The President's Space Initiative Speech

Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER spend
it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for the
instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).

Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
"man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.

I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space exploration,
their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the

I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he runs
up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I like
that.

Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and "temporary"
is a few generations.

In article SAnNb.69490$xy6.129217@attbi_s02, "plumb bob"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying
for
the

I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he
runs
up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I
like
that.

Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and
"temporary"
is a few generations.



and while we are at it, let's all remember that the executive
branch is responsible for budget appropriations.

--
Bob Noel

Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any sense
to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
politics, its pathetic.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...
Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER
spend
it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the
instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).

Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
"man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.

I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space
exploration,
their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any
sense
to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
politics, its pathetic.

Mike

Perhaps it is election year politics, but I think not. More people are
against it than for it, I think. Not too good for politics, then.

Of coarse the technology is not ready. That is exactly the point. Tec is
born in the space program. Look at your MU-2. Start counting the Apollo
born tec. Look around you at home, and work. Look at all the space program
tec.

I wonder if we can afford NOT to go.
--
Jim in NC

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

Mike
MU-2
"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any
sense
to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
politics, its pathetic.

Mike

Perhaps it is election year politics, but I think not. More people are
against it than for it, I think. Not too good for politics, then.

Of coarse the technology is not ready. That is exactly the point. Tec is
born in the space program. Look at your MU-2. Start counting the Apollo
born tec. Look around you at home, and work. Look at all the space
program
tec.

I wonder if we can afford NOT to go.
--
Jim in NC

In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

Mike
MU-2

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
"in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
refining/improving and extending the technology so that
something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
the Titan II.

--
Bob Noel

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any sense
to go now, the technology is not ready.

The goal drives the technology.

The whole idea is election year politics, its pathetic.

And going to the moon was cold war politics. Would America
or the world be better off if we hadn't gone to the moon and
the Soviets had?

Politicians are driven by .... politics.... (surprise) and
they control the purse. If Bush thinks he gets a political
advantage by appealing to those who support the space
program, then it's a good sign, as far as I'm concerned.
His opponents need to decide whether he's right or wrong.
Personally, I think he's right and hope his opponents do
too. I spend a percentage of my money on my current needs,
a percentage investing for my future needs and a percentage
on my dreams. I think the country should do the same. When
you give up the dreams and frontiers, you stagnate.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.