New Mars Forums

Bill Eoff also proposed similar HLLVs before leaving Marshall in disgust. One of my contacts in Boeing, has expressed to me in personal communication that he finds Heavy-Lift superior to EELV, but that pressure from above has kept him quiet.

There has been some scuttlebutt that even the heads of NASA centers at Johnson and Marshall have it in for any shuttle-derived HLLV, despite the fact that a CEV may experience as much as 23-27g loads upon the Delta IV, according to one of my engineer-contacts.

"Michael Griffin, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration from 1991-1993, says the most logical approach, all things considered, is to spend the $3 billion or $4 billion it would cost to build a shuttle-derived heavy lifter and forget about EELV-driven approaches. Griffin also said that ... he takes a 'dim view' of approaches that would rely on orbital staging and assembly operations," and how he doesn't "'think EELV is a competitive option...'"

Sadly, I fear his voice will be drowned out by the 'space libertarians' who drive to Washington on public highways to tell us how we don't need NASA and how wonderful Rutan's little plaything is, giving the Proxmire types all the excuse they need to savage future NASA budgets now in grave doubt.

However, to use this as some kind of justification for his "elective war" statement, Cole stretches credulity well beyond breaking point. I think it's an emotionally-charged and transparently specious argument on his part, which most thinking people, I suspect, will have quite rightly dismissed out of hand.]
                                                 

*Good points, Shaun.  Actually, and unfortunately, I think a lot more people -do- buy into pat and absolute pronouncements of that sort.

But then most of the Talking Heads are probably megalomaniacs to begin with. 

--Cindy

What is actually at issue here is the choice between two U.S. imperial strategies: a hegemony geared primarily to promoting neoliberal globalization on terms particularly favorable to the United States, and an alternative hegemony that steers toward the establishment of a more formal U.S. empire. These two paths represent alternative strategies that an imperial ruling class may choose between, but in many respects they may also be complementary.

*It's already happening, Bill.  It's okay to protest and speak one's mind in opposition, but a lot of this seems like demands for unscrambling eggs.  ???

We're there, we've been there for well over a year now.  Can't undo any of it.

This is why I feel a lot of political discussion is basically -- in the long-run, essentially pointless (though yes, it can be interesting and even gratifying). 

It's like being a tiny twig trying to stop a flood in the Mississippi River...good luck.  :-\

--Cindy

One of the reasons that the Neoconservatives are wrong that unilateral war can be used for good, for spreading democracy, is that war brings out the worst in human beings, making some of them sadists and racists. Sometimes it is necessary to fight a war to defend oneself. An elective war is always a mistake. It twists one's own society, and someone else's as well.

Can a congressional subcommittee overrule the White House's order to forget about a servicing mission?

Our space settlement views are largely consistent, if I recall correctly.

I think I have a somewhat more blatant disregard for existing treaties and the consequences of shredding them, but other than that...

I continue to believe Bill and Cobra as equal pro-consul, each with veto power over the other, would do a damn fine job of running America.

*That'd be interesting.

Considering how some (a lot, most?) of your viewpoints are diametrically opposed...(no offense to anyone). 

Will withhold other comments, other than to say I know who'd get -my- vote.

--Cindy

The personal history form thus did not contain so much as one statement of fact about Anastaplo's past life or conduct that could have, in any way, cast doubt upon his fitness for admission to the Bar. It did, however, contain [366 U.S. 82, 99]   a statement of opinion which, in the minds of some of the members of the Committee at least, did cast such doubt and in that way served to touch off this controversy. This was a statement made by Anastaplo in response to the command of the personal history form: "State what you consider to be the principles underlying (a) the Constitution of the United States." Anastaplo's response to that command was as follows:

"One principle consists of the doctrine of the separation of powers; thus, among the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are distributed various functions and powers in a manner designed to provide for a balance of power, thereby intending to prevent totally unrestrained action by any one branch of government. Another basic principle (and the most important) is that such government is constituted so as to secure certain inalienable rights, those rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and elements of these rights are explicitly set forth in such parts of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.). And, of course, whenever the particular government in power becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and thereupon to establish a new government. This is how I view the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied.)

Anastaplo, incidentally, was not a communist. He was not a card-carrying member of anything, not even the public library. "I'm not much of a joiner," he says.

"It was perfectly obvious George was much too independent a mind and character to be affiliated with any party, and certainly not one as doctrinaire as the Communist Party," says Mikva.

al Qaeda does create new problems in the context of the Geneva Convention versus the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Problems we are plenty powerful enough to address in an open and transparent manner.

Indeed they do create new problems. One could argue that they are civilians with the same rights as American citizens, but it could also be argued with equal justification that as non-uniformed combatants they are essentially the same as spies or saboteurs and can be executed on site if need be.

At present they're in legal limbo and I'll agree that we have some details to work out in as transparent a manner as possible.