|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
In article ,
jonathan wrote: It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party. Fat chance. You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote: The big issues in the upcoming elections should be immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming. All are issues that favor the dems. Well, that's good news regardless of what happens to NASA -- which I'm thinking is of only marginal relevance to space development in the 21st century anyway. But, if global warming does become an important issue, then it could be very good for space development. Perhaps NASA could be, at least partly, directed to research & develop space solar power, and to deliver this technology to the commercial sector as quickly as possible. Surely some good would come of that. Best, - Joe |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Joe Strout wrote:
In article , "jonathan" wrote: The big issues in the upcoming elections should be immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming. All are issues that favor the dems. Well, that's good news regardless of what happens to NASA -- which I'm thinking is of only marginal relevance to space development in the 21st century anyway. But, if global warming does become an important issue, then it could be very good for space development. Perhaps NASA could be, at least partly, directed to research & develop space solar power, and to deliver this technology to the commercial sector as quickly as possible. Surely some good would come of that. Best, - Joe Oh, what a bunch of drips you all are. Forget the mission objective, and focus entirely on the money issue. Change the science, and focus inward towards pin-headedness. Forgive the Communists, and let Humanism rule the world. What a bunch of drips. Why don't you all go back to living in earthen huts on the reservation with your handwarmers and free marijuana and wait for Newton's apple to hit you in the head again, and maybe a new age will dawn in science. Or better yet, why don't you all go find a cave to hide in until the next asteroid hits planet earth. You people have become completely rused by liberalism. You're so duped, you can't offer anything substantive, can you? I think that black holes have invaded your conscious minds, and sucked your brains out to "the other side". Your policies speak of confusion and dumbfoundedness, because you feel that you have been betrayed by your former ruse, so you resort to "dumbing down" NASA instead of focusing on viable alterna- tives. You guys just plain stink. Are you envious of Al Gore? Did you vote for Bill Clinton? If the answer is yes, then you have eaten the "green weenie" of environmentalism - Do you believe that the Chinese will rule the earth? Then you are definitely NOT a U.S. citizen, even if you try to act like one. Do you think that the role of NASA has been corrupted by the good people from within NASA? Think again, stupids, it's by environmentalists like you - communists - the 'green party' that capitalism is an evil sin that must be wiped off the face of the earth. Nobody believes that by reducing capitalism, we can improve the space-based R&D that will redefine the environment in which we live. Competition for LEO infra- structure for a bloated environmental satellite bureaucracy can only tighten authoritarianism over the current PAC ene- mies who have got too much to deal with already w/ fulfilling the current vision, debunking any naysaying or defeatism on your part. What a pity. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , jonathan wrote: It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party. Fat chance. You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely. The democrats have been pretty silent on Nasa for some time. Their 04 platform didn't even mention Nasa. But the likes of Barney Franks, a couple of weeks ago, got 169 votes in the House in a failed amendment to stop funding for early moon and mars planning. But we shouldn't worry first about how things are now, we should always think about how things should be in the future. In a perfect world....our scientists and engineers would all pull together and come up with that big fix, that one Big Idea, that would save the future of the planet from global warming, energy nightmares and constant war. And all that at once. All I know is in that Big Idea somewhere will be the sun and space. Everyone knows that, or at least will believe it. And that is enough. Did Kennedy solve all the problems of going to the moon before announcing his goal? No, of course not. He initiated a self organizing system from the inspiring and imaginative goal he set. And let the solutions find themselves from all the talent, urgency and excitement the goal set in motion. It's the goal that matters. If not Nasa then who? It has to be Nasa. Jonathan s -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
jonathan wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , jonathan wrote: It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party. Fat chance. You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely. The democrats have been pretty silent on Nasa for some time. Their 04 platform didn't even mention Nasa. But the likes of Barney Franks, a couple of weeks ago, got 169 votes in the House in a failed amendment to stop funding for early moon and mars planning. But we shouldn't worry first about how things are now, we should always think about how things should be in the future. In a perfect world....our scientists and engineers would all pull together and come up with that big fix, that one Big Idea, that would save the future of the planet from global warming, energy nightmares and constant war. And all that at once. All I know is in that Big Idea somewhere will be the sun and space. Everyone knows that, or at least will believe it. And that is enough. Did Kennedy solve all the problems of going to the moon before announcing his goal? No, of course not. He initiated a self organizing system from the inspiring and imaginative goal he set. And let the solutions find themselves from all the talent, urgency and excitement the goal set in motion. It's the goal that matters. If not Nasa then who? It has to be Nasa. It should be NASA and NOAA, but these are the Bush years. They don't give a **** about anything but their jobs. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... Blitzkreig wrote: What a pity. Such a dumb****. http://cosmic.lifeform.org Win and we will easily see -- again -- who the real "dumb****" was. Only this time may be the last time of too many times even for such a country, and such a civilization, as ours [was]. Remember, Tip O'Neill said there was no going back, no getting back, no backing up or backing out, anymore. Deliberately made so: No room whatsoever to maneuver left anymore. Deliberately made so: No margin whatsoever for error left anymore. Conservatives own them all now. All the maneuver room. All the margins for error. Made so by Liberalism. The cost of continuously promising and never even coming close to delivering "A Better World" on Earth. The cost of accelerating the whole world ever farther from it, confusing, complicating, frustrating, angering, ever larger numbers of people, every time your in power. GLB |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
In article m,
"greysky" wrote: Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely rejected: "You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..." Or this one: "NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our Stuff to wherever the money comes from." "Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...=7a71420a9103f ea3&hp=&ex=1153627200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&ad xnnlx=1153543120-I5g0T4aFiti KrXZazUNXdw http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7 Unfortunately, NASA has become "UPS in Space." |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7 I don't understand- you are surprised that a government agency is acting like a government agency? Or did you think NASA is, for some reason, different than every other government agency? How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that the administration believes should be (de-)funded. -- Andrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | News | 0 | January 28th 06 12:41 AM |
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 26th 05 04:47 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |