Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-22 14:56:31

Bush may not be the great white hope of space exploration, but if what you say is true (and I suspect it is) Kerry is the reaper.
*The cost of the Iraqi war was underestimated by $30 billion dollars. Recently $25 billion was shelled out on an emergency basis for continued support of the war. That won't be the end of it.
It's Bush who is driving the nails into the coffin of American space exploration. But I guess The Golden Boy is above taking any blame. (The economy is still in the toilet...oh well, blame Clinton!).
And no, I'm not a Kerry supporter. But I won't vote for Bush.
--Cindy

Economy in the toilet? I'd say that is far from being accurate, manufacturing orders are up, especially in the north east, we still have negligible inflation, especially if you don't look at gas prices and last quarter was a record for new small businesses. When it comes down to it most people vote their pocketbooks and if the economy is doing well come the fall I think that essentially seals the deal. I know I for one have been very pleased with my portfolio the last three quarters.

I'm not saying I am any fan of Bush, I most certainly am not; on the domestic agenda he has been rather bad! He signed a massive new social entitlement program in the form of prescription drugs (Republicans...party of small government?) He banned the expansion of stem cell research and his tax cuts didn't touch business or capital gains taxes which need to be cut in the worst possible way, although I suppose he should be applauded for sticking to his guns and making sure that all brackets got a rate cut. Not to mention the horrible blunder that is the patriot act.

I feel like I am without a party because it doesn't seem like the Republicans are standing up for the Lochean/Jeffersonian values of small government and laise faire economics they used to. That being said I still think Bush is by far the lesser of two evils for the following reasons.

A.) He has come out in support of leaving LEO. Even if support has been weak, it has been better then nothing, and there is work being done behind the scenes in the house to make sure NASA gets its full budget request when they consolidate the house and Senate versions of the budget.

B.) Bush has started initives to strengthen the military and heal the wounds made by short sighted cuts during the 90s especially in the area of development and procurement. To name a few issues, the Navy has been forced to retire ships twice as fast as it can replace them in a period of increasing demand. There is program now to change the way the Navy buys ships so that Electric Boat and others will be able to speed production of the new Virginia class Attack sub and the DD(X) so that the fleet will cease shrinking by FY06 and grow back to optimal size by FY08. Also he has set the much needed precedent for space control by leaving the ABM treaty. I can go into more on this subject but that's all I can say in a white world capacity.

C.) His foreign policy. He has stood up for American sovereignty in the socialist joke that is the UN. Many times in instances as minor as having our ambassador walk out of the 'Conference for the Control of Civilian Small Arms' to his actions in Iraq. WMDs or not a democratic Iraq will change the face of the region and most importantly be a model and an antagonist for the civil unrest brewing in Iran, so that a Democracy can be established there without a shot being fired. Also it demonstrates to North Korea that we aren't afraid to pull the trigger. Kerry has made it very clear that when it comes to the use of the military he would be far to gun shy.

D.) Kerry has said repeatedly that he would raise taxes. Not a smart thing to do in a growing economy. Fix that tax rate, and once the war in Iraq is over in two or three years the growth that will have been spurred will have out paced the debt and we will be in surpluses again by FY2008 or FY2009.

All these are ancillary issues in my mind to the main issue in this election. Kerry would destroy NASA and the National Lab systems as well as the current military R and D structure. The national labs have to be given carte blanche so that they can keep our country on the bleeding edge of technology. Our technological supremacy is what gives us our military and economic strength. NASA is essentially in the same boat, except and even longer term investment towards our future off world. Both organizations would be ravaged by budget cuts and restrictions by a hypothetical the Kerry administration. Point and case you can kiss any new nuclear power programs, either on the ground or in space bye-bye once you have a president bought and paid for by radical environmentalist. His administration would also be less receptive to utilizing the new burgeoning space start-ups.

/soap box off/ lol

Wouldn't it be nice if space was not an issue that incited politics?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-22 14:56:38

So you're assuming that Kerry will win, I take it?
After the "non-cognitive majority" comment.

No, that's not a non-cognative remark.

No, I just thought it was funny that you'd predict Kerry would get elected after referring to the "non-cognitive majority," the implication being that the unthinking masses were going to propel Kerry to victory, thereby... well, you get the idea...

Cobra, please don't make me tell you again why Bush doesn't deserve to be in the White House anymore and why we can reasonably assume that Kerry won't be worse than him. It's getting kinda redundat.

We both know we aren't going to change each others minds on this. We just have a different approach and different philosphies. To me "he probably can't be any worse" doesn't constitute a reason to change administrations. <shrug>

Besides, why choose the lesser evil! Don't be so half-assed! :laugh: Cobra '04, because it's time for a change.*

* Specific details will be released after electoral victory. Any promises made in secret will be binding except when they're not. The only recount that matters is the one where we win, even if we don't. God bless America.

On the subject of the upcoming election, for a real good indicator start watching which halloween mask sells the most, that's the winner. Never been wrong yet.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-22 22:46:13

We both know we aren't going to change each others minds on this. We just have a different approach and different philosphies. To me "he probably can't be any worse" doesn't constitute a reason to change administrations. <shrug>
Besides, why choose the lesser evil! Don't be so half-assed! :laugh: Cobra '04, because it's time for a change.*

Yeah, that first paragraph is certainly true. No real point in arguing over it anymore. However, I'll need some convincing to be swayed over from Cindy in the election.

A.) He has come out in support of leaving LEO. Even if support has been weak, it has been better then nothing, and there is work being done behind the scenes in the house to make sure NASA gets its full budget request when they consolidate the house and Senate versions of the budget.

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll support Bush's space policy after he makes real commitment to support it himself, or at least even brings the topic up again. Did you notice that he didn't even bother to mention the word "space" in this context during his state of the union address? I doubt that this Bush is any more of a NASA changer than the last one we had.

C.) His foreign policy. He has stood up for American sovereignty in the socialist joke that is the UN. Many times in instances as minor as having our ambassador walk out of the 'Conference for the Control of Civilian Small Arms' to his actions in Iraq. WMDs or not a democratic Iraq will change the face of the region and most importantly be a model and an antagonist for the civil unrest brewing in Iran, so that a Democracy can be established there without a shot being fired. Also it demonstrates to North Korea that we aren't afraid to pull the trigger. Kerry has made it very clear that when it comes to the use of the military he would be far to gun shy.

The UN is a socialist joke? Sorry, but the Soviet Union is gone. The only places that are still communist are Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and to some limited extent China. I might be leaving out something, but the UN isn't as corrupt as everyone makes it out to be. So his foreign policy of get everyone to hate the US is a good thing? Bush doesn't seem to have a care in the world about North Korea, and considering that he attacked virtually the only country in the area not recieving WMD material/data, it doesn't seem that he cares about attacking the right guys either.

D.) Kerry has said repeatedly that he would raise taxes. Not a smart thing to do in a growing economy. Fix that tax rate, and once the war in Iraq is over in two or three years the growth that will have been spurred will have out paced the debt and we will be in surpluses again by FY2008 or FY2009.

As much as I hate saying this, now really would be a good time to raise taxes. Yes, that will hurt the recovery going on right now, a little, but we simply can't afford to cut taxes with the national debt so outrageously out of control. Besides, practically all of Bush's tax cuts go to either the wealthiest 10% of the country or to households with many children, Dubya's fan base. On the whole, scaling back tax cuts to the Bill Gates/Ken Lay-type people won't hurt the recovery too much. The certainly won't help, but you have to make some sacrifices.

The main reasons Bush has been so increadibly bad, though, don't involve Iraq, the UN, any of that stuff IMHO. Look at what he's done to stem cell research. He, for all intents and purposes, eliminated stem cell research in the US, which could cure Parkinson's, ALS, heart Disease, cancer, etc. on the basis that it is unethical. Can someone explain this to me?

When you look at what he's done to environmental policies, it's just appaling. Please, I just can't fathom keeping this guy in office. But hey, that's just me.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-23 06:00:46

Did you notice that he didn't even bother to mention the word "space" in this context during his state of the union address? I doubt that this Bush is any more of a NASA changer than the last one we had.

As stated before, space just isn't that big an issue. Bigger fish...

Though we shouldn't forget that it was Congress that killed Bush 41's proposal.

The UN is a socialist joke? Sorry, but the Soviet Union is gone. The only places that are still communist are Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and to some limited extent China. I might be leaving out something, but the UN isn't as corrupt as everyone makes it out to be.

The UN is as corrupt as it's made out to be, if not more so. And many of its member states are socialist, as opposed to communist. Hell, a good case could be made that the United States is a socialist country. We certainly have a socialist Party. :;): The UN is a seething pit of anti-Americanism, corruption, leftist twaddle and increasingly, anti-semitism. Their indignant complaints aren't worth our concern. It's a beast of our creation, and I'm increasingly thinking that it might be time to put it down. It wouldn't take much. Cut the funding, if we stopping paying it'll wither. It's a malignant tumor on the United States that needs to be dealt with.

So his foreign policy of get everyone to hate the US is a good thing?

Here's the thing, countries don't make foreign policy decisions based on personal tiffs. These "allies" are acting as they are because they perceive it to be in their interests to do so, not because they don't like Bush. France and Germany were close allies for decades because the Soviet Union was hunkered down next door, it was in their interests to cozy up to us. Now the Russkis aren't so scary, so they're free to pursue other opportunities. They want the European Union to become a counterweight to the US, and they want to run it. Of course they aren't going to be falling over themselves to further our objectives.

Nations don't have friends, only temporary alliances forged out of mutual interest.

As much as I hate saying this, now really would be a good time to raise taxes. Yes, that will hurt the recovery going on right now, a little, but we simply can't afford to cut taxes with the national debt so outrageously out of control.

Or... we could cut spending...

Tax cuts don't cause debts, spending money causes debts. Using the national debt as a reason to raise taxes deliberately ignores the heart of the problem. We could cut taxes and pay off the debt if we really wanted to, but as mentioned earlier, we've gone a bit socialist. Congressmen need to start wearing pink ties or something.

He, for all intents and purposes, eliminated stem cell research in the US, which could cure Parkinson's, ALS, heart Disease, cancer, etc. on the basis that it is unethical. Can someone explain this to me?

The explanation is easy, the harvesting of stem cells requires the destruction of an embryo that could potentially become a human being. I don't agree with the decision or the reasoning, but Bush has some pro-life fundies in his base that push this. It's a bad call.

When you look at what he's done to environmental policies, it's just appaling. Please, I just can't fathom keeping this guy in office. But hey, that's just me.

Some of those environmental policies are themselves appalling. Junk pseudo-science mingled with the real thing. And the EPA has its share or zealots with goals other than merely protecting the enviroment.

Palomar · 2004-07-23 06:17:42

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … d=716]$100 billion (kiss Social Security goodbye, folks born after 1960!)

AND over 900 soldiers dead already.

--Cindy

P.S.: Does anyone here remember that we had a huge national SURPLU$ at the end of the Clinton administration? And a strong economy? Oh well.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-23 06:36:04

P.S.: Does anyone here remember that we had a huge national SURPLU$ at the end of the Clinton administration? And a strong economy? Oh well.

The economy now is actually better than at the end of the Clinton Administration and the surplus was always a projection based on constantly fluctuating factors. It never really existed except on paper.

Palomar · 2004-07-23 06:46:17

P.S.: Does anyone here remember that we had a huge national SURPLU$ at the end of the Clinton administration? And a strong economy? Oh well.
The economy now is actually better than at the end of the Clinton Administration

*Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...oh, I needed a rib tickler this morning! Hooooooo!

No, seriously.

*Proof?*

The booming economy of the late 1990s?

As for the surplus. Well, one thing's for certain: The cost of the Iraqi war is real.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-23 07:16:00

*Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...oh, I needed a rib tickler this morning! Hooooooo!
No, seriously.
*Proof?*
The booming economy of the late 1990s?

Yes, we we're going into recession when Clinton left office.

Here's a few links, just for the hell of it.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=36 … sp?ID=3691
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 0717.shtml
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/10/ … ...0.shtml

The death-drop of the stock market did not begin with the Bush administration in January 2001, says the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), but in March 2000 under the Clinton administration when it began its all-out attack on the entrepreneurs of the booming U.S. high-tech industry. Indeed, The Economist reports that this poisoning of the economic stream even may have begun in the late 1990s.

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=34 … px?ID=3405

Yeah, obvious righty bias.

The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comm … 260852.asp

Another righty source, but who else would dig this stuff up?

Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured:

lower inflation
lower unemployment
faster productivity growth
faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)
29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output
45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and
an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton

The chart on this one is particularly telling.

But it's all irrelevant! A President can do very little to directly impact the economy, at least in a positive sense. Bush has done everything a President can do to improve it. Cut taxes, push the Fed to move interest rates, and that's about it. It's nobody's fault, it's the result of economic cycles and market factors beyond Presidential control. The economy is a non-issue regarding Presidential elections, except to the degree that candidates will do those two real things that make a difference.

And Kerry wants to raise taxes... ???

Palomar · 2004-07-23 07:32:41

*Yes, I do recall that the economy was starting to go into recession about the time Clinton left office.

Cobra, thanks for providing the information. I later felt a bit bad challenging you to prove it (time consuming for you). So, sorry. :-\

Both "sides" give a different version of what is what...good grief. Who really knows what the heck is going on half the time.

Anyway, Bill O'Reilly stated a few months ago that if the economy didn't rather vastly improve by July, Bush doesn't have a good chance of winning the election.

So who knows. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Bush does get re-elected. There'd be one gratifying aspect to it: He'll have to continue sitting out the Iraq mess that he started. Yeah, I have a mean bone in me -- I'll enjoy his discomfort (I'm hoping, anyway, that he IS experiencing a bit of discomfort knowing other people's kids are being blown to bits by grenades and rocket launchers while his precious little princesses are still doing the post-graduate all-night party circuit).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-23 07:44:10

*Yes, I do recall that the economy was starting to go into recession about the time Clinton left office.
Cobra, thanks for providing the information. I later felt a bit bad challenging you to prove it (time consuming for you). So, sorry. :-\

No problem, All I'm really doing today is some odd tasks and reading the 9/11 commision report. Not too busy.

Both "sides" give a different version of what is what...good grief. Who really knows what the heck is going on half the time.

That's the real problem. We're actually better off reading Left and Right wing publications and guessing on the middle ground, ignoring the mainstream press entirely.

Truth is fluid, apparently. The numbers are easy, everything else is negotiable. From a spin perspective, of course.

I'll enjoy his discomfort (I'm hoping, anyway, that he IS experiencing a bit of discomfort knowing other people's kids are being blown to bits by grenades and rocket launchers while his precious little princesses are still doing the post-graduate all-night party circuit).

Kinda vicious, there. But then we wouldn't have this problem if everyone was drafted into Cobra's Space Navy.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-23 10:50:31

http://www.space.com/news/bush_veto_040723.html]Bush threatening Veto over NASA cuts

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Palomar · 2004-07-23 11:03:59

http://www.space.com/news/bush_veto_040723.html]Bush threatening Veto over NASA cuts
Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Talk amongst yourselves.

Although the bill would fully fund NASA's request for the space shuttle and Mars exploration programs, NASA's proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter programs would have to make do with significantly smaller budgets for the year ahead.

*Hopefully they won't cut JIMO's budget too much. :-\

And thank god MESSENGER is about to be launched.

Well, must admit I'm glad Bush is pushing for an increased NASA budget. It's about time he did something right.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-07-23 11:04:57

http://www.space.com/news/bush_veto_040723.html]Bush threatening Veto over NASA cuts
Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Talk amongst yourselves.

Ever play http://www.2street.com/cyborg/tphone.htm]telephone?

The Space.com headline said "White House threatens Veto. . ."

The article says:

The White House Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolton wrote the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee July 22 informing him that the cuts imposed on NASA were unacceptable and would be reason for the president’s senior advisors to recommend a veto.

Josh Bolton wrote that the cuts were unacceptable and were one reason (possibly?) that one or more senior advisors might recommend a veto. (I'm warning ya' - - change your ways or I will submit a recomendation that the President consider a veto! Now we are talking tough!"

Beltway lingo? This puppy is dead, you just can't blame us.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 11:08:58

I agree that Bush needs to step up to the plate but he also must be more vocal to the vision so as to end the speculation of where this is a political stunt or for real.
Nasa also must do some belt tightening in order to ring in the budget requirements for operation some how.

Palomar · 2004-07-23 11:20:09

*Wow Bill...you've got a rather sharp eye.

Well, I'm feeling a bit under the weather so I won't feel bad about having missed that myself. Guess my brain flew off to orbit Pluto as well or something...

::shrugs::

Save JIMO!

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-23 21:35:52

And thank god MESSENGER is about to be launched.

Let's just hope that New Horizons can make it out before whoever's president can kill it. Hopefully Bush will finally veto something and do something good for a change by giving NASA their money. It's like cheering someone along at the special olympics "Come on Dubya! You can do it!"

Except that they can't hear you and even if they could they couldn't care enough to listen.

Quite honestly, I'm done talking about politics for now. Running around in circles screaming catchy picket-line messages like "Egad! Bush is bad!" just isn't that intellectually engaging. Anyone else with me?

BWhite · 2004-07-25 07:14:25

http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stor … htm]Monday announcement for Kerry's space policy?

Rxke · 2004-07-25 11:43:34

Everytime i read things like this:

"Yet making the project work will be a herculean political task because it must survive as many as 10 presidential administrations, 20 Congresses and 40 federal budget cycles before a Mars landing could occur around 2050."

My heart sinks. 2050? ? The once proud USA/NASA might as well stop pretending, call it a day. Even ESA has a more agressive timeline:

"Aurora's step-by-step approach means that missions will increase in complexity over time, culminating - if all goes well - in a human expedition to Mars by the year 2030."

Grypd · 2004-07-25 14:47:51

Rxke I am a product of the generation that seen the American space program reach its greatest success and its most abject failure. It reached the moon and then burned its boats.

I honestly dont think that the USA will ever reach those heights again. It is the great chinese empire that destroyed its navy due to political pressure and infighting. Time for someone else to take the lead.

comstar03 · 2004-07-25 18:24:31

Gryd,

A great men, started this race into space, do we have these men today, I think so, !!!!! But are we not utilising the resources efficiently to get the job done. It has been 31 years since the last man walked on the moon, we should have been back.

We could have designed a variant to the space shuttle system to carry us back to the moon in a big way, while testing the shuttle components, eg. launch unmanned vehicle riding the back of the booster and fuel tank with similar weight the space shuttle. reduce dependence on the space shuttle orbiter and the same time meet the long term goals of the space programme.

Also you can design private space station components that could ride in place of the orbiter, or cargo pods or remote cargo pod for the moon with lunar booster, just to name a few ways today that we could get to the moon faster, without any changes to existing infrastructure.

We have the specs of the orbiter and booster systems then model different variants in wind tunnels and get private enterprise behind the process and also develop a passenger module for the orbiter for the expansion of workers in space.

Take the habitat station design and engineer a module variant of the orbiter, send that remotely to the moon, we could send more modules to the moon to land remote close to each other and using a remote crane supplied within the first module lift and bring the module closely together to assemble a moon base then at the ISS we transfer a crew to a spacecraft assembled out of two or three variant components to send to the moon, they arrive and complete the moon habitat. That above concept is developed off the existing space systems without any major changes in space facilities, or practices.

Work the issues and put up ways to change the mind set on the methods of space development and space colonization. Just get Kerry or Bush to see the use of existing technology over spending on new technology.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-07-25 19:24:58

Could there be an upside to the budget cuts? I mean, with no money for CEV, Plan Bush etc., all of NASA's $15.5 billion will be going to the Shuttle/ISS. Maybe if the purse strings are pulled tight enough Congress will finally notice how incredibly wastefull the Shuttle/ISS has been. Surely it isn't possible to continue to spend the entire NASA budget on the Shuttle/ISS for the next six years? Right? Help!?... :bars:

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-25 22:17:12

Could there be an upside to the budget cuts? I mean, with no money for CEV, Plan Bush etc., all of NASA's $15.5 billion will be going to the Shuttle/ISS. Maybe if the purse strings are pulled tight enough Congress will finally notice how incredibly wastefull the Shuttle/ISS has been. Surely it isn't possible to continue to spend the entire NASA budget on the Shuttle/ISS for the next six years? Right? Help!?... :bars:

I fail to see how even the most politically motivated senators can not understand the short term benefits that NASA provides to civillian aviation and the long term benefits of down to earth air breathing technologies. (So many people forget the first A in NASA)

We absolutley have to get funding for at least the CEV and the Prometheus program. Those are the minimum two things we have to get this budget cycle to make H2M a viable option in 15 years.

I see space as the single most important issue in this election long term. I don't understand how anyone can see the DNC in general with a professed dislike of the aerospace industry as being on the correct side of this issue ( Notice I chose the word correct and not right, lol)

Frankly I think the best case scenario is that terrorist decide to use a scud full of ten penny nails to take out the ISS (with the crew getting away unharmed) That way NASA has no egg on it's face for abandoning the ISS and we can focus on the more important goals of converting the shuttle infrastructer to a Shuttle C or otherwise HLV configuration and get the CEV flying.

I was also thinking don't Bigellow Aerospace and Space X make the perfect alt space contractors for H2M? One has their sites set on cheaper progressivly bigger expendables the other is privatley developing Transhab derivatives. Just a thought, I'd love to see a fly off in the near future (try before you buy ala Air Force, non cost-plus) between two or three 120-150 tonne to LEO class boosters. Maybe a Space X entrat along with a US Space Alliance Shuttle C and some entrepaneurs revived or updated Energya.

In any event I think NASA is going to end up getting it's money and all will be well if we can successfully get out from under the hippo on our backs that is the ISS/Shuttle duopoly.

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 02:06:44

*Unfortunately*, ehum... I have a hunch there won't be any more terrorist attacks. Well, some Islamic fringe group might still carry out some Bercelona scale bombings to no avail, but the big ones are out. In the end they will be as powerless as the Rote Armee Fraktion.
After all, it seems mostly that, at least functionally, the terror threat was just a stepping stone for a certain political-globalist agenda. That's failing now so these people are likely to choose a new strategy.

Having read some threads of this kind it strikes me that NASA suffers from a single deficiency. It needs to get every mission it does accepted by the US Congress/the democratic circus. Is this a correct interpretation?

If so, every fallacy with meaningless programs just to perpetuate the budgetary flow and structural problem in relation to the areo-space industry stems from there.

Algol · 2004-07-26 02:28:18

Yet making the project work will be a herculean political task because it must survive as many as 10 presidential administrations, 20 Congresses and 40 federal budget cycles before a Mars landing could occur around 2050."

One of the things i like about ESA is that once they approve a mission or a programme the members are committed to funding it to completition. There is only the initial decision to go, and assuming everything stays within budget, it cant actually be stopped by the politicians.

Rxke · 2004-07-26 02:44:13

Yes and no... ESA does scrap projects (Hermes, for instace)
But lately they seem more committed to keep going, while sometimes re-adjusting goals. Aurora is suitably flexible (or vague,) to give them the chance to adapt to new realities.
Still, ESA is in its infancy, once they start building manned stuff, it will get expensive...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-22 14:56:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#52 2004-07-22 14:56:38

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#53 2004-07-22 22:46:13

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#54 2004-07-23 06:00:46

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#55 2004-07-23 06:17:42

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#56 2004-07-23 06:36:04

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#57 2004-07-23 06:46:17

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#58 2004-07-23 07:16:00

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#59 2004-07-23 07:32:41

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#60 2004-07-23 07:44:10

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#61 2004-07-23 10:50:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#62 2004-07-23 11:03:59

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#63 2004-07-23 11:04:57

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#64 2004-07-23 11:08:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#65 2004-07-23 11:20:09

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#66 2004-07-23 21:35:52

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#67 2004-07-25 07:14:25

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#68 2004-07-25 11:43:34

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#69 2004-07-25 14:47:51

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#70 2004-07-25 18:24:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#71 2004-07-25 19:24:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#72 2004-07-25 22:17:12

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#73 2004-07-26 02:06:44

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#74 2004-07-26 02:28:18

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#75 2004-07-26 02:44:13

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer