Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
gingrich wants florida votes
0 views
Skip to first unread message
bob haller
Jan 26, 2012, 2:16:31 PM1/26/12
to
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
money is coming from......
moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
money is coming from......
jacob navia
Jan 26, 2012, 5:44:42 PM1/26/12
to
Le 26/01/12 20:16, bob haller a écrit :
he said, probably he will put the kids to do it
:-)
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>
> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
> money is coming from......
Since he will abolish all legislation forbidding child work, as
>
> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
> money is coming from......
he said, probably he will put the kids to do it
:-)
Brian Thorn
Jan 26, 2012, 9:48:48 PM1/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:16:31 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>
>moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>money is coming from......
What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
build a moonbase by 2020. I would only amend his prize by saying that
the bounty declines 5% every year after 2020 until the job is done.
God help me, I might have to vote for Newt.
Brian
wrote:
>http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>
>moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>money is coming from......
of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
build a moonbase by 2020. I would only amend his prize by saying that
the bounty declines 5% every year after 2020 until the job is done.
God help me, I might have to vote for Newt.
Brian
Brian Thorn
Jan 26, 2012, 9:54:52 PM1/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:44:42 +0100, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
wrote:
He wasn't very clear in that topic, what he was trying to say was that
instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
In any case, his space prize concept doesn't tell anyone how to do the
job, they just win the prize money when the job is done.
Brian
wrote:
instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
In any case, his space prize concept doesn't tell anyone how to do the
job, they just win the prize money when the job is done.
Brian
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Jan 27, 2012, 10:54:04 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 10:14 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But ... but ... I swear that noted sage Bobbert explained to us how
> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
that doesnt mean much of anything. he says nothing of paying for
it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
new program impossible
> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
that doesnt mean much of anything. he says nothing of paying for
it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
new program impossible
Brian Thorn
Jan 27, 2012, 11:11:07 AM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:54:04 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>> But ... but ... I swear that noted sage Bobbert explained to us how
>> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
ignoring facts that don't suit you is what you're famous for around
here, but you have gone completely nutjob this time. Pretty much every
news story about Gingrich's space plan over the last 48 hours has
explained how he'd pay for it.
http://news.discovery.com/space/newt-gingrich-space-plans-nasa-120126.html
"Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
for prizes for an array of competitions."
Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
about it.
Brian
wrote:
>> But ... but ... I swear that noted sage Bobbert explained to us how
>> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
>that doesnt mean much of anything. he says nothing of paying for
>it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
>new program impossible
Bob, with all due respect... Pull your head out of your ass. Blindly
>it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
>new program impossible
ignoring facts that don't suit you is what you're famous for around
here, but you have gone completely nutjob this time. Pretty much every
news story about Gingrich's space plan over the last 48 hours has
explained how he'd pay for it.
http://news.discovery.com/space/newt-gingrich-space-plans-nasa-120126.html
"Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
for prizes for an array of competitions."
Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
about it.
Brian
bob haller
Jan 27, 2012, 11:38:27 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 11:11 am, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:54:04 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
what they should do is make all off world profits tax free for 10
years. since without the tax forgiveness the profits would of never
occured
when this story first broke there was no info on funding it
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:54:04 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> But ... but ... I swear that noted sage Bobbert explained to us how
> >> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
> >that doesnt mean much of anything. he says nothing of paying for
> >it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
> >new program impossible
>
> Bob, with all due respect... Pull your head out of your ass. Blindly
> ignoring facts that don't suit you is what you're famous for around
> here, but you have gone completely nutjob this time. Pretty much every
> news story about Gingrich's space plan over the last 48 hours has
> explained how he'd pay for it.
>
> http://news.discovery.com/space/newt-gingrich-space-plans-nasa-120126...
>
> >> But ... but ... I swear that noted sage Bobbert explained to us how
> >> all Republican candidates had pledged to end Manned Space!
> >that doesnt mean much of anything. he says nothing of paying for
> >it..... and in any case congress must cut entitlements, which make a
> >new program impossible
>
> Bob, with all due respect... Pull your head out of your ass. Blindly
> ignoring facts that don't suit you is what you're famous for around
> here, but you have gone completely nutjob this time. Pretty much every
> news story about Gingrich's space plan over the last 48 hours has
> explained how he'd pay for it.
>
>
> "Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
> bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
> companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
> spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
> for prizes for an array of competitions."
>
> Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
> about it.
>
> Brian
that wouldnt be enough money even to begin a robust program.
> "Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
> bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
> companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
> spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
> for prizes for an array of competitions."
>
> Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
> about it.
>
> Brian
what they should do is make all off world profits tax free for 10
years. since without the tax forgiveness the profits would of never
occured
when this story first broke there was no info on funding it
Message has been deleted
Brian Thorn
Jan 27, 2012, 9:28:17 PM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:27 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>> "Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
>> bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
>> companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
>> spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
>> for prizes for an array of competitions."
>>
>> Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
>> about it.
Take a look at what SpaceX has done for less than a billion of their
own cash and maybe a little more than that in contracts for DoD and
NASA. Two rockets, one spacecraft upgradable to manned flight, and one
of the rockets being upgraded to a 120,000+ lbs. launcher.
Brian
wrote:
>> "Gingrich wants to pioneer space without a huge standing government
>> bureaucracy and with investments by private industry. To help lure
>> companies and research organizations to space, Gingrich proposes to
>> spend 10 percent of NASA's budget, which is currently $17.8 billion,
>> for prizes for an array of competitions."
>>
>> Try actually reading about a subject before you start spouting off
>> about it.
>that wouldnt be enough money even to begin a robust program.
Says who, you in all your worldly expertise?
Take a look at what SpaceX has done for less than a billion of their
own cash and maybe a little more than that in contracts for DoD and
NASA. Two rockets, one spacecraft upgradable to manned flight, and one
of the rockets being upgraded to a 120,000+ lbs. launcher.
Brian
Jonathan
Jan 27, 2012, 10:11:21 PM1/27/12
to
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d9296c86-5c93-491d...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>
> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
> money is coming from......
He said ...exactly where the money would be coming from
>
> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
> money is coming from......
a few months ago. By....eliminating NASA! And giving
the money to the private sector.
You space folks are so gullible.
Replace NASA with incentives to private sector
Q: What role should the government play in future space exploration?
GINGRICH: I'm a big fan of going into space and I worked to get the shuttle
program to survive at one point. But NASA has become a case study in why
bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we've spent at NASA
since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to
the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the
moon, and a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is
bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure. We're at the
beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And,
unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be
getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.
PAWLENTY: I don't think we should eliminate the space program.
GINGRICH: I didn't say end the space program. I said you could get into
space faster & more effectively, if you decentralized it & got it out of
Washington.
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011
g
Jonathan
Jan 28, 2012, 9:20:01 AM1/28/12
to
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:ba44i7lev1qo0kvu1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:44:42 +0100, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Le 26/01/12 20:16, bob haller a écrit :
>>> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>>>
>>> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>>> money is coming from......
>>
>>Since he will abolish all legislation forbidding child work, as
>>he said, probably he will put the kids to do it
>
> He wasn't very clear in that topic, what he was trying to say was that
> instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
> get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
> but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
> than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
His solutions typically begin by eliminating the respective govt
> wrote:
>
>>Le 26/01/12 20:16, bob haller a écrit :
>>> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>>>
>>> moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>>> money is coming from......
>>
>>Since he will abolish all legislation forbidding child work, as
>>he said, probably he will put the kids to do it
>
> He wasn't very clear in that topic, what he was trying to say was that
> instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
> get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
> but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
> than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
agency and givng the money to his friends and political
supporters. From the EPA to Education, he's never met
a govt agency he isn't willing to plunder.
Was everyone here born yesterday?
>
> In any case, his space prize concept doesn't tell anyone how to do the
> job, they just win the prize money when the job is done.
is Newt has his way.
>
> Brian
Jonathan
Jan 28, 2012, 9:28:48 AM1/28/12
to
news:7r34i71i0uotrgf67...@4ax.com...
will pay for one leg of a lunar lander. But I'm sure Newt's cronies
that get the $2 billion a year will be laughing all the way to the
bank.
> I would only amend his prize by saying that
> the bounty declines 5% every year after 2020 until the job is done.
>
> God help me, I might have to vote for Newt.
God help us all. He'll destroy the nation so the wealthy
can cash in on the pieces. A strong economy is the
only way to a strong space program. Please do some
homework and simply look at this 5 year chart of the Dow
below.
Note the trend left behind by our last extremist President, and
compare it to the current trend. Hint: one spells meltdown
the other rising prosperity.
President Obama came into office in early '09.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
>
> Brian
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:16:31 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>>
>>moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>>money is coming from......
>
> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
> build a moonbase by 2020.
That's what, less than $2 billion a year for 8 years? I doubt that
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/25gingrich/
>>
>>moonbase by 2020 he must be dreaming, and no mention of where the
>>money is coming from......
>
> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
> build a moonbase by 2020.
will pay for one leg of a lunar lander. But I'm sure Newt's cronies
that get the $2 billion a year will be laughing all the way to the
bank.
> I would only amend his prize by saying that
> the bounty declines 5% every year after 2020 until the job is done.
>
> God help me, I might have to vote for Newt.
can cash in on the pieces. A strong economy is the
only way to a strong space program. Please do some
homework and simply look at this 5 year chart of the Dow
below.
Note the trend left behind by our last extremist President, and
compare it to the current trend. Hint: one spells meltdown
the other rising prosperity.
President Obama came into office in early '09.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
>
> Brian
Brian Thorn
Jan 28, 2012, 11:24:42 AM1/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:20:01 -0500, "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> He wasn't very clear in that topic, what he was trying to say was that
>> instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
>> get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
>> but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
>> than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
>
>
>His solutions typically begin by eliminating the respective govt
>agency
Some of them do need to go.
The US didn't have a Department of Energy until 1977. We're far more
dependent on foreign oil now than before 1977.
The US didn't have a Department of Education before 1979. Ask yourself
if our schools better or worse since then.
>and givng the money to his friends and political
>supporters. From the EPA to Education, he's never met
>a govt agency he isn't willing to plunder.
EPA is terribly broken. It needs to be fixed, not abolished.
The 100% useless Departments of Energy and Education needs to be
killed off, immediately.
>Was everyone here born yesterday?
Just you. Those of us old enough to remember that we got along just
fine without a Department of Education or a Department of Energy have
a different opinion of them.
>You're forgetting that NASA won't be around for the competition
>is Newt has his way.
Cite? Where has Mr. Gingrich called for abolishing NASA? Taking 10% of
NASA's budget to set aside for commercial prizes is not abolishing
NASA. NASA should be setting exploration goals and letting industry
find the cheapest/fastest way to get the job done, not telling
industry to build enormously expensive mega-rockets that are certain
to be canceled in a year or two after several billion more dollars are
wasted.
I'm certainly not Mr. Gingrich's Number One Fan. I voted for Mr. Obama
in 2008. But Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich, or Mr. Paul, whoever
we're stuck having to choose in November, this will be an election
where everyone is holding their noses while casting their votes.
Brian
wrote:
>> He wasn't very clear in that topic, what he was trying to say was that
>> instead of kids roaming the streets after school because they can't
>> get jobs, they should be allowed to get jobs. It is a slippery slope,
>> but at least he's putting ideas out there to do something, ideas other
>> than the spectacularly failed social programs of the last 50 years.
>
>
>His solutions typically begin by eliminating the respective govt
>agency
The US didn't have a Department of Energy until 1977. We're far more
dependent on foreign oil now than before 1977.
The US didn't have a Department of Education before 1979. Ask yourself
if our schools better or worse since then.
>and givng the money to his friends and political
>supporters. From the EPA to Education, he's never met
>a govt agency he isn't willing to plunder.
The 100% useless Departments of Energy and Education needs to be
killed off, immediately.
>Was everyone here born yesterday?
fine without a Department of Education or a Department of Energy have
a different opinion of them.
>You're forgetting that NASA won't be around for the competition
>is Newt has his way.
NASA's budget to set aside for commercial prizes is not abolishing
NASA. NASA should be setting exploration goals and letting industry
find the cheapest/fastest way to get the job done, not telling
industry to build enormously expensive mega-rockets that are certain
to be canceled in a year or two after several billion more dollars are
wasted.
I'm certainly not Mr. Gingrich's Number One Fan. I voted for Mr. Obama
in 2008. But Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich, or Mr. Paul, whoever
we're stuck having to choose in November, this will be an election
where everyone is holding their noses while casting their votes.
Brian
Brian Thorn
Jan 28, 2012, 11:43:31 AM1/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:28:48 -0500, "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
>> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
>> build a moonbase by 2020.
>
>
>That's what, less than $2 billion a year for 8 years? I doubt that
>will pay for one leg of a lunar lander.
Look at what SpaceX has built and flown for about $600 million and $2
billion or so in USAF/NASA launch contracts:
Falcon 1
Falcon 9
Dragon
Falcon Heavy in development for flight in 2013.
Manned Dragon in development for flight circa 2016.
There are other companies who are also doing exciting things for
relatively paltry amounts of money, such as Virgin Galactic with its
Stratolaunch.
The Big NASA Project concept has failed every time since Apollo ended
40 years ago. It is past time that we tried something else.
Mr. Obama attempted to promote commercial space and was attacked by
Congressmembers of both parties, who saw a threat to their beloved
pork. Mr. Gingrich's proposal is actually not far removed from Mr.
Obama's, just some details about how the funding would be distributed
and Gingrich actually established a goal (Obama still has not said
where he wants SLS/Orion to go, unsurprising since he doesn't want
either of them.) It is a shame you've let political hatred blind you
to that fact.
>But I'm sure Newt's cronies
>that get the $2 billion a year will be laughing all the way to the
>bank.
Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK are already getting that $2 billion per year
(and more) to build SLS/Orion. SLS won't fly until 2017 (in the off
chance it isn't canceled first) and Orion won't carry a crew until
2021 (unless common sense prevails and it is moved to a Delta or Atlas
launch vehicle) a year AFTER the Space Station, which needs crew
support NOW, is retired.
SpaceX will launch Falcon-Heavy, a rocket with about half the payload
capacity of SLS, and they will do so next year and without a penny of
goverment money.
There are lots of reasons to despise Gingrich, but this isn't one of
them.
>God help us all. He'll destroy the nation so the wealthy
>can cash in on the pieces.
Oh, please.
>A strong economy is the
>only way to a strong space program.
Then spreading around NASA's funding to many commercial companies
would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
nothing to show for the billions spent.
Brian
wrote:
>> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
>> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
>> build a moonbase by 2020.
>
>
>That's what, less than $2 billion a year for 8 years? I doubt that
>will pay for one leg of a lunar lander.
billion or so in USAF/NASA launch contracts:
Falcon 1
Falcon 9
Dragon
Falcon Heavy in development for flight in 2013.
Manned Dragon in development for flight circa 2016.
There are other companies who are also doing exciting things for
relatively paltry amounts of money, such as Virgin Galactic with its
Stratolaunch.
The Big NASA Project concept has failed every time since Apollo ended
40 years ago. It is past time that we tried something else.
Mr. Obama attempted to promote commercial space and was attacked by
Congressmembers of both parties, who saw a threat to their beloved
pork. Mr. Gingrich's proposal is actually not far removed from Mr.
Obama's, just some details about how the funding would be distributed
and Gingrich actually established a goal (Obama still has not said
where he wants SLS/Orion to go, unsurprising since he doesn't want
either of them.) It is a shame you've let political hatred blind you
to that fact.
>But I'm sure Newt's cronies
>that get the $2 billion a year will be laughing all the way to the
>bank.
(and more) to build SLS/Orion. SLS won't fly until 2017 (in the off
chance it isn't canceled first) and Orion won't carry a crew until
2021 (unless common sense prevails and it is moved to a Delta or Atlas
launch vehicle) a year AFTER the Space Station, which needs crew
support NOW, is retired.
SpaceX will launch Falcon-Heavy, a rocket with about half the payload
capacity of SLS, and they will do so next year and without a penny of
goverment money.
There are lots of reasons to despise Gingrich, but this isn't one of
them.
>God help us all. He'll destroy the nation so the wealthy
>can cash in on the pieces.
>A strong economy is the
>only way to a strong space program.
would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
nothing to show for the billions spent.
Brian
Jonathan
Jan 28, 2012, 12:00:44 PM1/28/12
to
news:ka88i75pd4kjda2gb...@4ax.com...
doing exactly that. The manned program is being converted
into commercial launch incentives. I'm saying Gingritch is the
type of politician that will say anything, and then do whatever
he wants once elected. And that doesn't mean reforming
a government agency, it means plundering them for personal
and political gain, in the name of reform.
Gingritch is a fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical
extremist politician that believes it's ok for the rich and powerful
to take what is rightfully ours, and stuff it in their own
already very deep pockets.
He spent some $250 million dollars of taxpayer money
investigating Clinton and paralyzing the govt for a couple
of years...just to get votes. All the while having a mistress
and wanting an open marriage, making Clinton provincial
in comparison. And Newt did that not for the good of the
country but for the good of his personal ambitions.
He is not an honorable person which deserves any trust.
I have little to be embarrassed about President Obama
by comparison.
The rich and powerful have been cashing in on all
the very cheap stock every since President Bush
left office. My claim isn't imagined, but....accurately
reflects the current facts.
You won't look at the facts below...
President Obama came into office in early '09.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
>
happening. It's President Obama's current policy. Which has led
to all the complaining about the manned space program going away.
>
> Brian
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:28:48 -0500, "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
>>> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
>>> build a moonbase by 2020.
>>
>>
>>That's what, less than $2 billion a year for 8 years? I doubt that
>>will pay for one leg of a lunar lander.
>
> Look at what SpaceX has built and flown for about $600 million and $2
> billion or so in USAF/NASA launch contracts:
I'm all for commercial space, and President Obama has been
> wrote:
>
>
>>> What do you mean 'no mention?' He specifically said he'd set aside 10%
>>> of NASA's annual budget to pay for prizes to the first company to
>>> build a moonbase by 2020.
>>
>>
>>That's what, less than $2 billion a year for 8 years? I doubt that
>>will pay for one leg of a lunar lander.
>
> Look at what SpaceX has built and flown for about $600 million and $2
> billion or so in USAF/NASA launch contracts:
doing exactly that. The manned program is being converted
into commercial launch incentives. I'm saying Gingritch is the
type of politician that will say anything, and then do whatever
he wants once elected. And that doesn't mean reforming
a government agency, it means plundering them for personal
and political gain, in the name of reform.
Gingritch is a fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical
extremist politician that believes it's ok for the rich and powerful
to take what is rightfully ours, and stuff it in their own
already very deep pockets.
He spent some $250 million dollars of taxpayer money
investigating Clinton and paralyzing the govt for a couple
of years...just to get votes. All the while having a mistress
and wanting an open marriage, making Clinton provincial
in comparison. And Newt did that not for the good of the
country but for the good of his personal ambitions.
He is not an honorable person which deserves any trust.
I have little to be embarrassed about President Obama
by comparison.
the very cheap stock every since President Bush
left office. My claim isn't imagined, but....accurately
reflects the current facts.
You won't look at the facts below...
President Obama came into office in early '09.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
>
>>A strong economy is the
>>only way to a strong space program.
>
> Then spreading around NASA's funding to many commercial companies
> would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
> money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
> nothing to show for the billions spent.
We seem to agree on that, but you seem to think that's not already
>>only way to a strong space program.
>
> Then spreading around NASA's funding to many commercial companies
> would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
> money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
> nothing to show for the billions spent.
happening. It's President Obama's current policy. Which has led
to all the complaining about the manned space program going away.
>
> Brian
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Brian Thorn
Jan 29, 2012, 2:33:43 PM1/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:00:44 -0500, "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Then spreading around NASA's funding to many commercial companies
>> would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
>> money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
>> nothing to show for the billions spent.
>
>We seem to agree on that, but you seem to think that's not already
>happening.
To a degree. In addition to commercial crew, Mr. Obama wanted to spend
a lot of NASA money developing new technology for a heavy lifter,
(which we don't need), for some future purpose (which he refused to
specify.)
At least Mr. Gingrich (no 't') established a goal to work toward. You
may see nefarious purposes in it, but it is Mr. Gingrich paying
attention to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's findings, not
Mr. Obama.
>It's President Obama's current policy.
To be fair, that was the worst unveiling of a major White House policy
in my lifetime. The policy itself was mostly sound, but everything Mr.
Obama did in announcing it was catastrophic. When was the last time
Congress of both parties was so heavily united against a President...
Watergate? Mr. Obama completely lost the trust of Congress on this
issue and is very unlikely to regain it, which is why we are now
throwing money away on the Senate Launch System (note: the Dems still
control the Senate), which Obama is powerless to stop.
>Which has led
>to all the complaining about the manned space program going away.
But it is Mr. Romney, not Mr. Gingrich would wants to end the Obama
policy and go back to Bush's failed Constellation (with lots of
astronauts and administrators who were responsible for that failure
lining up behind Romney.)
So our choices in November are:
Barack Obama, who so thoroughly bungled his space policy and so
dramatically alienated Congress in doing so that he will never again
be taken seriously on the subject by Congress
Mitt Romney, who wants to undo Obama's lukewarm commerical space
policies and go back to the hopelessly unaffordable Constellation
Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
company to get the job done
Ron Paul, who is the most anti-space candidate since Walter Mondale
I haven't heard anything about Rick Santorum's views on space.
Brian
wrote:
>> Then spreading around NASA's funding to many commercial companies
>> would probably be better than dumping it down the Lockheed and Boeing
>> money pits, on projects certain to be canceled in a year or two with
>> nothing to show for the billions spent.
>
>We seem to agree on that, but you seem to think that's not already
>happening.
a lot of NASA money developing new technology for a heavy lifter,
(which we don't need), for some future purpose (which he refused to
specify.)
At least Mr. Gingrich (no 't') established a goal to work toward. You
may see nefarious purposes in it, but it is Mr. Gingrich paying
attention to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's findings, not
Mr. Obama.
>It's President Obama's current policy.
in my lifetime. The policy itself was mostly sound, but everything Mr.
Obama did in announcing it was catastrophic. When was the last time
Congress of both parties was so heavily united against a President...
Watergate? Mr. Obama completely lost the trust of Congress on this
issue and is very unlikely to regain it, which is why we are now
throwing money away on the Senate Launch System (note: the Dems still
control the Senate), which Obama is powerless to stop.
>Which has led
>to all the complaining about the manned space program going away.
policy and go back to Bush's failed Constellation (with lots of
astronauts and administrators who were responsible for that failure
lining up behind Romney.)
So our choices in November are:
Barack Obama, who so thoroughly bungled his space policy and so
dramatically alienated Congress in doing so that he will never again
be taken seriously on the subject by Congress
Mitt Romney, who wants to undo Obama's lukewarm commerical space
policies and go back to the hopelessly unaffordable Constellation
Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
company to get the job done
Ron Paul, who is the most anti-space candidate since Walter Mondale
I haven't heard anything about Rick Santorum's views on space.
Brian
Quadibloc
Jan 30, 2012, 4:13:34 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
> step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
> company to get the job done
Oh. What if they tried to do the Apollo program that way? Would it
> Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
> step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
> company to get the job done
have ever happened? What private company would be willing to gamble
the cost of the Apollo space program on the chance of getting it back
if it was the first to succeed?
Instead, do it the way the Apollo program was done: if you want
something big done, pay someone who can do it to do it - buying the
pieces from those who can supply them, and coordinating putting them
together yourself.
Maybe innovative suppliers of rockets can do things more cheaply than
those who rely on subsidizing space from missile production, but even
that doesn't require the X-Prize model.
John Savard
Jonathan
Jan 30, 2012, 7:45:51 PM1/30/12
to
news:l96bi7pvg8dbrsr3q...@4ax.com...
> I haven't heard anything about Rick Santorum's views on space.
>
I was watching a Senate committe hearing years ago where Santorum
was the minority chair, and Dianne Feinstein was the majority chair.
Sen Feinstein has a pretty sharp tongue, and at one point she lit into
Santorum at length about something or other. And as the C-span camera
panned back to Santorum after her rebuttal you could see Santorum mouth
the words under his breath....fucking bitch.
I couldn't believe a US Senator would respond like that.
I wish to hell I had my vcr going at the time, I could've
ruined that assholes career.
Something about Santorum that really gets to me, even
more than Gingritch. Those two rank at the top of
my all time list of despised politicians. I don't trust
either of them even a little bit.
>
>
> Brian
> I haven't heard anything about Rick Santorum's views on space.
>
was the minority chair, and Dianne Feinstein was the majority chair.
Sen Feinstein has a pretty sharp tongue, and at one point she lit into
Santorum at length about something or other. And as the C-span camera
panned back to Santorum after her rebuttal you could see Santorum mouth
the words under his breath....fucking bitch.
I couldn't believe a US Senator would respond like that.
I wish to hell I had my vcr going at the time, I could've
ruined that assholes career.
Something about Santorum that really gets to me, even
more than Gingritch. Those two rank at the top of
my all time list of despised politicians. I don't trust
either of them even a little bit.
>
>
> Brian
Jonathan
Jan 30, 2012, 8:27:08 PM1/30/12
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:7d593b70-d0ca-4fb9-ba87-
> Oh. What if they tried to do the Apollo program that way? Would it
>have ever happened? What private company would be willing to gamble
>the cost of the Apollo space program on the chance of getting it back
> if it was the first to succeed?
It was all about the cold war with the Soviets.
>Instead, do it the way the Apollo program was done:
as a goal in abstract terms so we can reproduce it
with the current world situation.
Apollo was meant to win perhaps the most pressing world
problem at the time, the cold war. And to win it with
a technological race and a clear deadline.
Apollo ..connected directly to some of our greatest
fears and needs, while providing the greatest
inspirational impact possible in terms of a better future
for all.
To reproduce Apollo you have to do that for the
problems and desires which exist today.
How could a space program...today...solve some
of the greatest global problems, while also
inspiring visions of a better future?
It sure aint space tourism or mining asteroids
of a forty year long quest to put a few people
on Mars. All those NASA goals either return
little of consequence, or take so long no one
cares.
But there is one program which fits VERY WELL
all the requirements of an Apollo like goal.
With a single program, NASA could....
Solve the long-term global energy problem
Solve the climate change problem.
Bring prosperity (energy) to every part
of the planet.
Space Solar Power ...connects...the second
largest commercial market that exists to a
space policy. While connecting to visions of
unlimited energy and prosperty for the future.
$10 billion dollar loans are a weekly event in the
energy market, and Space Solar Power plants
take no longer, and cost no more, to field than a
new nuclear plant.
SSP as a goal can happen fast enough to keep
interest, it can solve enough problems so that
almost everyone on the planet could immediately
see it's relevance.
Space Tourism is a nickel and dime next to
the energy market.
If you want space activity to explode, you need
to have a profit of suitable....scale.
Only energy has that gigantic scale.
Jonathan
s
Brian Thorn
Jan 30, 2012, 11:41:04 PM1/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:13:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
>> step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
>> company to get the job done
>
>Oh. What if they tried to do the Apollo program that way? Would it
>have ever happened? What private company would be willing to gamble
>the cost of the Apollo space program on the chance of getting it back
>if it was the first to succeed?
Note, Apollo was initiated just over three years after America
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Newt Gingrich, who wants to take Obama's commercial space policy a
>> step further and simply offer the funding as a prize to the first
>> company to get the job done
>
>Oh. What if they tried to do the Apollo program that way? Would it
>have ever happened? What private company would be willing to gamble
>the cost of the Apollo space program on the chance of getting it back
>if it was the first to succeed?
launched its first satellite. Back then, everything being done in
space was led by the government (DoD and NASA). Times have changed.
Now, DoD only plays an oversight role in space launch (and they tend
to screw up more than help, i.e., the EELV non-decision), and NASA has
essentially no role at all now that Shuttle is retired.
So why are we letting the government tell industry how to get to the
moon, when most of the actual experise is in industry?
Brian
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 9:19:43 AM2/6/12
to
Sorry to revive this old thread, but no one has mentioned the 400 pound
gorilla sitting there staring us all in the face.
It wasn't what the Newt proposed that I found important.
It was the reaction it caused.
Esp. the reaction of Romney.
If that isn't a clear signal to the demise of NASA and NASA-led HSF I don't
know what is.
Clearly Romney's priorities are not space.
Romney seems perfectly willing to spend money on a federal jobs program, as
long as that program doesn't reach the expenses necessary to make it successful.
Everyone else went off on Newt much like they did on Jerry Brown (remember
Gov. Moon-Beam?) a few decades back.
The press and talking heads didn't discuss the merit of the concept. Only that
it was totally loony.
America's leadership does not posses the mindset to lead in space any longer.
Therefore America (or at least its government) doesn't deserve to maintain a
lead role in it.
It is time to fold NASA. The mission needs to be re-tasked. NASA needs to
adopt the role of its NACA predecessor. The strategic shift is so major that a
department rename is in order. It cannot lead, or shall I say it will not be
allowed to lead, which is saying the same thing. Therefore it must follow. The
only other option is dissolution.
Dave
gorilla sitting there staring us all in the face.
It wasn't what the Newt proposed that I found important.
It was the reaction it caused.
Esp. the reaction of Romney.
If that isn't a clear signal to the demise of NASA and NASA-led HSF I don't
know what is.
Clearly Romney's priorities are not space.
Romney seems perfectly willing to spend money on a federal jobs program, as
long as that program doesn't reach the expenses necessary to make it successful.
Everyone else went off on Newt much like they did on Jerry Brown (remember
Gov. Moon-Beam?) a few decades back.
The press and talking heads didn't discuss the merit of the concept. Only that
it was totally loony.
America's leadership does not posses the mindset to lead in space any longer.
Therefore America (or at least its government) doesn't deserve to maintain a
lead role in it.
It is time to fold NASA. The mission needs to be re-tasked. NASA needs to
adopt the role of its NACA predecessor. The strategic shift is so major that a
department rename is in order. It cannot lead, or shall I say it will not be
allowed to lead, which is saying the same thing. Therefore it must follow. The
only other option is dissolution.
Dave
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 9:27:35 AM2/6/12
to
David Spain wrote:
> The press and talking heads didn't discuss the merit of the concept.
> Only that it was totally loony.
>
And I don't think the Newt's ideas were that far off.
> The press and talking heads didn't discuss the merit of the concept.
> Only that it was totally loony.
>
When you think of the X-Prize, the Google Lunar Prize, etc.
Offering a meaningful way to bootstrap private enterprise into space
would be a worthy goal.
Newt was at least putting something on the table.
Something that the Obama Administration has not been seriously willing to do.
Unless you consider SLS one of those "shovel ready" jobs he was talking about
a few years back. Shovel as in "money into pit"...
Dave
David Spain
Feb 6, 2012, 11:35:24 AM2/6/12
to
Jonathan wrote:
> Replace NASA with incentives to private sector
>
> Q: What role should the government play in future space exploration?
>
> GINGRICH: I'm a big fan of going into space and I worked to get the shuttle
> program to survive at one point. But NASA has become a case study in why
> bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we've spent at NASA
> since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to
> the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the
> moon, and a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is
> bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure. We're at the
> beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And,
> unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be
> getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.
>
> PAWLENTY: I don't think we should eliminate the space program.
>
> GINGRICH: I didn't say end the space program. I said you could get into
> space faster & more effectively, if you decentralized it & got it out of
> Washington.
>
> Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011
Pawlenty is no longer in the race. His opinion counts for exactly... Zero.
> Replace NASA with incentives to private sector
>
> Q: What role should the government play in future space exploration?
>
> GINGRICH: I'm a big fan of going into space and I worked to get the shuttle
> program to survive at one point. But NASA has become a case study in why
> bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we've spent at NASA
> since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to
> the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the
> moon, and a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is
> bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure. We're at the
> beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And,
> unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be
> getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.
>
> PAWLENTY: I don't think we should eliminate the space program.
>
> GINGRICH: I didn't say end the space program. I said you could get into
> space faster & more effectively, if you decentralized it & got it out of
> Washington.
>
> Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011
Dave
0 new messages