Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus

From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:34:37 +0000 (UTC)

That's too bad to hear that "you suck". I hope that science can find a
way of improving our lives without creating another 9/11, taking out
another shuttle or the wrong TWA 747, or spending that trillion
bucks/euros on behalf of sending the likes of "OM" and his Dr. Zubrin
off to Mars (one-way if need be).

I have several pages on what's wrong about the surface environment of
our moon as related to the NASA/Apollo related cold-war fiasco that's
been suggesting upon all sorts of save-thy-*** notions which others
haven't been capable of entirely disproving. However, there's certainly
lots more to understanding about the surface of our moon than from
what's offered by the mainstream status quo.

The following topics are certainly not the only such arguments linked
indirectly to the phony baloney NASA/Apollo ruse of the century, as
there's other life on Venus, and there's even something to being said
about our ice-ages and that of Sirius.

"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

I'm always interested to learn of what folks consider as a reasonable
payback for the overall investments and overall impact upon our
environment. Is 1% considered good enough, or how about 200+%?

Apparently the likes of Lord "OM" considers that 0.1% is way more good
enough.

BTW; why do you consider that our space policy does not suck?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Quantcast