Station to be abandoned?

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 04:40:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ralph
Nesbitt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


There are several different parts of NASA that perform different functions,
some of which are "Black".

What are you talking about? Do you know?

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 04:40:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ralph
Nesbitt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


There are several different parts of NASA that perform different
functions,
some of which are "Black".

What are you talking about? Do you know?

--
Just as a review of certain companies 10K filings reveal unexplained project
revenue. A close review of NASA Budgets will answer your ?.
Ralph Nesbitt

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 05:30:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ralph
Nesbitt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There are several different parts of NASA that perform different
functions,
some of which are "Black".

What are you talking about? Do you know?

--
Just as a review of certain companies 10K filings reveal unexplained project
revenue. A close review of NASA Budgets will answer your ?.

Nonsense.

NASA has obscure budgets, but no "black" ones. Those are from other
agencies.

--
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:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:53:39 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ralph
Nesbitt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There are several different parts of NASA that perform different
functions,
some of which are "Black".

What are you talking about? Do you know?

--
Just as a review of certain companies 10K filings reveal unexplained
project
revenue. A close review of NASA Budgets will answer your ?.

Nonsense.

NASA has obscure budgets, but no "black" ones. Those are from other
agencies.

--
If you say so. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics as to how "Obscure" some
NASA Budgets are.

They are obscure in the sense that it's sometimes difficult to figure
out which parts of NASA are paid for out of which accounting pots
(e.g., many Shuttle costs are buried in items like "Mission Support"),
but none of NASA's budget is secret. "Black" has a pretty specific
meaning in the defense community. The DoD has as little to do with
NASA as possible.

--
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:

They are obscure in the sense that it's sometimes difficult to figure
out which parts of NASA are paid for out of which accounting pots
(e.g., many Shuttle costs are buried in items like "Mission Support"),
but none of NASA's budget is secret. "Black" has a pretty specific
meaning in the defense community. The DoD has as little to do with
NASA as possible.


Why then are Russian launch companies restricted from launching NASA
satellites, unless there is something about those satellites that NASA wants to
keep secret? If all of NASA's technologies were open to the public, would they
also be available to the North Koreans who are interested in building ICBMs?
Would you want North Korea getting the plans to the Space Shuttle, A Saturn V,
or any other of a host of NASA launchers? It seems to me that alot of
technology that NASA uses has weapons applications.

Tom

On 02 Sep 2003 20:15:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

They are obscure in the sense that it's sometimes difficult to figure
out which parts of NASA are paid for out of which accounting pots
(e.g., many Shuttle costs are buried in items like "Mission Support"),
but none of NASA's budget is secret. "Black" has a pretty specific
meaning in the defense community. The DoD has as little to do with
NASA as possible.


Why then are Russian launch companies restricted from launching NASA
satellites, unless there is something about those satellites that NASA wants to
keep secret?

It's protectionism, pure and simple. Congress doesn't want taxpayer
money going to foreign launchers, unless there's no alternative (e.g.,
Russian helping build and supply space station). It has nothing to do
with "secrets."

If all of NASA's technologies were open to the public, would they
also be available to the North Koreans who are interested in building ICBMs?

NASA has no technology useful for building ICBMs.

Would you want North Korea getting the plans to the Space Shuttle, A Saturn V,
or any other of a host of NASA launchers?

If they actually attempted to build any of those things, it would
bankrupt them, and set them back for decades.

It seems to me that alot of
technology that NASA uses has weapons applications.

Everything that NASA funds (except for some weirdnesses with programs
like X33, which were controlled for intellectual property reasons), is
unclassified.

--
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:

Dave O'Neill wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

On 24 Aug 2003 23:13:19 +0200, in a place far, far away,
(Fogbottom) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I think we've all seen what deregulation did to the airlines and
to the electric power industries.

We saw what it did for poorly-managed airlines. Southwest seems to be
doing just fine.


There was also a spate, as I recall, of ValueJet style incidents before
things settled down.


One Valujet crash is not a spate...and as far as I know Southwest
airlines has a nearly flawless safety record in 30 years of service.
The successor to Valujet...airtran is also profitable...and has not
had a single accident since the merger. The valujet crash was not caused
by a mechanical failure but by improperly carrying oxygen containers.