Kerry and NASA

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

toothferry

Guest
<font color="yellow"> "if you're so against Mars, what do you think is going to inspire and make the public proud? Not the ISS, that's for sure, and that's the only future Kerry envisions for NASA for a LONG time. " </font>hr /><br />The Space Elevator! Rather than having a destination type agenda I think we should have a technology type agenda. Our goals should be to develop _____ .<br /><br />The MARS plan is a wild brained idea that certainly won't help NASA in the long run. I don't have anything against going to Mars, but we will need an advance in technology first. <br /><br />The Space Elevator would be a new beginning for NASA, MARS and EVERYTHING space related rather than a final destination for NASA... <br /><br />If this was the 19th century, Bush would be telling NASA.. "Let's go out West so we can say we've been there" but what we really need someone saying "Let's build a railroad Out West and open up endless new opportunities"
 
T

toothferry

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Personally I do not trust ANY politician, especially Kerry. "</font><br /><br />Well, my Intelligence tells me that Kerry has higher values and is the more trustworthy candidate.
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
<font color="red"> On January 14, Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration,<br />which mapped out a long-term agenda for NASA. The plan<br />includes exploring space through the use of both robotic missions<br />and human expeditions, possibly returning to the Moon, and developing<br />technologies to enable future exploration of Mars. The president<br />is committed to ensuring that this project is fiscally responsible<br />and that it utilizes the talents and entrepreneurial spirit of private industry.<br />Included in the vision is a plan to return the space shuttle to<br />flight and complete the U.S. obligation to the International Space<br />Station. Bush’s budget requests to Congress reflect his desire to ensure<br />that this vision is adequately funded.</font><br /><br /><font color="blue"> Kerry supports a reinvigorated NASA but does not feel the current<br />direction the president has given the agency wisely uses the<br />funding allocated. He recommends reevaluating NASA’s focus and<br />direction. He has advocated microgravity research, including researching<br />unique drug treatments that might lead to benefits in<br />health care costs, and development of defenses against chemical<br />and biological terrorist attacks.</font><br /><br /><i>http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/campaign.oct04.pdf<br />Platform 2004: Aerospace issues<br />Anne Ellis<br />AIAA Public Policy</i><br /><br />I really don’t think any more needs to be said on the matter.<br />
 
T

toothferry

Guest
<font color="orange">"Kerry tells lots of lies"</font><br /><br />So what has Kerry been lieing about???<br /><br />And I think you'd have to say that Kerry's best buddy is clearly <b>John Edwards</b>, after all, he was selected as his running mate.<br /><br />Bush think's he can win over NASA by literally promising them the moon, and MORE! Kerry is far more trustworthy in my opinion. At least he doesn't try to insult our intelligence nearly as often. Read below and judge for yourself which one is telling lies: <hr /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i>The respected science journal Nature posed 15 questions to President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on key science issues.</i> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000214.html<br /><br />7) NATURE: Do you think the United States should send astronauts to the moon or Mars in the next 10 to 15 years? If so, why send humans instead of robots? If not, what is the purpose of the space shuttle and space station?<br /><br /><b>BUSH: "In January, I announced my vision for the future of America's space exploration program. As we complete our work on the International Space Station, we are developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit. This vehicle will be tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. America will return to the moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020, and use it as a foundation for human missions beyond the moon. We will begin with robotic missions, and manned missions will follow. An extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further exploration."<br /><br />KERRY: "Today, thanks to decades of public investment in space exploration activities, a rotating international team of astronauts is living and working in space on the International Space Station, a dozen Americans have walked on the moon, we have rovers exploring the surface</b></font>
 
A

arobie

Guest
Actually there, I see a president who answered the question, and a senator who did not.
 
T

toothferry

Guest
Bush evoked a Buck Rogers type feeling, promised the Moon and Mars, and gave an answer that people interested in Space Travel would <i>want</i> to hear. <br /><br />Kerry's answer was doable and honest, but requires the light of wisdom to see through, and I'm excited about <i>that!</i>
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
A fancified version of pretty much saying "We'll do the same thing we've done for the past thirty years" Honestly doesn't make ME that excited, and I'm supposed to be interested in space exploration <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
 
T

toothferry

Guest
Well, Bush is setting NASA and all Public Enterprises up for some spectacular failures and you're setting yourself up for a really rude awakening.<br /><br />I can't get exciting over Bush whacking everything NASA starts and then shifting attention to schemes that are essentially an investment in NASA's future failure. <br /><br />If I were proposing a conspiracy theory then I'd suggest he has it in for NASA and wants to turn it into a Halliburton type private company, with tax-payer endowed <b>Billionaire Business Hero's</b> touting their own personal genius, and that being Bush's only <b>Strategic Initiative.</b> <br /><br />But whatever he has planned, I'm certain it won't add up. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> I have faith in Kerry. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <br />
 
T

toothferry

Guest
<font color="yellow">There is really no garrontee that a space elevator or any other technological marvel will be produced by NASA under Kerry. </font><br /><br />maybe so, but there <b>is</b> a guarantee that a space elevator and other non-lucrative technological marvels will <b>NEVER</b> be produced-- <i>unless taxpayers decide to fund the research. </i><br /><br />I hate to be the one to burst anyone's bubble, but SPACE is not going to supply enough cash windfalls to (for-profit) space businesses unless it ultimately comes from tax payer's pocketbooks, and handed over to them by NASA or some other government agency. There just isn't the $billions to squeeze out of space tourists pocketbooks to make it all happen... anything except suborbital flights.<br /><br />Now, if taxpayers won't let NASA do the research unless they subsidize gazillionaire business heroes (to do it for them and take all the credit and glory while trouncing public space programs) -- because citizens have been talked out of it by the Republican "corporate-only" politicians.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Oh, you mean people like Burt Rutan and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) of Majave Aerospace Ventures, Elon Musk of SpaceX (PayPal billionare), and Jeff Benzos ( Amazon.com billionare) of Blue Origin? </font><br /><br />Actually, these folks haven't taken any taxpayer money except for the small X-prize that Burt and Paul will eventually receive. But I have to admit that I'd be worried if we gave them $$ TENS $$ OR EVEN HUNDREDS $$ OF $$ BILLIONS $$ to run the Public's space projects. Though they'd certainly be mega-heroes in the public's eye from then on, with all that money and all those achievements under there belts, but without the public scrutiny that NASA receives I wouldn't feel comfortable funding corporate takeovers of public property (NASA and Space Research).<br /><br />But even so, if getting spectacular space results means having to make only one of 2 cho
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
Hi ToothFerry<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> space elevator and other non-lucrative technological marvels will NEVER be produced--</font><br />For starters the space elevator and the technology behind it are extremely lucrative.<br />2ndly in order to research and develop a space elevator it would mean giving billions to big scary corporations. Isn’t this what you are rallying against?<br /><br />I think I’ve figured out your logic.<br /><br />When Bush signs billions over to Nasa, whom then gives it to Lockheed, it is nothing more then corruption. He is knowingly giving billions of dollars of the tax payer’s money to a corporation that will squander it. Etcetera, etcetera, big corporations.<br /><br />When Kerry signs a billion dollars over to Nasa, whom then gives it to Lockheed, he is showing true leadership. He can see that the benefits of space exploration will enrich our country. And if he decides to not support one of Nasa’s agendas then he can see the error in it.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b> I have faith in Kerry.</b></font><br />Since you have apparently shown no reason in your belief that Kerry will benefit the space program, I guess faith is all we have.<br /><br /><br /><b> I do support the Nasa’s that’s why I want to bring them home!</b><br />To LEO where they are safe and cannot fail,<br />or succeed.<br />
 
T

toothferry

Guest
<font color="yellow">For starters the space elevator and the technology behind it are extremely lucrative. <br />2ndly in order to research and develop a space elevator it would mean giving billions to big scary corporations. Isn’t this what you are rallying against</font><br /><br />First off, if it really is so lucrative then why don't they just get a business loan to cover this business venture? <br /><br />But being that it actually ISN'T so lucrative to research the technology that might eventually bring the Space Elevator into fruition, I'd say giving billions of tax payer dollars to corporations might be the only way to get that technology developed. And I don't mind tax payers giving corporations billions as long as those tax-payers have over-site and get credit. After all, if its the Tax-Payer financing it then it's really the Tax Payer that OWNS it. <br /><br />But why do we need to disenfranchise the tax payer to develop great technology? Is it because we want business hero's to get all the credit and that tax payers should just be grateful that they are sub servant to them and have a job? I say if the tax-payers pay for the projects, then let them get the credit.. because citizens united under good common cause are the real hero's, after all, they wouldn't have shied away from lending a hand to help their communities or whatever it might be that they set their minds to achieve.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Since you have apparently shown no reason in your belief that Kerry will benefit the space program, I guess faith is all we have. </font><br /><br />Since George Bush won the election, all we can hope to have is Faith in George Bush now. Unfortunately, any which way the Profit Bull wants to go will be the direction he steers America and the World, whether or not it's Good or Bad, just as long as there is $$$profit. <br /><br />Their spin doctors will make those goals virtuous, somehow- I'm sure. But we've lost the reigns and t
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
I’m simply saying that if someone could develop a system to mass produce a material that has the tensile strength of 100 GPa it would have enormous financial returns.
 
N

nexium

Guest
It does appear that Dr. Edwards was over-optimistic about the strength and availability of CNT. If it proves to be half as strong, the mass of the tether increases about 100 times, quickly becoming rediculous at less than 1/2. In theory we can develop a system to carry 1000 tons to Geo-stationary orbit, or alternately assemble the space elevator as 100 separate segments. Either would be increadibly expensive any time in this decade, so my guess is the space elevator is more than 10 years in our future. There is a slight possiblity that construction is near completion. It would likely be done in secret, and an 8 centimeter black ribbon would be invisable except to a powerful telescope at close range. Neil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY