Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon
From: Scott Hedrick (dinehnm_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/15/04
- Next message: tonyq_at_another.com: "Re: Tereshkova myth exposed"
- Previous message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: [OT] A giant passes."
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Next in thread: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Reply: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:06:17 -0500
"Bill the Cat" <bill@the.cat> wrote in message
news:Xns95BFED122BE01billthecat@216.196.97.131...
> "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:bJOvd.79747$fY.36141@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> > "Bill the Cat" <bill@the.cat> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95BFB9EEB7A9billthecat@216.196.97.131...
> >
> >> > NASA would need something on the order of $5-8G in *additional*
> >> > funding for three or four years, then increasing upwards of $15G
> >> > for a decade (adjusted for inflation), to have a serious chance at
> >> > accomplishing anything.
> >>
> >> You do realize how insane that is, right?
> >
> > Only if it's insane to adequately fund space exploration.
>
> No, you're insane to think that nothing less than that is "adequate."
Depends on your definition of "adequate". Mine means "sufficient to do the
job right, allowing for cost overruns and mission creep".
> >> That's $165-182 billion over 14
> >> years! This is *not* a crash program - there is no need for a massive
> > spike
> >> in NASA spending.
> >
> > Only if you want to do it right. I said nothing at all about creating
> > a crash program- I wanted to save the *existing* programs and add a
> > new, far more expensive one.
>
> OK, at least we've established that you live in a fantasy world.
Which is exactly like the real world, even to the point of having you in it.
In a way,
> you're very similar to Bob Haller
In that I breathe oxygen, yes.
>while yours is a fantasy world of perfect budgets
Clearly, you didn't read the manual.
>In
> the real world, there is no political support for large increases in
NASA's
> budget.
That is exactly right. That is why I said that now is not the time to do it,
and also why the plan as presented by Bush is completely inadequate and will
not work.
>Your choices are either 1) no program at all, or 2) keep the status
> quo (shuttle+ISS), or 3) replace the status quo with something that fits
> within the same budget "moldline".
Or eliminate the International Space Station altogether, since it has
clearly been funded inadequately, and use the money to more properly fund
the existing underfunded programs.
The new program is one example of 3),
> though of course not the only possible one.
Except that, even when gutting existing real and useful programs, there
still isn't enough money.
> > So, then, you're only interested in making one trip to the Moon?
>
> No, I did not say that, and it is dishonest of you to imply that I did.
To the contrary, you *specifically stated* that your budget included money
"through the first manned
lunar return in 2020". Reread your own posts first before replying next
time. The money I talked about will fund a real program with a real return
involving multiple trips to the moon and laying the groundwork for a
permanent presence- hardly the "crash program" you pulled out of your ass.
I
> chose the first landing because that allows for an apples-to-apples
> comparison of development costs between Apollo and the new program.
Since the two programs have different goals, you're still comparing apples
to oranges. The goal of Apollo was to beat the Soviets in the area of
national prestige during the Cold War.
> > What
> > happened to permanent lunar surface occupation and a trip to Mars?
>
> Those comes after 2020, which is as far as the CBO analysis went. Which
> you'd have known, if you'd actually read anything about the new program.
You assume that I didn't. I chose to discuss a real program with real,
useful goals instead of the imaginary pie-in-the-sky inadequately funded one
discussed by the CBO.
> >> That is an adequate amount of funding for the new program, in my
> >> opinion.
> >
> > And you're entitled to your opinion, as unrealistic as it is.
>
> It's unrealistic to think that we can return to the moon for 80% of the
> inflation-adjusted Apollo budget?
Yes, if you also want to do something useful and also establish a permanent
presence.
Especially now that most of the unknowns
> have been solved and there's no insane schedule pressure?
Except that there *are* unknowns and there *will be* insane schedule
pressure, much of which will be generated by an inadequate budget that will
be constantly tinkered with, *as the historical data shows*.
> >> > The plan as proposed just takes money from
> >> > science and aviation programs.
> >>
> >> Incorrect. The majority of the funding for the new program through
> >> 2009 comes from cancelling SLI and OSP, and drastically reducing
> >> SLEP.
> >
> > Which pretty much supports what I just said- the plan as proposed,
> > takes money from existing programs, such as the ones you just named.
> > Thank you for your support.
>
> You said it took its funding from science and aviation. You are wrong.
To the contrary, that's what POTUS said.
> *All* plans must make some assumptions.
*Yours* make the same assumptions that have constantly plagued government
programs.
> >> None of those
> >> programs are under science or aeronautics.
> >
> > A clear statement that ISS has nothing to do with science.
>
> Right. It's under the human spaceflight budget, like it's always been.
I suppose that there's no science intended to be done for ISS, then?
You
> *really* live in a fantasy world if you think the only purpose of human
> spaceflight is science.
Tell that to Congress. Remember that yourself, as well, since you seem to
think that going to the moon was the reason for Apollo.
- Next message: tonyq_at_another.com: "Re: Tereshkova myth exposed"
- Previous message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: [OT] A giant passes."
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Next in thread: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Reply: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
