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

Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be'ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 10, 12:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Frank Robertson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be'ed

I gotta be quick here due to time limits but want to see what you
think. This is a bad time to mention expanding any federal budget
components. This idea may need to wait 'till a better time to be
promoted or implemented. But...

Why did the space program get bi-partisan support in the 1960s?
Because it was a national priority after the USSR upstaged America in
getting people into space.

To be quick and succinct: If it was a good idea then, it is STILL a
good idea. NASA had like 4% fed. budget then (maybe up to 7%).

Big Science and Big Space are not PRIMARILY about national prestige,
though national prestige is always a good idea. Scientific advances
that are not yet free-market meaningful, at any moment, do BECOME SO
before all that long.

Proposed: major increases in science and space budgets as soon as
politically reasonable.

Links:

http://groups.google.com/group/one-million-mph?hl=en

http://1mmph.yolasite.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/scien...ublicans?hl=en
  #2  
Old July 14th 10, 12:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be 'ed

In article b409867b-4b82-4ccd-820b-8ed7665028c3
@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

I gotta be quick here due to time limits but want to see what you
think. This is a bad time to mention expanding any federal budget
components. This idea may need to wait 'till a better time to be
promoted or implemented. But...

Why did the space program get bi-partisan support in the 1960s?
Because it was a national priority after the USSR upstaged America in
getting people into space.


True. The Soviets were actually out in front with the first satellite
to orbit the earth, the first man to orbit the earth, and etc. The US
had to play catch-up. This was deemed a high priority, so quite a bit
of money was spent.

To be quick and succinct: If it was a good idea then, it is STILL a
good idea. NASA had like 4% fed. budget then (maybe up to 7%).


Wrong. That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. That
level of funding will never come back. Claims to the contrary are
extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary
proof.

Big Science and Big Space are not PRIMARILY about national prestige,
though national prestige is always a good idea. Scientific advances
that are not yet free-market meaningful, at any moment, do BECOME SO
before all that long.


Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such
as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? If NASA was
still primarily an R&D agency like they were during the NACA years, I
might agree with you, but today, NASA spends the bulk of its money on
missions rather than research. There isn't much that can directly
transfer to the free-market as a result.

Proposed: major increases in science and space budgets as soon as
politically reasonable.

Links:

http://groups.google.com/group/one-million-mph?hl=en

http://1mmph.yolasite.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/scien...ublicans?hl=en


It's never been politically reasonable to do so. In fact, the current
administration is proposing doing exactly that and there is currently a
furious uproar from the people who are going to be impacted by the cuts
in current programs (i.e. axing Ares and axing or scaling back Orion).
Don't you read the news? The politicians don't care about R&D, they
only care about maintaining their steady stream of pork.

The budgets were bumped up a bit to recover from the Challenger
disaster, but this money wasn't spent on R&D of new tech, it was spent
on making an existing "operational" system a tad bit safer.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #3  
Old July 14th 10, 01:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On Jul 14, 4:30*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b409867b-4b82-4ccd-820b-8ed7665028c3
@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...



I gotta be quick here due to time limits but want to see what you
think. This is a bad time to mention expanding any federal budget
components. This idea may need to wait 'till a better time to be
promoted or implemented. But...


Why did the space program get bi-partisan support in the 1960s?
Because it was a national priority after the USSR upstaged America in
getting people into space.


True. *The Soviets were actually out in front with the first satellite
to orbit the earth, the first man to orbit the earth, and etc. *The US
had to play catch-up. *This was deemed a high priority, so quite a bit
of money was spent.

To be quick and succinct: If it was a good idea then, it is STILL a
good idea. NASA had like 4% fed. budget then (maybe up to 7%).


Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That
level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are
extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary
proof.

Big Science and Big Space are not PRIMARILY about national prestige,
though national prestige is always a good idea. Scientific advances
that are not yet free-market meaningful, at any moment, do BECOME SO
before all that long.


Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such
as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? *If NASA was
still primarily an R&D agency like they were during the NACA years, I
might agree with you, but today, NASA spends the bulk of its money on
missions rather than research. *There isn't much that can directly
transfer to the free-market as a result. *

Proposed: major increases in science and space budgets as soon as
politically reasonable.


Links:


http://groups.google.com/group/one-million-mph?hl=en


http://1mmph.yolasite.com/


http://groups.google.com/group/scien...ublicans?hl=en


It's never been politically reasonable to do so. *In fact, the current
administration is proposing doing exactly that and there is currently a
furious uproar from the people who are going to be impacted by the cuts
in current programs (i.e. axing Ares and axing or scaling back Orion). *
Don't you read the news? *The politicians don't care about R&D, they
only care about maintaining their steady stream of pork.

The budgets were bumped up a bit to recover from the Challenger
disaster, but this money wasn't spent on R&D of new tech, it was spent
on making an existing "operational" system a tad bit safer.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.

Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.

JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.

~ BG
  #4  
Old July 14th 10, 10:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be 'ed

In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...

So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.

Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.


I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity.
Change needs to come from the private sector. There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.

JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.


JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union).

Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf

From above:

President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
except for defense, the top priority of the United States
government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.
Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
these other domestic programs and the only justification for
it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.

Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA.

Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #5  
Old July 15th 10, 08:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...



So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.


Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.


I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. *
Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.

JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.


JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union). *

Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf

From above:

* *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
* *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
* *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
* *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
* *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
* *except for defense, the top priority of the United States
* *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.
* *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
* *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
* *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
* *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
* *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
* *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
* *these other domestic programs and the only justification for
* *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
* *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
* *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.

Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. *

Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most
at risk.

The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we
spend that?

~ BG
  #6  
Old July 23rd 10, 01:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Frank Robertson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:





In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...


So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.


Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.


I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. *
Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.


JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat..


JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union). *


Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf


From above:


* *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
* *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
* *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
* *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
* *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
* *except for defense, the top priority of the United States
* *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.
* *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
* *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
* *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
* *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
* *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
* *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
* *these other domestic programs and the only justification for
* *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
* *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
* *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.


Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. *


Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).


Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most
at risk.

The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we
spend that?

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


Jeff Findley wrote:

Wrong. That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. That
level of funding will never come back. Claims to the contrary are
extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with
extraordinary
proof.


Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency
such
as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market?


------:

That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad
Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to
please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad.

I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a
new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the
military budget.
  #7  
Old July 25th 10, 01:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On Jul 22, 5:47*pm, Frank Robertson wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote:



On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...


So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.


Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.


I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. *
Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising..


JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.


JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union). *


Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf


From above:


* *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
* *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
* *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
* *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
* *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
* *except for defense, the top priority of the United States
* *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take..
* *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
* *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
* *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
* *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
* *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
* *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
* *these other domestic programs and the only justification for
* *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
* *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
* *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.


Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. *


Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).


Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most
at risk.


The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we
spend that?


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


Jeff Findley wrote:

Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That
level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are
extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with
extraordinary
proof.

That cold-war was mutually perpetrated by those in charge of those we
elected.


Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency
such
as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market?


What off-world free market are we talking about, because it sure as
hell isn't of anything on Earth.


------:

That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad
Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to
please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad.

I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a
new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the
military budget.


Think of it as a mafia cabal that the public has no say and no access,
but always gets to pay for everything.

~ BG

  #8  
Old July 31st 10, 03:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Rickcosmos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On Jul 22, 8:47*pm, Frank Robertson wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote:





On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...


So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch.


Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing
good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached,
that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster.


I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if
our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. *
Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many
commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until
recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been
successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is
starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising..


JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own
plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.


JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA
was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic,
and political superiority over the Soviet Union). *


Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf


From above:


* *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the
* *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely
* *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know,
* *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top-
* *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things,
* *except for defense, the top priority of the United States
* *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take..
* *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at
* *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending
* *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I
* *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready
* *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about
* *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all
* *these other domestic programs and the only justification for
* *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because
* *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind,
* *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.


Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only
justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order
to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend
reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the
politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. *


Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of
dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional
billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I,
Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly
dead as well).


Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most
at risk.


The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we
spend that?


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


Jeff Findley wrote:

Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That
level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are
extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with
extraordinary
proof.

Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency
such
as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market?

------:

That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad
Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to
please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad.

I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a
new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the
military budget.


"...huge government agency such as NASA..." NASA BUDGET 1/2 of 1% of
FEDERAL BUDGET.
  #9  
Old July 31st 10, 01:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed

On 7/30/2010 6:22 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:

"...huge government agency such as NASA..." NASA BUDGET 1/2 of 1% of
FEDERAL BUDGET.


....and its own television channel to help it distribute propaganda and
get future federal funding. :-D

Pat

 




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
SpaceShipTwo "on time and on budget" Joe Strout Policy 5 July 24th 06 06:47 AM
Space surveillance budget reviewed Revision Policy 1 June 16th 05 03:52 AM
Low budget space vehicle tracking David Summers Technology 24 March 6th 05 11:32 AM
Feb 1986: First Usenet mention of the MIR space station John Eckart Space Station 0 January 10th 05 09:04 PM
Space Flight : Budget Plans Al Jackson Policy 0 January 22nd 04 12:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 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.