Hillary Clinton Declares War on Space Exploration

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"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.

So you're saying that if Hillary is elected then all aviation R&D will
be discontinued?

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

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"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.

So you're saying that Hillary will discontinue all Federally funded
research of any kind? Do tell.

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

Good. In its current form it _needs_ killing.

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

J. Clarke wrote:
So you're saying that if Hillary is elected then all aviation R&D will
be discontinued?


It could be worse than that:
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/..._force_one.php

Pat

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:46:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


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

By what approach?

for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded.

They've never really tried.

Time to try something else.

I didn't say NASA should do it, but NASA should be doing basic R&D as
NACA used to.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "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.
:
:So you're saying that if Hillary is elected then all aviation R&D will
:be discontinued?
:

Ever notice how whenever someone tries to tell someone else what
"you're saying" that they inevitably are trying to put together some
straw man? It's a pretty weak rhetorical tactic, when it comes right
down to it.

Aviation isn't space flight. Aviation research doesn't do much to
improve the 'general state of the art' when it comes to space flight.

When was the last time YOU saw a space vehicle powered by
high-efficiency turbofans?


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

"J. Clarke" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "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.
:
:So you're saying that Hillary will discontinue all Federally funded
:research of any kind? Do tell.
:

Here he goes again. Do try to stick to the context when constructing
your little straw people, won't you?

:
:
: She has no interest in trying to "get the costs of manned space down
: to something sustainable." Her interest is in killing manned space.
:
:
:Good. In its current form it _needs_ killing.
:

So you're anti-space? Just keep in mind that when money is removed
from manned space, it also gets removed from unmanned space.


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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
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.

At least government funded manned space. In the long run, that might not be
a bad thing. It would certainly remove the uncertainty of competition from
the government when it comes to new launch vehicles (Ares I and V) and new
manned vehicles (Orion).

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:46:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


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

By what approach?

Attempting to reduce the costs of manned spaceflight.

for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded.

They've never really tried.

The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me. And they
haven't come up with anything that is going to be significantly
cheaper.

Time to try something else.

I didn't say NASA should do it, but NASA should be doing basic R&D
as
NACA used to.

Yes, they should, which is what I said.

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

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:46:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


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

By what approach?

Attempting to reduce the costs of manned spaceflight.

That's not an approach. It's a goal. What "approach" are you
objecting to?

for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded.

They've never really tried.

The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me.

Not really.

And they
haven't come up with anything that is going to be significantly
cheaper.

They haven't made a serious attempt.

Time to try something else.

I didn't say NASA should do it, but NASA should be doing basic R&D
as
NACA used to.

Yes, they should, which is what I said.

No, it's not.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: 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.
:
:
:At least government funded manned space. In the long run, that might not be
:a bad thing. It would certainly remove the uncertainty of competition from
:the government when it comes to new launch vehicles (Ares I and V) and new
:manned vehicles (Orion).
:

And how many folks currently getting government money dry up and blow
away? If the government stops manned space flight I wouldn't expect
private money to spend as much on it, either.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney