The President's Space Initiative Speech

"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)

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."

"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?

"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.

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

ackatyu (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.

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 $$$.

$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