NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

Roger Coppock wrote:
UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

Uh, wrong Moderate, right?

But the change comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scien-
tists, who say the "understand and protect" phrase was not merely
window dressing but actively influenced the shaping and execution
of research priorities. Without it, these scientists say, there
will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve under-
standing of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by
greenhouse gas emissions.

What scientists? NASA = National AERONAUTICS Space Administration,
or National Aeronautics and SPACE Administration. The two seem to
be at odds with each other, don't they? Maybe this Agency needs
to be renamed "National Environmental Space Agency" or "National
Government Environmental Agency".

Dear President Bush,

Please stop the earth from precessing on its axis every
axis every 26,000 years.

Thank you,

Moderate Republican

The extremely lucky people on this planet who we call
astronauts/cosmonauts/taikonauts provide a perspective in words and
pictures that only humans can translate and express as seen with their
own eyes (1). An astronaut's thoughts and descriptions are important
for subjective historical correlation and objective scientific
understanding of events and phenomena from a different observation
point other than ground based scientists, which autonomous explorers
cannot. But the forward thinking of dr. sally ride in the ride report
(2) contained a "mission to planet earth" which was essentially
recommendations for satellites to look back at earth conducting
environmental studies, resulting in a bounty of knowledge and increased
public awareness of earth's environment.

(1)
Orbit Nasa Astronauts photograph the earth
by Jay Apt, Michael Helfert, Justin Wilkinson"
The national geographic society, 1996
Page 12
"Each space shuttle mission is viewed by both astronauts and scientists
as providing new observations in long term project. Training on the
ground introduces crews to what they should expect when looking down
toward earth's surface or at its atmosphere. This
training allows the orbiting photographer to recognize the abnormal or
unexpected - new or old phenomena in new places. These data come back
to earth in a dramatic form as color pictures that are often
immediately understandable to scientists. There is great benefit in
having intelligent observers in space. They can act independently,
think about the meaning of their unique views by using what they
learned in classes, and, while they are "in the field", filter data on
the spot for it's scientific significance. The components of this
activity - ground-bound scientists and the astronaut in orbit are
thus partners with the common goal of providing, through photography, a
meaningful history of the earth for all mankind and for all
generations."


(2)
http://history.nasa.gov/riderep/evalaut.htm
"Mission to Planet Earth
Mission to Planet Earth is not the sort of major program the public
normally associates with an agency famous for Apollo, Viking, and
Voyager. But this initiative is a great one, not because it offers
tremendous excitement and adventure, but because of its fundamental
importance to humanity's future on this planet. This initiative
directly addresses the problems that will be facing humanity in the
coming decades, and its continuous scientific return will produce
results which are of major significance to all the residents of the
planet. The benefits are clear to a public that is increasingly
concerned about global environmental problems like ozone depletion,
buildup of greenhouse gases, and acidification of lakes and forests.
And as the environment and its preservation become more pressing
issues, the initiative retains its importance for many generations to
come. For this reason it should enjoy sustained public and
Congressional support and interest. The U. S. is the only country
currently capable of leading a Mission to Planet Earth, but the program
is designed around, and requires, international cooperation.
Admittedly, the initiative's international scope could complicate its
coordination and implementation, but the concept embodied in the
initiative enjoys widespread international support. As more and more
countries are facing ecological problems, there is increasing interest
in a global approach. In fact, this concept is supported by several
international organizations, and may emerge as a theme for the
International Space Year, 1992. This initiative represents an important
opportunity for the United States to exercise leadership in an
increasingly significant area."












American wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

Uh, wrong Moderate, right?

But the change comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scien-
tists, who say the "understand and protect" phrase was not merely
window dressing but actively influenced the shaping and execution
of research priorities. Without it, these scientists say, there
will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve under-
standing of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by
greenhouse gas emissions.

What scientists? NASA = National AERONAUTICS Space Administration,
or National Aeronautics and SPACE Administration. The two seem to
be at odds with each other, don't they? Maybe this Agency needs
to be renamed "National Environmental Space Agency" or "National
Government Environmental Agency".

Dear President Bush,

Please stop the earth from precessing on its axis every
axis every 26,000 years.

Thank you,

Moderate Republican

Roger Coppock wrote:
UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

There is irony in this and I'm reminded of the program called "Mission
to Planet Earth" from about a decade ago. With all the emphasis on
Voyager and the other successful space probes to the outer Solar System
back in the 70s and 80s, it was decided that exploring the Earth made
sense because, well, we all live here. I distinctly recall many
Republicans huffing about it. Well, MTPE started to find and underpin
evidence of global warming and as soon as the GOP took over Congress
back in 1994 the moniker "Mission to Planet Earth' shifted to simply
Earth Observing System, which is more mundane than the much touted
"MIssion to Planet Earth". Now as time has gone by more distancing from
Earth observation is taking place by this latest NASA mission statement
change.

It appears that the GOP runs the country but that Big Oil runs the GOP.

Eric


Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

On 22 Jul 2006 09:43:14 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Roger
Coppock" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

Given the context, this probably isn't the *most* inane use of the
useless term "neocon" in Usenet, or even this newsgroup, but it has to
be a contender.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 09:43:14 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Roger
Coppock" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

UN****ING BELIEVABLE!

What planet to the neocons come from?

Given the context, this probably isn't the *most* inane use of the
useless term "neocon" in Usenet, or even this newsgroup, but it has to
be a contender.

The real question is, are you a neocon, a neocon defender, or a neocon
apologist? Or simply all three?!

Eric

In article , Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:


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

Spamming your idiotic blog *PLONK*

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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...itiKrXZazUNXdw

http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7

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."