Hillary Clinton Declares War on Space Exploration

On Nov 7, 4:38 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

Those L points, it may turn out to be an interesting fight someday
to see who gets them and how. How many satellites can fit
in one of those points? Will they get in each others way
or can many of them share the same area?

The moon's L1 as best utilized for the robust LSE-CM/ISS (tethered
Clarke Station) is pretty much an all or nothing sort of L usage. The
moon's L2 might give some room for multiple LSEs(lunar space
elevators).

The moon's L1 is extremely easy and fly-by-rocket efficient to get to/
from, as well as being rather sufficiently station-keeping energy
efficient, especially once a basalt composite fiber tether gets
attached to the moon.
--
Brad Guth

On Nov 8, 7:16 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Revision wrote:
"Jonathan"
Just like Space Solar Power seemed to dissappear almost
overnight once someone told Bush there's this govt agency
called NASA wanting to replace Texas crude with
solar power.

Heh heh ... it is hard to find a bigger moron than Bush, but alas we
have a volunteer.

First, anyone who works in the oil business knows that oil is a
depleting asset, and anything that can slow the use of oil is
welcome.

Second, though I would rather have a broomstick 25 cm up my ass than
see Hillary elected President, the fact remains than manned space
has
been an enormous cash drain at the expense of unmanned science
probes, so if it is bad news for some that Hillary wants to move
money from manned space to science, it is good news for others.

If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put what
it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then we'd
likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not "manned space at
all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned space down to
something sustainable.

1% of our mutually perpetrated cold-war and NASA/Apollo fiasco would
have gotten us our first prototype LSE-CM/ISS established, sustained
and expanded upon ever since.
--
Brad Guth

On Nov 8, 8:17 am, Glen Overby wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put what
it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then we'd
likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not "manned space at
all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned space down to
something sustainable.

Just because you're putting money into "R&D" doesn't mean you're going to get
reduced costs of manned space flight. *UNLESS* The RND money is put into
research to reduce the cost of manned spaceflight.

The LES-CM/ISS is offering exactly that. So, where's that big-ass
insurmountable problem?
--
Brad Guth

Glen Overby wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put
what it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then
we'd likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not "manned
space at all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned
space down to something sustainable.

Just because you're putting money into "R&D" doesn't mean you're
going to get reduced costs of manned space flight. *UNLESS* The RND
money is put into research to reduce the cost of manned spaceflight.

There are a lot of other useful areas "R&D" money can be spent than
on
reducing the cost.

Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of the
art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely to just
waste money.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:04:27 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Glen Overby wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put
what it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then
we'd likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not "manned
space at all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned
space down to something sustainable.

Just because you're putting money into "R&D" doesn't mean you're
going to get reduced costs of manned space flight. *UNLESS* The RND
money is put into research to reduce the cost of manned spaceflight.

There are a lot of other useful areas "R&D" money can be spent than
on
reducing the cost.

Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of the
art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely to just
waste money.

That depends on how the money is spent.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 8, 7:16 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

1% of our mutually perpetrated cold-war and NASA/Apollo fiasco would
have gotten us our first prototype LSE-CM/ISS established, sustained
and expanded upon ever since.


And if you try to boil down the single reason for all the wasteful
tragedies of the last century, you have to come to one conclusion.
Dictatorships, of one form or another, have been the cause
of the bulk of them.

It doesn't matter if the dictatorship is military, religious or
economic, the same thing must happen. A rigid societal
structure remains relatively unchanged compared to the
people. The two must drift apart over time, and conflict
and destruction are inevitable. And proportional to the
rigidity of the imposed control system.

Replacing dictatorships with democracy is the best
and most fundamental way to solve almost all our
global problems.

And here comes the Beijing Olympics next August.
A fifth of the planet. A successful Olympics will
.....legitimize....not just dictatorships...but the largest
most repressive example in all of human history.

It's a turning point of timeless quality. Either
another century of semi-continuous warfare.
Or democracy, freedom and prosperity
clear their last hurdle/wall, once
and for all.

"One World One Dream"

What an astonishly appropriate motto
the Chinese have chosen.

Which will define this century
Our Dream...Or Theirs?



Jonathan




--
Brad Guth

"J. Clarke" wrote:

:Revision wrote:
: "Jonathan"
: Just like Space Solar Power seemed to dissappear almost
: overnight once someone told Bush there's this govt agency
: called NASA wanting to replace Texas crude with
: solar power.
:
: Heh heh ... it is hard to find a bigger moron than Bush, but alas we
: have a volunteer.
:
: First, anyone who works in the oil business knows that oil is a
: depleting asset, and anything that can slow the use of oil is
: welcome.
:
: Second, though I would rather have a broomstick 25 cm up my ass than
: see Hillary elected President, the fact remains than manned space
: has
: been an enormous cash drain at the expense of unmanned science
: probes, so if it is bad news for some that Hillary wants to move
: money from manned space to science, it is good news for others.
:
:If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
:going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put what
:it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then we'd
:likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not "manned space at
:all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned space down to
:something sustainable.

She doesn't want to move it into R&D. I'd expect the R&D budget to
get zeroed. She wants to move it into Earth Sciences.

She has no interest in trying to "get the costs of manned space down
to something sustainable." Her interest is in killing manned space.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"J. Clarke" wrote:
:
:Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of the
:art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely to just
:waste money.
:

The 'general state of the art' isn't going to go much of anywhere
unless someone is writing checks to develop it.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:04:27 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Glen Overby wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
If she wants to move it into R&D I'm all for that. R&D is what's
going to ultimately get us a real space program. If NASA had put
what it's spent on the Shuttle in the last 30 years into R&D then
we'd likely have a moon base by now. What's needed is not
"manned
space at all costs", what's needed is to get the costs of manned
space down to something sustainable.

Just because you're putting money into "R&D" doesn't mean you're
going to get reduced costs of manned space flight. *UNLESS* The
RND
money is put into research to reduce the cost of manned
spaceflight.

There are a lot of other useful areas "R&D" money can be spent
than
on
reducing the cost.

Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of the
art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely to
just
waste money.

That depends on how the money is spent.

NASA has been trying to reduce launch costs by that approach for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded. Time to try something
else.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"American"
The real ugly thing is that a bigger *Fed* (this time)
represents BOTH sides of the ticket (Reps & Dems)
for the same old scripted, "echoplex" of PAC'd
incumbentist "magnet" - same 'money', just a different
face on it.

A valid observation. There is no end of good deeds with other people's
money.




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