|
Posted by OM on January 31, 2009, 1:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:01:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
show/hide quoted text
>I feel though that it should be a world project, myself.
...If it were a perfect world. trolling trash like "jonathan" would
have never heard of usenet and have been content in their lowly
profession as retarded dishwashers and short order cooks. However, if
you'd like to help achieve some of this perfection, just killfile him.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
|
|
Posted by Stuf4 on January 31, 2009, 6:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options
For Jonathan: I've presented thousands of posts on sci.space over the
better part of this decade in an effort toward a sound understanding
of the space program and why we went to the Moon. The vast majority
on this forum have vehemently rejected an overwhelming body of facts
that clearly show the conclusion you have succinctly stated above.
It is sad to know that the Usenet standard is responding to solid
irrefutable facts with insults and ridicule instead of rational
discourse.
What I see as a perfect world would be to respectfully arrive at a
consensus of the facts (as with, firmly establishing why we went) and
then build upon that by debating important issues like your view of
"why we shouldn't go back".
I myself would like to see us go back, but I agree with you that there
is no compelling national security rationale as there was in the 60s.
I agree with you in general that it is foolish to have policies that
increase international tensions. What we could do instead is build
upon the multi-national cooperative experience gained with ISS and
invite even more nations to join in the quest of human space
exploration. And it need not be a purely government effort. It could
somehow be combined with a commercial/private effort. All of these
wealthy people who are eager to write huge checks for the chance to go
into low Earth orbit can also be given the opportunity to write a huge
check to go play on /explore the Moon.
I would agree with you in a view that the current NASA structure for
returning to the Moon is deficient. There are many warning signs that
Constellation is headed toward a huge failure. The most basic reason
for that is an ill-defined mission. George Bush created the
"Constellation Vision" simply as a means to gracefully end the shuttle
program (so as to put an end to the catastrophic effects of flying a
vehicle designed with no escape for Challenger/Columbia-type failures)
in a manner that appeased the military-industrial complex (today
basically meaning Boeing-Lockheed).
Eisenhower warned us about top-level policy decisions being driven by
this beast, and Constellation is a hideous example of that. The US
taxpayer should *not* feed space pork simply because the shuttle is
too dangerous and aerospace engineers need paychecks to keep flowing.
That is a LAME reason to go to the Moon.
The entire effort is in urgent need of a top-down reevaluation of
purpose in the mission, and a sufficient evaluation would also
indicate how the bill should be split.
Last month the Apollo 8 crew spoke in honor of the 40th anniversary of
their historic mission. They were candid in criticizing the current
state of the space program and where it is headed. They succinctly
identified it as "a jobs program". I find it discouraging to know
that the political attitude toward the current economic climate is to
throw good money after bad, whether that be to fund inefficient
sectors of the auto industry or fund ill-defined space policy. Will
Obama get overrun by this econ-inertia? Or will he find a way to lead
with the pure vision that he had at the start of his campaign?
We already saw him change his tune regarding NASA. He came to the
realization that to become President, he needed to win Florida, which
meant that he needed buy a space ticket to jump onboard the military-
industrial bandwagon. This political compromise then got bolstered
with economic exigency, which brings us to our current state. It is
now easy to predict that Shuttle will get extended for at least four
more years. Simple math leads toward predicting another tragedy. And
on the other side of "the gap" it is easy to predict that
Constellation will have continued setbacks resulting from the
execution of deficient policy decisions.
My read of the NASA Magic 8-ball is "Outlook Not Good".
~ CT
show/hide quoted text
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:01:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> >I feel though that it should be a world project, myself.
> ...If it were a perfect world. trolling trash like "jonathan" would
> have never heard of usenet and have been content in their lowly
> profession as retarded dishwashers and short order cooks. However, if
> you'd like to help achieve some of this perfection, just killfile him.
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
|
|
Posted by BradGuth on January 31, 2009, 9:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options show/hide quoted text
> For Jonathan: =A0I've presented thousands of posts on sci.space over the
> better part of this decade in an effort toward a sound understanding
> of the space program and why we went to the Moon. =A0The vast majority
> on this forum have vehemently rejected an overwhelming body of facts
> that clearly show the conclusion you have succinctly stated above.
> It is sad to know that the Usenet standard is responding to solid
> irrefutable facts with insults and ridicule instead of rational
> discourse.
Apollo ? (you silly fuctard)
What you folks call "solid irrefutable facts" is at best a subjective
joke.
Sadly, it seems you've only pointed out the mainstream status quo, as
a faith-based kind of take it as is or leave it ultimatum. Out public
funded science is anything but an open book, and it's brown-nosed
minions like yourself that get all the credit.
~ BG
|
|
Posted by Stuf4 on February 1, 2009, 12:33 am
Please log in for more thread options From BradGuth:
show/hide quoted text
> > For Jonathan: =A0I've presented thousands of posts on sci.space over th=
e
show/hide quoted text
> > better part of this decade in an effort toward a sound understanding
> > of the space program and why we went to the Moon. =A0The vast majority
> > on this forum have vehemently rejected an overwhelming body of facts
> > that clearly show the conclusion you have succinctly stated above.
> > It is sad to know that the Usenet standard is responding to solid
> > irrefutable facts with insults and ridicule instead of rational
> > discourse.
> Apollo ? (you silly fuctard)
> What you folks call "solid irrefutable facts" is at best a subjective
> joke.
> Sadly, it seems you've only pointed out the mainstream status quo, as
> a faith-based kind of take it as is or leave it ultimatum. =A0Out public
> funded science is anything but an open book, and it's brown-nosed
> minions like yourself that get all the credit.
> =A0~ BG
I do not speak to you with insults, Brad. I'd appreciate it if you'd
treat me with the same respect.
As for the substance of your rebuttal, it is rare that I am seen here
as presenting mainstream status quo. But if these views I've
supported ever do end up in a history text, I will find a sense of
satisfaction in that.
~ CT
|
|
Posted by on February 1, 2009, 12:58 am
Please log in for more thread options On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:33:27 -0800 (PST), Stuf4
show/hide quoted text
>I do not speak to you with insults, Brad. I'd appreciate it if you'd
>treat me with the same respect.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oh Gawd! Talk about something finally more pathetic than a pot calling
a kettle "black"! Stuffy trying to claim the moral high ground over
Guthball!!
Pathetic. Someone call thesaurus.com and tell them there's a new
definition!
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: ..Why we Went to the Moon....Why we Shouldn't go Back! | January 31, 2009, 1:07 pm |
| Re: ..Why we Went to the Moon....Why we Shouldn't go Back! | January 31, 2009, 6:06 pm |
| Re: ..Why we Went to the Moon....Why we Shouldn't go Back! | February 1, 2009, 10:42 pm |
| Re: ..Why we Went to the Moon....Why we Shouldn't go Back! | February 2, 2009, 6:15 am |
| Back to the moon, only CEV reuseable? | September 22, 2005, 10:40 pm |
| Japan First Back To The Moon! | November 13, 2007, 9:34 am |
| The news said it costs 2 million dollars to bring the shuttle back to Florida on the back of the 747 | June 4, 2009, 9:15 am |
| Re: United Nations 1979 Moon Treaty -- Prohitbiting the militarization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids. | July 31, 2008, 4:34 pm |
| Can they still go back to ISS? | July 16, 2006, 12:55 pm |
| Re: I'M BACK!! | October 5, 2009, 3:37 am |
|
XML Sitemap