay the ground work for future more practical spacecraft.
Which could allow the space program to fullfill its destiny
of generating world-changing solutions to our future
global problems.

But in the last couple of years, we decided to abandon
all that. No 'new and improved' reusable spacecraft are to
be built. The space station no longer has any science
goals to fullfill or even a purpose for existing.

Apollo on Steriods.

The only reason 'they' can produce for repeating Apollo
is that "the sky might fall". That colonies on the moon
and mars will save mankind from acts of God, or acts
of our own ignorance. Either reason clearly demonstrates
a complete lack of Faith in either God, or in humanity.

Yet the Nasa administrator gives this reason for
going back to the moon.

"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture
will prove to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest
is always an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20189


He states that our scientific goals should NOT be based
on scientific reasoning. But on Faith, and from an agency
that has no Faith, not in even science.

INCREDIBLE!

The only Faith demonstrated by our Space Agency is that
their very expensive projects will be spread around enough
and to those that matter to ensure its continued funding.

Nasa has Faith in only political corruption as a means
to complete their "Vision". "Hurry up" is Nasa's mantra
now, hurry up and build the moon ships before they
change their minds.

Nasa has a greater responsibility than to simply follow
their marching orders. They also have a duty to give
sound advice to Congress and the people in the
best use of their abilities. They have a duty to follow
their charter.

But that is not the case. Nasa is lying to Congress and
the American people, as demonstrated below, in order
to justify a goal for our space program that benefits
only Big Corporations and powerful politicians.

An agency that ignores its own charter, which instructs
Nasa, among other things, to care for our biosphere and
our future energy needs, should be disbanded.

Nowhere in this charter are colonies even mentioned.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/amendact.htm

An agency dependent upon, and devoted to, corruption
should be disbanded. And replaced with a clean sheet.
Nasa has abandoned the last thirty years, it has
abandoned the spirit of space exploration.
It has abandoned the American people.

We should abandon Nasa.

Of course, the American taxpayer may benefit someday
from this "Vision". That is, if someday the sky should
happen to fall, a few select astronauts will be able to
gaze upon the earth from their distant colonies, and
watch us all die.



Jonathan


s


.................................................. .


Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa
Administrator Griffin and his claim of public support for
Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below


How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?


The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was
announced. The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return
the space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station
build a replacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then
on to Mars and beyond. If NASA's new budget did not exceed
one percent of the federal budget, to what extent would you
support or oppose this new plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacecoalition.com/Press%20Releases.cfm

To disagree with this statement, one would have to ...oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, ...oppose completing the ISS
...oppose a shuttle replacement, ...support an 'all at once'
approach and ...support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.

"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact
show a broad consensus in support of our new goals in space.
Assuming that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent
of the budget - and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths
of the American people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html


"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin


In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=


I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is. The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support is
the Big Lie.


Now get off the world wide web, it uses commercial satellites


Er ... no ... mostly it uses undersea cables.


HAHAHA!
Ever seen one of these, or are you still living in 1907?
http://www.lamit.ro/images/satellite-dish-lamit-hub.jpg
How about one of these?
http://www.benelec.com.au/AVL_GPS_Products/02944308.htm
or one of these?
http://www.drgibson.com/towers/milfordsun300.jpg
Err... no..
HAHAHAHA!

Bye-bye, ****wit.
*plonk*


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
....The US Manned Space Program Should be Abandoned ! Jonathan Policy 84 January 22nd 07 12:23 AM
Could there be a secret manned space program? [email protected] History 7 May 16th 06 12:50 AM
News: Russian space official proposes $ 2-billion manned moon landing program Rusty History 22 December 5th 05 06:27 PM
Any chnace of an ESA manned space program? james_anatidae Space Shuttle 7 September 12th 04 01:05 AM
The right manned space program [email protected] Policy 5 January 22nd 04 11:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.