A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Musk remains on Advisory Council



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old February 24th 17, 05:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:49:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:

If your definition of "the truth" is "anything Donald Trump says,"
then you have a funny definition of the truth. Which has veered off
topic.


Since I never said any such thing, your political delusions have
veered WAY off topic. And off reality.




I didn't quote you; I said if that was your defintion is that. If
it's not, then what is it? What is the delusional part?


  #52  
Old February 24th 17, 06:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:49:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:

If your definition of "the truth" is "anything Donald Trump says,"
then you have a funny definition of the truth. Which has veered off
topic.


Since I never said any such thing, your political delusions have
veered WAY off topic. And off reality.


I didn't quote you; I said if that was your defintion is that.


If you're still raping young children it's a terrible thing. Oh, I
didn't say you were. I just said IF you were.

Get my point?


If it's not, then what is it? What is the delusional part?


My definition of 'the truth' is quite simple - THE TRUTH.

The delusional part should be clear to you now. Why did you ask the
question?


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
  #53  
Old February 25th 17, 05:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:01:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

...My definition of 'the truth' is quite simple - THE TRUTH.


And according to you, does Trump speak THE TRUTH?


  #54  
Old February 25th 17, 09:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:01:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

...My definition of 'the truth' is quite simple - THE TRUTH.


And according to you, does Trump speak THE TRUTH?


About what particular thing? Are you incapable of actual intelligent
discussion without direction from the voices in your head or are you
merely so stupid as to think individual always speak the truth or
always speak lies?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #55  
Old February 26th 17, 02:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:36:09 -0700, Fred J. McCall
asked me if I...

....think individual always speak the truth or
always speak lies?



(Insults deleted.)

In Trump's case, his track record of lying is well documented. And
that includes the times he repeats something you already beieve that
is demonstrably false. If someone repeats a lie, it's still a lie.
  #56  
Old February 26th 17, 12:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:36:09 -0700, Fred J. McCall
asked me if I...

....think individual always speak the truth or
always speak lies?



(Insults deleted.)

In Trump's case, his track record of lying is well documented. And
that includes the times he repeats something you already beieve that
is demonstrably false. If someone repeats a lie, it's still a lie.


Yes, it is, so you should stop repeating your political bull**** in a
sci.space newsgroup.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
  #57  
Old February 26th 17, 06:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:41:14 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

...... you should stop repeating your political bull**** in a
sci.space newsgroup.



This group is sci.space.POLICY. I would assume that's government
policy. That means people in government can't be ignored. That means
Trump's motives in character are very much relevant. And it's not a
moderated group, so for all your ranting and raving you can't stop
people from posting what you don't want to read.

To bring it back to the question at hand, what is Trump's position on
space, in particular the manned space program? Before the election,
his position was best summed up by this line from page 124 of
"Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again:" "Before we build
bridges to Mars, let's make sure the bridges over the Mississippi
river aren't going to fall down."

That's it. That's all there is in the book. And it jives with a
public statement he made late last year.

Now, for the last couple of months, I've followed the reporting from
Space News, and tha has included articles like this:

http://spacenews.com/the-big-changes...oming-to-nasa/

....so in the face of that, the idea that Mr. Musk has pursuaded Trump
to cancel SLS/Orion and go whole hog for Mars colonization with SpaceX
hardware might be a bit premature. If anything, they seem to be
looking at a greater role for Orion, not less. It's possible that
since this is not a top priority for him, Trump may be inclined to
follow Congress' lead and pander where he wants to. So other than the
predictable action of cutting or ending the earth sciences program,
there may not be an appetite for major changes to the manned program.

Of course, at the moment, this is all specuation. I just favor the
idea that they want consistency, as opposed to entertaning the idea
that the long-hope-for cancelation of SLS and Orion will finally
happen. (cue organ music) We'll know more when they release their
budget and name the new NASA administrator.

But so far, this most we can say is it's business as usual at NASA and
this is a part of the goverment Trump has not screwed up.



  #58  
Old February 26th 17, 11:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:41:14 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

...... you should stop repeating your political bull**** in a
sci.space newsgroup.


This group is sci.space.POLICY. I would assume that's government
policy.


Government policy ON SPACE.


That means people in government can't be ignored. That means
Trump's motives in character are very much relevant.


Wrong.


And it's not a
moderated group, so for all your ranting and raving you can't stop
people from posting what you don't want to read.


Correct. That doesn't mean I can't identify and mock the stupid ****s
who post such things. Consider yourself mocked.


To bring it back to the question at hand, what is Trump's position on
space, in particular the manned space program? Before the election,
his position was best summed up by this line from page 124 of
"Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again:" "Before we build
bridges to Mars, let's make sure the bridges over the Mississippi
river aren't going to fall down."

That's it. That's all there is in the book. And it jives with a
public statement he made late last year.


Nice of you to actually return to the topic. I'll just note that the
book and public statements like that are 'lowest common denominator'.
Most voters don't care about space, so candidates will tend to give it
pretty short shrift in political screeds.


Now, for the last couple of months, I've followed the reporting from
Space News, and tha has included articles like this:

http://spacenews.com/the-big-changes...oming-to-nasa/

...so in the face of that, the idea that Mr. Musk has pursuaded Trump
to cancel SLS/Orion and go whole hog for Mars colonization with SpaceX
hardware might be a bit premature. If anything, they seem to be
looking at a greater role for Orion, not less. It's possible that
since this is not a top priority for him, Trump may be inclined to
follow Congress' lead and pander where he wants to. So other than the
predictable action of cutting or ending the earth sciences program,
there may not be an appetite for major changes to the manned program.

Of course, at the moment, this is all specuation. I just favor the
idea that they want consistency, as opposed to entertaning the idea
that the long-hope-for cancelation of SLS and Orion will finally
happen. (cue organ music) We'll know more when they release their
budget and name the new NASA administrator.


Orion (and SLS) are intended for a much different mission space than
the two 'commercial space' capsule efforts. The entire mission space
for 'commercial space' is considered as a secondary emergency mission
for Orion.


But so far, this most we can say is it's business as usual at NASA and
this is a part of the goverment Trump has not screwed up.


You were doing so well until the last part of that sentence. Then
your innate dip****tery apparently overwhelmed you. Try and watch
that, won't you?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #59  
Old February 27th 17, 03:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:07:05 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


.... [Trump] wants to restart the draft and put ground troops in syria. plus the wall.

there will be no money left for space exploration




It is hard to discern Trump's intentions; he's the king of mixed
signals. On the one hand there is this report from space news:

http://spacenews.com/the-big-changes...oming-to-nasa/

But on the other hand there's this report from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/u...T.nav=top-news

.....which may or may not bolster your argument of the military eating
the NASA budget, because the article doesn't mention it one way or
another. A report on the radio this morning described the agencies
targeted for cuts as "long-time Republican targets" and AFAIK, that's
not NASA.

Add to this mix this action from Congress:

http://spacenews.com/house-ready-to-...pending-bills/

And it appears that commercial space backers have warmed to SLS a
smidge:

http://spacenews.com/commercial-grou...launch-system/


My impression is that both Congress and many players in the space
industry don't want a repeat of the upheaval touched off by the FY
2011 budget. Reports also seem to indicate that if the Trump
administration favors shaking things up, it appears to be in favor of
SLS/Orion, not against it. This is not implausible because Trump's
AG, Jeff Sessions, was the senator from Alabama, and so has the
Marshall Spaceflight Center in mind.

But I'm the first to admit this is all speculation based on scant
evidence. We won't know for certain until Trump releases his budget
and names his NASA administrator. The lead for that is a House member
who's run a space museum and so is knowledgeable, but knowing Trump he
could tap a member of the Flat Earth Society who contributed a lot of
money. At the moment, this is my best guess.

To coin a phrase, watch this space.

  #60  
Old February 27th 17, 05:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk remains on Advisory Council

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:07:05 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

.... [Trump] wants to restart the draft and put ground troops in syria. plus the wall.

there will be no money left for space exploration


It is hard to discern Trump's intentions; he's the king of mixed
signals. On the one hand there is this report from space news:

http://spacenews.com/the-big-changes...oming-to-nasa/


Which has no idea of what Trump might propose.


But on the other hand there's this report from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/u...T.nav=top-news


Which has no idea what Trump might propose.


Add to this mix this action from Congress:

http://spacenews.com/house-ready-to-...pending-bills/


Which is probably closer to what will actually happen, although it
includes funding for the Earth Sciences stuff, which Trump wants to
move elsewhere and reduce funding for.


And it appears that commercial space backers have warmed to SLS a
smidge:

http://spacenews.com/commercial-grou...launch-system/


Largely a political position with some support for missions that
commercial space can't currently do.

So right now, what there is is a bunch of people speculating,
essentially in a vacuum.


My impression is that both Congress and many players in the space
industry don't want a repeat of the upheaval touched off by the FY
2011 budget. Reports also seem to indicate that if the Trump
administration favors shaking things up, it appears to be in favor of
SLS/Orion, not against it. This is not implausible because Trump's
AG, Jeff Sessions, was the senator from Alabama, and so has the
Marshall Spaceflight Center in mind.

But I'm the first to admit this is all speculation based on scant
evidence. We won't know for certain until Trump releases his budget
and names his NASA administrator. The lead for that is a House member
who's run a space museum and so is knowledgeable, but knowing Trump he
could tap a member of the Flat Earth Society who contributed a lot of
money. At the moment, this is my best guess.


I doubt there will be any significant change in the funding line for
SLS or Orion this year. It takes a (far too) long time to kill things
like this. Unless some reasonable missions for this system can be put
forward, I'd expect it to be killed over the next year or two.
Congressional action on requiring a report that Constellation can (or
cannot) be used to support ISS without the SLS booster indicates a
likely direction.

Personally, I'd like to see NASA put out specifications for what they
want and let commercial space folks bid on it. Taking SLS development
and operations money and diverting it to SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc,
would probably be a more efficient approach but NASA is unlikely to
want to let go of that much control.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Martian cell remains were impregnated onto Earthly osteon remains. Lin Liangtai Amateur Astronomy 0 July 19th 08 10:16 AM
Martian cell remains were impregnated onto Earthly osteon remains. Lin Liangtai Astronomy Misc 0 July 19th 08 10:15 AM
I am today advisory, so I lift you. Ghassan al Jiburi Amateur Astronomy 0 August 13th 07 08:52 AM
New NASA Advisory Council Holds Inaugural Meeting Jacques van Oene News 0 December 3rd 05 11:47 AM
80mm ED price advisory (Canada) RichA Amateur Astronomy 0 November 7th 04 04:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.