|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
....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 | |
|
|
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 |