The President's Space Initiative Speech

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 . net,
"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