Re: Barack Obama Continues to Disdain Space Exploration
Eric Chomko
> Back in an earlier thread on this subject, I've noted, as another
> reply here already does, that his policy is not as bad as others which
> could be proposed. There does not seem to be any broad support for
> sending astronauts even to the Moon, never mind Mars, unfortunately.
>
> What can you expect, really? Many liberals took one look at G. W.
> Bush's space initiative, and ran off screaming...
>
> Aieee! Aieee! Shrub-Ziggurat! The White Elephant that squandered a
> thousand billions!
>
Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
exploration if his father was not to be believed?
Both sure as hell got their wars though. So, it is a matter of
commitment. Both were committed to war, based upon results, and both
are NOT committed to space, based upon results.
Eric
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
>to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
>had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
>VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
>As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
>exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>
I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
by his successor, Bill Clinton. Yes, I know, it was discussed before,
and SEI had problems. But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed
it. So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
Because it was killed/put out of its mysery/whatever by those who came
AFTER him. If SEI had continued to this day, as Shuttle and Station
have, and still produced nothing, that would be a different story.
BUT IT WAS CANCELLED BY GEORGE SR'S SUCCESSOR. So OF COURSE it
produced nothing! You might as well gripe about the poor science
returns from the Apollo 20 Moon landing. (Yes, I know, 17 was the
last one; that's the point!)
WRT VSE, we have to look at not what Bush is doing but what potential
successors would do. It looks as if Both Clinton and Obama would
build the Orion Ares 1 stack. I just read in Aviation Week that a
DEMOCRATIC Congressman(?) from Tennessee thinks going back to the Moon
makes more sense that a straight shot to Mars. And in October,
AVIATION WEEK reported there is international interest in lunar
exploration.
So, will Bush Jr.'s successors keep VSE, kill it, or keep the building
blocks? Hard to say, although the last option seems more likely. But
Blaming/crediting Bush for what is sucessors do or don't do is neither
accurate nor fair.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BradGuth
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
Because of folks exactly like yourselves, we're summarily screwed past
the point of no return, so much so screwed that even the return of
Christ almighty isn't going to be sufficient, unless it's for
orchestrating a preemptive all-out nuclear and VX strike that saves
our global energy sucking butts.
Do you think Barack Obama is going to be better than the return of
Christ, or that of God almighty? (because that's about what it's going
to take)
BTW, I agree that a moon thing is far better off than any Mars thing,
and even better yet is the moon L1 thing, or perhaps going for the
Venus L2 thing if not Venus itself.
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
> >to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
> >had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
> >VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
> >As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
> >exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>
> I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
> by his successor, Bill Clinton.
Read this and decide if Clinton was right or wrong. http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
> Yes, I know, it was discussed before, and SEI had problems.
So Clinton put it out of its misery?
> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
Hold it! Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1996! Reread the
link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
> So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
Based upon your faulty premise of a Democratic congress in 1996? Bush
Sr.'s SEI could not get past a REPUBLICAN congress in 1996! Get the
facts straight.
> Because it was killed/put out of its mysery/whatever by those who came
> AFTER him.
Right a GOP congress.
> If SEI had continued to this day, as Shuttle and Station
> have, and still produced nothing, that would be a different story.
> BUT IT WAS CANCELLED BY GEORGE SR'S SUCCESSOR. So OF COURSE it
> produced nothing! You might as well gripe about the poor science
> returns from the Apollo 20 Moon landing. (Yes, I know, 17 was the
> last one; that's the point!)
Your rant is silly because your facts are wrong...
>
> WRT VSE, we have to look at not what Bush is doing but what potential
> successors would do. It looks as if Both Clinton and Obama would
> build the Orion Ares 1 stack. I just read in Aviation Week that a
> DEMOCRATIC Congressman(?) from Tennessee thinks going back to the Moon
> makes more sense that a straight shot to Mars. And in October,
> AVIATION WEEK reported there is international interest in lunar
> exploration.
>
> So, will Bush Jr.'s successors keep VSE, kill it, or keep the building
> blocks? Hard to say, although the last option seems more likely. But
> Blaming/crediting Bush for what is sucessors do or don't do is neither
> accurate nor fair.
It tells you whether they had true commitment or not. They are both
from Texas and have commitment to the state and JSC, not NASA.
Rand Simberg
Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Mar 30, 12:37 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>>
>> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
>> >to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
>> >had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
>> >VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
>> >As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
>> >exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>>
>> I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
>> by his successor, Bill Clinton.
>
>Read this and decide if Clinton was right or wrong. http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
>
>> Yes, I know, it was discussed before, and SEI had problems.
>
>So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>
>> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
>> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
>
>Hold it! Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1996!
Who said otherwise?
> Reread the
>link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
>Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
>elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
>> So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
>
>Based upon your faulty premise of a Democratic congress in 1996?
No one said anything about a Democratic congress in 1996, you moron.
SEI died long before that.
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >On Mar 30, 12:37 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
> >> >to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
> >> >had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
> >> >VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
> >> >As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
> >> >exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>
> >> I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
> >> by his successor, Bill Clinton.
>
>
> >> Yes, I know, it was discussed before, and SEI had problems.
>
> >So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>
> >> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
> >> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
>
> >Hold it! Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1996!
>
> Who said otherwise?
Michael Gallagher the original poster. Se said that at the time (1996)
that Clinton killed SEI congress was controlled by the Democrats. See
above.
>
> > Reread the
> >link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
> >Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
> >elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
> >> So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
>
> >Based upon your faulty premise of a Democratic congress in 1996?
>
> No one said anything about a Democratic congress in 1996, you moron.
> SEI died long before that.
No it didn't! You need to read the link before posting.
You do know how to read, right Rand? I ask because based upon results
there is no proof that you read, therefore proof that you know how to
read.
Perhaps you're like the teacher who could not read:
http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html
It would explain a lot. No offense to your reader, it is just that
they aren't telling you everything and leaving you with less to work
with. But given your intellect I suppose that is best.
Eric
Andre Lieven
There is an element of truth to this, as the references that I can
find
about the Summary of Space Exploration Initiative ( By: Steve Dick,
NASA
Chief Historian ) states:
" As a result the Clinton Administration's 1996 National Space Policy
officially removed human exploration from the national agenda. "
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nstc-8.htm
gives the Clinton National Space Policy date of September 19, 1996
Now, the Republicans won control of Congress on Nov 5, 1996. Prior
to that date, the House had a Democratic majority.
> > > Reread the
> > >link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
> > >Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
> > >elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
> > >> So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
>
> > >Based upon your faulty premise of a Democratic congress in 1996?
>
> > No one said anything about a Democratic congress in 1996, you moron.
> > SEI died long before that.
>
> No it didn't! You need to read the link before posting.
>
> You do know how to read, right Rand? I ask because based upon results
> there is no proof that you read, therefore proof that you know how to
> read.
>
> Perhaps you're like the teacher who could not read:
> http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html
>
> It would explain a lot. No offense to your reader, it is just that
> they aren't telling you everything and leaving you with less to work
> with. But given your intellect I suppose that is best.
Well, I would still say that September comes before November,
even in 1996...
Andre
Rand Simberg
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Mar 30, 12:37 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>>
>> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
>> >to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
>> >had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
>> >VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
>> >As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
>> >exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>>
>> I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
>> by his successor, Bill Clinton.
>
>Read this and decide if Clinton was right or wrong. http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
>
>> Yes, I know, it was discussed before, and SEI had problems.
>
>So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>
>> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
>> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
It was dead years before Clinton formally removed it from the policy.
Eric Chomko
Nope, Jan of 1995. See link below.
>
>
> > > > Reread the
> > > >link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
> > > >Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
> > > >elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
> > > >> So, was it BUSH SR.'s fault that SEI wasn't implemented? No.
>
> > > >Based upon your faulty premise of a Democratic congress in 1996?
>
> > > No one said anything about a Democratic congress in 1996, you moron.
> > > SEI died long before that.
>
> > No it didn't! You need to read the link before posting.
>
> > You do know how to read, right Rand? I ask because based upon results
> > there is no proof that you read, therefore proof that you know how to
> > read.
>
> > Perhaps you're like the teacher who could not read:
> >http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html
>
> > It would explain a lot. No offense to your reader, it is just that
> > they aren't telling you everything and leaving you with less to work
> > with. But given your intellect I suppose that is best.
>
> Well, I would still say that September comes before November,
> even in 1996...
>
And your cite for that election date is? Yes, September does come
before November (which I believe the only fact you got right in this
whole thread!).
I believe you have the date wrong. First off the elections happen in
November but the winners do not take office until January. So, if you
are correct about your November 1996 reference, and you are not, then
congress would have convened anew on January of 1997, given a November
election.
Now to correct you on actual dates. Read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution
And pay particular attention to this:
"The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the
Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in
January 1995."
That is because they won big in the election in November of 1994.
My question now is, will you come back to this thread and acknowledge
your mistake, heed my correction in the spirit of truth, or slink away
like Rand Simberg does in cases like this?
Eric
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 12:37 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
> >> >to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
> >> >had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
> >> >VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
> >> >As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
> >> >exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>
> >> I think that is an oversimplification. Bush Sr.'s SEI was cancelled
> >> by his successor, Bill Clinton.
>
>
> >> Yes, I know, it was discussed before, and SEI had problems.
>
> >So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>
> >> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
> >> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
>
> It was dead years before Clinton formally removed it from the policy.
Why don't you correct the NASA historian then?
Perhaps events led up to what Clinton did to SEI in 1996. But, the
fact remains that it was Clinton and in 1996 despite what you say.
Perhaps SEI was dead on arrival?
Rand Simberg
Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>>
>> >> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
>> >> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
>>
>> It was dead years before Clinton formally removed it from the policy.
>
>Why don't you correct the NASA historian then?
Because I have better things to do with my time, and what he wrote
wasn't factually incorrect, simply incomplete (it was stated as a
"summary," if you'd actually bothered to read it).
>Perhaps events led up to what Clinton did to SEI in 1996. But, the
>fact remains that it was Clinton and in 1996 despite what you say.
>
>Perhaps SEI was dead on arrival?
No, NASA killed it, long before 1996.
Eric Chomko
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:04:41 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >So Clinton put it out of its misery?
>
> >> >> But it ran afoul of a Democrat-controlled
> >> >> Congress that couldn't get past the sticker shock, and Clinton killed it.
>
> >> It was dead years before Clinton formally removed it from the policy.
>
> >Why don't you correct the NASA historian then?
>
> Because I have better things to do with my time, and what he wrote
> wasn't factually incorrect, simply incomplete (it was stated as a
> "summary," if you'd actually bothered to read it).
Why don't you provide a link that spells out the details rather than a
summary?
>
> >Perhaps events led up to what Clinton did to SEI in 1996. But, the
> >fact remains that it was Clinton and in 1996 despite what you say.
>
> >Perhaps SEI was dead on arrival?
>
> No, NASA killed it, long before 1996.
Provide a citation for that if you can.
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Read this and decide if Clinton was right or wrong. http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
>
Whether we agree on whether he was right or wrong, the fact is Clinton
did it and we agree on that. That's my point: You are complaining a
cancelled program has shown no results. But by definition, a program
can't show results if it's been cancelled. Knocking down straw men
may burn callories, but has little other value IMHO.
>Hold it! Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1996! Reread the
>link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
>Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
>elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
Yes. But I remember the Democrats controlled Congress in 1989 when
Bush Sr. proposed SEI. IRRC, Ted Kennedy and other leading Democrats
held a press conference right after his proposal if not that day
saying "no free launch." Who do you think controlled Congress when
"NASA was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to gain Congressional
support for the plan"? Until 1994, Democrats. And IIRC, as soon as
he was inaugurated in 1993, Clinton terminated the National Space
Council. That was the end of SEI. I was reading AVIATION WEEK
faithfully at public and college libraries in those days, so I am
pretty sure of the details. If you want to blame
eeeeeeevvvvviiiiiiiilllllllllllll Republicans for all the world's
ills, be my guest, but at least have your facts straight.
All of which is beside the point. Once again: Clinton cancelled SEI,
so of course, it has shown no results. QED. Partisanship has nothing
to do with it.
>
>It tells you whether they had true commitment or not. They are both
>from Texas and have commitment to the state and JSC, not NASA.
Clinton was not from Texas and he continued both Station and Shuttle,
which meant giving money to JSC and Texas. He also continued
planetary exploration even though he is not from JPL's home state of
California. So maybe the president's state of origin has nothing to
do with it.
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >Read this and decide if Clinton was right or wrong.http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
>
> Whether we agree on whether he was right or wrong, the fact is Clinton
> did it and we agree on that. That's my point: You are complaining a
> cancelled program has shown no results. But by definition, a program
> can't show results if it's been cancelled. Knocking down straw men
> may burn callories, but has little other value IMHO.
You miss the point. SEI was DOA. Why can't you just admit that? There
is no strawman.
>
> >Hold it! Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1996! Reread the
> >link above. You don't recall "Contract on, err with America"? Newt,
> >Dick Armey, the Clinton lynch-mob of Hyde, Burton and others? All
> >elected or became committee heads after the 1994 election.
>
> Yes. But I remember the Democrats controlled Congress in 1989 when
> Bush Sr. proposed SEI. IRRC, Ted Kennedy and other leading Democrats
> held a press conference right after his proposal if not that day
> saying "no free launch." Who do you think controlled Congress when
> "NASA was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to gain Congressional
> support for the plan"? Until 1994, Democrats. And IIRC, as soon as
> he was inaugurated in 1993, Clinton terminated the National Space
> Council.
It was headed by Dan Quayle and he was a joke. Do you think any
program headed by Dan Quayle should have had a legacy? Especially one
associated with science and engineering?! Please...
I sure as hell know Republican hacks like to attribute Dan Quayle
quotes to Al Gore, despite the fact that Clinton and Gore wanted
nothing to do with Bush and Quayle's National Space Council. So,
killing the NSC as under Bush/Quayle was not only prudent (to steal a
word Bush Sr. likes) it was a necessary!
> That was the end of SEI.
I think SEI was dead on 7/21/89.
> I was reading AVIATION WEEK
> faithfully at public and college libraries in those days, so I am
> pretty sure of the details. If you want to blame
> eeeeeeevvvvviiiiiiiilllllllllllll Republicans for all the world's
> ills, be my guest, but at least have your facts straight.
Only when they attribute Quayle quotes to Gore. You are aware of your
fellow GOPers who do that, right?
>
> All of which is beside the point. Once again: Clinton cancelled SEI,
> so of course, it has shown no results. QED. Partisanship has nothing
> to do with it.
Other than your addition of it to the argument.
>
> >It tells you whether they had true commitment or not. They are both
> >from Texas and have commitment to the state and JSC, not NASA.
>
> Clinton was not from Texas and he continued both Station and Shuttle,
> which meant giving money to JSC and Texas. \
As well as GSFC in MD, GSC in OH, JPL in CA, etc. Clinton did not
favor one center over others like Republicans, especially the ones
from Texas, like to do.
> He also continued
> planetary exploration even though he is not from JPL's home state of
> California. So maybe the president's state of origin has nothing to
> do with it.
Or, maybe it does.
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You miss the point. SEI was DOA. Why can't you just admit that?....
Because I'm not talking about that issue at all! YOU'RE missing MY
point.
Let's go back. Several iterations of this thread ago, you said
something about how SEI had not shown results. Correct?
Well, we agree that Bill Clinton cancelled it sometime in the '90s --
you say '96 and I say '93, but the fact remains it was done. Right?
Whether it was right or wrong it was done. Ok? With me?
Now, SINCE cancellation, whenever it happened, it makes sense it
produced nothing because .... it was cancelled. Whatever they wanted
to do doesn't matter. If the program was cancelled, then nothing came
of it.
Prior to cancellation, there were studies done in the 1989-1992 time
frame; I'm not aware of any done as part of SEI from 1993 to 1996, but
that would make sense if work had stopped on it. But SEI was
envisioned as a thirty year long program --say from 1989 ton 2019. I
looked through my copy of AMERICA AT THE THRESHOLD, and none of their
architectures have an unmanned precursor to either the Moon or Mars
prior to 1998; the earliest manned missions to the Moon would have
been around 2003 or 2004, assuming everything they proposed had been
funded, which, of course, it never was. BY WHICH PARTY DOESN'T
MATTER.
So SEI was cancelled between two and five years before anything would
have been launched under the most optimistic plans, and nothing has
been done since. I think this demonstrates why it showed no results:
Cancellation. The value of the program and/or hypothetical nefarious
motives by the administration proposing it are irellevant to this
point. If it had continued we would be 2/3 of the way through it and
would be arguing about how well which administration had done on it,
but that is not what happened. It was cancelled, therefore, no
results. QED.
> ..... Only when they attribute Quayle quotes to Gore. You are aware of your
>fellow GOPers who do that, right?
>
I am a Democrat -- not a liberal Democrat but still a Democrat -- so I
do not have any "fellow GOPers." So no, I wouldn't know what they
say.
Eric Chomko
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >You miss the point. SEI was DOA. Why can't you just admit that?....
>
> Because I'm not talking about that issue at all! YOU'RE missing MY
> point.
>
> Let's go back. Several iterations of this thread ago, you said
> something about how SEI had not shown results. Correct?
Yes and that is why I doubt W's VSE will be any better.
>
> Well, we agree that Bill Clinton cancelled it sometime in the '90s --
> you say '96 and I say '93, but the fact remains it was done. Right?
This following link indicates quite clearly that it was in 1996.
http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm
> Whether it was right or wrong it was done. Ok? With me?
But if it were WRONG, then putting it out of its misery is the RIGHT
thing to do!
>
> Now, SINCE cancellation, whenever it happened, it makes sense it
> produced nothing because .... it was cancelled. Whatever they wanted
> to do doesn't matter. If the program was cancelled, then nothing came
> of it.
Because it was a bad plan. Like father like son! What part of this
don't you get?!?!
>
> Prior to cancellation, there were studies done in the 1989-1992 time
> frame; I'm not aware of any done as part of SEI from 1993 to 1996, but
> that would make sense if work had stopped on it. But SEI was
> envisioned as a thirty year long program --say from 1989 ton 2019. I
> looked through my copy of AMERICA AT THE THRESHOLD, and none of their
> architectures have an unmanned precursor to either the Moon or Mars
> prior to 1998; the earliest manned missions to the Moon would have
> been around 2003 or 2004, assuming everything they proposed had been
> funded, which, of course, it never was. BY WHICH PARTY DOESN'T
> MATTER.
>
> So SEI was cancelled between two and five years before anything would
> have been launched under the most optimistic plans, and nothing has
> been done since. I think this demonstrates why it showed no results:
> Cancellation.
No! THAT is your take! It was cancelled because no one felt that Bush
Sr.'s commitment to it was worth a crap. He tried a bold JFK-like
commitement and it fell on its face. Commitments make themselves.
JFK's commitment was valid because we went to the moon even after he
was dead.
> The value of the program and/or hypothetical nefarious
> motives by the administration proposing it are irellevant to this
> point.
No! They are the point!. Bush's SEI was bad because it was never
implemented!
> If it had continued we would be 2/3 of the way through it and
> would be arguing about how well which administration had done on it,
> but that is not what happened. It was cancelled, therefore, no
> results. QED.
NO, again! We could have thrown more money down a hole for a longer
period of time and had Bush Jr. cancel it for being a lousy plan.
The Bushes want war not space exploration. Making long-term goals
about space and having a war during your term of duty is a case in
point. Their commitments were for war and the fact that both had wars
proves my point.
>
> > ..... Only when they attribute Quayle quotes to Gore. You are aware of your
> >fellow GOPers who do that, right?
>
> I am a Democrat -- not a liberal Democrat but still a Democrat -- so I
> do not have any "fellow GOPers." So no, I wouldn't know what they
> say.
>
I amazed at how you defend the GOP as you do.
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> .... Bush's SEI was bad because it was never
>implemented!
>
And we have gone in circles because cancellation prevents
implentation.
I'm getting off the merry-go-round. Have fun.
Eric Chomko
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> > .... Bush's SEI was bad because it was never
> >implemented!
>
> And we have gone in circles because cancellation prevents
> implentation.
>
> I'm getting off the merry-go-round. Have fun.
>
My last post on it as well.
You cannot assumed that had SEI gone forward that we'd have anything
worthwhile from it any
more that we have made progress with W's VSE. As it stands right now,
it is very clear
that the next administration will actually shape VSE if it is really
going to happen.
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You cannot assumed that had SEI gone forward that we'd have anything
>worthwhile from it ....
True .... but then by the same token, no one can say NOTHING would
have come of it, either. We simply don't know. Nor can anyone accuse
the Bushes of doing VSE and SEI simply to get money for Texas without
backing that up with hard evidence to that effect, such as they
actually told someone that and the quote is verifiable. A Wikepedia
graphic of NASA grants doesn't count.
> ...... any
>more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....
???? And what did you expect after four years? Orion isn't supposed
to have a manned flight until 2015. So what was supposed to have
happened by '08? If anything?
> ..... As it stands right now,
>it is very clear
>that the next administration will actually shape VSE if it is really
>going to happen.
EXACTLY!
mh...@ohiohills.com
it from the start.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html
If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
space-industry worker would want Obama as president.
otak...@gmail.com
Yes, especially when it hits their pocketbook.
I remember how the space scientists here at JPL howled when Bush cut
the NASA science budget.
eyeball
wrote:
Slightly off topic, but wasn't that part about federalizing pre-
schools nice? Didn't Hitler say if he got them young they'd be his for
life?
http://www.teesnthings.com/ProductImages/political/republican-t-shirts/2008-anybody-but-democrat-tee-shirt.jpg
Paul L. Madarasz
<eyeball...@aol.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
I thought that was the Jesuits.
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
Rand Simberg
Madarasz <madp...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT), eyeball
Same idea.
Jeff Findley
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:48a14261.4055341512@news.giganews.com...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:52:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, Paul L.
> Madarasz <madp...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT), eyeball
>><eyeball...@aol.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>>schools nice? Didn't Hitler say if he got them young they'd be his for
>>>life?
>>>http://www.teesnthings.com/ProductImages/political/republican-t-shirts/2008-anybody-but-democrat-tee-shirt.jpg
>>
>>I thought that was the Jesuits.
>
> Same idea.
Mc Donald's has been very successful with this approach as well. Get the
kids hooked on Happy Meals when they're in pre-school and you have a
customer for life.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
Eric Chomko
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >You cannot assumed that had SEI gone forward that we'd have anything
> >worthwhile from it ....
>
> True .... but then by the same token, no one can say NOTHING would
> have come of it, either. We simply don't know. Nor can anyone accuse
> the Bushes of doing VSE and SEI simply to get money for Texas without
> backing that up with hard evidence to that effect, such as they
> actually told someone that and the quote is verifiable. A Wikepedia
> graphic of NASA grants doesn't count.
Yet, nothing has come of either SEI and VSE and Texas continues to get
paid for the latter at least.
>
> > ...... any
> >more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....
>
> ???? And what did you expect after four years? Orion isn't supposed
> to have a manned flight until 2015. So what was supposed to have
> happened by '08? If anything?
You tell me! Should we have NOTHING after four years? Shouldn't we
have some sort of real metric of success? It will take a non-Texas
politician to get them to show results as the Bushes didn't care.
Which was my very point.
Michael Gallagher
>http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html
>
>If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
>space-industry worker would want Obama as president.
Well, it's true in that there's nothing new here. Obama's education
policy came out months ago; supposedly, other documents came out to
"clarify" his position, that he would build Orion on shedule but delay
the lunar and Mars missions parts of Constellation.
I've said many times it would help if Obama had his space policy
spelled out in no uncertain terms on his web site, but to date, no
policy has appeared there. Documents have been released purported to
be from his campaign, but without copies on his web site, they have
the whiff of plausible deniability about them -- assuming they are
genunine. And so we are left to speculate based on what tidbits we
can get about a candidate who has raised being vague to an art form.
BradGuth
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:50:26 -0700 (PDT), "mh...@ohiohills.com"
>
> <mh...@ohiohills.com> wrote:
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html
>
> >If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
> >space-industry worker would want Obama as president.
>
> Well, it's true in that there's nothing new here. Obama's education
> policy came out months ago; supposedly, other documents came out to
> "clarify" his position, that he would build Orion on shedule but delay
> the lunar and Mars missions parts of Constellation.
>
> I've said many times it would help if Obama had his space policy
> spelled out in no uncertain terms on his web site, but to date, no
> policy has appeared there. Documents have been released purported to
> be from his campaign, but without copies on his web site, they have
> the whiff of plausible deniability about them -- assuming they are
> genunine. And so we are left to speculate based on what tidbits we
> can get about a candidate who has raised being vague to an art form.
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
How many of our hard earned public trillions spent on space
exploration would make you a happy camper?
How much spendier would you make energy, food, housing, education and
medical care, in order to pay for those trillions upon trillions?
Would you support WWIII (if need be with your own life) in order to
invest such trillions into what's mostly of off-world inert eye-
candy?
. - Brad Guth
Monte Davis
>I've said many times it would help if Obama had his space policy
>spelled out in no uncertain terms on his web site... And so we are
> left to speculate based on what tidbits we
>can get about a candidate who has raised being vague to an art form.
As distinguished from all the other candidates of all parties over the
last 40 years, who have set forth comprehensive and detailed space
policies.
Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com/
BradGuth
How many of our hard earned public trillions, if otherwise spent on
space exploration, would make you a happy camper?
How much spendier would you care to make energy, food, housing,
education and medical care, in order to pay for those trillions upon
trillions?
Would you support WWIII (if need be with your own life) in order to
invest such public trillions into what's mostly of off-world inert
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 12:29 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>>
>>
>> > ...... any
>> >more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....
>>
>> ???? And what did you expect after four years? Orion isn't supposed
>> to have a manned flight until 2015. So what was supposed to have
>> happened by '08? If anything?
>
>You tell me! Should we have NOTHING after four years? Shouldn't we
>have some sort of real metric of success?
And what would you consider a "real metric of success"? Did you
exepct a manned Moon landing by now? Why, when no one said it would
happen by now? What do you think should have happened by now to be
considered successful? If nothing that has happened to date --
planning to retire the shuttle and the work done on Ares and Orion --
doesn't count, what would? YOU tell ME, because YOU are the one who
is making these statements and YOU are the one who is so certain
nothing will come of it!
> ..... It will take a non-Texas
>politician to get them to show results as the Bushes didn't care.
>Which was my very point.
>
Prove it. I want hard evidence that the Bushes just see SEI/VSE as a
way to scam money for Texas, and by that I mean, THEY ACTUCALLY TOLD
SOMEONE THAT AND THE QUOTE CAN BE VERIFIED. You're very good at
pulling together a conspiracy theory, but I want the smoking gun. And
it's on you to provide it, because you are making the accusations.
OM
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And what would you consider a "real metric of success"?
...The courtesy and consideration to finally dump Chumpko into your
killfile and put the bastard out of our misery?
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
BradGuth
afford.
You can however lust after that which you can not afford.
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:17�am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Back in an earlier thread on this subject, I've noted, as another
> > reply here already does, that his policy is not as bad as others which
> > could be proposed. There does not seem to be any broad support for
> > sending astronauts even to the Moon, never mind Mars, unfortunately.
> >
> > What can you expect, really? Many liberals took one look at G. W.
> > Bush's space initiative, and ran off screaming...
> >
> > Aieee! Aieee! Shrub-Ziggurat! The White Elephant that squandered a
> > thousand billions!
> >
>
> Actually, it was the fact that during the Bush administration a change
> to the NASA charter removed any reference to Earth observation; that
> had liberals screaming. Further, when you look at the fact that Bush's
> VSE is similar to Bush Sr.'s SEI and the latter was never implemented.
> As I have stated before, why should we believe Bush Jr. WRT space
> exploration if his father was not to be believed?
>
> Both sure as hell got their wars though. So, it is a matter of
> commitment. Both were committed to war, based upon results, and both
> are NOT committed to space, based upon results.
>
> Eric
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >On Apr 21, 12:29 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> >> > ...... any
> >> >more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....
>
> >> ???? And what did you expect after four years? Orion isn't supposed
> >> to have a manned flight until 2015. So what was supposed to have
> >> happened by '08? If anything?
>
> >You tell me! Should we have NOTHING after four years? Shouldn't we
> >have some sort of real metric of success?
>
> And what would you consider a "real metric of success"?
Some sort of demo of something related to Orion or Ares.
> Did you exepct a manned Moon landing by now?
No.
> Why, when no one said it would happen by now?
What should have happned by now?
> What do you think should have happened by now to be
> considered successful? If nothing that has happened to date --
> planning to retire the shuttle and the work done on Ares and Orion --
> doesn't count, what would? YOU tell ME, because YOU are the one who
> is making these statements and YOU are the one who is so certain
> nothing will come of it!
I never said nothing would come of it. I said that President Bush
lacks true commitment to space as compared to his true commitment to
war.
> > ..... It will take a non-Texas
> >politician to get them to show results as the Bushes didn't care.
> >Which was my very point.
>
> Prove it. I want hard evidence that the Bushes just see SEI/VSE as a
> way to scam money for Texas, and by that I mean, THEY ACTUCALLY TOLD
> SOMEONE THAT AND THE QUOTE CAN BE VERIFIED. You're very good at
> pulling together a conspiracy theory, but I want the smoking gun.
No damn results! Yet everyone still is getting paid. I recall when JPL
had those Mars failures in the 90s everyone went nuts over at NASA
from DC to CA, yet when TX screws up HQ is mum. It surely appears that
HQ is scared of JSC. No conspiracy just an observation.
>And it's on you to provide it, because you are making the accusations.
It is back to the results. There are none. And yet there is no plans
for a re-org or anything, just business as usual, yet what are we
seeing out of TX? I think they are too busy creating material for
Bush's war to take space seriously. Heck during Vietnam at least we
still had a manned space program working at a nice steady clip and
much of that out of TX. Look at us now. And you claim to be a Democrat
yet here you are apologizing for Republicans and the Bush
administration yet again.
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Apr 27, 12:40 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And what would you consider a "real metric of success"?
>
>Some sort of demo of something related to Orion or Ares.
>
Let's see now ...
The latest news is they recently did a test of the Launch Abort System
Jettison Motor. As of this posting it was on the main page at ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html
If it's off the home page, it will be down in recent news.
A mockup of Orion has arrived at the Dryden Research Center:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/orion-dryden.html
I THINK this will be the flgith test article used on the launch abort
system tests in New Mexico -- probably at White Sands -- later this
year.
The Ares roll control system is being tested:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresrocstest.html
If the bottom two links give you problems, just go to NASA's home page
and find your way to Constellation thorugh the "Moon Mars" button.
Aviation Week has also reported developments on the vibration issue.
Launch abort tests are supposed to happen in New Mexico this year.
And the Ares 1-X (or whatever it is) is supposed to launch in 2009.
Not on the evening news, I know, but there if you know where to look
and take the time to do it.
If none of the above count as "Some sort of demo of something related
to Orion or Ares," what would?
BradGuth
It's all a fun game, and it looks as though Eric Chomko is playing
right along, as all good little minions should.
War is clearly good for business, whereas space exploration is very
bad for business unless it's of purely inert eye-candy that can't
possibly rock any faith-based boat (mostly owned by Semites), as well
as at all cost having to avoid our moon and otherwise pretending that
Venus doesn't even exist.
Do you get the drift of what I'm saying, or is being continually
dumbfounded past the point of no return your normal status?
Either JAXA or CNSA can soon enough verify without any doubt as to
what our DROPA of NASA/Apollo wizards actually did or did not
accomplish.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
That's all old stuff, as in done that and been there kind of stuff,
that means little if anything but to further delay the mainstream
media from further discovering and likely publishing the cold hard
truths about our DROPA and of their NASA/Apollo team of hocus-pocus
wizards.
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
Thanks, I'll check it out. Perhaps more has been done that I
originally thought.
kT
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
>
It looks like Michael Griffin is going to need some more napkins!
Ahahah hahaha haha ha hahahaha ahaha ... losers.
BradGuth
And these silly folks (mostly from the dark side to begin with) expect
Obama to instantly fix nearly 6 decades worth of DARPA and Zionist
fuckology? (I don't think so)
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
Yes, Guth the non-minion. Your reverse-psychology WRT to anything
"official" is predicatble. You'd make a good patsy like Lee Harvey
Oswald.
> War is clearly good for business, whereas space exploration is very
> bad for business unless it's of purely inert eye-candy that can't
> possibly rock any faith-based boat (mostly owned by Semites), as well
> as at all cost having to avoid our moon and otherwise pretending that
> Venus doesn't even exist.
Venus exists alright, it's just hot as hell!
> Do you get the drift of what I'm saying, or is being continually
> dumbfounded past the point of no return your normal status?
You're in a drift alright, your own. At least the one thing your brand
of madness is that it appears to be unique.
> Either JAXA or CNSA can soon enough verify without any doubt as to
> what our DROPA of NASA/Apollo wizards actually did or did not
> accomplish.
You should be pulling for LRO so hard to succeed rather than sucking
up to foriegn governments that would have locked you up by now.
Eric
Matt Wiser
>
>Eric
Hey Eric, you should killfile the Guthball at the earliest possible moment. This escapee from
a lunatic asylum, before he gets sent back to his padded cell and straightjacket, needs
a good whuppin' with a two-by-four on his ass. Repeatedly. Once he gets back into that
padded cell, 24/7 supervision and his meds await.
BradGuth
So what? At least technically we can deal with hell, and our DNA will
not even get gamma and X-ray terminated in the process.
>
> > Do you get the drift of what I'm saying, or is being continually
> > dumbfounded past the point of no return your normal status?
>
> You're in a drift alright, your own. At least the one thing your brand
> of madness is that it appears to be unique.
If the regular laws of physics and the best available science is
what's bothering yourself, then there's always the failsafe
alternative of sticking to your faith-based guns, regardless of the
consequences (at least that what our resident warlord would do).
>
> > Either JAXA or CNSA can soon enough verify without any doubt as to
> > what our DROPA of NASA/Apollo wizards actually did or did not
> > accomplish.
>
> You should be pulling for LRO so hard to succeed rather than sucking
> up to foriegn governments that would have locked you up by now.
>
> Eric
JAXA's 10 meter/pixel resolution is more than sufficiently offering a
good 300 fold better than standard/unmodified KECK image, and 10 m/
pixel is more than good enough to have depicted those NASA/Apollo
landing sites. However, it seems JAXA has become officially
sequestered, as though fully nondisclosure rated. If not for covering
their butts, I can't but wonder why the hell that is.
You know damn good that our NASA/Apollo wizards could not have walked
upon that physically dark, dusty and downright nasty moon of ours.
You still have absolutely nothing objective that supports your NASA/
Apollo story.
Would you also lie for our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)?
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
Why am I not suprised that between heaven and hell you would choose
the latter?
>
>
> > > Do you get the drift of what I'm saying, or is being continually
> > > dumbfounded past the point of no return your normal status?
>
> > You're in a drift alright, your own. At least the one thing your brand
> > of madness is that it appears to be unique.
>
> If the regular laws of physics and the best available science is
> what's bothering yourself, then there's always the failsafe
> alternative of sticking to your faith-based guns, regardless of the
> consequences (at least that what our resident warlord would do).
>
You're more faith-based than I, despite what you say about Bush and
the "status quo".
>
>
> > > Either JAXA or CNSA can soon enough verify without any doubt as to
> > > what our DROPA of NASA/Apollo wizards actually did or did not
> > > accomplish.
>
> > You should be pulling for LRO so hard to succeed rather than sucking
> > up to foriegn governments that would have locked you up by now.
>
> > Eric
>
> JAXA's 10 meter/pixel resolution is more than sufficiently offering a
> good 300 fold better than standard/unmodified KECK image, and 10 m/
> pixel is more than good enough to have depicted those NASA/Apollo
> landing sites. However, it seems JAXA has become officially
> sequestered, as though fully nondisclosure rated. If not for covering
> their butts, I can't but wonder why the hell that is.
>
Are you saying that the Japanese AND the Russians are in on some sort
of conspiracy with the US Government to cover you Apollo lunar
landings as some sort of hoax?
> You know damn good that our NASA/Apollo wizards could not have walked
> upon that physically dark, dusty and downright nasty moon of ours.
Ironic, because the moon is far from hell that your yourself said that
we could sustain! Is the moon worse than hell, and therefore we could
not have survived? You contradict yourself....again.
> You still have absolutely nothing objective that supports your NASA/
> Apollo story.
Lunar material that could not have come from the earth.
> Would you also lie for our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)?
Bush has nothing to do with Apollo other than in your mind.
Eric
BradGuth
>
> Why am I not suprised that between heaven and hell you would choose
> the latter?
I had nothing to do with having made Earth into a living hell, nor is
there anything so technically insurmountable about hell on Venus.
You're the one that's in perpetual denial and having elected to
exclude and/or banish evidence, not me.
>
>
> > > > Do you get the drift of what I'm saying, or is being continually
> > > > dumbfounded past the point of no return your normal status?
>
> > > You're in a drift alright, your own. At least the one thing your brand
> > > of madness is that it appears to be unique.
>
> > If the regular laws of physics and the best available science is
> > what's bothering yourself, then there's always the failsafe
> > alternative of sticking to your faith-based guns, regardless of the
> > consequences (at least that what our resident warlord would do).
>
> You're more faith-based than I, despite what you say about Bush and
> the "status quo".
I have faith in technology that can be peer replicated, and faith in
those pesky regular laws of physics. I even accept the best available
science, especially whenever it's outside the firm grip of our DARPA/
NASA.
>
>
>
>
> > > > Either JAXA or CNSA can soon enough verify without any doubt as to
> > > > what our DROPA of NASA/Apollo wizards actually did or did not
> > > > accomplish.
>
> > > You should be pulling for LRO so hard to succeed rather than sucking
> > > up to foriegn governments that would have locked you up by now.
>
> > > Eric
>
> > JAXA's 10 meter/pixel resolution is more than sufficiently offering a
> > good 300 fold better than standard/unmodified KECK image, and 10 m/
> > pixel is more than good enough to have depicted those NASA/Apollo
> > landing sites. However, it seems JAXA has become officially
> > sequestered, as though fully nondisclosure rated. If not for covering
> > their butts, I can't but wonder why the hell that is.
>
> Are you saying that the Japanese AND the Russians are in on some sort
> of conspiracy with the US Government to cover you Apollo lunar
> landings as some sort of hoax?
Yes, because otherwise it would have been a simply and that of a
secondary task of any Russian or JAXA lunar mission to have nicely
verified our rather substantial Apollo landing sites, as of decades
ago.
>
> > You know damn good that our NASA/Apollo wizards could not have walked
> > upon that physically dark, dusty and downright nasty moon of ours.
>
> Ironic, because the moon is far from hell that your yourself said that
> we could sustain! Is the moon worse than hell, and therefore we could
> not have survived? You contradict yourself....again.
I contradict nothing. Your manic bipolar denial is however a
contradiction on steroids.
>
> > You still have absolutely nothing objective that supports your NASA/
> > Apollo story.
>
> Lunar material that could not have come from the earth.
I have stuff that didn't come from Earth, and it wasn't even that hard
to come by. There's lots of moon rock on Earth, though mostly under
water or under snow and ice.
>
> > Would you also lie for our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)?
>
> Bush has nothing to do with Apollo other than in your mind.
>
> Eric
Bush is the clone/son of a Zionist Hitler, or perhaps worse than (you
do know about their family tree, and Third Reich accomplishments,
don't you). That bastard and of his incest mutated kind before have
everything to do with our hocus-pocus Apollo fiasco.
. - Brad Guth