Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 27, 12:35 pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:56:45 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Bush has undemined VSE by commiting to much money to Iraq and not
enough to NASA.

NASA has got maybe 1% of the Federal budget since the 1960s. If the
war in Iraq ended tomorrow, most likely congressional Democrats would
want to redirect the money to social programs, not NASA.

In your own twisted way you admit that the DOD is the GOP social
program. Progress. The Dems would rather spend on NASA than the DOD.
Good.

The NASA budget is 7/10 of 1% or less of the US budget.


Why don't you provide the percentage of $$$ to each state for the
program. How much does JSC get as compared to all other NASA
facilities?

I don't have those figures. Do you? Although the centers that build
the hardware are probably going to guess nice chunks of change.

Trust me JSC and KSC get the lion's share of the manned spaceflight
budget.

He's behind getting tax dollars to contractors based out of JSC.
Nothing about whether JSC actually produces anything, just that he'll
veto anything stating that they don't get their funds.

Yet if VSE is axed, it won't get a chance to produce results, will it?

Not as VSE. That's the point! VSE is fine, it is just that Bush is
"comitted" to it for the wrong reason. To him it is a social program
for Texas. Get it?

What is the NM space budget compared to TX?

I don't know, but NM is where they will conduct tests on the Orion's
launch abort system. So I guess more than $13.80.

No where near what JSC gets.

Here I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_dollars.jpg

Still, if you want to win the argument, just point me at (A) a
Democratic presidential contendor who will continue VSE or (B) a
Republican presidential contendor who will not continue VSE. Either
or both of those names along with a link to the relevant press release
from his/her campaign will undermine my arrgument. No other response
will. This includes any rants about the intent of this paragraph.
You want to win? I've told you how. Just do it.

Your choices are not the only ones, they never are! ....

Tough; they're the only options I will accept as refuting my argument.

Which means that you have a closed mind.

If you can't rise to that challenge, then you've got nothing.

False! You can't set parameters on reality. We would have never made
to the moon or even to the New World based upon your type of thinking.
You have put a box/boundaries on thinking. Sorry, I won't do that!

..... You need to realize that VSE is a
works project and not an engineering or science project.

You mean I "need" to agree with you? No, I don't.

Nope, never said you had to.

There are a lot of
things I "need" to do in my day. Knuckling under to somone on Usenet
is not one of them.

Knuckling under?!? Hell of a way to say you can't refute my argument.

Eric

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Nov 26, 11:53 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:37:31 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

How many supermodels are conservative Republicans?

http://www.kathyireland.com/http://f...-the-day-janin...

Bo Derek isn't a supermodel. Kate Ireland WAS a supermodel.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:35:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
wrote:

Trust me JSC and KSC get the lion's share of the manned spaceflight
budget.


Let's see .... JSC is the home of mission control and the astronaut
training facilities; KSC is where they launch from. So yes, they do
get the lion's share of manned space flight. But that's true
regardless of where the president's home state is. That was true
under Bill Clinton. If she's elected, it will be true under Hill
Clinton; last I knew, Texas wasn't one of her home states.

He's behind getting tax dollars to contractors based out of JSC.
Nothing about whether JSC actually produces anything, just that he'll
veto anything stating that they don't get their funds.

Yet if VSE is axed, it won't get a chance to produce results, will it?

Not as VSE. That's the point! VSE is fine, it is just that Bush is
"comitted" to it for the wrong reason. To him it is a social program
for Texas. Get it?


I disagree with the argument that the reason President Bush came up
with VSE was SOLEY to bring money to Texas; as I stated, Texas and
Florida will get a lot of money under whatever Constellation becomes
under Bush's successor regardless of where that person is from. So
unless he told you himslef that's why he did it, I don't buy it.

Oh, and just as Florida and TExas now get a lot of money for OPERATING
the shuttle, it seems logical that the only way they prosper under
Constellation (or whatever succeeds the Shuttle) is if the stupid
thing actually flies. It doesn't make sense to fund a mission control
if there are no missions to control, does it? So if you're arguing
that VSE is just to get money to Texas regardless of whether a vehicle
actually flies, you're wrong -- the only way they get money is if it
DOES fly. Beyond that, see the last paragraph.


What is the NM space budget compared to TX?

I don't know, but NM is where they will conduct tests on the Orion's
launch abort system. So I guess more than $13.80.

No where near what JSC gets.

Here I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_dollars.jpg


That graphic was made in 2003, so it does not say what the centers
listed on .....


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...workforce.html

...... will get for the work they are doing specific to Constellation.
(Oh, and if that link gives you problems, go to
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...ain/index.html and
click on "Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Work Assignments.")


False! You can't set parameters on reality .....

I am doing no such thing. I have argued that if Hillary or any other
Democrat is elected, VSE will be terminated. We know that will be the
case under Hillary because she has said so! You have argued that is
wrong, that I can not make such a determination. So it seems the best
way to prove me wrong once and for all is to demonstrate that a
Democratic contendor is in favor of VSE or a Republican is against it.
QED. Making that demonstration undermines my argument and hands you
victory; I've TOLD you how to win! Ranting about my thinking does
not. Why shouldn't I take that to mean that I'm right but you just
can't admit it?


Knuckling under?!? Hell of a way to say you can't refute my argument.

Hey, I've told you excalty how to refute mine, and you
can't/won't/refuse to do it/rant about my "thinking" when all you
need do is provide the name of a candidate and a hyperlink to a press
release. That's all; done. Getting your back up about how I'm a bad
person for telling you how to beat me accomplishes nothing.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Nov 27, 12:35 pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:37:31 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
JFK propsed Apollo and we did it, Thus far no lunar proposal by the
Republicans have resulted in anything.

The only reason "we did it" after Kennedy died was his successors,
Johnson and Nixon, followed through on what had been started.

A commitment implemented even after one is dead is a powerful
commitment. And Nixon just happened to be president when we had
Apollo.

But
wait, JSC was built in Johnson's home state of Texas and named after
him! Could that be the "real" reason he backed it? Although that
didn't save NASA from having its budget cut in the '60s and '70s.

Apollo wasn't as universally approved of as the rose-colored glasses
of hindsight would have us believe. The mid-'60s saw a book called
"Moondoggle" tha took a very critical tone of it. Another book on
satellites from the same period ridiculed the ideas of astronauts
doing anything productive on the Moon; the author depicted the first
Moonwalker as talking about how great it was to be there but doing
little else. That they would take along cameras, insturments, and be
trained by geologists in what to look for never crossed his mind.

People don't do much on Mt. Everest either, other than make and
survive.

Now, SEI was terminated/doomed/whatever about 15 years ago, so of
course, it has produced nothing. Cancelled programs rarely do. And
even then, it was supposed to be spread over 30 years, so, no, it
wouldn't have launched anything by 1992 anyway. VSE is still in its
formitive stages; whether anything comes of it depends on what Bush's
successors decide. But let's just say it continues. Orion will not
have it's first manned flight for eight years, and not go to the Moon
for a few years after that, so it's understandable nothing has flown
NOW. You might as well say Apollo flopped becaus they didn't land on
the Moon in 1962. But knocking down straw men is a good way to burn
off holiay callories, so please, continue. (I prefer the heavy bag
myself; you don't always have to pick it up every time.)

I cannot have a balanced debate with a Republican apologist. Sorry. I
am more critical of my party than you are of yours. Seems that exists
a lot these days and the number obe reason your party lost
Congress.

On Nov 29, 12:56 pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:35:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Trust me JSC and KSC get the lion's share of the manned spaceflight
budget.

Let's see .... JSC is the home of mission control and the astronaut
training facilities; KSC is where they launch from. So yes, they do
get the lion's share of manned space flight. But that's true
regardless of where the president's home state is.

False! You cannot prove that as JSC and KSC have always been in TX and
FLA, respectively. The point is that JSC and KSC get dollars from
Texas leaders despite the results that they produce.

Do you recall all the pressure and noice JPL got for the botched Mars
missions? Well seems that when things like X-33 go by the wayside or
disasters occurred in manned spaceflight, we are simply to
understand...

That was true under Bill Clinton. If she's elected, it will be true under Hill
Clinton; last I knew, Texas wasn't one of her home states.

Right and hence neither Bill nor Hillary have a bogus vison for space
designed to throw dollars in the dirction of JSC and KSC. She wants to
beef up the enviro-sats. Imagine that?!

He's behind getting tax dollars to contractors based out of JSC.
Nothing about whether JSC actually produces anything, just that he'll
veto anything stating that they don't get their funds.

Yet if VSE is axed, it won't get a chance to produce results, will it?

Not as VSE. That's the point! VSE is fine, it is just that Bush is
"comitted" to it for the wrong reason. To him it is a social program
for Texas. Get it?

I disagree with the argument that the reason President Bush came up
with VSE was SOLEY to bring money to Texas; as I stated, Texas and
Florida will get a lot of money under whatever Constellation becomes
under Bush's successor regardless of where that person is from.

Not necessarily so. If the successors award NASA dollars based upon
merit, then both could stand to lose money.

So unless he told you himslef that's why he did it, I don't buy it.

Of course you don't! You're an GOP apologist. And perhaps terminally
so...

Oh, and just as Florida and TExas now get a lot of money for OPERATING
the shuttle, it seems logical that the only way they prosper under
Constellation (or whatever succeeds the Shuttle) is if the stupid
thing actually flies.

Again, not necessarily so. They could waste the money and use COTS if
it actually ever gets of the ground and chalk up the loss as a
research project. The point is that KSC and more so JSC get tax
dollars despite what they do or don't do. THAT is what both Bushes,
Tom Delay and other Texas Republicans have created over the past two
decades. I hope that their succesors (non Texans) hold those centers
to the same standards that JPL faced in the wake of their failures.

It doesn't make sense to fund a mission control
if there are no missions to control, does it? So if you're arguing
that VSE is just to get money to Texas regardless of whether a vehicle
actually flies, you're wrong -- the only way they get money is if it
DOES fly. Beyond that, see the last paragraph.

Fly alright but for 10 times more cost than it should be.

What is the NM space budget compared to TX?

I don't know, but NM is where they will conduct tests on the Orion's
launch abort system. So I guess more than $13.80.

No where near what JSC gets.

Here I found it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_dollars.jpg

That graphic was made in 2003, so it does not say what the centers
listed on .....


It gives you an idea percentage-wise of what states get what funding.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...nstellation_wo...

..... will get for the work they are doing specific to Constellation.
(Oh, and if that link gives you problems, go tohttp://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.htmland
click on "Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Work Assignments.")

False! You can't set parameters on reality .....

I am doing no such thing. I have argued that if Hillary or any other
Democrat is elected, VSE will be terminated.

....as a Texas works project.

We know that will be the
case under Hillary because she has said so! You have argued that is
wrong, that I can not make such a determination. So it seems the best
way to prove me wrong once and for all is to demonstrate that a
Democratic contendor is in favor of VSE or a Republican is against it.

Guiliani and Romney probably could care less about VSE. Huckabee would
be your best bet.One thing is certain, no one from the state of Texas
is going to occupy the White House in 2009 after Bush leaves.

QED. Making that demonstration undermines my argument and hands you
victory; I've TOLD you how to win! Ranting about my thinking does
not. Why shouldn't I take that to mean that I'm right but you just
can't admit it?

I'll admit it....

You're a Republican apologist of the highest order. QED!!!

Knuckling under?!? Hell of a way to say you can't refute my argument.

Hey, I've told you excalty how to refute mine, and you
can't/won't/refuse to do it/rant about my "thinking" when all you
need do is provide the name of a candidate and a hyperlink to a press
release. That's all; done. Getting your back up about how I'm a bad
person for telling you how to beat me accomplishes nothing.


I never said you were a bad person, just jaded.

Tell me, other than the Bushes with SEI and VSE has any other
politician anywhere stated anything like SEI or VSE?

If JSC and KSC were to move locations to CA, would the Bushs' STILL
support it? I seriously doubt it.

Eric

Our NASA is just another semitic puppeteered agency, doing pretty much
whatever those Zionists as pretend atheists have within their swarm
like and global domination mindset of keeping as much truth
sequestered in taboo/naysay status quo as possible.

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

Unless someone other than our smart as God worth of Zionist Jews can
claim responsibility for having educated and/or leading those Third
Reich and of their puppet boss(Hitler), as to accomplishing such
extensive goals of damn near achieving global domination, then it only
makes perfect sense as to further realizing as to why all of the
ongoing taboo/nondisclosure within NASA, and of most every other
supportive forum (including this Google/NOVA Usenet and especially of
its moderated groups) of mainstream damage control that's taking place
on behalf of covering those extensively semitic MI5/NSA/CIA~NASA
butts.

wrote:

http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=space-history

11/29/2007: German-US rocket engineer Wernher von Braun developed the Saturn V launch vehicle
that put the first man on the moon in 1969. But he could never escape his Nazi past, according to a
newly published biography.

With the very best of everything that's new and greatly improved, it
seems his original fly-by-rocket physics can't even be replicated as
of today, because apparently that's how extremely good those physics
and science smart semites (usually cloaked as pretend atheists) were.
No wonder their puppet boss(Hitler) was able to kick so much global
butt with such limited resources, and as to why those unfortunate
other Jews got to pay the ultimate price at the bloody and greedy
hands of their very own kind. Of course there's always that pesky old
Zionist history of their having allowed putting one of their own kind
on a stick for a fait-based PR stunt that served to teach those
tampering with the profits of their religion while in full partnership
with their resident warlord of that day.
- Brad Guth


wrote:
NASA must cooperate with the Department of Defense in the United States.
According to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Section
305� (i):
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be considered
a Defense Agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17,
Title 35 of the United States code"

Ken Johnston at:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/NPC-Russia.htm
I do not want any discussion about the slides there. I regard em as the
result of a bad adjusted copy device.

But this law statement surprised me. Is it still actual? If so NASA PAO
did a good job 40 years to present it as research agency.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##