|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
Mr Obama's speech
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address " We will restore science to its rightful place..." "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:00:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Mr Obama's speech http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address " We will restore science to its rightful place..." I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. Particularly in this case... Constellation has little or nothing to do with "science." I'm sure he's talking about global warm^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclimate change and stem-cell research. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. Particularly in this case... I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess. Hopefully. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alan Erskine wrote:
I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess. It'll cost lots more because instead of picking up a few moon rocks, US will be occupying the moon. Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more? Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more? Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the costs for the Iraki people... If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any. -- jacob navia jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. *Particularly in this case... I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess. The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation. Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will. What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have its budget slashed. Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has to show either :- 1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the dependency on forein oil etc. 2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent. This is what minds should be concentrating on. - Ian Parker |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural address. Particularly in this case... I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote] Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo. That's what NASA would have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build mission, it's going to be a big lander. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:
William Elliot wrote: Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more? Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the costs for the Iraki people... Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs? Beware shrapnel from explosive irony. If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any. Shucks, US already has a disparaging name for them Lunatics. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
On 22 Jan, 07:32, William Elliot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote: William Elliot wrote: Riddle of the day. *Which will cost US more? * * Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the costs for the Iraki people... Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs? Real rockets have been fired at Israel at least. What did Iraq do? Precisely nothing. Beware shrapnel from explosive irony. If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any. I have visions of the Man in the Moon wandering across the Mddle East and settling in (say) Syria. Shucks, US already has a disparaging name for them Lunatics. Where has "sanity" got us? Sane people like to live in ethically clean societies. Pity about Obama being black, or to be strict "mixed race". Baghdad is now ethically clean. When I was young we discussed pacifism and "just wars". I must confess I only ever envisaged a war where Britain was threatened directly. The basic fact of modern war, as I think I have said previously is that you fight on the other side of the world for causes which are far more complex than the politicians make out. The facts of Iraq are the following 1) The CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein 2) The US nodded and winked during the Iran/Iraq war. 3) Saddam invaded Kuwait when he was broke. You see SH anticipated a quick victory, like generals everywhere have. 4) There were no WMD, no justification for war - or sanctions either for that matter. 5) Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Palestinan question. This is yet another example of the disinformation campaign I have spoken at length about. The Palestinian question is complicated. The Israelis have behaved like complete idiots. No I don't mean the most recent operation "cast lead", what I am referring to is the blockade of Gaza after Hamas won the election + the whole doctrine of "collective punishment". The blockade led to an extensive tunnel network under the Egyptian border. Before civil materials were coming though subject to inspection. As soon as the blockade was imposed food, medicines anf fuel came through the tunnels ALONG WITH ROCKETS, AKs etc. This to me demonstates a collective stupidity on the part of Israel's leaders. The Israelis laregely have their own leaders to thank. What is however most serious is the calculated disinformation. This is what I mean when I talk about "beni Al-kalb". a bin or a bint is a member of the Al-kalb set. I feel I should add one thing. If green manikins were paraded at a scientific conference the way they were paraded at Phoenix the perpetrators would be kicked out for falsifying their results. I am not anti American or anti semitic, merely "gegen Dummkoph". I am also agaist the Dummkoph disinformation machine. - Ian Parker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The end of Constellation?
William Elliot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote: William Elliot wrote: Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more? Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq? I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the costs for the Iraki people... Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs? I said: "I do not care about U.S. costs in Irak". I did not speak about Palestinians, Cubans, Chinese or Russians. I said that I do care more for those people that did not do anything against the U.S. Those people killed for no reason for a war that started with a big lie about weapons of mass destruction and got killed and their country destroyed. They paid a big price. And I care about THEM. About their lives, about their suffering. Financial looses of the U.S. do not seem (to me) very important compared to THEIR losses, their lives. Thousands and thousands of civilian killed. They are more important (to me) than the financial costs of the war for the U.S. But then, I am not republican. They care more about money. -- jacob navia jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I wonder what will happen to Constellation | Alan Erskine[_2_] | Policy | 11 | October 19th 08 02:52 PM |
Extracting Constellation from RA/Dec | Anthony Ayiomamitis[_3_] | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | September 28th 08 11:40 AM |
P.Constellation will be cancelled | Jörg | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 14th 08 07:59 PM |
How About Some New Constellation Boundaries? | Mark Lepkowski | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | December 2nd 04 04:54 AM |
Favorite constellation? | scroob | Amateur Astronomy | 42 | June 17th 04 01:27 PM |