"Cherie Mils" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose
a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem
very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put
your
gear on, strap in and do it.

NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get
there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for
wherever.
NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new
money.
How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use
robots?

The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build
large
space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The
militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in
the
80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new
vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program
shortly
after 2010.

Cherie Mills responds:

Militarization of space race "did not end" with Reagan's bluff in the
80s.

The money dried up for manned vehicles in the '80s.

*********************
U.S. Space Warriors:
(Quotations from article below):

"According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies
would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane
that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space."

A dead program.

"The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S.
satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure
American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S.
permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo
satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S.
plans for space dominance."

Galileo is more of a threat to TACAN navigation in Europe than it is to the
US. MLS with GPS substituted for DME looks to be a promising system instead
of Galileo.

"NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from
now on will be 'dual use' (meaning it will serve both military and
civilian purposes) has said, 'propulsion power generation advances
that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and
discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security
seeks to utilize.' It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they
will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons."

No change then.

NASA's true purpose was and is the development of military capability in
space, without being overtly threatening. This is no different from the
Chinese space agency and it is a good thing. NASA was about ICBMs and then
it was about Large Space Structures for Polar Orbit. The money ran out on
the destroy the Earth vehicles with the Soviet's caving to Reagan's bluff.

Now NASA must engage in a friendly race to the Moon with China and continue
to explore the solar system. That way some science gets done along the way
and manned space flight can continue for the US program.