NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.

That gives direct overlap with NOAA, where is counts the most, and puts
the agencies at the forefront of atmospheric research and remediation,
where they belong. This is the way it's going to be. Get used to it.

George W. Bush's vision of visiting space expensively and exploring
space as stupidly as possible, will soon be relegated to the scrap heap
of history, where everything he does belongs. Screw you Michael Griffin.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"kT" wrote in message
...
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.


Well they better start making themselves useful again.
Where the public looks at NASA as an agency that
gives us answers, not more problems.

Diverting more and more resources to go back to the
moon is exactly the opposite of that. Less and less
answers with ever growing waste.

It's so sad to see the Big Interests take NASA apart
piece by piece for their own short-term enrichment.


Jonathan



That gives direct overlap with NOAA, where is counts the most, and puts
the agencies at the forefront of atmospheric research and remediation,
where they belong. This is the way it's going to be. Get used to it.

George W. Bush's vision of visiting space expensively and exploring
space as stupidly as possible, will soon be relegated to the scrap heap
of history, where everything he does belongs. Screw you Michael Griffin.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Jonathan wrote:

"kT" wrote in message
...
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.


Well they better start making themselves useful again.

That's the whole point, Jonathan, and the best way to start doing that
is with a simple name change, which effectively splits the
responsibility of the atmosphere between two premier science agencies.

Where the public looks at NASA as an agency that
gives us answers, not more problems.

We demonstrably no longer need any aeronautical answers from NASA.

Diverting more and more resources to go back to the
moon is exactly the opposite of that. Less and less
answers with ever growing waste.

Right, but the present administration is a wash. We know we won't get
anything out of them so by default it has to be the next administration.

It's so sad to see the Big Interests take NASA apart
piece by piece for their own short-term enrichment.

Time to clean the house and senate too.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to send
men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots, and
magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
only be funded privately.


"kT" wrote in message
...
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.

That gives direct overlap with NOAA, where is counts the most, and puts
the agencies at the forefront of atmospheric research and remediation,
where they belong. This is the way it's going to be. Get used to it.

George W. Bush's vision of visiting space expensively and exploring space
as stupidly as possible, will soon be relegated to the scrap heap of
history, where everything he does belongs. Screw you Michael Griffin.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"kT" wrote in message
...
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.


Well they better start making themselves useful again.
Where the public looks at NASA as an agency that
gives us answers, not more problems.

Diverting more and more resources to go back to the
moon is exactly the opposite of that. Less and less
answers with ever growing waste.

It's so sad to see the Big Interests take NASA apart
piece by piece for their own short-term enrichment.


Jonathan

Bush has done all the wrong things when it comes to NASA.. He tried cutting
funds with Hubble and decided on going back to the moon by 2019. A man will
land on the moon in 12 years to start building a moonstation. I may agree
with that at the most and mostly to explore its resources (ideally
hydrogen), but going to Mars is ridiculous. Billions of dollars when we have
nations here that have people who need to be freed and brought into
civilization.

Sheesh. I would rather be spending on a NHC than sending a man to Mars. It
would cost the same and bring the same results.. SH_T!

GO Mavs wrote:

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to send
men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots, and
magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
only be funded privately.

Actually, no, there is a dire need for remote sensing of the Earth from
Earth Orbit, and manned space flight for future asteroid deflection
missions, which is most easily simulated and tested in Earth orbit.

Bush clearly got the destinations wrong (Ceres, Phobos and Deimos, and
the asteroids immediately come to mind), the reason for doing it wrong,
(manned space exploration is meaningless, protecting the planet Earth
makes far more sense) and the cost (which is also irrelevant now that
Bush has effectively bankrupted US). Americans can do better than that.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"kT" wrote in message
...
GO Mavs wrote:

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to
send men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots,
and magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space
should only be funded privately.

Actually, no, there is a dire need for remote sensing of the Earth from
Earth Orbit, and manned space flight for future asteroid deflection
missions, which is most easily simulated and tested in Earth orbit.

Bush clearly got the destinations wrong (Ceres, Phobos and Deimos, and the
asteroids immediately come to mind), the reason for doing it wrong,
(manned space exploration is meaningless, protecting the planet Earth
makes far more sense) and the cost (which is also irrelevant now that Bush
has effectively bankrupted US). Americans can do better than that.

I have no problem with manned space flight. I am talking about going on a
journey through the solar system or at least Mars with manned space flight.

GO Mavs wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
GO Mavs wrote:

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to
send men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots,
and magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space
should only be funded privately.
Actually, no, there is a dire need for remote sensing of the Earth from
Earth Orbit, and manned space flight for future asteroid deflection
missions, which is most easily simulated and tested in Earth orbit.

Bush clearly got the destinations wrong (Ceres, Phobos and Deimos, and the
asteroids immediately come to mind), the reason for doing it wrong,
(manned space exploration is meaningless, protecting the planet Earth
makes far more sense) and the cost (which is also irrelevant now that Bush
has effectively bankrupted US). Americans can do better than that.

I have no problem with manned space flight. I am talking about going on a
journey through the solar system or at least Mars with manned space flight.

But going to the asteroids is ok, since barring that, they will be
definitely coming here. Better to fight them there, otherwise we'll have
to fight them here. Ceres is a ****ing planet already too, a hell of a
lot easier planet to land on than Mars, and a hell of a lot more
interesting and mysterious too. With all those Mexican Americans
breeding like rabbits, and America being a third world country and all
now, we're definitely going to need another planet, but Mars isn't it.

George W. Bush couldn't even get the destination right.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

In article %YGei.4881$AR5.4416@trnddc06, "GO Mavs"
wrote:

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to send
men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

Yes there is. Well, maybe not sending men to Mars, but learning to live
on the Moon is the next step in humanity's expansion beyond the Earth.
It's a huge universe -- it would be extremely foolish to intentionally
stay cooped up on one small planet forever.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots, and
magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
only be funded privately.

I'm all for private development as well, but for ventures with very high
capital investment and also high risk, publicly funded development is
sometimes needed to prime the pump. And after all, NASA's budget is a
tiny drop in the bucket no matter what it's used for.

Joe Strout wrote:
In article %YGei.4881$AR5.4416@trnddc06, "GO Mavs"
wrote:

I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to send
men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

Yes there is. Well, maybe not sending men to Mars, but learning to live
on the Moon is the next step in humanity's expansion beyond the Earth.

Say's who, a little birdie?

It's a huge universe -- it would be extremely foolish to intentionally
stay cooped up on one small planet forever.

Planets with abundant air, water, food and warmth are especially hellish.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots, and
magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
only be funded privately.

Cheap Cheap!

I'm all for private development as well, but for ventures with very high
capital investment and also high risk, publicly funded development is
sometimes needed to prime the pump. And after all, NASA's budget is a
tiny drop in the bucket no matter what it's used for.

Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of dropons, please?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html