Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-10 08:07:25

Just a few thoughts.

If we come out and say we will apply the Geneva Convention even though we don't have to it serves some useful purposes. We get to play the "see, we're so damn civilized we treat terrorists well when we don't have to" while leaving an out. We wouldn't have set the precedent that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists if we explicitly say we don't believe it does but are applying out of the goodness of our warm American hearts.

And if we get an al Qaeda honcho who isn't cooperating, we can still do whatever it takes behind closed doors.

Further, if we state that we're voluntarily upholding the Geneva Convention we can hold these prisoners indefinately. Even after the fighting stops and we've won, who do we send them back to? If the government of the country of origin wants them to lock up or for less palatable things, hand 'em over. If not, we can keep 'em at Gitmo forever.

The key here is only half policy. The other half is presentation. This Administration isn't too good at marketing this, we can keep the terrorists locked up and show off our Western goodness at the same time.

However, there's a fine line between "being nice" and "being wimpy". Nice when not expected can win people over, but wimpy invites attack. We're rapidly approaching the point where changing our policies would be percieved overwhelmingly as giving in to whining. If we're going to start being all warm and fuzzy idealistic about prisoners we have to step up the ass kicking by the same degree.

They'll go with the strong horse, to borrow form Osama bin Laden.

Winning hearts and minds and busting heads along the way.

clark · 2005-06-10 08:24:37

Someone please, tell me why EELV is better than shuttle derived.

It's not. But then SDv isn't better than EELV either. They both suck.

SDV though sucks more. Why?

Well, one, cause I say so. But really, because SDV represents the old NASA way of doing things. The one that says, “we can do better than you cause we know better.”

I think the history of NASA as a launch provider proves this to be blatantly false. NASA sucks, yes, sucks, at keeping their launch vehicles in-house.

By accepting SDV we accept that NASA is the only qualified agency to produce HLLV. They have no reason to innovate the process to reduce costs. The number of launches SDV will make ends up creating two situations: a lot of idle time where the workers and staff are kept on the rolls for the sporadic launches, or a lot of mission creep as we try to build our space program around utilizing the SDV (instead of defining our needs first).

SDV is Shuttle redux, and frankly, 30 years ought to have been enough time to learn a thing or two. What did we see with the Shuttle? Our space program morphed to accommodate it. Same thing with the ISS and the Shuttle together. We need to stop. NASA needs to get out of the launch business and become solely a customer of launch services (a basic call championed by the space community for decades now).

I fail to see how you, Bill, can on one hand clamor for the t/Space model, yet also be a cheerleader for SDV by NASA. You want to merge two ways of doing space exploration that are the antithesis of each other. You make absolutely no sense, and honestly, you should reevaluate where your loyalties lie. Traitor.

(please note that the feel of this post is directly related to the overall theme of this thread... talking about SDV in a political thread can get dirty. )

Palomar · 2005-06-10 08:50:05

Cindy, if this is true, take al Jazeera on a tour of Gitmo and use Gitmo as an affirmative propaganda weapon to prove how humane we really are.
Instead we get this: "We are humane and no we won't show you and if you ask for proof you hate America."
*Could we trust al Jazeera to be unbiased? And not pander to any sort of propoganda of their own?
Of course they are baised! What does that matter if we have nothing to hide.

*I see that point.

My point is what if -- in al Jazeer's reporting -- they intentionally and deliberately misconstrue things and/or create fabrications and false impressions, etc., in order to make matters look WORSE for us than they already might be?

Why should we trust al Jazeera? ??? Because they're Middle Easterners and we're Westerners?

They have to earn my trust just like anyone else.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-10 09:08:02

Someone please, tell me why EELV is better than shuttle derived.
It's not. But then SDv isn't better than EELV either. They both suck.
SDV though sucks more. Why?
Well, one, cause I say so. But really, because SDV represents the old NASA way of doing things. The one that says, “we can do better than you cause we know better.”
I think the history of NASA as a launch provider proves this to be blatantly false. NASA sucks, yes, sucks, at keeping their launch vehicles in-house.
By accepting SDV we accept that NASA is the only qualified agency to produce HLLV. They have no reason to innovate the process to reduce costs. The number of launches SDV will make ends up creating two situations: a lot of idle time where the workers and staff are kept on the rolls for the sporadic launches, or a lot of mission creep as we try to build our space program around utilizing the SDV (instead of defining our needs first).
SDV is Shuttle redux, and frankly, 30 years ought to have been enough time to learn a thing or two. What did we see with the Shuttle? Our space program morphed to accommodate it. Same thing with the ISS and the Shuttle together. We need to stop. NASA needs to get out of the launch business and become solely a customer of launch services (a basic call championed by the space community for decades now).
I fail to see how you, Bill, can on one hand clamor for the t/Space model, yet also be a cheerleader for SDV by NASA. You want to merge two ways of doing space exploration that are the antithesis of each other. You make absolutely no sense, and honestly, you should reevaluate where your loyalties lie. Traitor.
(please note that the feel of this post is directly related to the overall theme of this thread... talking about SDV in a political thread can get dirty. )

Because HLLV is cheaper for cargo IF we don't worry about man-rating the thing. The bigger the better -- something about costs increasing by the exponential power of 2 while volume increases by the exponential power of 3.

Avoid parasitic weight by minimizing the interfaces.

No crew riding shuttle C? No need to design a heavy and expensive crew escape system.

With crew, we need gold plate safety. So, get the crew up there in an ultra safe over engineered small system and transfer to the other system once on orbit.

t/Space does NOTHING except get crew to LEO safely. But, that means shuttle C doesn't need to allow an ounce for crew safety equipment. t/Space is also safer than the Thiokol stick, in my opinion, because the stick will need an escape rocket on top the CEV, as would any ground launch system.

Air launch avoids the need for any escape rocket tower.

= = =

EELV? Not enough launch pads. Pad 37 by itself cannot sortie enough mass to LEO fast enough to do anything worthwhile.

Liquid hydrogen does not store well on orbit.

That's why I also favor methane for extedned operations. Smaler tanks and less boil-off to offset lower ISP.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 09:28:40

And if we get an al Qaeda honcho who isn't cooperating, we can still do whatever it takes behind closed doors.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. But don't enshrine that into law and create an escalating precedent on what is considered acceptable.

Further, if we state that we're voluntarily upholding the Geneva Convention we can hold these prisoners indefinately. Even after the fighting stops and we've won, who do we send them back to? If the government of the country of origin wants them to lock up or for less palatable things, hand 'em over. If not, we can keep 'em at Gitmo forever.
The key here is only half policy. The other half is presentation. This Administration isn't too good at marketing this, we can keep the terrorists locked up and show off our Western goodness at the same time.

This Administration doesn't want to compromise. On anything.

The other day Bush stuck his finger in Tony Blair's eye over global warming and aid to Africa. We can argue global warming until the cows come home but since Tony Blair does take it seriously and since aid to Africa is a major Blair initiative to shore up the support of his own party and because he is our ONLY ally in the Bush version of the War on Terror whacking Tony in public on those issues just seems stupid.

Regardless of where we "should" stand on those issues.

= = =

Bush is also playing to his Christian Right base that truly wants the Christians to smite the Muslims (and the gays and the democrats and the secular humanists and the atheists). How do we fight Bush on that if we are told opposing the president coddles terror?

The Bush strategy is to force the Democrats to disarm on the domestic agenda with the threat of disloyalty in fighting terror. And that is utterly despicable.

However, there's a fine line between "being nice" and "being wimpy".

Fear of being wimpy is itself wimpy. We have the biggest military on the freakin' planet and we are afraid of appearing weak?

Barbara Bush sure put some goofy thoughts in that boy's head.

But we can't bust heads without more soldiers. Remember my complaint is NOT ENOUGH troops in Iraq to do the job right. NOT ENOUGH money being spent on reconstruction. "Gotta appear tough" is a good way to find oneself fighting for a bridge too far.

To be "not nice" and carry a too small stick is the worst of all worlds. Weak Roman. And nothing has changed since Cobra and I agreed on that point last time.

clark · 2005-06-10 09:32:19

Because HLLV is cheaper for cargo IF we don't worry about man-rating the thing. The bigger the better -- something about costs increasing by the exponential power of 2 while volume increases by the exponential power of 3.

Cheaper? How? They said the SHuttle was going to be cheaper due to frequency of flights. Riiiiiiight.

So now it is going to be cheaper because we can put more up in one launch? Nevermind that we would be putting all our eggs in one basket, so one failure means we are set back years and years (and billions and billions).

EELV? Not enough launch pads. Pad 37 by itself cannot sortie enough mass to LEO fast enough to do anything worthwhile.

Build more pads across the country. Why? Because then you have more options to launch and flexibility in choosing when and where you launch. Fewer choke points in the system makes it more robust.

Come on Bill, your love for SDV is nearly dogmatic.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 09:36:33

Delta IV ain't cheap either. New launch pads? No room in the budget.

That said, a Thiokol 5 segment stick with improved SRBs (90/10 fuel to dry mass ratio) might be waay cheaper than shuttle C and Delta IV both.

clark · 2005-06-10 09:42:46

Delta IV ain't cheap either. New launch pads? No room in the budget.

So the answer to an expensive commercial launch system is to use a more expensive government system? Work for the postal service or Amtrak do you?

If there isn’t enough launch pads, but a demand for more launches, private enterprise usually steps up to the plate and builds more capacity. Come on Bill, try a little harder than this.

Also, SDV by the government, has no incentive to innovate or improve upon the initial cost. As time has progressed, has the Shuttle (or any NASA program) decreased in cost or complexity? No!

In private enterprise, there is incentive to reduce cost and complexity to improve profit. Simple and straightforward. Why the hell would we want to move away from that?

Delta IV ain’t cheap. Well I guess that explains the rise of Alt-space and things like Kistler and SpaceX. Keeping NASA in the launch game only serves to inhibit growth and development of commercial alternatives.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 09:52:06

Which is why NASA should give t/Space $500 million for an alternate crew to LEO capability even if we also do parallel development of CEV on top of a Thiokol stick.

That stick can do double duty as a medium heavy cargo lifter at half the price of EELV.

NASA also needs to open up destinations. Create viable places in LEO for t/Space to visit. One shuttle C can throw a small habitable station. Skylab wa far superior to ISS in volume and that was one shot.

We cannot do more than lunar flags and footprints with EELV. Can't sortie enough mass fast enough.

In a perfect world clean sheet might be better but in 5 years the deficit will be crasing down on us. If the CEV isn't flying and if we don't have a viable plan to do something worthwhile on the Moon why should we keep the program at all?

Big rockets are the ONLY thing NASA can do that others cannot.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 09:56:37

A 4 segment RSRM topped with RL-10s (no upgrades) should be able to launch 20 MT for less than $75 million. ($40 million +/- for the solids and $35 million is plenty for some RL-10s)

Blows the doors off Delta and Atlas on price. Its down there with Zenit and Proton for that matter.

Edited By BWhite on 1118419018

clark · 2005-06-10 10:00:52

NASA also needs to open up destinations. Create viable places in LEO for t/Space to visit. One shuttle C can throw a small habitable station. Skylab wa far superior to ISS in volume and that was one shot.

Now we are getting to the heart of it!

So you want NASA to start building realestate in LEO for the CEV. That will deffinitely give the SDV something to do. And while we are doing that, guess what, we never go to the Moon or Mars! 2we spend all our money and time building "places" for a spiral one CEV to go to, but never go any further.

See, SDV would only distract us and become and end unto itself!

We cannot do more than lunar flags and footprints with EELV. Can't sortie enough mass fast enough.

GOOD!!! The Moon should not be anything more than flags and footprints. You let NASA build MoonBase Kennedy, and you and I will never see Martian footprints in our life time.

VSE is not about the Moon- it is about going beyond. The moon is nothing more than a testbed for the beyond and I refuse to accept an argument that will allow it to get derailed from the final destination.

SDV is derailment, which is already demonstrated by your cries for NASA development of LEO. How brilliant is it to see the ISS debacle and then decide NASA needs to do more of the same while trying to go to the Moon?

In a perfect world clean sheet might be better but in 5 years the deficit will be crasing down on us. If the CEV isn't flying and if we don't have a viable plan to do something worthwhile on the Moon why should we keep the program at all?

You can see that far into the future? You have a hobo too?

Clean Sheet is better, and a time out for NASA will allow commercial interests to try and fill the void. The only reason NASA does HLLV is because they are the only customer for it. They will still be a customer if they stop flying HLLV themselves, and greedy american bastards will step in. And other greedy american bastards will step in to undercut the first greedy american bastards.

That is progress we should engage in. Stop the NASA circle of the same thing over and over again.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 10:25:36

Actually, I would prefer to by-pass the moon and go to Mars, but our President has announced otherwise. Therefore we should do the Moon with equipment that can transition us on to Mars. Rather than do the moon then go clean slate.

Anyway as for "any" potential mission, what is wrong with the "stick" as a low cost medium/large cargo carrier? What can EELV do that a 4/5 segment RSRM (with a Delta IV uppermost stage) cannot?

And, if we are into building new facilities we can build a new pad just for the stick even if the goal is to close Pad 39.

As for politics, Florida is too closely divided between red & blue and has too any crucial electoral votes for either party to be responsible for the shuttle army being fired in one swoop.

Therefore, they should be doing some useful work. Not saying I approve, I merely acknowledge that reality.

clark · 2005-06-10 10:57:35

Anyway as for "any" potential mission, what is wrong with the "stick" as a low cost medium/large cargo carrier? What can EELV do that a 4/5 segment RSRM (with a Delta IV uppermost stage) cannot?

Beats me. [shrug] Outside the scope of this argument.

And, if we are into building new facilities we can build a new pad just for the stick even if the goal is to close Pad 39.

What I am suggesting is that commercial interests should be doing the building and NASA should be doing the buying. You know, that whole t/Space model-paradigim shift?

As for politics, Florida is too closely divided between red & blue and has too any crucial electoral votes for either party to be responsible for the shuttle army being fired in one swoop.
Therefore, they should be doing some useful work. Not saying I approve, I merely acknowledge that reality.

What reality? If the Shuttle Army meant so much to Florida politics, then the Shuttle would never be retired. You claim that this could make or break any future election- well, I don't buy it. Unfortunetly aerospace has never been a major factor in florida politics. Blue hairs and Cubans don't care.

Bush isn't down there talking about NASA, or Shuttle this. Face it, you wish it was important to them, but it isn't (just like it isn't that important to most Americans).

Rxke · 2005-06-10 14:31:55

The Gitmo prisoners are probably getting better treatment all the way around than native-born U.S. citizens in our federal penitentiaries.

Wow.

You would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad.

You really mean that?

Rxke · 2005-06-10 14:33:22

Woohoo? what's happening? political potpourri suddenly shows content from another thread???

Rxke · 2005-06-10 14:38:10

dumdumdum... twilight zone... dumdumdum...

clark · 2005-06-10 14:53:25

Time to donate to Bibles for Belgians...

Palomar · 2005-06-10 15:01:12

The Gitmo prisoners are probably getting better treatment all the way around than native-born U.S. citizens in our federal penitentiaries.
Wow.
You would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad.
You really mean that?

*Hi Rik:

I have answered you privately.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2005-06-10 15:10:42

yea, well me waz confuzed, dazed, enraged, and looking at the wrong page and all that happy and crazy stuff

*mumbles incomprehensebly, no wonder, with a Bible jammed down troath*

Grypd · 2005-06-11 03:53:23

One of the main reasons that the fighters in Guantanamo are classed as illegal fighters is to protect the current United states administration from being in danger of court action. The geneva convention is quite specific on many things but on non uniformed guerillas it is very gray. It is into this gray area that prisoners are being placed deliberatly.

The reason is the little known War crimes act passed by the congress in 1996. This means any administration that commits what could be classed as a war crime would find itself under threat of domestic litigation and in this case it can bring the death penalty.

Unfortunatly since they are now in a gray area the problems become more evident. If there are attempts to rehabilitate them then it can be said they are being classed as having criminal behaviour and as such should be treated as criminals and to have certain rights. If they are extradited back to there countries then if that country does not take some legal action against them then they could be classed as soldiers and as such get full geneva protection.

At the moment it is so much easier to simply leave them in the gray hole. But to protect the administration it is still necassary to ensure that they are kept in reasonable health and conditions as one day the current administration will be out and one can never take into account political necessity in the future. Keeping them in reasonable health and conditions is simply pulling the teeth of any future attempt at court action.

This also means that using torture against them is a definite no. But also as they have no rights allowing visitors would also give them a possible legitamacy and it could be arqued that this treatment indicates they should have that right so it cannot be done as long as they are in this gray area.

BWhite · 2005-06-11 10:44:59

US citizen, ex-Marine, civilian contractor http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8178606/]accuses US troops in Iraq of abusive conduct.

= = =

Edit to add: Civilian contractors who shoot at Marines probably should be beaten. But this is a lose - lose story for everyone.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/ … h.html]One link:

A: They treated them like they treated Iraqis
B: The mercenaries have no legal status, the Marines could have executed them on the spot under the rules of war.
C: I think these gun happy f***s shot at the Marines and got some payback. The Marines hate these guys.

Edited By BWhite on 1118512273

BWhite · 2005-06-11 22:28:39

New official http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … ml]British memo:

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.
The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

We went in too light - - not enough soldiers to establish and maintain security.

Edited By BWhite on 1118550579

Grypd · 2005-06-12 12:53:11

This is the start of one of the most pivotal weeks in European history. With the rejection of the constitution by France then Holland and the referendum process now being put of by Britain and others in the EU, many of the alliances and assumptions that kept the EU together are in jeopardy. This week on the 15th and 16th of June the leaders of the EU are to meet and to discuss the proposal to increase the budget of the EU. Factions have already formed and the fighting has commenced. The biggest arquement is about the British rebate.

The rebate a history for those who do not know why it was created and what it means. In 1979 Britain was the third poorest country in the EU and was commonly called the sick man of Europe. Still Britain paid about 40% more than Germany. The reason is that of a budget of 104 Bn euros about 47.4 Bn goes to pay for the CAP or Common Agricultural Policy, In Britains case with its agriculture policy (large farms) this meant very little of these funds go back to Britain but for countries like Germany and especially France they recieved a lot for there small farmers. Blatantly unfair the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won a rebate of 2/3rds of the financial contribution back in 1984. Since then it has been a matter of arquement though the case that Britain still pays more than 2 and half times more into the EU after the rebate than France has kept it.

And the Commen agricultural policy is considered a very unfair and easily open to abuse policy. As an example France actually gets more money for its farmers than it actually pays into Europe as a whole.

With France and especially M Chirac blaming Britain for forcing the constitution to be based on referendums and for it being unattractive to French voters. Have brought the rebate up again saying it is time for Britain to give it up. Prime minister Blair has always stated that any attempt to get rid of it would be met by the British veto vote. Instead Blair stated "that the reason for the unfairness is because the spending of Europe is so geared to the commen agricultural policy. Every time Britain and Denmark try to get the CAP reviewed it is Vetoed by France and Spain as Chirac states "we will refuse any reduction whatsoever of the direct aids to our farmers".

So that is the current battleground and though the EU will survive this week it will not be the same EU that exists today. With Britain appearing to have a lot of support from the new members and with it about to take over presidency it seems Blair has a lot more cards to play than normal. Still France and Germany have become a lot closer in the last week to be able to fight the apparently strong Britain.

Fledi · 2005-06-12 13:36:24

The agricultural subsidizing system is not all that popular with many Germans, too. It is often used to point out the unnecessarily restricting ways of a too large bureocracy. But it is not yet talked about to reduce it by top politicians. What is talked about is the subsidizes for coal mining, which will be greatly reduced when the new government is elected.
The agriculture policy of the EU is very unpopular with small-scale farmers in eastern Europe, one of them I talked to even compared the paperwork to be similar in style of that of the stalinist Rakosy regime in the '50s. So, while that might be an exaggeration, it shows the degree of approval those people have for it.

Grypd · 2005-06-12 13:48:18

Yes I agree it is fundamentally a bad idea though like many things made sense when it was first created. Except it does not make sense now.

Really the EU could certainly make some sensible solutions to its Beauracratic mess it is in. Just to stop the EU Parliament moving every 6 months would save a couple of hundred million each year.

Putting money into a European center of technology is a good idea though language will always be a problem. Then again as has been stated the more research a country does the more benefit a country gets economicaly

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-10 08:07:25

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#27 2005-06-10 08:24:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#28 2005-06-10 08:50:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#29 2005-06-10 09:08:02

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#30 2005-06-10 09:28:40

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#31 2005-06-10 09:32:19

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#32 2005-06-10 09:36:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#33 2005-06-10 09:42:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#34 2005-06-10 09:52:06

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#35 2005-06-10 09:56:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#36 2005-06-10 10:00:52

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#37 2005-06-10 10:25:36

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#38 2005-06-10 10:57:35

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#39 2005-06-10 14:31:55

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#40 2005-06-10 14:33:22

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#41 2005-06-10 14:38:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#42 2005-06-10 14:53:25

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#43 2005-06-10 15:01:12

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#44 2005-06-10 15:10:42

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#45 2005-06-11 03:53:23

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#46 2005-06-11 10:44:59

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#47 2005-06-11 22:28:39

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#48 2005-06-12 12:53:11

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#49 2005-06-12 13:36:24

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#50 2005-06-12 13:48:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer