I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president actually
promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
and dreary January day.

Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?

I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...

Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone calls
and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
board this new initiative!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president actually
>promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
>get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
>and dreary January day.

My wife and I actually researched the space policy of
presidential candidates before the last election. There
wasn't much there. I hope we'll hear from the opposition
candidates, too and perhaps get something rolling regardless
of the politics. I know I won't see Mars before I die, but
I'd like some human make it there before then. As the
"leaders of the free world" and the "only remaining
superpower" we're always going to have enemies, but
spending some money on the advancement of man in space will
draw approval, admiration and respect even if it comes in a
grudging form.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!

Really, I head it and thought most of it was absolute drivel. Not only is the
planned direction change stupid in my mind, it was delivered with all the
incomprehension inherent in most of W's speeches. Space buses to
nowhere is stupid. Finishing the ISS is a good idea however. To paraphrase
his father's terminology, the trickle down theory of technology development
is voodoo science.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.

I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us is a
fool and I think that you are it.

Bush has no problem spending your taxes like there is no tomorrow -
especially to win votes. Last week he was pandering to illegal immigrants.
And this week he wants to tack an extra Trillion dollars onto a Trillion
dollar deficit. With another 1.5 Billion to promote "Healthy Marriage". What
the **** is that about?

How about paying off the debt and some fiscal responsibility first. Then we
can dream of space exploration.

> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to
them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...

Don't worry. Your children will know all about it because THEY will be
paying for it.

"plumb bob" > wrote in message
news:QgkNb.52099$Rc4.202428@attbi_s54...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> > I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
> actually
> > promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan
to
> > get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a
bleak
> > and dreary January day.
>
> I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us is
a
> fool and I think that you are it.
>
> Bush has no problem spending your taxes like there is no tomorrow -
> especially to win votes. Last week he was pandering to illegal immigrants.
> And this week he wants to tack an extra Trillion dollars onto a Trillion
> dollar deficit. With another 1.5 Billion to promote "Healthy Marriage".
What
> the **** is that about?
>
> How about paying off the debt and some fiscal responsibility first. Then
we
> can dream of space exploration.
>
> > I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space
travel,
> > and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride
of
> > putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to
> them
> > how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Don't worry. Your children will know all about it because THEY will be
> paying for it.


You can sure tell it's election year. Things he hasn't talked about in the
last three years are all of a sudden coming out of the mud.

> Bush has no problem spending your taxes like there is no tomorrow -
> especially to win votes.

It's a brilliant plan! I think I'll go buy a Gulfstream V and bill it to my
unborn child. All hail Bush!

> I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us is
a
> fool and I think that you are it.

No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes to
space exploration -- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
lacking.

Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01...
> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us
is
> a
> > fool and I think that you are it.
>
> No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes to
> space exploration -- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
> lacking.

He lacks the "vision thing". We have been to the moon before, and his daddy
(another big spender) also had grandiose plans for exploration.

Have you every in your life seen new government programs of the size thelike
the

> Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!

It was appalling, to me. Is the man completely insensible to the federal
deficit? He certainly seems insensible to the impracticalities of manned
travel to Mars. I think people on Mars would be a wonderfully cool
thing, but our national credit card is already maxed out. Sometimes you
have to put "cool" on hold and make sure the rent is paid.

> To hear a president actually promoting manned
> space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan

Just about anything is doable with enough money. Do we have it to spare?
Much more science could be done for much less with robots.

> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space
> travel, and of how my generation grew up with the excitement
> and national pride of putting a man on the moon.

It was a cold war propaganda campaign. It was very successful in that
respect.

> Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...

No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned space travel
is unconscionably wasteful until we get past rocket ship technology,
which may take decades.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:01 GMT "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.
>
> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?

Maybe Bush will find the WMDs there.


R. Hubbell

>
> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
> call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone calls
> and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
> board this new initiative!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

> > I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!
>
> It was appalling, to me. Is the man completely insensible to the federal
> deficit? He certainly seems insensible to the impracticalities of manned
> travel to Mars. I think people on Mars would be a wonderfully cool
> thing, but our national credit card is already maxed out. Sometimes you
> have to put "cool" on hold and make sure the rent is paid.

You know what, Dan? I, too, am appalled at the federal deficit, and the
waste, and all the examples of Gubmint crap. It makes me ill to see it.

Still, in my lifetime, I can point to just one real Gubmint success story:
Apollo. Every other government program, from the "Great Society", to the
"War on Poverty," to "No Child Left Behind," has been a dismal, utter waste
of money and time.

In a thousand years America will be remembered for just two things: The
first to use nuclear weapons, and the space program. I would like to build
on the only positive thing we've ever done, thank you very much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> > I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!
>
> Really, I head it and thought most of it was absolute drivel. Not only
is the
> planned direction change stupid in my mind, it was delivered with all the
> incomprehension inherent in most of W's speeches. Space buses to
> nowhere is stupid. Finishing the ISS is a good idea however. To
paraphrase
> his father's terminology, the trickle down theory of technology
development
> is voodoo science.
>
>
Agreed. Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Mike
MU-2

This thread is incredibly funny.

We got the Dems worrying about the deficit and saying that a big government
program is bad.

We got the Republicans saying that the deficit is not so bad and that big
government is the answer to space travel.

Next thing you know Senator Boxer will want to put handguns on airliners and
the Bush administration will oppose it. Oh, wait........

Well then, next thing you know Dean and Gephardt will say a little drug use
is not so bad, maybe even a badge of honor. Oh, too late for that one,
too.......

Maybe what we will get is Republicans saying that a senator's sexual
activity is nobody's business but his own. Oh, hell, I give
up................................

> Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
> cost.

Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER spend
it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for the
instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).

Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
"man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.

I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space exploration,
their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!
>
> It was appalling, to me. Is the man completely insensible to the federal
> deficit? He certainly seems insensible to the impracticalities of manned
> travel to Mars. I think people on Mars would be a wonderfully cool
> thing, but our national credit card is already maxed out. Sometimes you
> have to put "cool" on hold and make sure the rent is paid.
>
> > To hear a president actually promoting manned
> > space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan
>
> Just about anything is doable with enough money. Do we have it to spare?
> Much more science could be done for much less with robots.
>
> > I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space
> > travel, and of how my generation grew up with the excitement
> > and national pride of putting a man on the moon.
>
> It was a cold war propaganda campaign. It was very successful in that
> respect.
>
> > Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
> > how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned space travel
> is unconscionably wasteful until we get past rocket ship technology,
> which may take decades.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)
>
>

Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new space
program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have a
vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what it will
cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready for the
Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year, all
that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this time.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...

> Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
> constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the

I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he runs
up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I like
that.

Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and "temporary"
is a few generations.

In article <SAnNb.69490$xy6.129217@attbi_s02>, "plumb bob"
> wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...
>
> > Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
> their
> > constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying
> > for
> the
>
> I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
> their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he
> runs
> up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
> contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I
> like
> that.
>
> Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
> temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and
> "temporary"
> is a few generations.
>
>

and while we are at it, let's all remember that the executive
branch is responsible for budget appropriations.

--
Bob Noel

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
I'll
> pay my share.

I'm guessing a minimum of $1 Trillion over 20 years. The Apollo project cost
$100 billion as far as I recall. The Bush I project, which was nixed, had a
cost estimate of $500 billion. Therefore, I do not believe $1 Trillion is
unrealistic.

There are 130 million individual tax returns filed every year. Individual
tax revenue trumps corporate tax revenue 5:1 (go find the IRS tax stats). In
other words, corporations don't pay much tax at all. It's basically going to
be all on us to foot the bill.

$1 Trillion / 130 million = $7,700 per taxpayer.

Over 20 years = $7,700 / 20 = $385 every year, MINIMUM. And that is assuming
that NASA sticks to budget (this would be a government programme so that is
quite unrealistic)

I do not want to pay that money until

a) terrorism is defeated
b) we can get health care coverage at least as good as any other 3rd world
country
c) we are running a surplus
d) a balanced budget is guaranteed

Not to mention that Bush does not have a clue how much it will really cost.
He does not care - it's not his money. He just needs this to win an
election.

-- Plumb Bob

Since the cost can't be divided evenly (some can't pay), I'll start your
share at $5,000 for the first year. After the first five years we will
decide that it is too expensive (chemically fueled rockets) or dangerous
(nuclear fueled rockets) and scrap the program.

Mike
MU-2

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> >
> > Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new
> space
> > program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have a
> > vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
> > someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what it
> will
> > cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready for
> the
> > Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year,
all
> > that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this
time.
> >
> > Mike
>
> So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
I'll
> pay my share.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any sense
to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
politics, its pathetic.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...
> > Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
> > cost.
>
> Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER
spend
> it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.
>
> Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
> constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the
> instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
> rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).
>
> Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
> NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
> because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
> "man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.
>
> I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space
exploration,
> their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
> accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

In article <hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.
>
> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?
>
> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
> call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone calls
> and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
> board this new initiative!



I think that we need to do SOMETHING to stem the evaporation of our
aerospace tachnical talent pool. I think that GWB and his staff realize
this and are proposing the program to stem that loss.

Other possibilities:

1. It will help to obtain the capability of intercepting and redirecting
Earth-intersecting asteroids. (The Wall Street Journal today has an
excellent editorial on this benefit.) Yes, it IS costly -- BUT the cost
of NOT doing it may be extinction of all life on Earth.

2. MAybe NASA has discovered some alien artifacts or signs of activity
on the Moon or Mars.

3. We may be Martians -- the progeny of long-ago refugees from Martian
asteroid collisions.

If the Apollo program cost 100B 35 yrs ago it would easily cost over 1
Trillion today. It could easily be ten times that much (or more). Last
time (apollo) the technology was already there (chemical rockets for ICBMs).
We need to fix the national balance sheet over the next 20 yrs before
embarking on this adventure.

Mike
MU-2


"plumb bob" > wrote in message
news:4RnNb.70198$na.40677@attbi_s04...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
> I'll
> > pay my share.
>
> I'm guessing a minimum of $1 Trillion over 20 years. The Apollo project
cost
> $100 billion as far as I recall. The Bush I project, which was nixed, had
a
> cost estimate of $500 billion. Therefore, I do not believe $1 Trillion is
> unrealistic.
>
> There are 130 million individual tax returns filed every year. Individual
> tax revenue trumps corporate tax revenue 5:1 (go find the IRS tax stats).
In
> other words, corporations don't pay much tax at all. It's basically going
to
> be all on us to foot the bill.
>
> $1 Trillion / 130 million = $7,700 per taxpayer.
>
> Over 20 years = $7,700 / 20 = $385 every year, MINIMUM. And that is
assuming
> that NASA sticks to budget (this would be a government programme so that
is
> quite unrealistic)
>
> I do not want to pay that money until
>
> a) terrorism is defeated
> b) we can get health care coverage at least as good as any other 3rd world
> country
> c) we are running a surplus
> d) a balanced budget is guaranteed
>
> Not to mention that Bush does not have a clue how much it will really
cost.
> He does not care - it's not his money. He just needs this to win an
> election.
>
> -- Plumb Bob
>
>

Do YOU want to pay for it? How about privatizing all the airports to pay
for it? A $5 gallon tax on fuel? There really is no upside to doing this.
We are already overspending at a rate that is unsustainable.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...
> > Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
> > cost.
>
> Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER
spend
> it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.
>
> Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
> constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the
> instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
> rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).
>
> Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
> NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
> because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
> "man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.
>
> I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space
exploration,
> their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
> accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

> I think that we need to do SOMETHING to stem the evaporation of our
> aerospace tachnical talent pool. I think that GWB and his staff
> realize this and are proposing the program to stem that loss.

Bush plans on outsourcing the "tachnical talent" (sic) from India...

http://www.keralanext.com/news/index.asp?id=20166

Just remember this come election time...

See 'Bush's Space Program' posted on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.

in article t, Mike
Rapoport at wrote on 1/14/04 7:51 PM:

> If the Apollo program cost 100B 35 yrs ago it would easily cost over 1
> Trillion today.

The figure I have seen quoted most often for the total cost of the Apollo
program is 25 billion dollars (I have researched it a bit, and this figure
is used quite consistently). That amount is usually translated as roughly
100 billion in today's dollars (again, this is from multiple sources). That
works out to roughly 10 billion dollars-per-year over the life of the Apollo
program, using today's dollars.

Consider that the 2003 Federal Budget for human space flight was 14.2
billion dollars. So the question becomes: is the money already budgeted? Is
it adequate to accomplish what the President is proposing? This assumes that
all current resources are re-directed towards the new proposals.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01...
> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us
is
> a
> > fool and I think that you are it.
>
> No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes to
> space exploration

Come on Jay, he said a man on the moon by 2020. That's 16 years by my math.
We did it the first time in less than a decade having never been there
before. Besides, NASA is in such a mess they probably have a hard time
completing a mission to the nearest 7-11.

-- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
> lacking.
>
> Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
> Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new
space
> program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have a
> vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
> someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what it
will
> cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready for
the
> Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year, all
> that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this time.
>
> Mike

So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate. I'll
pay my share.
--
Jim in NC

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.
>
> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?
>
> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to
them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
> call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone
calls
> and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
> board this new initiative!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
Yes, I have to agree. As I said in another post, this program and
Afghanistan are the only 2 things Bush has gotten right as president.
Although I consider myself a "compassionate libertarian", I voted for Reagan
in 84 instead of Wally and the Beaver because Reagan supported the space
station. Space exploration should be our number one priority.

However, in my opinion, the main reason why Bush is doing this is because
the Chinese have already announced that they are going to the moon. Bush
(or at least those who tell him what to do) know that once we fall behind in
space we are finished as a player in world affairs, and probably finished as
a free country.

Earl G.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:48:16 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>
>Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.

They will fail. Were not going to let them kill it this time.
No fricking way. I have been following space efforts
a long time now. Ive waited a long time for this.
Its different this time. I can feel it in my gut.
Dont worry, their are millions of us ready to support this
endeavour. Get ready to go to work and start pushing
hard and let congress and the senate know. Join
National Space Society, Join the Planetary Society.
Donate space books to schools.

The critics must understand one thing............

The cost is greater if we *do not* explore space.
We would be denying what we are, we would deny fundamental
truths of human nature to explore.

I submit that *that* cost is too high to pay,

we all know where that road leads. We must explore, excercise those
muscles, push outward and accept challenges. Great risks and
challenges bring great rewards. As pilots that should be obvious.

President Bush is right. I agree with everything he said
today, his speech spelled it out perfectly and Im going to help in
whatever way I can. And I do not stand alone. There is going
to be great support for this from a lot of very smart and brave
people. That is how I know it will not fail.

Great links here, great articles.
http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any
sense
> to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
> politics, its pathetic.
>
> Mike

Perhaps it is election year politics, but I think not. More people are
against it than for it, I think. Not too good for politics, then.

Of coarse the technology is not ready. That is exactly the point. Tec is
born in the space program. Look at your MU-2. Start counting the Apollo
born tec. Look around you at home, and work. Look at all the space program
tec.

I wonder if we can afford NOT to go.
--
Jim in NC

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Do YOU want to pay for it? How about privatizing all the airports to pay
> for it? A $5 gallon tax on fuel? There really is no upside to doing
> this.
> We are already overspending at a rate that is unsustainable.

I'm willing to pay for a real space program. I'd rather pay
for that than a lot of the stupid stuff Congress jams into
the budget that just ****es our money away.

--
Bob Noel

> I'm willing to pay for a real space program. I'd rather pay
> for that than a lot of the stupid stuff Congress jams into
> the budget that just ****es our money away.

The Federal Gubmint (thanks to our own Senator Grassley) has appropriated $5
million (it may be more) to build a RAIN FOREST here in Iowa City.

You heard me right -- a goddam RAIN FOREST. Most people around here are
dumbfounded, since the developer was unable to drum up any local support for
the cockamamie idea.

Still think we can't afford to cut the budget enough to pay for a real space
program?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > Do YOU want to pay for it? How about privatizing all the airports to
pay
> > for it? A $5 gallon tax on fuel? There really is no upside to doing
> > this.
> > We are already overspending at a rate that is unsustainable.
>
>
> --
> Bob Noel

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5SvNb.72676$xy6.132296@attbi_s02...
> > I'm willing to pay for a real space program. I'd rather pay
> > for that than a lot of the stupid stuff Congress jams into
> > the budget that just ****es our money away.
>
> The Federal Gubmint (thanks to our own Senator Grassley) has appropriated
$5
> million (it may be more) to build a RAIN FOREST here in Iowa City.
>
> You heard me right -- a goddam RAIN FOREST. Most people around here are
> dumbfounded, since the developer was unable to drum up any local support
for
> the cockamamie idea.
>
> Still think we can't afford to cut the budget enough to pay for a real
space
> program?

By that logic, spending any amount is ok. There is a big difference between
$5 million and $1 trillion.

> However, in my opinion, the main reason why Bush is doing this is because
> the Chinese have already announced that they are going to the moon. Bush
> (or at least those who tell him what to do) know that once we fall behind
in
> space we are finished as a player in world affairs, and probably finished
as
> a free country.

I've said it before, and it bears saying again: Space exploration (and
world domination) belong to the Chinese. They are the upcoming "next big
thing," and have the enthusiasm, drive, and discipline to get the job done.

This thread is indicative of how far we have fallen since the Apollo
program. Hell, when a bunch of *pilots* can't even support manned space
exploration, we are surely doomed as a nation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
news:mjqNb.10220

> However, in my opinion, the main reason why Bush is doing this is because
> the Chinese have already announced that they are going to the moon. Bush
> (or at least those who tell him what to do) know that once we fall behind
in
> space we are finished as a player in world affairs, and probably finished
as
> a free country.

How can we fall behind the Chinese because they are going to the moon? We
already did that almost 35 years ago!

One of the most laughable parts of Bush's speech was when he said that a
human base on the moon would make space exploration cheaper? Yep folks,
according to the president, a moon base is going to SAVE us some money.
Oooookaaay.

> President Bush is right. I agree with everything he said
> today, his speech spelled it out perfectly and Im going to help in
> whatever way I can. And I do not stand alone. There is going
> to be great support for this from a lot of very smart and brave
> people. That is how I know it will not fail.

I'm with you 100%, but I fear that rich and powerful special interests stand
in our way.

Remember: The "Great Society" special interest groups are now
self-perpetuating. After all, if they were to actually "cure" poverty (or
sickness, or the environment, or fill in the blank) they would all be
unemployed. As a result, they will continually demand more money, and
continually find new "causes" to cure.

These groups will present a powerful resistance to anything as
forward-looking and positive as new Mars initiative.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5SvNb.72676$xy6.132296@attbi_s02...
>
> The Federal Gubmint (thanks to our own Senator Grassley) has appropriated
$5
> million (it may be more) to build a RAIN FOREST here in Iowa City.
>
> You heard me right -- a goddam RAIN FOREST. Most people around here are
> dumbfounded, since the developer was unable to drum up any local support
for
> the cockamamie idea.
>
> Still think we can't afford to cut the budget enough to pay for a real
space
> program?
>

Sure, there is plenty of unconstitutional spending that could be cut to pay
for other unconstitutional activities.

> By that logic, spending any amount is ok. There is a big difference
between
> $5 million and $1 trillion.

Multiply that one instance by a thousand, and you'll come close to the pork
in this budget.

And your "$1 trillion" is nothing but boiler-plate. You're talking about
the total cost of a 25 - 40 year project.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> One of the most laughable parts of Bush's speech was when he said that a
> human base on the moon would make space exploration cheaper? Yep folks,
> according to the president, a moon base is going to SAVE us some money.
> Oooookaaay.

The science behind interplanetary space travel dictates that a moon base
WILL make space exploration cheaper.

The main cost of space exploration is in the booster system required to
escape Earth's gravity. Launching from the moon's lesser gravitational pull
is much easier, requires smaller rockets, and is thus much cheaper.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Sure, there is plenty of unconstitutional spending that could be cut to
pay
> for other unconstitutional activities.

I can see why Federal spending on a rain forest in Iowa would be
unconstitutional -- it clearly is -- but space exploration?

Who else BUT the Federal government could do it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:P8xNb.72880$8H.111891@attbi_s03...
>
> I can see why Federal spending on a rain forest in Iowa would be
> unconstitutional -- it clearly is -- but space exploration?
>

Do you find a provision for space exploration in the Constitution?


>
> Who else BUT the Federal government could do it?
>

No other single entity could, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned space travel
>is unconscionably wasteful until we get past rocket ship technology,
>which may take decades.
>--

It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching the limits
of rocket technology.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article <krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>> I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us is
>a
>> fool and I think that you are it.
>
>No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes to
>space exploration -- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
>lacking.
>
>Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.
>--

And if they do kill it this time, I'm afraid it is dead for good.

Once the baby boomers hit Social Security, funds for exploration are going to
be hard to come by if the constituency is not established first.

If we can't establish exploration, for it's own sake, as a priority for the
human species now, then it will be 40 years before there will be a better time.


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article et>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>>
>Agreed. Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
>cost.

And they fail to accomplish the one really important thing, to find and stretch
the limits of mankind, no matter how much we put into them.

Besides, the trip to Mars is already paid for.

The benefits we have already received from better weather forcasting and
communications alone put us in debt to NASA for a couple of trillion so far.
How much is GPS worth over the next 50 years?

Manned flight is really just a perk they have more than earned for the benefits
that have accrued to us through serendipity from earlier Buck Rogers stuff.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:39:29 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> I'm willing to pay for a real space program. I'd rather pay
>> for that than a lot of the stupid stuff Congress jams into
>> the budget that just ****es our money away.
>
>The Federal Gubmint (thanks to our own Senator Grassley) has appropriated $5
>million (it may be more) to build a RAIN FOREST here in Iowa City.
>
>You heard me right -- a goddam RAIN FOREST. Most people around here are
>dumbfounded, since the developer was unable to drum up any local support for
>the cockamamie idea.
>
>Still think we can't afford to cut the budget enough to pay for a real space
>program?


If the funding ever does materialize for these initiatives do you
really think that it will be at the expense of "pork". I think not.
If anyone in Washington is really serious about this, they had better
start rethinking their fiscal policy.
Rich Russell

> > I can see why Federal spending on a rain forest in Iowa would be
> > unconstitutional -- it clearly is -- but space exploration?
> >
>
> Do you find a provision for space exploration in the Constitution?

Of course not. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The question is this: Does space exploration fit inside the framework laid
out by the Constitution?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> You know what, Dan? I, too, am appalled at the federal deficit,
> and the waste, and all the examples of Gubmint crap.
> It makes me ill to see it.

Well, Jay, doggone it, we can't go on like this. I've done contracts for
NASA. When it comes to blowing money, the welfare system ain't in the
race with them. (And by the way, NASA and the military have a peculiar
talent for spending way more money than necessary while still driving
small contractors to bankruptcy.)

There are lots of things we want and need - we just have to realize we
can't have it ALL. It is a particularly American idea that there are no
limits: this has served us well in some respects because we dream big
and achieve big, but we are going to sink this country if we do not get
our priorities straight and our finances under control.

> In a thousand years America will be remembered for just two things:...

I'd like to think we'll still be around. I'd also like to think we'll be
zipping around the solar system. We won't be if we don't take care of
the things that really make our country strong.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EDxNb.74569$na.42315@attbi_s04...
>
> Of course not. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
>

No? Then what does make something unconstitutional?


>
> The question is this: Does space exploration fit inside the framework laid
> out by the Constitution?
>

One man's space program is another man's rainforest.

In article <B7xNb.72889$I06.326075@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>The science behind interplanetary space travel dictates that a moon base
>WILL make space exploration cheaper.
>
>The main cost of space exploration is in the booster system required to
>escape Earth's gravity. Launching from the moon's lesser gravitational pull
>is much easier, requires smaller rockets, and is thus much cheaper.
>--

And from L5, the trailing Trojan position in the moon's orbit, the cost is even
less.

If you can find it, read "Halfway to Anywhere" by Jerry Pournelle.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:P8xNb.72880$8H.111891@attbi_s03...
>>
>> I can see why Federal spending on a rain forest in Iowa would be
>> unconstitutional -- it clearly is -- but space exploration?
>>
>
>Do you find a provision for space exploration in the Constitution?
>

Same place Jefferson found authorization for Lewis and Clark.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Same place Jefferson found authorization for Lewis and Clark.
>

What place was that?

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> >No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned
>> space travel is unconscionably wasteful until we get past
> > rocket ship technology, which may take decades.
> >--
>
> It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching
> the limits of rocket technology.

I submit that we are already at the practical limits. One of the things
that make a manned trip to Mars so expensive is the long exposure of
astronauts to conditions in space. Tremendous amounts of r&d will be
required to protect them from the physiological effects of zero gravity
and radiation.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

>Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any sense
>to go now, the technology is not ready.

The goal drives the technology.

> The whole idea is election year politics, its pathetic.

And going to the moon was cold war politics. Would America
or the world be better off if we hadn't gone to the moon and
the Soviets had?

Politicians are driven by .... politics.... (surprise) and
they control the purse. If Bush thinks he gets a political
advantage by appealing to those who support the space
program, then it's a good sign, as far as I'm concerned.
His opponents need to decide whether he's right or wrong.
Personally, I think he's right and hope his opponents do
too. I spend a percentage of my money on my current needs,
a percentage investing for my future needs and a percentage
on my dreams. I think the country should do the same. When
you give up the dreams and frontiers, you stagnate.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > One of the most laughable parts of Bush's speech was when
> > he said that a human base on the moon would make space
> > exploration cheaper? Yep folks, according to the president,
> > a moon base is going to SAVE us some money.
> > Oooookaaay.
>
> The science behind interplanetary space travel dictates that
> a moon base WILL make space exploration cheaper.
>
> The main cost of space exploration is in the booster system
> required to escape Earth's gravity. Launching from the
> moon's lesser gravitational pull is much easier, requires
> smaller rockets, and is thus much cheaper.

Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from Earth
first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.

We will have to fund two spaceports, one of which will have to be
resupplied by rocket ships. How is this going to be cheaper?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> This thread is incredibly funny.
>
> We got the Dems worrying about the deficit and saying that a big government
> program is bad.
>
> We got the Republicans saying that the deficit is not so bad and that big
> government is the answer to space travel.

OK, let me throw in a third alternative - chuck the government altogether,
and let Burt Rutan come up with a way to do it backed by private investors
and some corporate sponsorship logos on the side of the spacecraft!

"plumb bob" > wrote:

>How can we fall behind the Chinese because they are going to the moon? We
>already did that almost 35 years ago!

In ten years, if the Chinese can send a man to the moon, and
we still can't, the average observer will say we're behind.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote:
> In ten years, if the Chinese can send a man to the moon, and
> we still can't, the average observer will say we're behind.

Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
talking about going now: for the propaganda value.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> >Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any
sense
> >to go now, the technology is not ready.
>
> The goal drives the technology.
>
> > The whole idea is election year politics, its pathetic.
>
> And going to the moon was cold war politics. Would America
> or the world be better off if we hadn't gone to the moon and
> the Soviets had?
>
> Politicians are driven by .... politics.... (surprise) and
> they control the purse. If Bush thinks he gets a political
> advantage by appealing to those who support the space
> program, then it's a good sign, as far as I'm concerned.
> His opponents need to decide whether he's right or wrong.
> Personally, I think he's right and hope his opponents do
> too. I spend a percentage of my money on my current needs,
> a percentage investing for my future needs and a percentage
> on my dreams. I think the country should do the same. When
> you give up the dreams and frontiers, you stagnate.

But you have to have the money to start with. This country does not have
the money to pay for current or future needs much less dreams. Get rid of
the deficit then you can go play Star Trek.


>
>
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
actually
> promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
> get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
> and dreary January day.
>
> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?
>
> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to
them
> how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
> call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone
calls
> and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
> board this new initiative!

Let's see: "Congress shall have the power to promote and fund space
travel"...that must be the 247th Amendment; my copy is outdated -- it stops
at the 236th Amendment.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Do YOU want to pay for it? How about privatizing all the airports to pay
> for it? A $5 gallon tax on fuel? There really is no upside to doing
this.
> We are already overspending at a rate that is unsustainable.
>
Actually, we've been spending that way for over 70 years; this is just the
logical culmination of statism and the welfare state.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_omNb.68628$I06.309450@attbi_s01...
> > > I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!
> >
> > It was appalling, to me. Is the man completely insensible to the federal
> > deficit? He certainly seems insensible to the impracticalities of manned
> > travel to Mars. I think people on Mars would be a wonderfully cool
> > thing, but our national credit card is already maxed out. Sometimes you
> > have to put "cool" on hold and make sure the rent is paid.
>
> You know what, Dan? I, too, am appalled at the federal deficit, and the
> waste, and all the examples of Gubmint crap. It makes me ill to see it.
>
> Still, in my lifetime, I can point to just one real Gubmint success story:
> Apollo. Every other government program, from the "Great Society", to the
> "War on Poverty," to "No Child Left Behind," has been a dismal, utter
waste
> of money and time.

So why are you willing to trust the program to someone with a .013 batting
average? Hell, put Bob Uecker in Gene Krantz's spot and it'll be done for
1/20th the cost with double the results.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> > >
> > > Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new
> > space
> > > program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have
a
> > > vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
> > > someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what
it
> > will
> > > cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready
for
> > the
> > > Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year,
> all
> > > that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this
> time.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
> I'll
> > pay my share.

How about you start a company and sell stock to investors...I'm sure you
could convince a thousand billionaires to put up a billion (their entire
worth) each ($1T = $1B x 1000)

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>>
>> It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching
>> the limits of rocket technology.
>
>I submit that we are already at the practical limits. One of the things
>that make a manned trip to Mars so expensive is the long exposure of
>astronauts to conditions in space. Tremendous amounts of r&d will be
>required to protect them from the physiological effects of zero gravity
>and radiation.
>--

Then we better get started.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>
>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Same place Jefferson found authorization for Lewis and Clark.
>>
>
>What place was that?
>
>

Hee Hee.

That is the point. There is no direct reference to space exploration any more
than there was for exploring the West. But Article 1 section 8, in the second
to last paragraph authorizes the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and
other needful buildings in new territories and earlier for the establishment of
a Navy.

The FAA and ATC are extensions of the authorization to build Postal and other
roads and to regulate interstate commerce. We applied the clear intent of the
Constitution to new technology and situations that were not anticipated at the
time it was written.

Jefferson saw expansion of the US into the west and exploration of and securing
those new territories as essential to the defense and security of the US. I
would agree that holding the "high ground" and strategic advantage in the new
territories outside the atmosphere as essential to our security as well. We
will either lead the world or be lead by it.

I don't trust the rest of the world, and I do not want to surrender the high
ground to the Chinese. If we don't take and hold space, the Chinese certainly
will.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >,
(ajohnson) writes:

>
>OK, let me throw in a third alternative - chuck the government altogether,
>and let Burt Rutan come up with a way to do it backed by private investors
>and some corporate sponsorship logos on the side of the spacecraft!
>
>


That appeals to my libertarian heart, but history has shown that commerce
follows the military, which follows the explorers, which follow the
prospectors.

The problem is that even if the moon were made of diamonds, it would not be
practical for the prospectors to go there to get them.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

http://tinyurl.com/26gzu

"All I've got to say is please, for pity's sake, stop worrying about
NASA stealing money from your favorite federal program and adding to
the deficit. Out of a $2 trillion-plus budget in 2004, human resources
programs (Education, Health and Human Services, HUD, Labor, Social
Security, etc.) will get an astounding 34%! In contrast, NASA has the
smallest budget of all the major agencies in the Federal government.
In fact, its budget has represented less than 1% of the total budget
each year since 1977 and it will probably never get more than a
fraction above that, even with this new plan."


"Before they complain about it, I wish the moaners would take the time
to find out a few things about NASA's measly 1%. It has added billions
of dollars back to our economy. It's about the only program in the
Federal budget that has a track record of doing that. When NASA does
cutting-edge work, new products are devised and people, Americans, are
put to work producing them. To keep our economy steaming and pay our
bills, we have to stay ahead in product innovation. That means
inventing and manufacturing new products. One proven way to do that is
to get the space program going with some real work."

http://tinyurl.com/22zpp

"What the plan lacks in momentum and flash, however, it makes up in
political shrewdness, and analysts said that, unlike previous attempts
to get the space program off the dime, it might even survive the
congressional gantlet."

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hee Hee.
>
> That is the point. There is no direct reference to space exploration any
more
> than there was for exploring the West. But Article 1 section 8, in the
second
> to last paragraph authorizes the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards
and
> other needful buildings in new territories and earlier for the
establishment of
> a Navy.
>
> The FAA and ATC are extensions of the authorization to build Postal and
other
> roads and to regulate interstate commerce. We applied the clear intent of
the
> Constitution to new technology and situations that were not anticipated at
the
> time it was written.
>
> Jefferson saw expansion of the US into the west and exploration of and
securing
> those new territories as essential to the defense and security of the US.
I
> would agree that holding the "high ground" and strategic advantage in the
new
> territories outside the atmosphere as essential to our security as well.
We
> will either lead the world or be lead by it.
>
> I don't trust the rest of the world, and I do not want to surrender the
high
> ground to the Chinese. If we don't take and hold space, the Chinese
certainly
> will.
>

So space is a new US territory, and we're exploring it for the purpose of
erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2354537

WASHINGTON -- Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon, said Wednesday
he's more than ready to give up the title.

"I want somebody dearly to take that dubious honor ... off my
shoulder," he said after President Bush announced plans to send
astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars.

"There's some young kid, some young boy or girl out there," Cernan
said in the hallway at NASA headquarters after Bush's speech. "God
bless their soul. Give them the courage, give them the opportunity. Go
for it."

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> "All I've got to say is please, for pity's sake, stop worrying about
> NASA stealing money from your favorite federal program and adding to
> the deficit. Out of a $2 trillion-plus budget in 2004, human resources
> programs (Education, Health and Human Services, HUD, Labor, Social
> Security, etc.) will get an astounding 34%! In contrast, NASA has the
> smallest budget of all the major agencies in the Federal government.
> In fact, its budget has represented less than 1% of the total budget
> each year since 1977 and it will probably never get more than a
> fraction above that, even with this new plan."
>

Wouldn't that depend on where you drew the line between major and minor
federal agencies?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:26:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>So space is a new US territory, and we're exploring it for the purpose of
>erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings?
>

And what do you think our lives would be like if there had been
no exploration of space at all?

What is our very home of Earth but a spacecraft itself? carrying 6
billion astronauts around our star, the sun, which is circling the
galaxy? Don't you think that what we learn extending ourselves into
space will directly benefit and improve how we live on Earth? Its the
same problems. Recycling water, small power sources, efficient ways
to grow food. The benefits are huge. We just dont know what
we will learn on this journey. That is the spirit and purpose of
exploration, it is no different then then now. The frontiers
have changed is all.

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> And what do you think our lives would be like if there had been
> no exploration of space at all?
>

Vastly different than it is now. Tell me, when should the US government
adhere to the Constitution and when should it not?

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > > One of the most laughable parts of Bush's speech was when
> > > he said that a human base on the moon would make space
> > > exploration cheaper? Yep folks, according to the president,
> > > a moon base is going to SAVE us some money.
> > > Oooookaaay.
> >
> > The science behind interplanetary space travel dictates that
> > a moon base WILL make space exploration cheaper.
> >
> > The main cost of space exploration is in the booster system
> > required to escape Earth's gravity. Launching from the
> > moon's lesser gravitational pull is much easier, requires
> > smaller rockets, and is thus much cheaper.
>
> Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from Earth
> first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.
>
> We will have to fund two spaceports, one of which will have to be
> resupplied by rocket ships. How is this going to be cheaper?
> --

The only way one can avoid this to have a moon colony which can produce
stuff for the 2nd launch instead of getting it from earth. That means
setting up a self-sustaining moon colony plus more. How long is that going
to take? The ISS is not done, and space shuttle program is in remission.
Wow, talk about pipe dreams. This will be a 50-100 year program. It's
probably a good long term goal, but the timing is a bit suspect.

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from Earth
>first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Materials for radiation shielding,
perhaps fuel or oxidizer are available on the moon.
Construction is likely to be easier than on-orbit, and a
Mars mission is likely to be heavier than a single boost can
accommodate.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
>talking about going now: for the propaganda value.

I won't argue. Value is value. I'd like America to be
thought of and ultimately remembered as the strongest
supporter of humanity's space program, not just the only
nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>
>So space is a new US territory, and we're exploring it for the purpose of
>erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings?
>
>

More like the open seas, but we have bases established all over the world to
support the Navy in its efforts to keep those seas open.

If we are to keep space open for our use, both commercial and military, we must
explore it and establish the necessary presence there.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> More like the open seas, but we have bases established all over the world
to
> support the Navy in its efforts to keep those seas open.
>
> If we are to keep space open for our use, both commercial and military, we
must
> explore it and establish the necessary presence there.
>

We keep sea lanes open for purposes of commerce. Who are we trading with in
space?

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>But you have to have the money to start with. This country does not have
>the money to pay for current or future needs much less dreams. Get rid of
>the deficit then you can go play Star Trek.

Give me the power to prioritize the spending and I'll give
you a balanced budget and a man on Mars in 10 years. I pay
my taxes and watch the farm lobby push for subsidies that
pay them not to grow things, and drop the prices so low that
African countries can't grow crops to compete. I pay taxes
and watch the sports teams get funding for stadiums. There
will always be things you don't want money spent on and
things I don't want it spent on. Spending it on space will
push our technological edge and our political edge. It
helps us regain the moral high ground in the world. It
gives us greater security against the threat of the near
Earth asteroid or comment strike that could destroy this
world. It's something that will happen eventually or this
world and humanity will ultimately disappear from the
universe. Every generation of humanity needs to take a few
steps towards the future. It's our turn now. One percent
of the budget is not too much to spend on the future. The
return on that investment is worth far more than what it
costs.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>
>We keep sea lanes open for purposes of commerce. Who are we trading with in
>space?
>

You ever use a GPS? Get a weather report? Make a long distance call? Watch TV?

Do you think anyone anticipated they would use those services when we navigated
with sextants?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> You ever use a GPS? Get a weather report? Make a long distance call? Watch
> TV?
>

Yup, all of the above. But who are we trading with in space?


>
> Do you think anyone anticipated they would use those services when we
navigated
> with sextants?
>

No. But who are we trading with in space? What does anything that you
listed have to do with establishing a base on the moon or going to mars?

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
> actually promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable
> plan to get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on
> a bleak and dreary January day.
>
> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?
>
> I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
> and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
> putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to
> them how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...
>
> Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
> call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone
> calls and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to
> get on board this new initiative!

I'm cautiously optomistic, we are way overdue with our space exploration.

I fear this may only be election year rhetoric. Or strictly a reaction to
the Chinese announcements.

What I don't want is another cold war style of competition. If the Chinese
are serious about going into space then there should be plenty of
opportunity for cooperation. Let them foot the bill for some of the expense
instead of competing with them. Manned space exploration is too expensive
to allow for duplication of effort.

Also, it would be a mistake to abandon our unmanned program, it's too cost
effective.

--
Frank....H

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>
>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You ever use a GPS? Get a weather report? Make a long distance call? Watch
>> TV?
>>
>
>Yup, all of the above. But who are we trading with in space?
>

Ourselves, other countries here on earth.

Who are we trading with on the open ocean?

Space is not a place where people build WalMarts, it is a place we travel
through and send satelites and their signals through to do business here on
Earth.

But if we can't sail our boats there, we lose the use of it.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Jay Honeck wrote:
....
>
> Still, in my lifetime, I can point to just one real Gubmint success story:
> Apollo. Every other government program, from the "Great Society", to the
> "War on Poverty," to "No Child Left Behind," has been a dismal, utter waste
> of money and time.
>
>


Social equations are always more difficult to solve than technical ones,
but their results may be a lot more important part of our everyday
lives. Velcro is good, social justice is better. Be careful that the
technical "successes" are not just head-in-the-sand escapism from
life's real problems.

"Hell, when a bunch of *pilots* can't even support manned space
exploration, we are surely doomed as a nation."

I would think that the vast majority of pilots and other "technical"
people (including myself) do support space exploration. But there does
seem to be just that little extra skepticism of motives, which is healthy.

Hopefully it is a sign that cast-in-concrete blind partisan support is
finally giving way to some real *discussion* of issues.

"Icebound" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Still, in my lifetime, I can point to just one real Gubmint success story:
> > Apollo. Every other government program, from the "Great Society", to the
> > "War on Poverty," to "No Child Left Behind," has been a dismal, utter waste
> > of money and time.
> >
> >
>
>
> Social equations are always more difficult to solve than technical ones,
> but their results may be a lot more important part of our everyday
> lives.

No Aerospace Contractor Left Behind is a good name for the current program.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01>...
> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us is
> a
> > fool and I think that you are it.
>
> No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes to
> space exploration -- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
> lacking.
>
> Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.

When asked about the environment Bush said he was planning to visit it one day.

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Before they complain about it, I wish the moaners would take the time
> to find out a few things about NASA's measly 1%. It has added billions
> of dollars back to our economy.

> When NASA does
> cutting-edge work, new products are devised and people, Americans, are
> put to work producing them. To keep our economy steaming and pay our
> bills, we have to stay ahead in product innovation. That means
> inventing and manufacturing new products. One proven way to do that is
> to get the space program going with some real work."

Amendment 336 -- "Congress shall have the power to do R&D just like everyone
else."

NASA doesn't PRODUCE anything.

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president
> actually promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible,
> doable plan to get our space program back on track, was a breath of
> fresh air on a bleak and dreary January day.
>
Well, I caught it, and have a rather diferent picture of his idea.

* There is no plan for financing this notion. The effort would take more
money than we have *ever* appropriated for NASA, and in an environment
where people complain about the $820 million that the *two* current Mars
missions cost, coming up with perhaps 100x that amount is unlikely.

* There has always been strong sentiments against manned space flight, to
the point where we haven't been able to even finish our commitments to the
space station and other far more economical projects.

* Such an undertaking would be more feasible if it was an international
effort. However, since has GWB proven that he can't "just get along" with
the rest of the world, it's unlikely that other countries would be willing
to pitch in on such a project.

> Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?
>
I'd bet that we won't hear another word about it after November. And, of
course, it will somehow turn out to be the Democrats' fault. ;-)

Neil

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

> Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from Earth
> first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.

Not true.

--
Bob Noel

"S Narayan" > wrote in message
...

> The only way one can avoid this to have a moon colony which can produce
> stuff for the 2nd launch instead of getting it from earth. That means
> setting up a self-sustaining moon colony plus more. How long is that going
> to take? The ISS is not done, and space shuttle program is in remission.
> Wow, talk about pipe dreams. This will be a 50-100 year program. It's
> probably a good long term goal, but the timing is a bit suspect.

Really? Think about what you are saying. It is quite absurd. What are they
going to do? Head down to the Moon Home Depot and pick up supplies or what?
Everything, except dirt, is going to have to come from earth. And last time
I checked, dirt is not on the materials list to build a space ship.

So tell us what can be manifactured on the moon at a cheaper cost than on
earth. Really, I'm clutching my chair in anticipation to hear how this will
be done.

Plumb Bob

"Frank" > wrote in message ...

> I'm cautiously optomistic, we are way overdue with our space exploration.
>
> I fear this may only be election year rhetoric. Or strictly a reaction to
> the Chinese announcements.

No ****, Sherlock. There was Bush, once again, spouting out the grand plan
so that he could win an election instead of do the right thing... except he
does have a plan. Not even a budget. No scientific basis for some little
questions like how the hell will the astronauts get from here to there. How
much will it cost. Will this be a one way mission for the astronauts? (that
will save alot of money since Mars has significant gravity and therefore
even more fuel is required to break out of Mars gravity for the trip home).

"Bob Noel" wrote:
> > Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from
Earth
> > first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.
>
> Not true.

True unless you posit a moon base that mines raw materials, refines
them, and manufactures Mars shot equipment from scratch - an absurd idea
in the time frame of Bush's plan.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> Then we better get started.

Yes, basic research on new space propulsion technologies is a good idea,
but manned space travel should be an afterthought.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

> Hopefully it is a sign that cast-in-concrete blind partisan support is
> finally giving way to some real *discussion* of issues.

On the contrary, many of the posts opposing the President's space initiative
have been filled with political invective, and an almost palpable loathing
of Mr. Bush.

I'd say this is a sign that nothing has changed, and real *discussion* is
illusory.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I'd bet that we won't hear another word about it after November. And, of
> course, it will somehow turn out to be the Democrats' fault. ;-)

That is what is known as a "sure thing."

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
> > > Everything launched from the moon will have to be launched from
> Earth
> > > first. Anything going to Mars will have to escape gravity twice.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> True unless you posit a moon base that mines raw materials, refines
> them, and manufactures Mars shot equipment from scratch - an absurd idea
> in the time frame of Bush's plan.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)


Bush has it all figured out. He is going to trade the Martians green cheese
for fuel.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
> Bush has it all figured out. He is going to trade the Martians green
cheese
> for fuel.

No way. If he thinks the Martians have fuel, he'll announce evidence of WMD
as a pretext to invade them.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:07:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Hopefully it is a sign that cast-in-concrete blind partisan support is
>> finally giving way to some real *discussion* of issues.
>
>On the contrary, many of the posts opposing the President's space initiative
>have been filled with political invective, and an almost palpable loathing
>of Mr. Bush.
>
>I'd say this is a sign that nothing has changed, and real *discussion* is
>illusory.


I have a feeling if it had been Gore proposing exactly the same thing,
there would be golf claps all around from that crowd instead.

Pre-speech AP poll..................

"Just over half of Democrats' opposed the plan by "the United States."
Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats
opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin."

There are real problems in that party I cannot fathom personally.
There is definitely a near pathological desperate hatred that defies
logic most of the time. This is not a partisan thing, it is giving
NASA the attention that it has desperately needed for decades.
Jeez JFK sent us to the moon for crying out loud.


"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be"
-Tennyson

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:23:13 GMT, "plumb bob" >
wrote:

>
>Really? Think about what you are saying. It is quite absurd. What are they
>going to do? Head down to the Moon Home Depot and pick up supplies or what?
>Everything, except dirt, is going to have to come from earth. And last time
>I checked, dirt is not on the materials list to build a space ship.
>
>So tell us what can be manifactured on the moon at a cheaper cost than on
>earth. Really, I'm clutching my chair in anticipation to hear how this will
>be done.
>
>Plumb Bob
>

There are many raw resources on the moon. It wont make sense
at first to try to use them all. but eventually............


http://www.crystalinks.com/lunarmining.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/scitech/SciTechRepublish_603711.htm

http://www.permanent.com/l-mining.htm

http://www.permanent.com/l-overvw.htm

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0397/0397gaz2.html

Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
nut-case radicals to stuff it.

In article >, Bob Fry
> writes:

>
>Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
>the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
>us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
>doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
>nut-case radicals to stuff it.
>
>

What are you proposing, dilithium crystals?

With foreseable technology, hybrids are about the best we can do for cars, and
only liquid petroleum has the energy density for aircraft.

Energy independence isn't going to happen in the US so long as we put huge
tracts of land off limits because a caribou or bird might be disturbed.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >, Mutts
> writes:

>
>I have a feeling if it had been Gore proposing exactly the same thing,
>there would be golf claps all around from that crowd instead.
>
>Pre-speech AP poll..................
>
>"Just over half of Democrats' opposed the plan by "the United States."
>Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats
>opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin."
>
>There are real problems in that party I cannot fathom personally.
>There is definitely a near pathological desperate hatred that defies
>logic most of the time. This is not a partisan thing, it is giving
>NASA the attention that it has desperately needed for decades.
>Jeez JFK sent us to the moon for crying out loud.
>

EIther Matlin or A****er advised Ronald Reagan, "Never interupt your opponent
when he is busy destroying himself."

If we just sit quietly till November and let them keep it up, the Democrat
Party will cease to be a factor in US politics for the remainder of our
lifetimes.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
> the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
> us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
> doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
> nut-case radicals to stuff it.

I guess that one must be the 286th Amendment: "Congress shall have the power
to create and package a lot of hot air".


Let the Department of Energy run it? The guys who piddled away $416 billion
the past 25 years without producing a gram of energy?

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...

> There are real problems in that party I cannot fathom personally.
> There is definitely a near pathological desperate hatred that defies
> logic most of the time.

Which party, and which recent time period, are you talking about? It's an
equal opportunity affliction.

"plumb bob" > wrote in message
news:BhFNb.75868$I06.331400@attbi_s01...
>
> "S Narayan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The only way one can avoid this to have a moon colony which can produce
> > stuff for the 2nd launch instead of getting it from earth. That means
> > setting up a self-sustaining moon colony plus more. How long is that
going
> > to take? The ISS is not done, and space shuttle program is in remission.
> > Wow, talk about pipe dreams. This will be a 50-100 year program. It's
> > probably a good long term goal, but the timing is a bit suspect.
>
> Really? Think about what you are saying. It is quite absurd. What are they
> going to do? Head down to the Moon Home Depot and pick up supplies or
what?
> Everything, except dirt, is going to have to come from earth. And last
time
> I checked, dirt is not on the materials list to build a space ship.
>
> So tell us what can be manifactured on the moon at a cheaper cost than on
> earth. Really, I'm clutching my chair in anticipation to hear how this
will
> be done.
>

We are on the same side. If you read my post carefully, I said this would
take the establishment of a moon colony which could take decades with
cooperation from many countries. Power generation, housing, plants, food,
mining etc..all need to be set up as in those science fiction movies. This
will involve massive "transfer" of resources from earth. Once that happens,
the next step can take place. I am not saying it is going to be cheap or
quick.

In article >,
says...
>
>"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
>> There are real problems in that party I cannot fathom personally.
>> There is definitely a near pathological desperate hatred that defies
>> logic most of the time.
>
>Which party, and which recent time period, are you talking about? It's an
>equal opportunity affliction.
>
>

Here are some hints...............

The party that currently does NOT control the Senate, the House, the White
House, the majority of governorships, the majority of the 10 major
big state governorships. The party that could not beat Jeb
Bush in Florida with a major clintonite. The party that
had one of its governors booted out of California in an embarrasing
landslide recall. The party that when its former president and vice president
campaign for someone they usually lose. The party that has had recent
defections to the other party. The party that all its a major presidential
candidates would lose to the current president by double digits in major
polls. Of those candidates, many have had to retract bizarre accusations a
day or two after making them. The party that when they gather together
under internet organizations or have ex-vice presidents give speeches
to the faithful usually resort to some kind of excessive namecalling and
hateful rhetoric. The party that turned a bi-partisan memorial to one of their
fallen into a political rally for themselves. The party that would have won
the white house if thier candidate had won his *home* state.

Im not a member of any political party ok, yes I am right wing on most
things. All partys have problems and are imperfect of course, all are
guilty of the same things at one time or another to varying degrees. All
partys have hard times. But the above are indeed serious indications
something major is wrong.

In article >,
(Mutts) writes:

>
>Im not a member of any political party ok, yes I am right wing on most
>things. All partys have problems and are imperfect of course, all are
>guilty of the same things at one time or another to varying degrees. All
>partys have hard times. But the above are indeed serious indications
>something major is wrong.
>
>

We're waiting for you.

WWW.LP.ORG
--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
> No Aerospace Contractor Left Behind is a good name for
> the current program.

Hee-hee! Good one.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Hopefully it is a sign that cast-in-concrete blind partisan support is
>>finally giving way to some real *discussion* of issues.
>
>
> On the contrary, many of the posts opposing the President's space initiative
> have been filled with political invective, and an almost palpable loathing
> of Mr. Bush.
>
> I'd say this is a sign that nothing has changed, and real *discussion* is
> illusory.


If that is so, then it is too bad.

But we can fault the media on this one, too.

Image has replaced substance, and once a politician's image is "liked",
or "disliked", the details of his/her policies no longer matter.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Who else BUT the Federal government could do it?

Well, Burt Rutan comes to mind (see also: Scaled Composites,
specifically SpaceShipOne). Or perhaps John Carmack (Armadillo
Aerospace). Or any of the other twenty-three teams (listed at
http://www.xprize.org/teams/teams.html) registered as competing for the
X-Prize (http://www.xprize.org).

Perhaps Boeing, or Lockheed, or TRW, or Hughes might be interested?
(Hint: those names weren't chosen at random.) Who am I forgetting?
Dennis Tito (and other wealthy people, almost including Lance Bass)
certainly seem willing to pay a share.

That's the true miracle of the system; *anybody* can do anything, all he
has to do is assemble the right talent. I've talked to many people
about starting a venture (including the entrepreneurs and the funding
sources), and they all say that getting money is the easiest part.
Think about the technology that comes from a venture like this. Think
about the name recognition and PR value. There is no reason the private
sector can't put a man in space; the real question is "how much cheaper
will it be, as compared to the Federal Government's cost?"

Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

Todd Pattist > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> >Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
> >talking about going now: for the propaganda value.
>
> I won't argue. Value is value. I'd like America to be
> thought of and ultimately remembered as the strongest
> supporter of humanity's space program, not just the only
> nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.

From what is in the PNAC, I rather think this moon base
is a missile base. Talk about Heinlein...

In article >,
wrote:

> Todd Pattist > wrote in message
> >...
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >
> > >Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
> > >talking about going now: for the propaganda value.
> >
> > I won't argue. Value is value. I'd like America to be
> > thought of and ultimately remembered as the strongest
> > supporter of humanity's space program, not just the only
> > nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.
>
> From what is in the PNAC, I rather think this moon base
> is a missile base. Talk about Heinlein...

Missile base for WHAT? Targeting accuracy requires far more precision
than land-and sea-based missiles; trajectory tome is in DAYS, not
minutes.

The Moon would be useless as a missile base.

(Wdtabor) writes:

> >Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
> >the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
> >us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
> >doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
> >nut-case radicals to stuff it.
> >
>
> What are you proposing, dilithium crystals?

Not-so Common sense.

And some real leadership from Bush et. al. Well, that's impossible...

> With foreseable technology, hybrids are about the best we can do for cars, and
> only liquid petroleum has the energy density for aircraft.
>
> Energy independence isn't going to happen in the US so long as we put huge
> tracts of land off limits because a caribou or bird might be disturbed.

Let's divide oil consumers into halves: fixed and mobile.

For fixed, some combination program of renewable (probably mainly
solar), nuclear (using a standard design for all plants), and, as you
mentioned, drilling for more oil on our own soil, would go a long way
to reducing foreign demand.

You'd also want to examine the petrochemical demand. I have no idea
what percentage that is and if substitutes for oil can be made.

For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
stricter mpg requirements. Probably hybrid technology will be used to
meet the requirements, but let industry figure that out. Government
can support long-term research. The Internet is a good example of
public/private work.

For aircraft, you're not going to substitute oil for a long time. So
be it. You've done what you can elsewhere.

This IS war, you know. Literally. Instead of making war, how about
technology? Sell the inventions to the Europeans or partner with
them, too. Instead, all we do is make more bombs to drop on people.
We can't fight the whole world.

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
> > the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
> > us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
> > doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
> > nut-case radicals to stuff it.
>
> I guess that one must be the 286th Amendment: "Congress shall have the power
> to create and package a lot of hot air".
>
> Let the Department of Energy run it? The guys who piddled away $416 billion
> the past 25 years without producing a gram of energy?

That would be the same DOE that created, e.g. Lawrence Berkeley
National Labs...best numerical software libraries in the world. Best
nukes at other labs, etc. They've done some good things, some
probably not so good.

You're suggesting Enron maybe run things? Bush and his oil buddies?
Maybe we can just beat up anybody we don't like?

In article >, Bob Fry
> wrote:

>
> For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
> stricter mpg requirements.

why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob Fry
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
> > stricter mpg requirements.
>
> why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
> Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
> or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some luck,
the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up - mpg
reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless you're
into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did not
make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.

Besides, reliance on foreign oil is probably one of the biggest causes of
terrorism. Yet we do nothing about it. Too much $$$.

In article <RYGOb.82660$5V2.108280@attbi_s53>, "plumb bob"
> wrote:

> > > For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter
> > > and
> > > stricter mpg requirements.
> >
> > why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
> > Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
> > or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?
>
> Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some
> luck,
> the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up -
> mpg
> reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless you're
> into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did not
> make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.

catch a wake up yourself. There are plenty of ways to reduce the
number of miles driven (and hence fuel consumption) without the
resorting to the idiotic notion of shortening roads or using
fuzzy math or whatever you use.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

> > Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some
> > luck,
> > the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up -
> > mpg
> > reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless
you're
> > into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did
not
> > make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.
>
> catch a wake up yourself. There are plenty of ways to reduce the
> number of miles driven (and hence fuel consumption) without the
> resorting to the idiotic notion of shortening roads or using
> fuzzy math or whatever you use.

Since you are such a wizard, why don't you set the example and shorten the
distances you travel. Start but shortening the distance from your home to
the store, and your home to the airport. When you're done, please report
back to us. The fact of the matter is that most fuel consumption in the US
is due to people driving to and from work every day. And you say: shorten
the distance. Thanks alot!

This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart and look
past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers pay a "terrorism
tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.

> This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart
> and look past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers
> pay a "terrorism tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.

Or a tax benefit to companies to encourage telecommuting. SO many jobs
could be done from home nowadays with simply a change in mindset.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart
> > and look past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers
> > pay a "terrorism tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.
>
> Or a tax benefit to companies to encourage telecommuting. SO many jobs
> could be done from home nowadays with simply a change in mindset.
>
>

That mindeset is why so many jobs are being offshored to India and China.
In essence, it is just telecommuting, but you can pay your employees less
than U.S. minimum wage.

Earl G

In article <alIOb.96906$xy6.174893@attbi_s02>, "plumb bob"
> wrote:

> > catch a wake up yourself. There are plenty of ways to reduce the
> > number of miles driven (and hence fuel consumption) without the
> > resorting to the idiotic notion of shortening roads or using
> > fuzzy math or whatever you use.
>
> Since you are such a wizard, why don't you set the example and shorten
> the
> distances you travel.

It doesn't take a wizard to realize that a 6 mile trip from
my house to work is shorter than the 30 mile commute my boss has.

It doesn't take a wizard to realize that the 6 mile trip from
my house to my hangar is shorter than the >25 mile trip to
a different airport (where the hangars are cheaper).


> And you say: shorten
> the distance. Thanks alot!

pay attention. I never, ever said to shorten the distance.
I said to drive fewer miles. It seems you are incapable
of grasping the difference.


> This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart and
> look
> past the obvious.

Yes, people try to be smart and end up demonstrating their level
of comprehension. Try to think outside the box occasionally.

--
Bob Noel

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ourselves, other countries here on earth.
>

Ourselves and other countries here on Earth are not in space.


>
> Who are we trading with on the open ocean?
>

To my knowledge, nobody.


>
> Space is not a place where people build WalMarts, it is a place we travel
> through and send satelites and their signals through to do business here
> on Earth.
>

But we've been doing that for years without outposts on the moon or Mars.
Why are they necessary now to do business here on Earth?

"Dave Buckles" > wrote in message
news:rj3Ob.4959$dd6.3784@lakeread02...
>
> Well, Burt Rutan comes to mind (see also: Scaled Composites,
> specifically SpaceShipOne). Or perhaps John Carmack (Armadillo
> Aerospace). Or any of the other twenty-three teams (listed at
> http://www.xprize.org/teams/teams.html) registered as competing for the
> X-Prize (http://www.xprize.org).
>

Burt Rutan and the other X Prize competitors are attempting to do something
that was accomplished over forty years ago. I don't think launching humans
on suborbital spaceflights is particularly useful. If it was, I think NASA
would still be doing it. The X Prize has been compared to the Orteig Prize,
but when the Orteig Prize was announced nobody had flown nonstop between New
York and Paris.

what you don't realize here, jay, is that bush doomed his visionary
project from the start, exactly the same way he doomed "no child left
behind".

nasa has approximately an $11bn budget currently, and he promised that
he would ask congress for another $1bn, spread out over the next five
years, to fund this initiative. that's $200m a year. WHOOPITYDOO.

your man is playing you, and you don't even see it.

%ian

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Hopefully it is a sign that cast-in-concrete blind partisan support is
>>finally giving way to some real *discussion* of issues.
>
>
> On the contrary, many of the posts opposing the President's space initiative
> have been filled with political invective, and an almost palpable loathing
> of Mr. Bush.
>
> I'd say this is a sign that nothing has changed, and real *discussion* is
> illusory.

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

Mike
MU-2
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any
> sense
> > to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
> > politics, its pathetic.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Perhaps it is election year politics, but I think not. More people are
> against it than for it, I think. Not too good for politics, then.
>
> Of coarse the technology is not ready. That is exactly the point. Tec is
> born in the space program. Look at your MU-2. Start counting the Apollo
> born tec. Look around you at home, and work. Look at all the space
program
> tec.
>
> I wonder if we can afford NOT to go.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

$5/gallon fuel tax will fix that.

Mike
MU-2


"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob Fry
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
> > stricter mpg requirements.
>
> why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
> Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
> or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

In article . net>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
> technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
> shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:23:47 -0700, Enefesdi Varspooli Bhootpalamdi
> wrote:

>what you don't realize here, jay, is that bush doomed his visionary
>project from the start, exactly the same way he doomed "no child left
>behind".
>
>nasa has approximately an $11bn budget currently, and he promised that
>he would ask congress for another $1bn, spread out over the next five
>years, to fund this initiative. that's $200m a year. WHOOPITYDOO.
>
>your man is playing you, and you don't even see it.
>

As shuttle and ISS ramp down, where do you think those moneys
will go?

Learn...learn...learn...learn.......
Alot of thought has gone into the Bush plan.
If you dont like Bush fine, but dont beat up this plan
just because of that.
Weve got a very good shot at this.

Beyond the Moon: Inside Bush's space plan
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=915

Keith Cowing runs Nasa Watch web page.
http://www.nasawatch.com/
He worked at NASA once and he is a Democrat if that
makes you feel better. He is an expert on NASA politics
and budgetary issues.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
> > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
> > shuttle.
>
> um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
> be developed?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

Mike
MU-2

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> >
> > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
> > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
> > > shuttle.
> >
> > um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
> > be developed?
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
>
> There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
> the
> lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
> supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
> liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
> further
> refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
> rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
> we
> use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
"in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
refining/improving and extending the technology so that
something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
the Titan II.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article . net>,
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
> > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
> > > > shuttle.
> > >
> > > um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
> > > be developed?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bob Noel
> >
> > There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
> > the
> > lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
> > supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
> > liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
> > further
> > refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
> > rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
> > we
> > use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.
>
> except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
> "in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
> refining/improving and extending the technology so that
> something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
> merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
> the Titan II.
>
Integrated circuit technology was not in place and had to be developed for
Apollo. (I was at the MIT Instrumentation Labs at the time). In fact a 4
flip-flop counter chip was really advanced and people didn't even know if
they would wear out after say, a trillion cycles. They did track down
causes of bad chips and as I recall the gal who wrote the report said yield
would increase dramatically "if they would just keep their big, greasy hands
off the wafers." This sort of thing had to be discovered and learned.
But IC technology one just one of thousands of areas where the same thing
was going on. The Mars program will yield the same shower of byproducts,
jobs, new companies, etc.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article . net>,
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
> > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
> > > > shuttle.
> > >
> > > um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
> > > be developed?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bob Noel
> >
> > There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
> > the
> > lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
> > supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
> > liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
> > further
> > refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
> > rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
> > we
> > use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.
>
> except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
> "in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
> refining/improving and extending the technology so that
> something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
> merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
> the Titan II.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this is
not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

Mike
MU-2

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:REkPb.95601$nt4.259445@attbi_s51...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article . net>,
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
the
> > > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
space
> > > > > shuttle.
> > > >
> > > > um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
> > > > be developed?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bob Noel
> > >
> > > There are always new things being developed over a time span as long
as
> > > the
> > > lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and
dupont
> > > supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program?
The
> > > liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
> > > further
> > > refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the
aerospike
> > > rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical
fuels
> > > we
> > > use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.
> >
> > except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
> > "in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
> > refining/improving and extending the technology so that
> > something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
> > merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
> > the Titan II.
> >
> Integrated circuit technology was not in place and had to be developed for
> Apollo. (I was at the MIT Instrumentation Labs at the time). In fact a 4
> flip-flop counter chip was really advanced and people didn't even know if
> they would wear out after say, a trillion cycles. They did track down
> causes of bad chips and as I recall the gal who wrote the report said
yield
> would increase dramatically "if they would just keep their big, greasy
hands
> off the wafers." This sort of thing had to be discovered and learned.
> But IC technology one just one of thousands of areas where the same thing
> was going on. The Mars program will yield the same shower of byproducts,
> jobs, new companies, etc.
>
>

The integrated circuit was patented in 1959.

Mike
MU-2

Mike

On the way. Their talking about $3.00 a gallon at pump this year :o(

Big John
Pilot ROCAF

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:10:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>$5/gallon fuel tax will fix that.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Bob Fry
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
>> > stricter mpg requirements.
>>
>> why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
>> Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
>> or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel
>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
<snip>
> The integrated circuit was patented in 1959.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the IC was little more than an
"interesting" technology before the Apollo program poured money into it. In
1963 a single flip-flop was about $100! Companies such as Signetics,
Fairchild and National needed to see a potential profit for them to invest
in equipment. Just as important, they needed to know that it was possible
to produce ICs profitably, and that is what the Apollo report I mentioned
did.

So I really believe that the big Govenment program very positive benefits to
society. If anyone can say for sure that the Mars program won't do the
same, I'd like to know how he/she can see the future. Better yet, tell us
what the new technology is that we won't get if the program is not funded --
I'll invest in it myself!

The point was that ICs existed before Apollo. There are many claims of
spinoffs from the space program and I don't doubt that there are some. I
would argue that most of those spinnoff products would have occured without
the space program and at lower cost. I will be in favor of going to Mars
when a more efficient system is availible for getting the required material
into earth orbit and a more efficient propulsion system availible for the
trip from earth orbit to Mars. I am not in favor of a Mars program that
costs hundreds of millions of dollars for each pound of payload delivered.
Anyway, with the level of funding proposed, NASA couldn't develope a new
airliner much less a vehicle capable of reaching Mars. Having seen the
$200MM/yr proposed budget, I am writing off the whole notion as as election
year political farce.

Mike
MU-2


"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:lmAPb.98783$5V2.328350@attbi_s53...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> <snip>
> > The integrated circuit was patented in 1959.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is, but the IC was little more than an
> "interesting" technology before the Apollo program poured money into it.
In
> 1963 a single flip-flop was about $100! Companies such as Signetics,
> Fairchild and National needed to see a potential profit for them to invest
> in equipment. Just as important, they needed to know that it was possible
> to produce ICs profitably, and that is what the Apollo report I mentioned
> did.
>
> So I really believe that the big Govenment program very positive benefits
to
> society. If anyone can say for sure that the Mars program won't do the
> same, I'd like to know how he/she can see the future. Better yet, tell us
> what the new technology is that we won't get if the program is not
funded --
> I'll invest in it myself!
>
>

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:


> > > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
> > > > > the
> > > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
> > > > > space
> > > > > shuttle.
[snip]>
> OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this is
> not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.

--
Bob Noel

Mike Rapoport ) wrote:
: The point was that ICs existed before Apollo. There are many claims of
: spinoffs from the space program and I don't doubt that there are some.
: I would argue that most of those spinnoff products would have occured
: without the space program and at lower cost.
:
The Apollo program did bring together scientists from diverse fields
who probably wouldn't have worked together in other industries.

Here's sites that document some of the spinoffs:

http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spinoff2001/goddard_mill.html
Goddard Space Flight Center-Spinoff 1988

"Automotive Design

The accompanying photos show exterior and interior views of the 1987
Honda Acura Legend Coupe, which was designed with the aid of the
NASA-developed NASTRAN^® computer program. The Legend is among the
latest cars designed by Honda R&D Company, Ltd., Japan, a longtime
user of the NASTRAN program.

The program is an off-shoot of the computer design technique that
originated in aircraft/spacecraft development. Engineers create a
mathematical model of the vehicle and "fly" it on the ground by
computer simulation. This allows study of the performance and
structural behavior of a number of different designs before settling
on a final configuration..."

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer
NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs,
NASA technology products


The following list of spinoffs is from:

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
THE BEST OF NASA'S SPINOFFS

Laser Angioplasty
Cardiac Imaging System
Advanced Pacemaker
Implantable Heart Aid
Body Imaging
Computer Reader for the Blind
Ocular Screening System
Advanced Wheelchair
Radiation-Blocking lenses
Collision Avoidance System (for aircraft)
Self-Righting life Raft
Weather Information Processing
Corrosion-Resistant Coating
Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
Heat Pipes for the Alaska Pipeline
Cordless Products
Stratch-Resistant Sunglass Coating
Structural Analysis (NASTRAN)
Clean Room Apparel


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
> > > > > > space
> > > > > > shuttle.
> [snip]>
> > OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this
is
> > not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.
>
> I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
> the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
> roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
> you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.

A little trivia (from the depths of memory): The on-board computers in
Apollo were obsolete by the time they flew the missions, and 2) the Space
Shuttle was designed and built using the old slab-sides sliderules.

Tom

I've still got my Abacus and 'Slip Stick', Log Log Decitrig (sp), that
I can use when the energy runs out and we go back to the caves and
bear skins. Still have the instruction book to refresh operations. <G>

I take out every few years and run the slide to keep smooth for
precision operation.

Big John
Pilot RNAF


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:51:56 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article et>,
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
>> > > > > > space
>> > > > > > shuttle.
>> [snip]>
>> > OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this
>is
>> > not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.
>>
>> I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
>> the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
>> roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
>> you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.
>
>A little trivia (from the depths of memory): The on-board computers in
>Apollo were obsolete by the time they flew the missions, and 2) the Space
>Shuttle was designed and built using the old slab-sides sliderules.
>
>
>

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> I've still got my Abacus and 'Slip Stick', Log Log Decitrig (sp), that
> I can use when the energy runs out and we go back to the caves and
> bear skins. Still have the instruction book to refresh operations. <G>
>
> I take out every few years and run the slide to keep smooth for
> precision operation.

Kids. Bah humbug. I have one of those fancy new fangled slip-sticks, too.
I'm trying to find some Napier's bones and an abacus however.

"William W. Plummer" wrote:
>
> I'm trying to find some Napier's bones and an abacus however.

It's not very hard to find an abacus in this neck of the woods. My wife uses one
to keep track of stiches on complex knitting patterns.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Jeb wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:<krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01>...
>> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of us
>> > is
>> a
>> > fool and I think that you are it.
>>
>> No, he's no genius. But he does have that "vision thing" when it comes
>> to space exploration -- something this nation (and the world) is sorely
>> lacking.
>>
>> Now it'll be up to your kind to kill the dream again.
>
> When asked about the environment Bush said he was planning to visit it one
> day.

Forgive me for jumping in sideways here, as my newsreader (server???)
isn't providing me with all there is, but:

In a discussion I had with my father one evening shortly after Bush
decided we're going back to the moon, it was mentioned that the reason
wasn't so much that Bush wants to go there, or has any vision. The reason
was that there was some country that has developed its own space program
and if there /is/ another moon race, we can't be any other than first to
get there. Of course, the moon is a pretty big place, but it's a lot
smaller than mother Earth. Now, if another country gets to the moon
first, if we're not right there on their heels, we'll fall behind...
other countries get control of the moon, and have an excellent view of
more than they should, with an excellent spot from which,
hypothetically of course, to launch a missile attack if they wanted.

Of course, that's just /one/ scenario, and it may be way off line. BUT:
I think the point is that there is something more than just a President
who's off on his own little cloud. I think there is a behind-the-curtain
reason for going to the moon. Regardless, if any national entity makes a
shot for the moon, our nation has to be right with them to remain in a
position of power, and that's all any of this is really about, is power.

That's my view, anyway. Frankly, I couldn't care less if we go or not.
If we're ever going to get off this planet in a semi-permanent sense,
we'll need a base somewhere, and it's a lot easier to build on Luna Firma
than it will be to build a satellite base with a decaying orbit. Then
again, it will be further away and be more costly to service, but at least
its orbit won't crash it into the atmosphere anytime in the next several
millenia.

My 2 cents.
--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ |
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:<krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01>...
> >> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of
us
> >> > is
> >> a
> >> > fool and I think that you are it.

First of all, please be careful how you cut and paste. I didn't write the
above "quote" attributed to me.

> Of course, that's just /one/ scenario, and it may be way off line. BUT:
> I think the point is that there is something more than just a President
> who's off on his own little cloud. I think there is a behind-the-curtain
> reason for going to the moon.

I don't think there's any defensive (or offensive) military advantage to a
moon base over current ICBM or satellite/space station technology.

We need to be in space for scientific and exploration reasons. Bush's plan
would accomplish precisely that.

Sadly, powerful members of Congress are doing everything possible to kill
the initiative.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> > news:<krlNb.68069$I06.307311@attbi_s01>...
>> >> > I think Bush is comatose. You see him as a genius. Therefore one of
> us
>> >> > is
>> >> a
>> >> > fool and I think that you are it.
>
> First of all, please be careful how you cut and paste. I didn't write the
> above "quote" attributed to me.

I did not attribute the quote to you. Looking at the number of
greater-than signs preceding the text, one can calculate that the quote
was attributed to someone you quoted. However, the appropriate quotee's
name was not included in the quoter's quote, nor the quoter's quoted
quote, so I don't know whose it was, as, like I said, my
newsreader/newsserver isn't giving me full archives for some reason. I do
believe that what you said started with "No, he's no genius" and that you
said he had vision, but to me, it doesn't really matter who said what.
It's a newsgroup, on the Internet, and mistakes will be made.

>> Of course, that's just /one/ scenario, and it may be way off line. BUT:
>> I think the point is that there is something more than just a President
>> who's off on his own little cloud. I think there is a
>> behind-the-curtain reason for going to the moon.
>
> I don't think there's any defensive (or offensive) military advantage to a
> moon base over current ICBM or satellite/space station technology.

I believe you're probably right, but by the same token, the U.S. has been
called "Imperialistic" before. If someone else goes to the moon, we're
going to have to go too, even if for no other reason than to have a
presence. I really don't care anyway.

> We need to be in space for scientific and exploration reasons. Bush's
> plan would accomplish precisely that.

There are, of course, those who would say that all the science and
exploration there is to do on the moon has already been done.

But if he's for science and information, then why did he agree to killing
off the Hubble project? It still has tons of science and research it will
be capable of, and is still perfectly useful from what I've read.

And a Hell of a lot less expensive than building a moon base.

> Sadly, powerful members of Congress are doing everything possible to
> kill the initiative.

I have no problem with going or staying. What I have a problem with is
paying. How will it be funded?

--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ |
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

Circuit Breaker > wrote:
> But if he's for science and information, then why did he agree to killing
> off the Hubble project? It still has tons of science and research it will
> be capable of, and is still perfectly useful from what I've read.

FYI. The Hubble is being phased out for two reasons. One is that there's
a "next generation" space telescope presently in development. The second
is directly related to the scaling back of shuttle flights (until a next
generation shuttle can be built). Hubble's fine right now, and will
continue to send back usefull science data, but needs periodic maintenance
to keep it working. Canceling the shuttle servicing missions effectively
phases out the Hubble.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Jay Masino opined

>Circuit Breaker > wrote:
>> But if he's for science and information, then why did he agree to killing
>> off the Hubble project? It still has tons of science and research it will
>> be capable of, and is still perfectly useful from what I've read.

>FYI. The Hubble is being phased out for two reasons. One is that there's
>a "next generation" space telescope presently in development. The second
>is directly related to the scaling back of shuttle flights (until a next
>generation shuttle can be built). Hubble's fine right now, and will
>continue to send back usefull science data, but needs periodic maintenance
>to keep it working. Canceling the shuttle servicing missions effectively
>phases out the Hubble.

The new Webb telescope is not going to be a true Hubble replacement. THe
Hubble sees from Infrared to Ultraviolet. For a number of reasons, Webb goes
from long IR to red. ANd even with its greater size it will have lower
resolution than Hubble.

Hubble needs to be saved!

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?