A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

The end of Constellation?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 09, 03:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default The end of Constellation?

Mr Obama's speech
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address


" We will restore science to its rightful place..."

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath
them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long
no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is
too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find
jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no,
programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be
held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in
the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between
a people and their government."


  #2  
Old January 21st 09, 03:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default The end of Constellation?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:00:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Mr Obama's speech
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address


" We will restore science to its rightful place..."


I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...

Constellation has little or nothing to do with "science."

I'm sure he's talking about global warm^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclimate
change and stem-cell research.
  #3  
Old January 21st 09, 06:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default The end of Constellation?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...


I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

Hopefully.


  #4  
Old January 21st 09, 07:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Elliot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The end of Constellation?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alan Erskine wrote:

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than
science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the
Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would
have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a
lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps
with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

It'll cost lots more because instead of picking up a few moon rocks,
US will be occupying the moon.

Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?
  #5  
Old January 21st 09, 01:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default The end of Constellation?

William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?


I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...

If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no
costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
  #6  
Old January 21st 09, 03:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default The end of Constellation?

On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...



I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...


I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is
going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation.
Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on
to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will.

What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really
a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan
for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars
with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA
has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have
its budget slashed.

Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has
to show either :-

1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the
dependency on forein oil etc.

2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent.

This is what minds should be concentrating on.


- Ian Parker
  #7  
Old January 21st 09, 04:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default The end of Constellation?

Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...


I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote]


Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo.

That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair)


If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie
mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build
mission, it's going to be a big lander.
  #8  
Old January 22nd 09, 08:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Elliot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The end of Constellation?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:

William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?


I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...

Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not
caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs?

Beware shrapnel from explosive irony.

If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no
costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any.

Shucks, US already has a disparaging name for them Lunatics.
  #9  
Old January 22nd 09, 12:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default The end of Constellation?

On 22 Jan, 07:32, William Elliot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:
William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. *Which will cost US more?
* * Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?


I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...


Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not
caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs?

Real rockets have been fired at Israel at least. What did Iraq do?
Precisely nothing.

Beware shrapnel from explosive irony.

If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no
costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any.


I have visions of the Man in the Moon wandering across the Mddle East
and settling in (say) Syria.

Shucks, US already has a disparaging name for them Lunatics.


Where has "sanity" got us? Sane people like to live in ethically clean
societies. Pity about Obama being black, or to be strict "mixed race".
Baghdad is now ethically clean.

When I was young we discussed pacifism and "just wars". I must confess
I only ever envisaged a war where Britain was threatened directly. The
basic fact of modern war, as I think I have said previously is that
you fight on the other side of the world for causes which are far more
complex than the politicians make out.

The facts of Iraq are the following

1) The CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

2) The US nodded and winked during the Iran/Iraq war.

3) Saddam invaded Kuwait when he was broke. You see SH anticipated a
quick victory, like generals everywhere have.

4) There were no WMD, no justification for war - or sanctions either
for that matter.

5) Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Palestinan question.
This is yet another example of the disinformation campaign I have
spoken at length about.

The Palestinian question is complicated. The Israelis have behaved
like complete idiots. No I don't mean the most recent operation "cast
lead", what I am referring to is the blockade of Gaza after Hamas won
the election + the whole doctrine of "collective punishment".

The blockade led to an extensive tunnel network under the Egyptian
border. Before civil materials were coming though subject to
inspection. As soon as the blockade was imposed food, medicines anf
fuel came through the tunnels ALONG WITH ROCKETS, AKs etc. This to me
demonstates a collective stupidity on the part of Israel's leaders.
The Israelis laregely have their own leaders to thank.

What is however most serious is the calculated disinformation. This is
what I mean when I talk about "beni Al-kalb". a bin or a bint is a
member of the Al-kalb set. I feel I should add one thing. If green
manikins were paraded at a scientific conference the way they were
paraded at Phoenix the perpetrators would be kicked out for falsifying
their results.

I am not anti American or anti semitic, merely "gegen Dummkoph". I am
also agaist the Dummkoph disinformation machine.


- Ian Parker
  #10  
Old January 22nd 09, 01:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default The end of Constellation?

William Elliot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:

William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?


I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...

Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not
caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs?


I said:

"I do not care about U.S. costs in Irak".

I did not speak about Palestinians, Cubans, Chinese or Russians.
I said that I do care more for those people that did not do
anything against the U.S. Those people killed for no reason
for a war that started with a big lie about weapons of mass
destruction and got killed and their country destroyed.

They paid a big price. And I care about THEM. About their lives,
about their suffering. Financial looses of the U.S. do not seem
(to me) very important compared to THEIR losses, their lives.

Thousands and thousands of civilian killed. They are more important
(to me) than the financial costs of the war for the U.S.

But then, I am not republican. They care more about money.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
 




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
I wonder what will happen to Constellation Alan Erskine[_2_] Policy 11 October 19th 08 02:52 PM
Extracting Constellation from RA/Dec Anthony Ayiomamitis[_3_] Amateur Astronomy 17 September 28th 08 11:40 AM
P.Constellation will be cancelled Jörg Space Shuttle 3 August 14th 08 07:59 PM
How About Some New Constellation Boundaries? Mark Lepkowski Amateur Astronomy 9 December 2nd 04 04:54 AM
Favorite constellation? scroob Amateur Astronomy 42 June 17th 04 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 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.