Moon key to space future?

Jack Kennedy, whom he lost a bid for the presidency to in 1960.

yeah, just look at how he distanced himself from teh Apollo 11 mission...


Nixon wanted the United States to be a small humble nation, and sending people
to the Moon sounded like Hubris to him, so he wanted the US to take its
rightful place right next to Chile. The second part of his great agenda was to
lose the Vietnam War, so he can prove the the World what a meek and mild
country the US is. So Nixons 2 great accomplishment were to get the United
States out of manned planetary exploration and to be defeated by a Third World
Power. Nixon certainly deserves to have his portrait on a three dollar bill!

Tom

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 1 Dec 2003 19:10:24 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Now, now - that statement comes directly out of your gut with no
analysis whatever. There is a reasonable probability that a second
Kennedy term expands the space program while adopting more direct
international controls to limit and reduce the spread of nuclear and
missile weapons systems.

There is almost zero probability of that,

Of what exactly? That the US adopts a more direct means of control of
WMDs than keeping them secret?

No, that a second Kennedy term expands the space program.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by 'expand' -
During Kennedy's tenure as President the space program enjoyed
something like 4% of GDP. Today it obtains less than 1/2% of GDP.

I'm not arguing that it would grow to more than 4% of GDP under a
Kennedy second term. I am arguing that it would have remained at 4%
GDP to the end of the 1960s - which is sufficient to do important
things in space, and under the right conditions, would lead eventually
to private development of space based resources and assets.

In the context of today's less than 1% - maintaining a 4% GDP
expenditure for NASA counts as a huge expansion of NASA power and
influence from what it currently is.


to anyone who understands
Kennedy's true attitude toward the space program.

Oh, please tell me, the true attitude of Kennedy toward's the space
program, and how in a hypothetical second term the space program would
not be expanded. Especially given speeches like;

http://www.rice.edu/webcast/speeches...12kennedy.html



This isn't fantasy.

Listen to what he said about it in private, not in public.

Pointers? Source material? I'm willing to listen to facts and
understand the context of those facts.

I agree that Kennedy is unlikely to have expanded the NASA budgets
much beyond the 4% GDP they enjoyed at their peak. I disagree that
Kennedy would have cut back NASA spending below 4% GDP during his
tenure as President. Today NASA spends about 1/2% of GDP. If they
spent 4% GDP - in today's economy, they'd be spending $400 billion per
year. A few decades of this level of spending - with the right
leadership and vision - and under the right business conditions -
would lead to the development of space business in a big way.

On 2 Dec 2003 22:05:49 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 1 Dec 2003 19:10:24 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(william mook) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Now, now - that statement comes directly out of your gut with no
analysis whatever. There is a reasonable probability that a second
Kennedy term expands the space program while adopting more direct
international controls to limit and reduce the spread of nuclear and
missile weapons systems.

There is almost zero probability of that,

Of what exactly? That the US adopts a more direct means of control of
WMDs than keeping them secret?

No, that a second Kennedy term expands the space program.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by 'expand' -
During Kennedy's tenure as President the space program enjoyed
something like 4% of GDP. Today it obtains less than 1/2% of GDP.

That was a tenure of a little over two years. There's little reason
to think that its ultimate course would have been any different had he
lived. In fact, it's likely that its final demise was delayed by the
fact that it was the artifact of a martyr, and wouldn't have survived
as long as it did had he lived, given his personal indifference to it.

I'm not arguing that it would grow to more than 4% of GDP under a
Kennedy second term. I am arguing that it would have remained at 4%
GDP to the end of the 1960s

An argument with absolutely no historical basis.

Listen to what he said about it in private, not in public.

Pointers? Source material? I'm willing to listen to facts and
understand the context of those facts.

http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/003274.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

*follow-ups trimmed*

"Dick Morris" wrote ...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.

How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact
than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem.

"Dick Morris" wrote ...

Roger Hamlett wrote:

If
you had to pay a tiny fee, something like 1 cent/mail/recipient, if you sent
more than ten emails a day, going to more than four targets, the rate would
reduce from the current 'flood' to a 'trickle'. However the current
infrastructure makes achieving this, and agreeing on it very hard.

You seem to know an awful lot about spamming. ;-)

It's a pity neither of you seems to know much about snipping quotes.

"Paul Blay" wrote ...
Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact
than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem.

I should point out that definitions seem to be a little in flux at the moment.

I personally wouldn't call virus / worm generated email "spam" unless it's trying
to sell something or otherwise extract money. I would, however, call it "junk
mail". But I may be in a minority on that one.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..

Listen to what he said about it in private, not in public.


william mook wrote:

Pointers? Source material? I'm willing to listen to facts and
understand the context of those facts.


Google for the quoted phrase

"not that interested in space"


JFK's disinterest has been widely reported in the mainstream press,
following the release of one of his Whitehouse audio tapes.

Here's a link to an article in the JFK library:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/newsletter...002_14-15.html


"Everything that we do should be tied into
getting on to the moon ahead of the
Russians. We ought to get it really clear
that the policy ought to be that this is the
top priority program of the agency and
one... of the top priorities of the United
States government," he said.

"Otherwise we shouldn't be spending this
kind of money, because I am not that
interested in space," Kennedy said. "I think
it's good. I think we ought to know about
it.

"But we're talking about fantastic expenditures,"
Kennedy said. "We've wrecked our budget, and all
these other domestic programs, and the only
justification for it, in my opinion, is to do it
in the time element I am asking."

It seems fairly clear that he had little interest in supporting
NASA beyond the first successful moon landing. Winning the
race was everything.

--

Ted Hall

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote ...

Roger Hamlett wrote:

If
you had to pay a tiny fee, something like 1 cent/mail/recipient, if
you sent
more than ten emails a day, going to more than four targets, the rate
would
reduce from the current 'flood' to a 'trickle'. However the current
infrastructure makes achieving this, and agreeing on it very hard.

You seem to know an awful lot about spamming. ;-)

It's a pity neither of you seems to know much about snipping quotes.
You can only 'snip', when there are parts of the converstation that are
redundant. So far, that has not applied in the thread.
In various 'hats', I am a beta tester, for three different 'anti span'
products. One ran into exactly the problem being discussed (but now snipped
from here), of bouncing suspicious mails, and ending up creating 'bounce
loops', and bounces to legitimate posters.

Best Wishes

Paul Blay wrote:

*follow-ups trimmed*

"Dick Morris" wrote ...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.

How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Most have html links included, those that have _no_ other point of contact
than the from address are a probable exception to the faked headers problem.

Going to a web site simply adds an extra step. And faked headers are
illegal under our state law - most spammers appear to be aware of that.

Dick Morris
How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

DUH, so you finally admit what I've been hammering at you all along----you
DON'T understand how the spammers work!!!!!! (And actually, I strongly
suspect that most spammers DO NOT make money. Probably mostly only the folks
who sell sites to spammers and/or sell mailing lists or quality software to
collect mailing lists make money.)

Dear Dick,

The absolutely greatest book EVER written on succeeding from INVENTION IDEAS
is IMMEDIATELY available to you for a mere $24.95. Just CLICK THIS LINK
www.willitsell.com.


Imagine, if you will, that I constructed my one and only web site without
any method of contacting me except by placing an order--with a credit
card--and that I registered my site through an off-shore third party that
protects anonymity rather than the up-front registration I've done. Or, how
would you deal with a "site" that's just a page on an off-shore site that
only allows contact by your buying another such page? Now, oh smart one, get
a message to me that will get me to stop spamming. Heck, just get any
message to me without charging an order on your valid credit card.

And yes, I get 300 spams a day because I publish my e-mail address. I can't
help wannabe inventors without doing that.

--

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell?
How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable
(Before Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com
Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com
[Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket]