New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Not So Free Chat » Sol-III and other - Mars or space web-logs » 2004-10-15 08:19:02

wgc

Yes sol3:darkside is a little project of mine that I hope to get back to very soon. I promise the political junk will be archived once the election is over. I’m sorry but I think President Bush would be better for the country and certainly the space program, that is my opinion and I respect all opinions.
Sol3 is envisioned as a novel, my first, and I’m not sure I have all the skills to do a full novel. So I thought what I would do is put a chapter out at a time and post it to the web and see what the reaction from readers are.
That’s were I am now.

In addition to that I wanted to do the following:

·    Provide an initial scenario for a chapter, and let 
             registered users contribute, i.e. I would provide a 
             brief overview of what was taking place and the
             user could contribute the rest.
·   
             Provide and area where registered users can 
             brainstorm some of the sites and equipments for the
             story.

·     Provide a blog of real space events.
·    Provide an area were registered users could
            brainstorm real designs, like all the discussions of cev
            designs in this forum. I’m not sure a forum is the 
            best venue for something like that. I’m thinking 
            maybe a wiki would be better.

So that’s the overall plan, I have two shared hosting sites, one has 60gb per month of bandwidth and 1.2 g of storage the other has 800 mb of storage.

The tool available on the sites is:

Moveable type – which the typepad blog may be moved to soon.
Mamboserver – a really cool cms like phpnuke
Invisionboard – forum

And wiki

Look at our other site http://www.distributed-home.com]www.distributed-home.com that has nothing to do with space to see were I might go,

so what do you think any interest?
I will be looking for in addition to contributors, moderators and web page suggestions.

#2 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-11 10:24:00

wgc

The Bush plans for Mars, a real class act !!  big_smile

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/i … _small.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushLig … aughon.gif

George Bush tryin' a Fool us with a nice Martain stunt

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library … olbush.mov
The IMF warned that increased federal debt from the deficits would make funding social security and healthcare more difficult.Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, along with other senior economists, last week published a report warning that the Bush administration's record deficits will have "severe adverse consequences" for all Americans and is unsustainable. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is sounded a note of caution
"Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday that the federal budget deficit would swell to $477 billion this year, a record in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved
Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit, including:
What's more, spending on Social Security and Medicare -- "mandatory" budget expenditures -- will skyrocket by the end of the decade, as millions of baby boomers begin to retire, de Rugy and other analysts say.

"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse," de Rugy said.






NASA gets cut down on Apollo 11 Anniversary


bush_deficit_graphic.gif
I wonder why


[
bushdeficit.gif

  :angry:

I fail to see your reasoning. Maybe this would be more appropriate in a political forum.

Since Bush announced his plan Nasa has been moving to reorganize around the new vision. This is a good start.

Many programs that were kind of under the "covers" have suddenly surfaced.

What do you think Kerry will bring to the space table? The guy doesn't impress me. Sorry.

#3 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-11 04:54:30

wgc

I find myself in more support of Kerry's space policy than Bush's.

Bush's was a politcal stunt with not realy cost projections, while Kerry says the scientific community should run NASA with a well-to-do but not overly-done budget.

Kerry visits Nasa HQ and doesn't even mention space in a speech, Kerry would continue the shuttle and international spacestation, thats it. And thats only because of the international ties. You folks are just looking for a reason to vote for Kerry... if it has anything to do with space or the war on terror.. you're going to have to look very hard.

Maybe you should do some research on his congressional record and than come back.

Kerry is strong on economics and Bush wiped the floor with him ..

I admit there are other reasons I don't like Kerry, Like my late father beging a viet nam vet that got the backlash from Kerry's anti war statements, or that his running mate john Edwards is with Orin Hatch on the Induce Copyright act.
But I think Kerry's record on space speaks for itself.

#4 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-08 12:55:19

wgc

"It would still be our only means into space, shortsighted no matter how you look at it."

Really? Why?

ANYTHING has to be better then Shuttle is, an upgraded Delta-IV Medium with a $50-100M CEV would cost roughly a quarter what a Shuttle launch does, maybe less, and be several times safer. And if it does what we need it to do, I see no reason why such a vehicle could not provide for NASA's launch needs with higher reliability and a fraction of the price until it is time to start thinking HLLV. The EELV rockets were designed with modularity in mind you know, a single-core vehicle for light and manned LEO flights, tripple-core for medium payload up to 30MT (ISS cargo?), and tripple-core + SRMs for loads up to 40-45MT for Lunar missions.

And yes, without a project for NASA to "do," then the money will be too tempting and it will probobly go away... that is really why we got Shuttle you know, that NASA wasn't going to have the money to use Saturn-V for any kind of sustained Lunar program, nor build a giant space station with the remaining launchers after Apollo, so NASA needed somthing else to draw in the dollars... NASA has suceeded in almost everything it has ever done, and Shuttle's true purpose - keep engineers employed at any cost - has been perhaps even more sucessful then Apollo...

We have been told that so many times it like a mantra

Shuttle bad, cev good... Shuttle bad , cev good.

Owell called that group think I beleive.

Both programs should continue.

Shuttle either manned or unmanned for heavy lift.

CEV for rapid and cheap crew transfers, and modulality for future missions.

Again this is the same thinking that caused us not to try to salvage skylab and scuttle the entire lunar program.

Space good ... Politicians stupid ... Space good ... Politicians stupid.

#5 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-08 12:10:41

wgc

Actually the CEV is a step back in the direction of Apollo, if Apollo hadn't be a money-no-object rush job to beath the Communists at all cost... The original idea to get to the Moon was to launch a lander, TLI stage, associated fuel, and then finally the manned Apollo on the Delta-IV Medium sized Saturn 1B. This would have taken too long though, and there is no way they could have met Kennedy's 1969 deadline, so a faster method was decided on... and we got the horrificly expensive but powerful Saturn-V.

I think that the CEV program combined with a new Lunar lander and updated EELV rockets can get us back to the Moon with the budget that Nasa has, give or take a billion, if we didn't have Shuttle and ISS weighing us down to the tune of $8 billion a year. An Apollo-scale Lunar mission can be accomplished with only four flights of modified Delta-IV (Lithium tanks, regenerative RS-68 mod, RL-60 upper w/ modified Centaur, and quad-pack of standard SRMs). Thats only about one billion per mission worth of rockets not counting modification money.

The CEV is going to be a capsule, able to operate for 2-3 weeks, and able to reenter the atmosphere at Lunar transfer orbit velocities. It is a modernized Apollo capsule really, and is just what we need.

It would still be our only means into space, shortsighted no matter how you look at it.

And not to change the subject, Kerry would go along with ISS completion and shuttle upgrades thats it.

If the international factor with the ISS wasn't their he'd probably take that money and give it to some potato farmer in Iowa.

#6 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-08 09:49:32

wgc

I don't think you realize how big a move it was to declare that Shuttle just had to go and the implicit requirement we go back to expendable boosters...

Before Columbia, NASA was talking Shuttle upgrades that would have kept the Golden Goose flying until 2025, maybe longer, to the ISS. Twenty more years! Twenty years of spending every dime NASA has for manned spaceflight on going in circles and trying desperatly to have somthing to show for it at the cost of $80-100 billion dollars on Shuttle flights, and another few tens of billions on ISS support.

And then what? NASA would build Shuttle-II, or try to with money that it doesn't have, so we can keep going in circles... Telling NASA "NO MORE!" has done much more for manned spaceflight then you realize, as NASA seems to have been bent on flying Shuttle or somthing like it forever, maintaining the status quo indefinatly.

This sounds too much like what we did after apollo.

We had a moon program and we scuttled it.

We had a space station , skylab, rather than building on that technology we scuttled it.

We should be building incrementally, taking the shuttle hardware and repurposing it. Instead we are once again moving towards a single route to space, the cev.

The only glimmer of light here is the private space effort..

Now if Kerry gets into office... Ball game over. He'd like to use the money earmarked for space somewhere else.

Maybe he thinks we are referring to the space between his ears. Since there is so much of it.

I hear the flameing already.
enjoy...

#7 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now) » 2004-10-08 06:23:32

wgc

Great news for all you Bush backers! Nasa has been approved for 200 million more than Bush requested!!

Now there is no good reason to vote for Bush! Yay!

Kerry openly opposes the program.

I wasn't going to take a position on the outcome but here it is, try not to flame me to much.

enjoy  smile

http://sol3.typepad.com]A vote for Kerry is a vote against Space?

#8 Re: Human missions » Using Europa To Terraform Mars - wacky science or real possibility? » 2004-09-27 05:24:58

wgc

deagleninja,

Brilliant idea.
This is the best idea I've seen for teraforming mars in ages.

Everything other than the frozen fish popsicle sound great smile

This is a bad idea, one of the worst I've heard. Europa is one of the places in the solar system which MIGHT harbor life.

The ecological damage caused by such a project would be unacceptable . I think any serious discussion of this would raise red flags in the science community. Fortunately we are no near having the technology to do this.

#9 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-09-07 19:36:20

wgc

Cobra- my return serve is coming, I'm just short on time right now.

wgc- I don't claim to know everything and neither does Michael Moore to the best of my knowledge. I'm sorry my opinions make you sick, but they do say 'the truth hurts'.  big_smile

What gets me about people that hate Michael Moore and his movie is that so few have actually seen it. How can you hate something that you have no knowledge about? The answer is that unlike Cobra, who is at least willing to watch it once, you are afraid. You are set in your ways and refuse to be persuaded. That is your choice, and I do respect it. However, please don't expect people to consider your opinions on subjects of which you have no knowledge.

What can I say? Is Bush the antichrist? Hitler? No. He's more like the last ceaser in Rome. He is ignorant of what goes on around him. His father knows it, and most of America knows it. It is dangerous to have leaders so weak, because they are easily manipulated. His father has tried to assist him by giving him most of his former staff, but I feel they have their own agendas in mind and not the peoples.

Kerry might possibly give NASA the axe, but so what? Does anyone really believe that NASA is capable of greatness these days? What is more important is that the country and its people are taken care of. We can not afford to be the 'world's police force' as yet another Republican administration has shown. We need to modernize this nation's infrastructure before we lose our status as a superpower. This, not terrorism, should be the focus of the nation.

Please don't let fear rule your reason wgc. This administration wants Americans to be afraid, it helps them rule and keeps the population distracted from more important issues. You are too smart to be manipulated this way. Remember, it's all smoke and mirrors....

Why do you assume I haven't seem farienhiet 911 or Moore's other films just because I haven't been turned by them.
I'm form Michigan , after all. I find his films amusing but I take them with a grain of salt.

Before I vote for any candidate I look at their record, I voted for Clinton, I would of done that even if I had some foresight into the whole Monica Lewinsky affair, If I time traveler appeared from a wormhole and brought me a dvd of the whole "I did not have sex with that women" testimony.. I would of still voted for Clinton.

Since this is a space advocacy forum, and thats what I am , not just pay lip service too, it would be very detrimental to me if Kerry axed Nasa. Your right about one thing we need to decide if we want to be the world's police men, that goes with being a superpower... But if the answer is the negative .. well were is a good asteroid when you need it.

#10 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-09-07 17:06:34

wgc

You are correct SpaceNut, they aren't making their weapons. Almost all of the weapons that terrorist use are old US or Russian weapons. This is the problem with suppling short-lived allies with weapons to fight our at-the-moment enemys (thank you Reagan and Ollie).

Winning the war on 'terror' is actually quite simple. It's a radical policy change that will prove difficult. We, as Americans, need to stop looking down on these people. Calling them fanatics and evil does nothing but recruit more terrorists. These aren't video game pixels, they are people. Human beings that dream of a better life for their children just as we do.

When we bomb cities with innocent people living their lives, it creates terrorists. What is a terrorist? This is a great question that I haven't heard asked nor answered by our media. A terrorist is a man or woman who desires change yet has no voice in their government or others. They are typically limited to small arms fire and are often incapable of reaching their intended targets so they lash out at the people of their target in the hopes that people like you and I will ask, why are they so mad?

Now before some of you get irrate at my definition and retort that they are 'cold-blooded heartless godless killers', know that I am not approving of their tactics. I am simply trying to get you to understand that these people are very very anger and feel powerless.

Some of that feeling of helplessness comes from their own countries that don't recognize their point of view, but a lot of it also comes from US policy. We have no right, no right at all, telling these people how they should run their countries and who they should worship. Granted, we don't come out and say be Christian, but too many of us think it, and we do tell them to be democracys (capitalist).

'So Democrats are bad for the economy, is what you're saying.    Doom and gloom...  '

Now that isn't fair Cobra. Bush started saying the economy is in trouble when he took office. He's had three years to do something about it, and hasn't. Now that it is election time, is Kerry supposed to say that the economy is fantastic?

'Except when it's good. War can be the greatest economic motivator there is.'

If your country is stagnant like we were after the Great Depression, then yes I agree. So is Bush's plan to enter another Great Depression so he can get the other two in his axis-of-evil?  big_smile

'I'll assume you're referring to the tax cuts, which are not "trickle down" but across the board cuts. But when you cut all brackets in a progressive tax scheme then -gasp!- rich people get more money. But everyone who pays income taxes gets a percentage reduction. This does help the economy.'

73 percent of Americans say they were unaffected by Bush's tax cuts, doesn't sound across the board to me. Truth is, the wealthiest Americans pay the most tax. They also pay a higher percentage of tax than Joe Blow. So when you cut taxes for the rich (ie capital-gains, dividends) you are left with two choices, tax the poor harder and/or rack up deficits.

'You've actually got something with this one. If only there were a candidate who would actually balance the budget without doing other economy-killing actions at the same time.'

Ah, if only Clinton could have had a third term. Btw, anyone remember our projected surpluses in the last years of Clinton? Whatever happened to those? Oh yea, tax cuts.......yay? Bush should have listened to Greenspan who was against those tax cuts.

'Damn Democrat social spending.'

Yep, it's all those greedy money lovin single moms and their free EBT milk!!! How can we afford to wage a respectable war in Iraq and Afghanistan when they keep drinking all that milk!!  :angry:

'And we're decadent infidels. And let's also not forget that we're dealing with a culture that likes to think of itself as superior to others yet hasn't accomplished anything of note in a thousand years'

Good point! In just under 300 years we've managed to enslave thousands of Africans, commit genocide against the natives of this great country, round up hundreds of Jap-Americans into concentration camps, and drop two atomic bombs on two different Japanesse cities! Why just this year alone we've killed over 200,000 people in Iraq!  ???

'A family member went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 when it was first released and was telling me about it. I was invited to go along back then, but couldn't bring myself to give money to a war profiteering propagandist, but at any rate, the praise of it wasn't just the film itself, but the audience. "They were all Democrats" I was told excitedly, "everyone laughed and cheered at the same times" on and on. Apparently it was quite a wonderful experience.

Sounded a bit like a Nazi rally to me. Largely the same mindset in both cases as well.'

I noticed the same phenomenon when I went to see it. I think the release of pent up feelings after months of being silenced is why people leave the theater feeling so good. When Bush started leading this country into another war with Iraq, I was horrified. Surely, I thought to myself, no one is going to believe that Saddam is somehow linked to 9/11 and has been busy building WMD right under UN inspector's noses. But then it happened........and the great silencing came to pass. Honest, inquisitive questions were now considered treasonous and I began to be attacked by people saying that 'We must stand united for the safety of our troops'.

I always thought that they were supposed to be fighting for our freedom of speech. You can imagine my shock when I learned that questioning weither we should be diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq could somehow cost a life half-way around the globe!

I urge anyone who loves this country as much as I do, to see Michael Moore's movie about 9/11. I was skeptical at first, and even afterwards. Somewhere in the back of my mind I kept thinking 'this can't be real, why didn't I hear/see this on the news?'. However, the facts are real, unfortunately.

Bush knew about the first tower being hit before he went into a second grade classroom. He sat there in the classroom for over 7 minutes listening to the teacher read 'My Pet Goat' after being told that the second tower had been struck by another plane.

If you don't want to give Michael Moore any money, fine, rent it, Moore gets not a cent if you rent it, only the video store. But please, keep an open mind and watch it and do your country a favor and vote for Kerry. I don't hate Republicans and I don't love Kerry, but he cannot be as bad as Bush.

I wouldn't put any money on that? Wonder what Kerry would of done.

People like you and Moore who think they know everything really make me sick.

Truth is there was a lot of misinformation floating around that , everyone including a few of our leaders , many democrats were in panic. After all nothing like this had happened before... or at least in a long time ... it was pearl harbor all over again. Someone did have the insight however to ground all air travel.. and put up combat air patrols...

Its already been shown intellegence was pretty bad... leaders are only as good as the intellegence available.

This is not a new happening, The Kennedy administration and later Regan overcounted the nuclear capablilites of the Soviet Union.. . It wasn't untill the keyhole satellites became available that the true strength of the russian nuclear force was known, and by than it was too late the cold war was well underway and the generals on both side were niether going to admit they were wrong or that it was a bad thing.

The Moore movie is nothing more than a political add for Kerry... Thats my opinion.. I voted for Clinton but there is no way I'm going to vote for Kerry.

I vote for a candidate based on their record not how well they can bash a president over a national crisis.. We really should of raked Rosevelt over for Pearl Harbor.. Especially when there is no evidence to show the other person would be any more effective. "We will only go to war when we have too", What does that mean, only when its a direct threat to the United States , is a threat against Nato considered in the only "When we have too" You never show your cards to the enemy.... Maybe Reagan would of done better in Salt if he would of went into the talks with that attitude...

I've spent a lot of time researching Kerry, he has a dim Congressional record.. Sure he desearved credit for serving in Vietnam then became a vocal critic of the war... The poor souls like my Father who also served  didn't come back to a heros welcome they came back to cries of "Baby Killers" and the like. Are we all forgetting Clinton effectly got out of serving , did that make him any less a president.

I'm a strong supporter of our space program so it bothers me when Kerry visits KSC and doesn't mention one word about our space program. Again his record shows how much he supported the record. Oh but maybe his policy is
"I will only support the space effort when I have too". Go ahead and vote for Kerry its a free country but if he should get into office don't cry in this forum when he cuts support for the program because there won't be any sympathy. :angry:

#11 Re: Human missions » hurricanes, should we have kept sl6 » 2004-09-07 09:46:05

wgc

Effects of hurricane could delay space shuttle launch

Vehicles secure; launch facilities are less certain
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/h … ...LES.htm

Hurricane spares shuttles, but ...
Facility damage could expose them to real danger if a new storm hits
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … ce/2781561

VL6 didn't have a massive VAB building so I presume that the building isn't required for shuttle stacking, as long as the equipment contained within isn't damaged.

I believe the story said that they might be able to avoid delays if they use the palmdale tile facility.

Still this is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket, what happens when something happens to the basket. This applies equally well to the spacecoast or planet earth for that matter.

Some of these assets ideally need to be moved off-planet.

#12 Re: Human missions » hurricanes, should we have kept sl6 » 2004-09-07 07:52:10

wgc

I see we are going far into space with that attitude , I hope that is not a general space community feeling, or gonz the gorilla will get to mars before the human race will.

Especially if we pause for 2 years every time we lose a vehicle.
Hopefully the gorilla leaders  will have more brains.....

I don't mean to be so negative, but the US has beared most of the costs for the ISS, I don't think its unreasonable for the other partners to contribute more to the effort than they have.
That may seem like a very nationalistic opinion , but I don't like the position this country put ourselves into

#13 Re: Human missions » hurricanes, should we have kept sl6 » 2004-09-07 07:18:00

wgc

Actually there should be more than one, backup facility, what about using other global partners and using their launch facilities or upgrading them to use the same launch vehicles.

I think our global partners have already shown what kind of partners they are.
I can see it now, we pour billions of dollars into building a launch facility for them,  a hurricane disrupts our Florida launch facility for an indefinate amount of time and our "global Partners" lock us out unless we pay them some exorbinate price. re: Russia and ISS.

I'd rather put the money into a US facility.

#14 Re: Human missions » hurricanes, should we have kept sl6 » 2004-09-07 06:51:55

wgc

All the talk over the last few days of a direct hit by a hurricane haveing the potential to shutdown the US space program makes me think that someone should reconsider the idea of a backup westcoast launch facility.

The airforce built the shuttle launch complex at vandenburg AF (sl6) than abandoned it after the challenger disaster.

#15 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-09-06 22:20:37

wgc

. We need a president who will wage costly wars only when needed. We need a leader who sees national greatness in programs besides military muscle flexing.

I'm still not sure what he means by this one, maybe you can explain it in 1000 words or less.

Should we have gotten into WW II earlier just because Hitler was exterminating 6 million Jews.

#16 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-09-06 21:52:07

wgc

I started this particular thread and I'm sorry I did, after reading all 269  posts its clear that we need a SETI program to find intellegence life on this planet and in this forum.

What troubles me is that we came pretty close to losing most of our only space filight capability from a hurricane, and little in my opinion was done to protect those assests. At the very least two of the shuttles not in the immediate return to flight schedule should of been moved to edwards temperarly for instance.

Lets stay focused on the issues here, neither of these candidates are very good.  ???

#17 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-20 06:21:58

wgc

Unfortunately, we cannot afford to fly Air Bush....

Dreams are great, inspiration is something badly needed in modern America, but basics must come first.

The problem with presidents like Bush is that he does have a plan for America, but not Americans. We have been negleting our domestic needs for far too long. I know that many will disagree, but I believe that Republican presidents wage as much war as they do to distract the American public from more important issues.

Ask yourself what issues will be important to everyday citizens twenty years down the road. Will the war in Iraq really be seen as an important event in our day to day lives that far into the future? The answer is no (unless a new generation of terrorists are attacking us).

A war against terrorism cannot be won with conventional weaponry. The ranks of terrorists are swelling (as I correctly predicted) due to the behavior and tactics of our government and soilders.

Had we assasinated/captured Saddam and then brought humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, this war would long ago have ended.

Kerry wants to invest in America. This is why he is getting my vote regardless of his position on space exploration. By improving OUR country our private space industries have the best chance of opening up the new frontier for people like you and I.

If turning the country into a wellfare state is your idea of investing go for it.

What this country needs is more investment in R & D, more engineers than lawyers.

I just don't see it in Kerry's policies, I don't see it in Bush's either but I don't see the retreat in certain areas like I do in Kerry's.

For one thing, no investment in new nuclear plants under Kerry. What kind of energy is going to be needed to meets this countries needs in the next 300 years. It sure isn't going to come from fossil fuel. There's more energy output in one supernova explosion that all the power produced in the last millenum.

Back to the clinton policies on space, which means earth orbit . Delayed work on the CEV, which means we keep flying shuttles maybe until we lose all of them.

Every Kerry person I meet has no clue what he will do just that he must be better than Bush.

#18 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-18 09:37:40

wgc

Deagleninja, c'mon now. You're too smart to be ranting like a Party hack. Let's step back.

Bush has made mistakes. Bush didn't steal the election. Bush is spending too much money. Bush hasn't done a whole hell of a lot to further the space program, though backing a vague shift toward a coherent policy is huge, relatively speaking.  :hm: The Iraq war wasn't vitally necessary in that Iraq was not poised to invade us or smite us into utter ruin, it could have been put off. Of course, based on the same reasoning... well, better not to follow that tangent just yet.

Now Kerry. He hasn't said much on space either way. His record is clearly against it. His stand on the war is murky, he voted to authorize it but not to fund it, he has said we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, but also that he would have done the same.  :hm: He has made it clear that he will raise our taxes though to pay for... whatever he decides to do.

Bush appears stronger on defense by his record, has no real substance on space, and is spending too much money on military ops and useless social programs. Medicare prescription drug benefit for example, just watch the pricetag on that explode.

Kerry appears weak on defense by his record, has a history of opposition to the space program, has been known to vote for military and intelligence cuts but has a history of backing increases in social spending as well as taxes. We can conclude that he too would spend too much money, just in somewhat different areas.

We got ourselves a couple of turds, folks. If anyone is actually going to vote based on the space program, Bush is the narrow winner. On other issues, that's a matter of individual belief. In neither case should we allow the drivel-spouting hacks of the Party propaganda machines to determine those beliefs.

Well, back to passing out copies of the 9/11 report outside the local theater.  big_smile

One point everyone is missing.

Under Kerry the CEV will be delayed (notice I didn't say canceled) , but he will be committed to keeping the iss.

That means more payments to the russians (can't go on forever) or more likely the shuttle will be pushed beyond 2010.

Which could mean another Shuttle accident.. and I'm sure the congress will blame that on "lack of vision and goals by Nasa", just how long can you beat that horse.

I am getting tired of preaching this, here's whats need to be done, so far no president has committed to anything like this.

1) Space activities need to be made a cabinet position
2) Our space efforts should not compete against Venterns and the poor, funding it from that part of the budget is sstupidity.
3) space funding should be mutiyear, not subject to annual permutations.
4) Funding for space should come from multiple agencies in the government.
Perhaps satellite launches and aeoroautics should be part of the department of tranportation.

#19 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-18 09:24:29

wgc

wgc-I didn't need Michael Moore's movie to tell me that this is the worst president ever to steal the office. The facts speak for themselves. We will be paying for Bush's policys during Kerry's term much as we paid for 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s during Clinton's.

Bush hasn't done anything for our space program. Opps, I nearly forgot, he did make a speach at the beginning of this year.

If you think four more years of record deficits and deceptions are going to get us to the Moon or Mars, then I have some beachfront property you might be intrested in at low tide.

The surest way we will ever get back to the Moon or go on to Mars is to quit wasting the governments money by fighting needless wars. Kerry has promised this.

Sure lets pull half our troops out now (Kerry) so the rest can be sitting ducks.

Clinton did absolutely nothing for the space effort.

Historians will tell you it was the Reagan buildup that largely led to the end of the soviet empire.

The timimg of Michael Moore's movie was perfect, Lets see it for what it is one big negative political add .

Kerry visited nasa and didn't even mention a word about the space program.

If you stop talking politics I will too, I'm getting tired of this.

#20 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-17 18:18:21

wgc

Well as much as I favor a renewed manned space exploration effort, I can't vote for a president that is ruining his country to make a few extra dollars for his buddies.

My vote cannot be bought, sorry Mr Bush. You should have done more than vacation before 9/11 and settle your daddy's grudges after 9/11.

And maybe you should get your political research from somewhere other than a cutrate movie!

#21 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-17 12:34:51

wgc

I don't think so...

(Ok, I'm European, so I'd better shut up anyway, but...)

When he voted to scrap ISS, a lot of people were against it because of the cost-spiralling, and even now a majority is screaming to scrap it, regardless politics.
And he is in the opposition, so like it or not, peeps in oppositions *always* vote against virtually anything the peeps in power are doing, so that doesn't mean a lot.

Kerry won't dare to scrap manned spaceflight, too much people working there, it'd be an economic disaster. And he says he's for more science and education, not less, so: won't happen.

Ok, he's not a visionary, far from, but President Bush's new program is a bit vague, too... And as you pointed out, Bush gets advice from a commission, and that commission was Reps and Dems together, they agreed after the hearings (post Colombia) there had to be some change. So Bush listened, bless him.

Kerry will be advised by samey commission when/if president, so his plans will be similar, if he doesn't want a Senate 200% against him.

Neither Bush, Kerry, even JFK (who said so repeatedly, in private discussions) give a d*amn about manned spaceflight, in reality, but it's mighty good PR, and a science driver, so worth keeping.

I only go by what the record shows, and although I have no love for some of Bush's policies.. from what little I could find on Kerry's I don't like what I read.

1) Kerry tends to be a micromanager , so I wouldn't count on him taking recommendations from committies.

2) Kerry is steadfast against anything nuclear, so don't expect nuclear powered ion engines, don't expect any great advances in high energy physics , anti-matter triggered fusion for instance.

3) John Edwards is strongly for the induce act, which is another area the government waists too much of our money on. Propping up hollywood and the entertainment industry.

The only science that Kerry is concerned about is medical research.

Please prove me wrong!!!!

#22 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2004-08-17 10:40:38

wgc

In addition to the much over-hyped nature of the Chinese space program (so far all they've done is copy Soyuz) China has two major problems looming on the horizon. First, their industry is not as independent as many people tend to think. For example, the "booming" Chinese steel industry depends in large part on imported ore due to the substandard quality of the ore mined in China. They are just as locked into the rest of the world's problems as we are. Then they have a growing demand for oil that will begin putting pressure on them.

But of greater significance is the demographic bomb the Chinese have made for themselves. All those population control measures that drove families to favor sons over daughters is going to result in a large population of lonely, frustrated Chinamen in short order. So if you're governing an authoritarian country facing industry grinding to a halt through lack of resources and a huge population of aggressive malcontents what do you do? Collapse... or war. Channel that energy and grab some goodies while you're at it.

The Chinese are going to have bigger things than their space program to worry about in the coming decades, as will we.

I heard this discussion before, back in the 1970's. The talk was that Japan was going to be the dominent superpower of the 21th century.

Predictions are often wrong.

I'm going to make some  wild predictions of my own. 

Prediction 1: Within  25 years the US maybe with cooperation with the ESA will be on both the moon and mars.

Prediction 2: The technology we will use to get there hasn't been invented yet. And it won't be chemical. Antimatter triggered nuclear systems are one possible candidate but not the only.

Prediction 3: China will still be a minor space fariing nation. The major players will be ESA, USA and Russia. The US and Europe might combine there effort.

#23 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-17 10:13:11

wgc

Although Kerry seems lukewarm about space exploration, is this better?......

Bush's position on space exploration-
"Space............cool"

But Bush never pretended to know anything about space, he is following recommendations from a congressional commission.
Kerry on the other hand voted against just about every major space proposal.
In each case he stated that we should work on the problems at home rather than explore space.

The only reason he now supports the international space station is because of all the international entanglements.

Perhaps if there's enough momentum before he takes office we can still salvage something. Especially if the funding gets approved. Good chance with a veto threat looming.

Again bottom line, anyone in this forum is going to have a hard time to justify voting for Kerry and still saying they strongly support a renewed space effort.

#24 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-16 15:48:27

wgc

Further, What really bothers me about Kerry is his lack of vision in anything to do with technology, the one exception being biomedical tech..
His energy policy leaves us still dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, he seems to be totally against anything nuclear. Project prometheus may have a tough time surviving his administration.

I don't really think that that is accurate.  He isn't very interested in space, but he seems to think that technology is very important, especially for energy sources that do not use fossil fuels.  For Kerry, reducing our dependence on Fossil fuels is an economic issue, an environmental issue, and a national security issue.  In fact, at his speech that I went to, I heard him compare the search for alternative energy sources to the Manhattan Project in terms of importance.  He also stressed the need to for our universities to produce more scientists and engineers, and he proposed some economic incentives to encourage more students to study those subjects.

As for project Prometheus, it seems as though it might be cancelled right now by the Republican congress.  How unfortunate it will be if that happens.

I'm not going to hold it against anyone if they vote for Kerry. However I think his record speaks for his position on space.

The only energy source that Kerry warms up to is natual gas and coal. Not what I would call viable solutions for very long. and dispite what Kerry says are not renewable energy sources.

As to Prometheous, it will continue at a slower pace, unless MR. anti nuke Kerry cancels it.

I stand by what I say Kerry is as anti technology as they come.

#25 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-08-16 09:54:14

wgc

I see a lot of critism of Kerry because his plans lack bold plans for 'high technology' including space exploration. Unfortunately, if he does start announing bold spending programs for NASA then Republicans will again toss the myth of 'big spending Democrats' out there again.
Historically, it has been Republicans that have over spent the budget. Due to this most recent president, Kerry will have to be finacially responcible in much the same way Clinton was to make up for the over-spending of Bush Sr.
Weither Kerry increases spending for NASA or not isn't really important in the long run. What is needed is a President who will make education a higher priority than it has been. Only when we start turning out better educated Americans will we see public support of NASA and space exploration in general increase.

Pretty easy to balance a budget when you don't spend money...
What was Clinton' s R&D budget, did we accomplish anything great in terms of advanced physics, are we energy independent.

Bush Sr, has a lot to be critisized, but I don't see were Mr Cinton did anything great for the space effort.

And THIS IS a forum discussing the space program. Not the war , not the econmony but the space effort. And Clinton failed in that area.

Further, What really bothers me about Kerry is his lack of vision in anything to do with technology, the one exception being biomedical tech..
His energy policy leaves us still dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, he seems to be totally against anything nuclear. Project prometheus may have a tough time surviving his administration.
Look at the hubble pictures, quasars, supernovas etc. massive power outputs, thats the energy levels we need to strive for if we ever hope to be a type 1 , 2 or 3 civilization.
And that requires investment in High energy physics, something that is nowhere in JK's vision.
I like to compare our society to a fishing village on a little pacific alto, the villagers have no care whatsoever whats happening in the vast ocean beyond the reach of there little fishing fleet. Than the Tsunami comes and only then do those events become of paramount importance.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB