...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!

Why do we accept lies from our government?

Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa Administrator
Griffin and his claim of public support for Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below




How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?

The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/home.html


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was announced.
The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return the space shuttle
to flight, complete assembly of the space station, build a replacement
for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then on to Mars and beyond.
If NASA's new budget did not exceed one percent of the federal
budget, to what extent would you support or oppose this new
plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000597.html


To disagree with this statement, one would have to oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, oppose completing the ISS
oppose a shuttle replacement, support an 'all at once' approach
and support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.


"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact show a
broad consensus in support of our new goals in space. Assuming
that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent of the budget
- and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths of the American
people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html



"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin



In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup issued
this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is.

The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support according to Gallup.

Meanwhile, the Vision to send humans back to the moon and to
mars is going ahead. They're spending as fast as they can to
lock-in this program that Lockheed and other contractors strong-armed
taxpayers and voters into paying for.

A space program to nowhere.

Costing hundreds of billions, and taking decades of precious time
that could be used for far more worthy projects such as
new energy sources and global warming solutions.

Why do we accept this?

In a democracy, we're supposed to tell them what to do.


Jonathan


s

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Joe Strout wrote:

Compare this to, say, developing cislunar infrastructure, which will
actually contribute in a substantial way to making us a true spacefaring
civilization; or developing solar power satellites, which would solve
one of our century's most pressing problems (providing clean, safe
energy without further disrupting our planet's climate).

VSE is as much about that as it is about going to Mars ... that is, 'not'.



VSE is a complete rewrite of our long term space goals.

And at the very end of this vision Nasa ends up with a
temporary shelter on mars for a handful of people.

The question is, what do WE end up with after forty
or fifty years of this Vision?

With SPS, after forty or fifty years we could end
up with the following....

Greater public interest and funding
Cheap access to space, a prerequisite for SPS
A permanent replacement for fossil fuels
A solution to global warming
America no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil
The world dependent on American Space Solar Power
Less wars in the future, instead of more wars
More prosperity in the future, instead of less.
An energy source for remote/third world economies.
An energy source for space activity
....And a reason to go to the moon

The choice we are making now, with this Vision, is simply
between a dark or bright future.

We've allowed the Big Contractors to choose for us
the future that benefits them, not us.

We've allowed them to steal our future.
Rubber stamped, by our Congress and our apathy.

Can there be any doubt that when JFK announced
his space goal, that it took on a life of its own?
That it immediately resonated with everyone?
When a system, or goal, self organizes in that
way....it cannot fail.

Designing a goal is now every much a science as
any other. As a scientific solution, the VSE doesn't
even deserve a grade.

For a system to self organize, the basic requirements are to
maximize and connect the system specific opposite extremes
in possibility.

Maximize the effect on the here and now (real world problems)
Maximize the effect on the future (Utopia)
The two opposites, connected by a sense of urgency.

JFK designed a space goal with all those properties.

SPS, or more generally, our energy future
in the face of global climate change
has all those same properties.

The Vision cannot succeed, SPS cannot fail.

Imho.

Jonathan

s









Paul

"jonathan" wrote in message
news
With SPS, after forty or fifty years we could end
up with the following....

Greater public interest and funding
Cheap access to space, a prerequisite for SPS

IOW, it would take 40-50 years before massive investmenti in SPS technology
even begins to be profitable.



America no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil
The world dependent on American Space Solar Power

if you think people in the Middle East (which includes Venezuela) hate us
now, just wait until we stop buying umpteen billions of dollars of their
main cash crop each year


Less wars in the future, instead of more wars


This does not follow from the two immediately preceding statements. Rather
the opposite, in fact.



--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com

Terrell Miller wrote:


America no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil
The world dependent on American Space Solar Power


if you think people in the Middle East (which includes Venezuela) hate us
now, just wait until we stop buying umpteen billions of dollars of their
main cash crop each year


Yeah, but that kind of hate, I can live with. What can they do,
*make* us go back to oil? After all, the stuff's a finite resource
anyway. It would merely move up the 'we gotta use something else' day.

Lord knows the Middle East has plenty of its own silicon and
sunlight to do something with, anyway...

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

"Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!"

But isn't that exactly what they do best?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
.. .
"jonathan" wrote in message
news
With SPS, after forty or fifty years we could end
up with the following....

Greater public interest and funding
Cheap access to space, a prerequisite for SPS

IOW, it would take 40-50 years before massive investmenti in SPS
technology
even begins to be profitable.



Maybe, but the point is that it'll take about that long
to put people on Mars, and what do we get out of
that goal at the end of the day?




America no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil
The world dependent on American Space Solar Power

if you think people in the Middle East (which includes Venezuela) hate us
now, just wait until we stop buying umpteen billions of dollars of their
main cash crop each year


You have to think like a businessman here. If I had a near monopoly
on some market, and it became clear a new competitor was
on the horizon that could become dominant. The first
thing to do is try to undermine that new competitor.
Which means lower oil prices......NOW....not in
forty years.

The oil producers would want to take away the reason
for creating the new energy source. Which means
lowering prices right away before the SPS program
advanced very far. SPS might be decades off
but the tangible benefits of such a program would
be rather ...large and...soon.

The jihadists think they have us by the balls for the
foreseeable future, SPS would end that delusion.




Less wars in the future, instead of more wars


This does not follow from the two immediately preceding statements. Rather
the opposite, in fact.


I believe the primary reason for going into Iraq was
the prospect of someone like Sadaam being able
to dominate the world oil market. And with it the
world economy. SPS would take our future out
of the hands of sociopathic dictators that thrive
off confrontations with America, and place our
destiny in our own hands.

It would weaken them and strengthen us in every way.
Politically, economically and morally. As America would
no longer be the big polluter and consumer...the problem.

America would be the solution instead, and
truly independent again.





--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:f96655635031972e3a614ee78ea218c1.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!"

But isn't that exactly what they do best?


Ya know, I day trade for a living. And if a CEO gave such
patently misleading statements to their stockholders, the
minute the stock price dropped a flood of class action
lawsuits would appear. The CEO would get forced
out, the stock price would collapse ala Enron from
the scandal and jail could follow.

In the real world, people are held accountable for
their actions. What Griffin did in the marketplace
is called the 'pump and dump'.

Or buy, lie and sell high.

The only difference is that it's the future of this
country and planet that are left
....holding the bag.





s



-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"jonathan" wrote in message


In the real world, people are held accountable for
their actions. What Griffin did in the marketplace
is called the 'pump and dump'.

Or buy, lie and sell high.

The only difference is that it's the future of this
country and planet that are left
...holding the bag.

Doesn't one good lie beget another and another?

It's what we've done best for the past century, or even from the very
beginning of having established America, as having based almost entirely
upon another lied as piled upon the one before that.

In the real world, absolute born-again pagan *******s of the Third Reich
agenda, exactly like GW Bush, get to be president.

In the real world the innocent get to pay as they die because of the
ongoing collateral damage and subsequent carnage is never ending.

In the real world, primarily it's the the poor and disinfomed are those
being held accountable, and usually having to pick up the tab.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

jonathan wrote:

You have to think like a businessman here. If I had a near monopoly
on some market, and it became clear a new competitor was
on the horizon that could become dominant. The first
thing to do is try to undermine that new competitor.
Which means lower oil prices......NOW....not in
forty years.

SPS is not going to be a competitor for oil. Remember, rather
little electricity -- especially the baseload electricity
that would be from SPS -- is produced using oil. To the extent
that it is a competitor (plug-in battery vehicles, electric resistive
heating, etc.), coal and nuclear electricity already is. To
directly compete via synfuels (including hydrogen) produced
from electricity, the electricity will have to be much cheaper
than it is now. SPS is going to have a tough time just
reaching current electricity costs, never mind greatly
improving on them.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
jonathan wrote:

You have to think like a businessman here. If I had a near monopoly
on some market, and it became clear a new competitor was
on the horizon that could become dominant. The first
thing to do is try to undermine that new competitor.
Which means lower oil prices......NOW....not in
forty years.

SPS is not going to be a competitor for oil. Remember, rather
little electricity -- especially the baseload electricity
that would be from SPS -- is produced using oil. To the extent
that it is a competitor (plug-in battery vehicles, electric resistive
heating, etc.), coal and nuclear electricity already is. To
directly compete via synfuels (including hydrogen) produced
from electricity, the electricity will have to be much cheaper
than it is now. SPS is going to have a tough time just
reaching current electricity costs, never mind greatly
improving on them.

I think the general idea is to build a small SPS for use on site in GEO,
and that the solar technology will be driven for use here on Earth,
where electricity has the potential to become much cheaper using solar.

It's called condensed matter physics.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org