Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...

We spent and spent then ****ed it away. And for what?


For beating the Russian communists, for which, Apollo was an extremely
useful and cost-effective tool. It was responsible for the foundation
that Reagan was able to stand on to finish the job. Duh.

In other words the mission to the moon was a
my-dick-is-bigger-than-Kruschev's-dick undertaking.

By the way, the so-called "star wars" initiative was an unmanned project.
It had nothing to do with going to the moon.

No, but it had everything to do with beating the Soviets- since there are no
more Soviets, it did the job very well.

Considering that we don't have to speak Russian, nor do we have to wear
radiation suits, the moon landing and "Star Wars" did their jobs efficiently
and inexpensively.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

*Because the government was footing the bill to send people to the moon.*

NASA is a piece of **** corrupt organization.

Any asshole can complain. Why don't *you personally* do something about
it?

How? By not paying taxes?

By doing a better job than NASA, of course. NASA isn't the only way into
space.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:



No, it hadn't. A *proposal* is a great deal more than "it would sure be
nice if we could do this someday", which all that was possible in the
fifties. What verifiable evidence is there that any serious funds were
being spent in the fifties for practical lunar travel?

Not one cent was so allocated.

My point, exactly. Kennedy didn't propose "Project Apollo", he proposed- and
arranged to fund- a trip to the moon. Harping about "Project Apollo" not
being proposed by Kennedy is a red herring on your point.

We need better propulsion systems and we need a purpose for spending tax
payser money to put people into space. Perhaps setting up habitats on the
moon and building observatories on the dark side might make some sense. Or
mining the asteroid field.

Why don't you simp,y "propose" it, and avoid the use of taxpayer dollars at
all?

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...

People like Morton Thiakol personel. Wonderful. When NASA sat on them,
they folded and let Challanger fly.


Feel free to provide the legal authority for Morton Thiokol to have
stopped the flight.

They cold have told NASA do not fly and they could have gone to the
newspapers and the broadcast media.

Which doesn't in the least explain how *Morton Thiokol* "let Challanger
fly". Again, please provide the legal authority for *Morton Thiokol* to have
done anything.

NASA being run by the brain dead and dickless would have folded.

When did you work there?

"Alan Jones" wrote in message
...
So, are we ready for a 1000 message debate on whether Apollo was a
"program" or a "project"?

Unfortunately, the way the media discusses it, there's no difference.

Building a spaceship for the sake of building it, such as Project Apollo, is
a project.

Creating a goal and then actively working toward that goal is a program.

I've killfiled the other dumbasses because they sound like Rand, but have
the reasoning skills of Bbo Hallre.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:03:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Johnson was eligible for reelection in 1968 (he had served less than two
years of JFK's term) but chose not to run. See
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22


Yes, he chose not to run because he knew he couldn't win.

Are you sure it wasn't health issues? He died the week his second full
term would have ended. Perhaps he didn't want to risk America losing
two sitting Presidents in a row.

I think that he was both physically sick, and sick at heart over
Vietnam and his public perception. Whether he could have won or not,
he just didn't want to make the last run.

"Cranny Dane" wrote in message
...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...

Transistors were invented in Cherry Hill, NJ in 1947, and released
for public use in 1948. NASA has zero, zilch, nada to do with it.
Cherry Hill is where Bell Telephone Labs was. NASA or its predecessor
agency did not even exist at the time. The solid state electronics
revolution was initiated in a purely commercial (not academtic!)
context.

An airforce general said once (in some book of his) they gave bell labs
the strange black bugs off the crashed ship at roswell.


If a UFO was using semi-conductors that Bell Labs could reverse engineer
then the UFO deserved to crash.

"David Erbas-White" wrote in message
news:hwMUf.120$kT4.54@fed1read02...

Going by your logic, we should give Bush I credit for the new moon/mars
initiative, since he proposed it back in the 80's.

At this point, I'm not even willing to give Bush II credit for it, or the
CEV, until it's more than computer graphics images...


I don't see how you made that leap, I said nothing about giving anyone
credit for anything.

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...

That's the first time I've heard someone call Nixon a liberal.


Most of the work was done during the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations.



Nixon was as liberal as Kennedy.


That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
Apollo.


He let the *******s chop it short, if not being outright involved in
the budget axe.

A

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

*However*, at the time of its creation, Project Apollo was *not* a project
to land on the moon. It was the next-generation spacecraft, which later
was chosen to be the moon ship.

Kennedy didn't announce that NASA would build a new spaceship, but he
*did* announce the trip to the moon. NASA chose to adapt an existing
project into the new one, so Kennedy *is* responsible for getting us to
the moon.


You're mistaken, Project Apollo was announced as a program to land men on
the moon.