The President's Space Initiative Speech

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