Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon
From: Scott Hedrick (dinehnm_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: New Spy Satellite Debated On Hill"
- Previous message: cgamble_at_worldcom.ch: "Re: John Young on O'Keefe"
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Next in thread: D Schneider: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Reply: D Schneider: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:20:09 -0500
"Bill the Cat" <bill@the.cat> wrote in message
news:Xns95C1D84FEE33Cbillthecat@216.196.97.131...
> No, it's most definitely a fantasy world if you believe that a proposal
> like yours will ever get funded.
*I don't*. I don't ever believe that a proper space program will ever be
funded by government. Moreover, there's little Constitutional basis for
government to do so.
I see no reason to fund the half-assed program you support, particularly
when the historical record shows that funding for such programs are fiddled
with in such a manner that the "savings" are pissed away by the very act of
altering the budget to save money.
> Judging from your delusions, I suspect you and Haller have both been
> inhaling something, and it sure ain't oxygen.
Perhaps we've been inhaling the stink from your posts.
> > 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.
>
> And that situation won't change within your lifetime - or mine. That is
> something that the space cadets just don't get.
But I do. That's why I'm against the program pushed by Bush- because it
*will* destroy existing programs that are already underfunded and cannot
possibly provide enough funds to do the proposal justice. In short, the
program as promoted will damage NASA, science and the public even more than
ISS has.
> > 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.
>
> Of course, you conveniently snipped out my *actual* words so that you
could
> spin them as you wish.
However, I left them entirely in context, so no spin by me was needed.
> "The Congressional Budget Office projects that the new program will cost
> $63.8 billion through the first manned lunar return in 2020. Contrast that
> to Project Apollo, which cost $77.9 billion through the first manned lunar
> landing (actually, through the end of FY69 on June 30, 1969, but close
> enough)."
Thus supporting my statement. Thank you for your support.
> So you really believe that "first" is a synonym for "only"?
Based on the context of the material you stated which you yourself quoted,
it's clear you do.
> >> 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.
>
> And that's one reason it was so expensive
It's also the main reason why Apollo cannot be compared to Bush's Folly.
> > 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.
>
> Yours is a "real program" that will remain on paper for the rest of your
> life, because it will never be affordable.
Nonsense. It's entirely affordable- but the government will never fund it. I
see no reason to piss away money on a completely inadequate, underfunded
program, especially when history shows that the projected numbers are a
fantasy anyway. Remember, we were supposed to have a permanent manned
presence in space for $8G.
> > Especially now that most of the unknowns
> >> have been solved and there's no insane schedule pressure?
> >
> > Except that there *are* unknowns...
>
> Of course there are, but they are trivial compared to the unknowns Apollo
> faced when it was first announced.
Not at all- they are the *exact same* unknowns, and the ones that can never
be known. The will of Congress and the mood of the people. You seem to have
a hard time understanding that. The technical details are trivial compared
to that.
> >> > 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.
>
> He said that most of the funding would be re-allocated from within the
> existing budget, without specifying science or aviation.
Woohoo! We have a winner! Historically, and Mary Shafer can expound better
on this, aviation and science are the first branches shaken. Can you provide
a verifiable cite and provide historical evidence that science and aviation
*will not* be cut?
> > I suppose that there's no science intended to be done for ISS, then?
>
> Of course not.
A dose of reality seems to be seeping into your skull.
>Like I said (and you snipped, thank you very much)
You're very welcome.
>science
> is one of the reasons we do human spaceflight. It just isn't the *only*
> reason, or the most important.
- Next message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: New Spy Satellite Debated On Hill"
- Previous message: cgamble_at_worldcom.ch: "Re: John Young on O'Keefe"
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Next in thread: D Schneider: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Reply: D Schneider: "Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
