The President's Space Initiative Speech

Todd Pattist wrote in message . ..
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
talking about going now: for the propaganda value.

I won't argue. Value is value. I'd like America to be
thought of and ultimately remembered as the strongest
supporter of humanity's space program, not just the only
nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.

From what is in the PNAC, I rather think this moon base
is a missile base. Talk about Heinlein...

In article ,
wrote:

Todd Pattist wrote in message
. ..
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Which is exactly why we went in the first place, and why the Chinese are
talking about going now: for the propaganda value.

I won't argue. Value is value. I'd like America to be
thought of and ultimately remembered as the strongest
supporter of humanity's space program, not just the only
nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.

From what is in the PNAC, I rather think this moon base
is a missile base. Talk about Heinlein...

Missile base for WHAT? Targeting accuracy requires far more precision
than land-and sea-based missiles; trajectory tome is in DAYS, not
minutes.

The Moon would be useless as a missile base.

ackatyu (Wdtabor) writes:

Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
nut-case radicals to stuff it.


What are you proposing, dilithium crystals?

Not-so Common sense.

And some real leadership from Bush et. al. Well, that's impossible...

With foreseable technology, hybrids are about the best we can do for cars, and
only liquid petroleum has the energy density for aircraft.

Energy independence isn't going to happen in the US so long as we put huge
tracts of land off limits because a caribou or bird might be disturbed.

Let's divide oil consumers into halves: fixed and mobile.

For fixed, some combination program of renewable (probably mainly
solar), nuclear (using a standard design for all plants), and, as you
mentioned, drilling for more oil on our own soil, would go a long way
to reducing foreign demand.

You'd also want to examine the petrochemical demand. I have no idea
what percentage that is and if substitutes for oil can be made.

For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
stricter mpg requirements. Probably hybrid technology will be used to
meet the requirements, but let industry figure that out. Government
can support long-term research. The Internet is a good example of
public/private work.

For aircraft, you're not going to substitute oil for a long time. So
be it. You've done what you can elsewhere.

This IS war, you know. Literally. Instead of making war, how about
technology? Sell the inventions to the Europeans or partner with
them, too. Instead, all we do is make more bombs to drop on people.
We can't fight the whole world.

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
Far better than this would be a program, like the Manhattan project of
the 1940's or man-to-the-moon project of the 1960's, that would make
us energy-independent. No, the dishonest hydrogen-vehicle "program"
doesn't count. After we cut our ties to mid-east we can tell all the
nut-case radicals to stuff it.

I guess that one must be the 286th Amendment: "Congress shall have the power
to create and package a lot of hot air".

Let the Department of Energy run it? The guys who piddled away $416 billion
the past 25 years without producing a gram of energy?

That would be the same DOE that created, e.g. Lawrence Berkeley
National Labs...best numerical software libraries in the world. Best
nukes at other labs, etc. They've done some good things, some
probably not so good.

You're suggesting Enron maybe run things? Bush and his oil buddies?
Maybe we can just beat up anybody we don't like?

In article , Bob Fry
wrote:


For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
stricter mpg requirements.

why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Fry
wrote:


For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
stricter mpg requirements.

why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some luck,
the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up - mpg
reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless you're
into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did not
make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.

Besides, reliance on foreign oil is probably one of the biggest causes of
terrorism. Yet we do nothing about it. Too much $$$.

In article RYGOb.82660$5V2.108280@attbi_s53, "plumb bob"
wrote:

For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter
and
stricter mpg requirements.

why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some
luck,
the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up -
mpg
reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless you're
into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did not
make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.

catch a wake up yourself. There are plenty of ways to reduce the
number of miles driven (and hence fuel consumption) without the
resorting to the idiotic notion of shortening roads or using
fuzzy math or whatever you use.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

Yea. There is alot of work going on to make roads shorter. With some
luck,
the distance between LA and NY can be reduced by 1/3. Catch a wake up -
mpg
reducion is the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption unless
you're
into GW Bush fuzzy math and fuzzy science. That is not to say you did
not
make a valid point in an obscure sort of way.

catch a wake up yourself. There are plenty of ways to reduce the
number of miles driven (and hence fuel consumption) without the
resorting to the idiotic notion of shortening roads or using
fuzzy math or whatever you use.

Since you are such a wizard, why don't you set the example and shorten the
distances you travel. Start but shortening the distance from your home to
the store, and your home to the airport. When you're done, please report
back to us. The fact of the matter is that most fuel consumption in the US
is due to people driving to and from work every day. And you say: shorten
the distance. Thanks alot!

This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart and look
past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers pay a "terrorism
tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.

This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart
and look past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers
pay a "terrorism tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.

Or a tax benefit to companies to encourage telecommuting. SO many jobs
could be done from home nowadays with simply a change in mindset.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
This is why things are so screwed up today. People try to be smart
and look past the obvious. I'd rather make these H2 Hummer drivers
pay a "terrorism tax" on their excessive fuel consumption.

Or a tax benefit to companies to encourage telecommuting. SO many jobs
could be done from home nowadays with simply a change in mindset.



That mindeset is why so many jobs are being offshored to India and China.
In essence, it is just telecommuting, but you can pay your employees less
than U.S. minimum wage.

Earl G