Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

Barack Obama wants to slash funding for the NASA program to develop a
replacement for the space shuttle that will not only fly to low Earth
orbit, but also beyond to the Moon and Mars. He is doing this "for the
children" as a means to pay for an education initiative. Whenever a
politician wants to do something "for the children", it's time to
watch out.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...s_against.html

Don't you understand? Children's identities and values
can be "molded" easier by the state than by parents.
This will help to reshape their lives, identities,
social worlds, and traditions in order to conform to
the Obama agenda. The social behavior of children
can be observed and documented more easily without
placing parents in charge. This will help to further
legitimize children as a bureaucratic agency, as their
'upward mobility' improves for the Obama agenda,
creating true ideologues of the state. All minors should
be included that are recognized as being an important
element to society, because it is these very important
elements that can save the earth with the Obama agenda.

You see, it's not about the war in Iraq anymore. It's
about saving the children of America. Most Christians
in America tend to be like David Bromwich, who teaches
literature at Yale, and has written on politics for
The New Republic, The Nation, and The New York Review
of Books. Obama would like Bromwich. Bromwich alludes
to some evidence that all Jews are loyal to the state
of Israel. What is relative to those Jews in Israel,
would be synonymous to Obama's hawk-like Christians in
America. Most would probably trade their citizenship
any day in order to protect Washington, D.C. and New
York City, just like the Zionist Jews in Israel wanted
to protect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from the 600 mile
range rockets that Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal.

It is always going to be a learning experience for
even those dumber Christians who have to learn how
to be Zionist in their nationalism. Washington is the
New Jerusalem, not the old one in Israel. We can start
a new America by recruiting the children of farmers,
for the "No child left behind" program, because
they are the best prospects of all, looking up at the
stars, being dreamlike and all. Hard working farmers
wouldn't mind the extra time for an additional part
time job that would help pay for the new Obama learning
kits for exploring the earth with music and stuff.

The military might even become a thing of the past,
if the illegal aliens could become drafted into the
national guard in order to protect the children.
After all, most parents have outlived their usefulness
to the bureaucracy once a child is born, so all
schoolchildren should be allowed to bring their own
government issued IPOD and prophylactics with them
to school, for the learning experience of a lifetime.


Jean-Paul Sparter II
(Quid Pro Quo in vacuis locus)

On Dec 2, 4:39 am, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
Barack Obama wants to slash funding for the NASA program to develop a
replacement for the space shuttle that will not only fly to low Earth
orbit, but also beyond to the Moon and Mars. He is doing this "for the
children" as a means to pay for an education initiative. Whenever a
politician wants to do something "for the children", it's time to
watch out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...obama_pits_spa...

Don't worry he, & the clinton girl, will never have a meeting with the
whitehouse interior designer. Folks will tell the camera opp. anything
in mixed company to keep the house from being egged, (But would never
choose these airheads when the curtain is pulled). There will be a few
tree huggers, and leftwing loons that do, (But not near enough for a
win). The only hope the DNC has is with the idiot from new mexico,
(Remember how well he did with the energy dept., (LOL)).

God if only a real man/woman could have a chance at it. The system is
such a joke. I would love to see it come down to Ron Paul, & Dennis.
Those two could have a real debate, (Not the camera show that the
talking heads are staging now).

obama or clinton with the football, (What a nightmare, (Sleep Well))!

Carl

On Dec 2, 5:39 am, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
Whenever a
politician wants to do something "for the children", it's time to
watch out.

Slashing funding for space projects isn't similar to undermining gay
rights or banning pornography or whatever.

But, yes, it's true that children are - quite properly - valued
emotionally by everyone. So, if your point is that this is when
politicians don't want people to think too hard about what they're
advocating - yep, you're right, time to watch out.

John Savard

On 3 Dec, 07:45, Quadibloc wrote:
On Dec 2, 5:39 am, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:

Whenever a
politician wants to do something "for the children", it's time to
watch out.

Slashing funding for space projects isn't similar to undermining gay
rights or banning pornography or whatever.

But, yes, it's true that children are - quite properly - valued
emotionally by everyone. So, if your point is that this is when
politicians don't want people to think too hard about what they're
advocating - yep, you're right, time to watch out.

I think there is one very fundamental point underlining this. OK the
US will not be able to go to the ISS. What is the ISS doing anyway?
Why have we got to go the the Moon/Mars what will we get out of it?

Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
on Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
the way of T Rex.

OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
remote areas. It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
or may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.

There may be other objectives relating to life on Earth I have not
mentioned. This is the form in which space will increasingly have to
be packaged.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
n Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
:the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
:small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
:to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
:the way of T Rex.
:

The man in the street doesn't regard that as a credible threat and
wouldn't spend a nickel on it until the asteroid is actually coming.

:
:OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
:role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
:has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
:size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
:remote areas.
:

Ridiculous! Again, Ian appears ignorant of the fact that there is
ALREADY satellite internet.

:
:It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
r may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
:neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.
:

???


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Dec 3, 4:14 am, Ian Parker wrote:
This is the form in which space will increasingly have to
be packaged.

As it happens, I've addressed this in another thread I've started.

I feel that the main rationale for space won't be in direct benefits
to Earth. Nuclear power plants are far more cost-effective than solar
power satellites. Dealing with asteroids is important, but in itself
won't require an ambitious manned space exploration effort.

Instead, although in the long term Earth could benefit directly, the
main reason to put people in space is so that humanity - and the
valuable achievements of humanity - could survive even if problems
developed on Earth. And problems will develop on Earth, since there is
no sign that population growth is being checked.

And that is going to be hard to sell to the man in the street.

John Savard

On 3 Dec, 14:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:
:Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
n Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
:the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
:small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
:to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
:the way of T Rex.
:

The man in the street doesn't regard that as a credible threat and
wouldn't spend a nickel on it until the asteroid is actually coming.

I don't know. Depends on the amount of money involved and the risk. If
you are talking $500 million this is small in the scheme of things. If
more - probably not. When you talk about $500m not being that great a
sum, it IS a big sum if the net benefit is perceived to be zero.
:
:OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
:role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
:has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
:size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
:remote areas.
:

Ridiculous! Again, Ian appears ignorant of the fact that there is
ALREADY satellite internet.

Indeed yes, however there is a matter of scaling. A satellites, so far
can deal only with a very limited number of conversations. The bulk of
comunications is carried on fiber optic cables. Satellites only
provide a premium service for mobile communications. Fiber optic
capabilities are going up.

Also satellites need large attennae. With a much larger receiver in
space you can

a) Have a WiFi transmittor/receiver.
b) Have a lot of people connected.

:
:It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
r may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
:neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.
:
Hey if we go on like this there will be no hard justification for
space at all.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 3 Dec, 14:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
: n Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
: :the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
: :small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
: :to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
: :the way of T Rex.
: :
:
: The man in the street doesn't regard that as a credible threat and
: wouldn't spend a nickel on it until the asteroid is actually coming.
:
:
:I don't know. Depends on the amount of money involved and the risk. If
:you are talking $500 million this is small in the scheme of things. If
:more - probably not. When you talk about $500m not being that great a
:sum, it IS a big sum if the net benefit is perceived to be zero.
:

Which is what I just said, above. The man in the street perceives the
net benefit of any such scheme as zero until the asteroid is actually
on the way.

:
:
: :
: :OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
: :role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
: :has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
: :size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
: :remote areas.
: :
:
: Ridiculous! Again, Ian appears ignorant of the fact that there is
: ALREADY satellite internet.
:
:
:Indeed yes, however there is a matter of scaling. A satellites, so far
:can deal only with a very limited number of conversations. The bulk of
:comunications is carried on fiber optic cables. Satellites only
rovide a premium service for mobile communications. Fiber optic
:capabilities are going up.
:

And SPS isn't going to change that.

:
:Also satellites need large attennae.
:

Most people don't consider a 1" dish 'large'.

:
:With a much larger receiver in
:space you can
:
:a) Have a WiFi transmittor/receiver.
:b) Have a lot of people connected.
:

You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?

1) An SPS transmitter is not a receiver.

2) You're moving the relay from LEO to GEO, so more power is required
to talk up to it (or a much larger antenna on the ground
transmitting).

3) The physical size of the receiver has NOTHING to do with how many
people can be connected (and I'm not aware that even current services
are turning people away for capacity reasons).

4) WiFi is *NOT* going to work at those ranges. Hell, WiFi is good
for a couple hundred feet. Up the transmission power so that it can
be seen from orbit and you don't need the satellite anymore (because
everyone on the ground will be lost in the cacophony anyway).

:
:
: :
: :It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
: r may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
: :neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.
: :
:
:
:Hey if we go on like this there will be no hard justification for
:space at all.
:

Which brings us back to the original problem.

I find it amusing, though, that Ian Parker's take on things is "knock
down my loony schemes and there's no reason for space at all".


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Ian Parker wrote:
:
::On 3 Dec, 14:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:: Ian Parker wrote:
::
:: :
:: :Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
:: n Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
:: :the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
:: :small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
:: :to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
:: :the way of T Rex.
:: :
::
:: The man in the street doesn't regard that as a credible threat and
:: wouldn't spend a nickel on it until the asteroid is actually coming.
::
::
::I don't know. Depends on the amount of money involved and the risk. If
::you are talking $500 million this is small in the scheme of things. If
::more - probably not. When you talk about $500m not being that great a
::sum, it IS a big sum if the net benefit is perceived to be zero.
::
:
:Which is what I just said, above. The man in the street perceives the
:net benefit of any such scheme as zero until the asteroid is actually
n the way.
:
::
::
:: :
:: :OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
:: :role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
:: :has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
:: :size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
:: :remote areas.
:: :
::
:: Ridiculous! Again, Ian appears ignorant of the fact that there is
:: ALREADY satellite internet.
::
::
::Indeed yes, however there is a matter of scaling. A satellites, so far
::can deal only with a very limited number of conversations. The bulk of
::comunications is carried on fiber optic cables. Satellites only
:rovide a premium service for mobile communications. Fiber optic
::capabilities are going up.
::
:
:And SPS isn't going to change that.
:
::
::Also satellites need large attennae.
::
:
:Most people don't consider a 1" dish 'large'.
:

Uh, make that 1' (actually, probably about 18"). Bloody keyboard has
a mind of its own.

:
::
::With a much larger receiver in
::space you can
::
::a) Have a WiFi transmittor/receiver.
::b) Have a lot of people connected.
::
:
:You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?
:
:1) An SPS transmitter is not a receiver.
:
:2) You're moving the relay from LEO to GEO, so more power is required
:to talk up to it (or a much larger antenna on the ground
:transmitting).
:
:3) The physical size of the receiver has NOTHING to do with how many
eople can be connected (and I'm not aware that even current services
:are turning people away for capacity reasons).
:
:4) WiFi is *NOT* going to work at those ranges. Hell, WiFi is good
:for a couple hundred feet. Up the transmission power so that it can
:be seen from orbit and you don't need the satellite anymore (because
:everyone on the ground will be lost in the cacophony anyway).
:
::
::
:: :
:: :It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
:: r may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
:: :neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.
:: :
::
::
::Hey if we go on like this there will be no hard justification for
::space at all.
::
:
:Which brings us back to the original problem.
:
:I find it amusing, though, that Ian Parker's take on things is "knock
:down my loony schemes and there's no reason for space at all".