Griffin criticized by Congress for cutting science program

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Ask those same people who died in the Columbia accident and I'd bet half or less would know. "<br /><br />Well, they might have if the mission was something a little more noteworthy than studying atmospheric dust or obtaining more data on the critical viscosity of xenon.<br /><br />The real tragedy of STS-107 was that other than CVX-2, half the research they were doing probably could have been done with a cubesat.

 

[qso1]

And what mission would that be...send Jennifer Anniston up with Tom Cruise to see what happens? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"And what mission would that be...send Jennifer Anniston up with Tom Cruise to see what happens?"<br /><br />Do they necessarily have to come back down? <br /><br />Hell, $1B spent for a 50:1 chance of not having to see Tom Cruise in the tabloids again is a worthy investment alone.

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The real problem IMO is that NASA was simply unable to build a shuttle replacement without the funding. The Venture Star being the prime example.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>A lot of the replacements, including the Venture Star, had serious technical difficulties, but these just might have been solved with enough funding.<br /><br />To really get the public behind the space program, we'll need to come up with something that will significantly outperform conventional rockets. This might be an airbreathing or partially airbreathing booster (being one man, I can't finish the design of a partially airbreathing booster, but I can tell you it's a different animal than either pure air or a rocket), or even more radical, a beam powered vehicle. Now, THAT would work a lot better than a conventional rocket! But that might not be possible.<br /><br />I think people might want to take a big gamble like a beam powered vehicle rather than just squirting liquid oxygen into the airstream of a ramjet. The big gamble excites in the way incremental improvements can never do. The payoff will be big - actual access to space by whoever wants to go - whereas what we're doing now will never be truly accessible.<br /><br />The true lessons of NASP and Venture Star is that people are willing to accept gambles. The nonsuccess of these programs hasn't killed the people's appetite for new machinery. I don't know how such an illusion is prepetuated after the Columbia and Challenger disasters when polls say the people wanted to continue on.<br /><br />It's because they've seen science fiction come true in just 150 years. Instant lighting in every house. Instantaneous global communication. Cool air in the middle of summer. Men flying through the air, like birds, only faster. The conquest of smallpox and polio. The mystery of creation unlocked. The secret power of the sun, exposed.<br /><br />And they want more! And they are well aware that it r

 

[mattblack]

Learn to use your Google, my friend (see bottom of the page). Funny thing is, was Walter Mondale more right than he was wrong? Hhmmm.... Just as long as you remember he wanted an end to Apollo and most other space programs, too!!<br /><br />mikeemmert Said: />>Sir, could you provide some links for some of these things?<<<br /><br />See the bottom for all that I had time to find. Plus, the hundreds of space history publications I have back these events.<br /><br /> />>John Kerry got the endorsements of 25 Nobel Prize laureates, something prizewinners NEVER used to do. They must have seen some threat to science and learning. Al Gore always pushed for betterment through technology<<<br /><br />With respect to John Kerry, those Nobel Laureates would have supported Spongebob Squarepants if he was running against Dubya!! And Al Gore wanted a multi-million buck satellite that would sit out in space, 24/7 beaming a constant TV picture of the Earth back at us.<br /><br />Riiiight....... <br /><br /> />>Jimmy Carter, a nuclear submarine officer, tried to modernize the US nuclear industry.<<<br /><br />Mr Carter, whom I respect, was in naval intelligence, among other things. And he wanted to introduce the Neutron Bomb and many new commercial reactor projects, which were (unfortunately) shelved after Three Mile Island, which coincidentally, happened during his Presidency. But don't think for a minute I blame Mr Carter for that!! <br /><br /> />>ISS did not die under Bill Clinton<< <br /><br />Er... I SAID it survived by ONE vote.<br /><br /> />>His wise foresight in making peace with the Russian people saved the ISS in the wake of the tragic Columbia disaster.<<<br /><br />Foresight had little to do with it. While it was good that Russian scientists and Engineers lived, as it were, out of American pockets for a few years, this was mainly to prevent them for going to work for Ayatollahs, Saddam and North Korea. America, rightly and/or wrongly wanted <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Quite true, excellent points BTW. Now however, without the funding, NASA and traditional contractor approaches will not give us the advances you mentioned. By its very nature, Government and NASA in particular, take an incremental approach.<br /><br />Private enterprise will also take a somewhat incremental approach but if they see dividends at the end of a Laser Light Craft (LLC) for example, they will develop it. If it can be done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />Do they necessarily have to come back down? <br /><br />Hell, $1B spent for a 50:1 chance of not having to see Tom Cruise in the tabloids again is a worthy investment alone. <br /><br />My response:<br />Got me there LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Hell, $1B spent for a 50:1 chance of not having to see Tom Cruise in the tabloids again is a worthy investment alone.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Learn to use your Google, my friend (see bottom of the page).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>From your first link:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Note: Comments posted here represent the opinions of those writing them; their inclusion here does not imply any endorsement of their contents by the operator of this site. Those posting comments are solely responsible for their contents.<font color="white">"<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />The third:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow"> started my own collection two decades ago as a young soldier in the Reagan revolution. Over time it grew to include photos of myself and Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- you get the picture.<font color="white">"<br /><br />Right. Got it.<br /><br />Your fourth link:<font color="yellow">The obvious problem is that Bush’s plan emerged in an election year. Space is low on the priorities list anyway, and election-year politics have undoubtedly helped push it even lower. It has now been six months since Bush unveiled the Vision and he has not spoken about it once, not even at the release of the Aldridge Commission report. This lack of presidential attention is a pretty strong indication that it is no longer on the administration’s active agenda.<font color="white">"<br /><br />Thank you for supplying me with a link that reinforces my point. I am indebted to you.<br /><br />Remember, W is pandering to a religiously oriented audience who are distressed at finding out that science supports a 4 1/2 billion year old Earth, rather than a 6000 year old one.<br /><br />From your next link:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Editor's Note: For those of you who might be thinking that I am pro-Bush and anti- Kerry - let me set the record straight: if the election of 2004 was only about space policy, I would vote for George Bush without hesitation. I feel that a Kerry Administration would be disastrous for the prospects of a broad, exciting pr</font></font></font></font></font></font></font>

 

[mattblack]

First of all: can someone teach this old dog some new tricks-- how do you guys get the nifty coloured fonts and emoticons in the middle of your sentences?? I've tried, but it never seems to work!!<br /><br /> />>learn to use your Google...<< <br /><br />Sorry for the mild sarcasm!! I DID ask; was Mondale in hindsight, more right than wrong? Also, I did not say you were 'all wrong', Mike.<br /><br />You're right; the liberal vote is far from monolithic. But remember that phrase: LIBERAL vote... and all that implies. (conservative vote, and all THAT implies!!!)<br /><br />Bush's VSE means (or should mean) jobs which = VOTES. As for it being in an election year: Columbia was lost the year before an election year and the VSE took nearly a year to formulate. Merely timing + coincidence.<br /><br /> />>It has now been six months since Bush unveiled the Vision and he has not spoken about it once, not even at the release of the Aldridge Commission report. This lack of presidential attention is a pretty strong indication that it is no longer on the administration’s active agenda<<<br /><br />Said as much myself in other earlier posts:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=436962&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=mattblack&Match=Username&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=436863<br /><br /> />>He (Bush) has gutted the science programs, which have the broadest national support<<<br /><br />Really? Do they?! For the record, I'm not an American and if I were I'd be fighting to eliminate any stupid, medievel-derived Intelligent design, which is a clumsy chimera, from the classrooms. Sheesh!! If Mr Bush subscribes to this, then that's wha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Hello, mattblack. You don't say what country you're from. I'm from Austin, Texas as I say in my profile.<br /><br />I'm going to try to mix lessons with responses. First, go to FAQ, which is in the line at the top of the page with "Main Index", "Search", "My Home", etc. There are instructions for doing these things.<br /><br />Find the bracket [] keys on the keyboard. Most commands for [colors] and [fonts] and things are there. For instance, I am going to quote you. First I put "quote" in brackets instead of parentheses. When I get through pasting your quote, I end it with a backslash, like "/quote". Now I'll try it with brackets instead of parentheses:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>>>He (Bush) has gutted the science programs, which have the broadest national support<< <br /><br />Really? Do they?! For the record, I'm not an American and if I were I'd be fighting to eliminate any stupid, medievel-derived Intelligent design, which is a clumsy chimera, from the classrooms. Sheesh!! If Mr Bush subscribes to this, then that's what'd be damaging his scientific credibility in other areas, no question.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Unfortunately, this is true. <br /><br />Substituting quotation marks for brackets again, to make a link, I will first put "url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html" and then some comment and close the comments with "/url". When I use brackets instead of quotation marks, I get:<br /><br />I had to go six or seven entries down in google because the first few links were Bushbashing sites. The most common mistake is to leave a space between the = and the url. There should be no space, "ulr=www.whatever", not "url= www.whatever".<br /><br />Colo

 

[mattblack]

Thanks for the heads-up about the fonts etc; I'll give it a go. <br /><br />I'm from Auckland, New Zealand. As for the Democrats: I'd say John Kerry is "damaged goods" now in a sense. Hard to say how Gore could make a comeback, if at all, and all the talk about Hillary Clinton is just that at the moment: Talk. Beyond 2012, she might be considered too old or might rule herself out for the same reason. Who can say. Anyway, I digress...! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>