Attn JMS: The Mars Missions
Emmanuel Goldstein
increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
emmanuel
Jms at B5
Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
norv...@sirius.com
(Jms at B5) wrote:
>>In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
>>increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
>>hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
>>Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
>>even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
>>you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
>
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
Thanks for saying that, JMS... that's pretty much what I had to tell a
complainer in my family. She's been grumbling a lot about how all that
money for failed missions could've gone to the homeless and worthier
programs, and my reply is, well, if we had a president who supported NASA
in the least, and a government that gave a @$%&, maybe NASA would be
funded well enough so that they *wouldn't* lose money on failed missions,
and would instead be able to build stuff that worked as intended. "Better,
faster, cheaper"? I don't really think so... but B5 showed a future where
"built by the lowest bidder" was still prevalent...
Ryan Nock
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
jms<
Jms at B5
>money for failed missions could've gone to the homeless and worthier
>programs
Or one stealth bomber.
Do her and yourself a favor: buy her a copy of Michael Moore's DOWNSIZE
THIS...and let her get a sense of where far, FAR more money is really going.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >She's been grumbling a lot about how all that
> >money for failed missions could've gone to the homeless and worthier
> >programs
>
> Or one stealth bomber.
>
> Do her and yourself a favor: buy her a copy of Michael Moore's DOWNSIZE
> THIS...and let her get a sense of where far, FAR more money is really going.
Woo hoo! Michael Moore is most definitely The Man......he and the "Sodomobile"
stopped by here in Kansas City in order to torment Fred Phelps, and I had a
chance to speak to him for a few minutes. He's a really gracious, soft-spoken
guy --- in many ways, nothing like the impish persona you see in his movies or
books. I really like the humanistic blue-collar touch he exudes; such a
wonderful change from the cloistered academic pedants who dominate "enlightened"
discourse these days.
Dwight Williams
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > Do her and yourself a favor: buy her a copy of Michael Moore's DOWNSIZE
> > THIS...and let her get a sense of where far, FAR more money is really going.
When I can spare a moment, I figure on finding a public library copy and
test-driving it. Based on his _TV Nation_ work, I tend to think that'll
be sooner rather than later...
> Woo hoo! Michael Moore is most definitely The Man......he and the "Sodomobile"
> stopped by here in Kansas City in order to torment Fred Phelps, and I had a
> chance to speak to him for a few minutes. He's a really gracious, soft-spoken
> guy --- in many ways, nothing like the impish persona you see in his movies or
> books. I really like the humanistic blue-collar touch he exudes; such a
> wonderful change from the cloistered academic pedants who dominate "enlightened"
> discourse these days.
oooh...he went after *that* nutcase? The guy who's been complaining
about *my* side of the border for not being bigoted enough in the ways
he'd prefer? Threatened to visit both Ottawa and Toronto so far to burn
Maple Leaf flags himself, as I recall, but in the Ottawa case he backed
down and let his relatives speak *for* him.
So much for the courage of *that* twit's convictions.
As for the "Yelpin'" tag: blame or praise local newspaper columnist Earl
McRae -- currently of the _Ottawa Sun_ -- for that one. >:-)
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Smith
is a behind-the-scenes look at his TV Nation series. He had some
battles with his network, too, just like jms & TNT.
If jms & Michael Moore ever get together, the world is doomed! :)
Tammy
Dwight Williams
I think you've found JMS one more reason to stay in show business. >:-)
Justin Bacon
>Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
>compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
While that was my initial gut-reaction, too, but let's face it: It was the
failure of a $1 billion probe that lead to this new cheap-and-quick approach.
And since adopting the cheap-and-quick approach we've had a 50% success ratio
with a smaller total budget over the four Mars missions. One failure is not yet
adequately explained (it could be simple, random chance that would have
affected the probe whether you poured a trillion dollars or $2 into it) and the
other was a mathematical flaw between two different laboratories.
Personally my gut is telling me that the solution is cheaper and quicker... not
a return to the old "wait a decade between billion dollar missions" formula.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Rick Pali
> > She's been grumbling a lot about how all that
> > money for failed missions could've gone to the
> > homeless and worthier programs
>
> Or one stealth bomber.
Now I could be wrong, but I thought those bombers cost in excess of a
billion US dollars each. If that's true, NASA could pay for more than
five missions.
Mark Maher
I think what was meant by the comment is that for the cost of four B-2 Spirits
(I still can't believe they named it that) NASA could have had eight
billion-dollar probes doing some really impressive science.
Still, when they did go with the smaller-cheaper approach, they failed to
incorporate what worked into what followed. They had a perfectly good method for
landing a vehicle that they used when they landed a probe on Mars with the
rover. Why didn't they put that to use on this lander?
Additionally, there was too much coordination required between the Polar Lander
and other satellites. Ideally, the Polar Orbiter would have scanned out a
perfect landing site that could be used to direct the lander to a suitable site.
It would also serve as the primary relay for information from all of the last
batch of lander satellites that have gone MIA. But it apparently did a nose-dive
into the atmosphere because of a mix-up between English and metric units.
To be perfectly honest, we are still having trouble designing and building high
performance jet aircraft for use in our own atmosphere. I know that NASA
administrators don't want to rethink their strategy and procedures too much, but
every time there has been a major accident (read loss of life) with manned
vehicles, they have done just that. After the fact, they came out stronger,
better and more resolved to get the job done right. I think the same approach to
robotic exploration needs to be taken.
But that's just my opinion...
__!_!__
Gizmo
Justin Bacon
<marka...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I think what was meant by the comment is that for the cost of four B-2
>Spirits
>(I still can't believe they named it that) NASA could have had eight
>billion-dollar probes doing some really impressive science.
How on Earth are you getting any of that from a post which said "maybe if
[they'd had more money] the damned thing would have landed intact"? No mention
of funding going to military projects. No mention of alternate destinations or
missions. No mention of "really impressive science".
>Still, when they did go with the smaller-cheaper approach, they failed to
>incorporate what worked into what followed. They had a perfectly good method
for
>landing a vehicle that they used when they landed a probe on Mars with the
>rover. Why didn't they put that to use on this lander?
Huh? The *rover* method was the new one. The thruster method used in the latest
failure is the old "tried and true" method. (And the reason they went back was
because the rover method, which was supposed to be cheaper, turned out to have
complications which resulted in it NOT being cheaper.)
> After the fact, they came out stronger,
>better and more resolved to get the job done right. I think the same approach
to
>robotic exploration needs to be taken.
What's your solution here exactly? Don't make stupid conversion errors? Because
that's the only solution you've got any info to back up at the moment. And
fixing that error doesn't take a major reconception of how your mission plans
are put together.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
To...@fred.net
:>In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
:>increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
:>hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
:>Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
:>even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
:>you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
: Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
: compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
The most rediculous things in the midset of the politicians on Capitol
Hill (and the people who play Mister Garrison to their Mister Hat):
1) The way to fix deficiencies in an underfunded system is to take away
more funds.
2) Money spent on space is "going into space". Shall we take a tour of all
the on-earth personnel and their families? Are they unworthy of having
mommy, daddy, father and mother employed in the aerospace industry? Would
it make the critics feel better if they worked at low-paying jobs, or
workfare?
Sheesh.
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* "Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support"
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999
Mac Breck
Battlecrab, and got toasted.
Mac
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991212190725...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
> >increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
> >hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
> >Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
> >even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
> >you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
> >
>
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
Emmanuel Goldstein
pleased to know that NASA TV will be added starting Wednesday on
Channel 376. It was one of my favorite channels before my cable
company cut it.
emmanuel
Iain Rae
> In article <833vj4$9ar$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Mark Maher"
> <marka...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>I think what was meant by the comment is that for the cost of four B-2
>>Spirits
>>(I still can't believe they named it that) NASA could have had eight
>>billion-dollar probes doing some really impressive science.
> How on Earth are you getting any of that from a post which said "maybe if
> [they'd had more money] the damned thing would have landed intact"? No mention
> of funding going to military projects. No mention of alternate destinations or
> missions. No mention of "really impressive science".
I have a strange sense of dejavu having read that NASA could have finished
up to the planned Apollo 19 for the price of the B52 Bombers shot down
that year over Vietnam.
>>Still, when they did go with the smaller-cheaper approach, they failed to
>>incorporate what worked into what followed. They had a perfectly good method
> for
>>landing a vehicle that they used when they landed a probe on Mars with the
>>rover. Why didn't they put that to use on this lander?
> Huh? The *rover* method was the new one. The thruster method used in the latest
> failure is the old "tried and true" method. (And the reason they went back was
> because the rover method, which was supposed to be cheaper, turned out to have
> complications which resulted in it NOT being cheaper.)
Plus there is a fairly long development period, they won't be able to make any
major changes to the probes due for launch in the next two years so if there's
a fundamental flaw in the lander then they have a problem.
>> After the fact, they came out stronger,
>>better and more resolved to get the job done right. I think the same approach
> to
>>robotic exploration needs to be taken.
> What's your solution here exactly? Don't make stupid conversion errors? Because
> that's the only solution you've got any info to back up at the moment. And
> fixing that error doesn't take a major reconception of how your mission plans
> are put together.
Personally I'm amazed that the 4 probes have been as succesful as they have
been, I've always been fairly dubios about the aerobraking manuevers given
that you need to know a fair amount about the martian atmosphere to do that.
NASA are running at 50% with one of the failures being of the "shit happens"
school of problems. What's going to be interesting is whether they can get to
the bottom of what happened to the lander.
NB the interdependances are not interdependances, where I come from it's
called redundancy.
Charles W.
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
> >increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
> >hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
> >Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
> >even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
> >you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
> >
>
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
Sorry Joe, have to disagree with you. NASA started to go down the tubes in
1973 when they fired the engineers and brought in "professional managers."
Read that as bureaucrats. NASA has no guidance, no technical ability, and no
clue what to do next. I would not trust NASA to put a man on Hawaii, never
mind the moon. From here on out, if we are going to do space exploration, it
is going to be down by private business or not at all.
Kristling Ravenshadow Dreamwalker
Dwight Williams <ad...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:38554928...@freenet.carleton.ca...
> Tammy Smith wrote:
> >
> > Another good book is Michael Moore's "Adventures in a TV Nation", whch
> > is a behind-the-scenes look at his TV Nation series. He had some
> > battles with his network, too, just like jms & TNT.
> >
> > If jms & Michael Moore ever get together, the world is doomed! :)
doomed. :)
>
> I think you've found JMS one more reason to stay in show business. >:-)
--
------------------------------------------------
Living Sig V.1439.1042
Transformers: Starscream... Tyrant of the Firmament, or just stupid?
"Decepticons! Feast your eyes on your new leader!"
("Starscream's Brigade")
Daniel S., aka Kristling Wolf's Friend Dreamwalker,
Letting Off Steam
ICQ # 53874855 / Fanfic mail: prnin...@crosswinds.net
anything else: ahsdrea...@home.com
PR Ninja Zeo Fic Universe: www.crosswinds.net/~prninjazeo/fan/
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
BoomTime, day 55 of The Aftermath YOLD 3165 (causeway) 158:00:00 (1) [no
thud]
Daniel S. Riley
> > Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> > compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
> money for failed missions could've gone to the homeless and worthier
> in the least, and a government that gave a @$%&, maybe NASA would be
> funded well enough so that they *wouldn't* lose money on failed missions,
> and would instead be able to build stuff that worked as intended. "Better,
> faster, cheaper"? I don't really think so... but B5 showed a future where
> "built by the lowest bidder" was still prevalent...
There's always going to be a tradeoff between reliability and cost.
For manned missions, you spend the money, period. For unmanned
missions, it isn't that simple--if you can (pulling numbers out of a
hat here) fly missions for 20% of the cost that fail 20% of the time
instead of 5%, you fly a lot more successful missions for the same
amount of money, even though you're losing more.
One not so obvious advantage is that the "better, faster, cheaper"
missions provide a good training ground for young scientists to get
hands on experience running missions. The big expensive missions rely
on experienced scientists and engineers, and as a result, as big
projects have sucked down more and more of NASA's budget, NASA has (so
I've heard) been having problems training young scientists to organize
and run missions. "better, faster, cheaper" fixes that problem--which
is essential for NASA's long term viability.
The problem is that NASA has to worry about public relations, because
their budget depends to some extent on the public view of NASA, and
the public doesn't understand that this is space *exploration*, that
missions *will* fail, and sometimes it is better to have more unmanned
missions fail, when the alternative is fewer more expensive missions.
And, of course, the Mars missions would have "proper" funding, if the
space station weren't sucking up so much of NASA's budget...
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Bill Harris
been, I've always been fairly dubios about the aerobraking manuevers given
that you need to know a fair amount about the martian atmosphere to do that.
NASA are running at 50% with one of the failures being of the "shit happens"
school of problems. What's going to be interesting is whether they can get to
the bottom of what happened to the lander.>>
The "better, faster, cheaper" approach is doing alot better then the 50%
success rate you just cited. You also have to include Deep Space 1, Stardust,
NEAR and the Lunar Prospector in that group. Stardust is still en route to its
rendezvous with a comet and NEAR is set to rendezvous with an asteroid next
year, but the other two have been resounding successes. (And Deep Space 1
still has alot of life left in it.)
Bill Harris
Sci-Fi Quote of the month:
"Logic... does not seem to apply here."
"You admit that?"
"To deny that facts would be illogical."
-- Spock and McCoy, from Star Trek's "A Piece of the Action"
Jon Niehof
> military. Look into whether or not it is able to
> fulfill its mandated mission of two conflicts and one
> smaller action,
I'm afraid 2 1/2 wars just isn't valid anymore. Large
actions like that have to be internationally coordinated.
Isolationism doesn't make sense, but neither does trying to
have a military big enought to take on half the world by
itself.
> Things were definitely cut too far and weapon platforms
> are growing rather old and then, there are maintenance
> and training issues...
Definitely an issue, although perhaps more a factor of how
the money is handled internally? Better to have one aircraft
in proper shape than two which can't quite make it....
Of course, I'm not a military strategist. There's just
something fundamentally repugnant about throwing that much
money at warfare. Seems there should be a smarter way to do
this.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
But trust is the sound of the grave-dog's bark.
Trust is the sound of betrayal in the dark.
Trust is the sound of a soul's last breath.
Trust is the sound of death.
Mark Maher
>I'm afraid 2 1/2 wars just isn't valid anymore. Large
>actions like that have to be internationally coordinated.
>Isolationism doesn't make sense, but neither does trying to
>have a military big enought to take on half the world by
>itself.
What was it Delenn said:
"...If you can create sufficient fear in your enemies, you may not have to fight
them."
During the last century there have been literally hundreds of wars, some of them
large enough to bring in the majority of nations. Of all of the major combatants
of the big wars, the United States has stood out in one singular respect - we
have been smart enough to keep most of the fighting off our native soil. This
has had the effect of preserving our cities and industries intact, something
that cannot be said for the rest of the major combatants.
Now there are powers whose philosophy and/or national goals run counter to our
wishes that everybody play nice with everybody else. These powers have ballistic
missiles and weapons of mass destruction quite and are quite capable of bringing
the fight to us. Leaving our armed forces in their current state of disarray
only serves to encourage these forces.
A quite similar state of affairs existed in the late 1930s. While the rest of
Europe and Asia was descending into what would turn into the biggest war of the
century, a lot of Americans were trying their best to turn a blind eye on
events. Even congress could not be made to properly fund and modernize our
military. Fortunately, the war did not start here. That gave us valuable time to
get started so that by the time Pearl Harbor happened, we were already starting
to rebuild our military. It still took several months for us to take any
meaningful actions in the war.
The same thing can be said of the state of the US military just before the North
Koreans invaded the South. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?
>> Things were definitely cut too far and weapon platforms
>> are growing rather old and then, there are maintenance
>> and training issues...
>Definitely an issue, although perhaps more a factor of how
>the money is handled internally? Better to have one aircraft
>in proper shape than two which can't quite make it....
I agree that some of the weapons that we are working so hard to field are to say
the least, questionable in merit when considering their cost. The obsession with
Stealth has driven the cost of all aircraft up beyond the boundaries of sanity.
As events in the Former Yugoslavia has recently shown, stealth does not mean
ten-foot tall, bulletproof and invisible. It never did. They always knew this
but their propaganda machine kept going so that the money would keep flowing
their way into the B-2 and the F-22 rather than into modernizing and properly
equipping our existing force structure.
The B-1B went operational in the mid 1980s but did not enter into actual combat
until January of this year. Considering that several other aircraft types were
let to languish while exhorbitant amounts of money were poured into that
program, I'd agree that we've been spending in the wrong direction.
>Of course, I'm not a military strategist. There's just
>something fundamentally repugnant about throwing that much
>money at warfare. Seems there should be a smarter way to do
>this.
There has always been one consistent winning tactic in battle - he who brings
more to the fight faster wins. The most efficient way to fight a war is to apply
overwhelming force as fast as possible. If there was one positive lesson to be
learned from the Gulf War, it was that. We forgot that lesson when NATO
intervened in Kosovo and it cost a lot of time and many more lives than it
should have. We were lucky that the casualties weren't ours but it still does
not diminish the fact that thousands of innocents could have been saved had we
gone after Belgrade the way we went after Baghdad. Things might have turned
around faster.
I am not hungering for war - I have spent my time and seen too many deaths to
wish for more. But until every nation and every group on this planet agrees to
abide by the decisions of peaceful arbitration when it comes to conflicts of
interests, there will be wars. The stronger and better prepared our military is,
the less likely we will be the subject of those wars. And when we do commit our
forces to a fight, they will be able to get the job done decisively and quickly.
Right now that is the state of affairs in the real world. We can take every step
needed to achieve the best - a peaceful and acceptable resolution to each and
every conflict in the world. At the same time, we have to set our expectations
to expect the worst - war and useless territorial squabbling, and prepare
accordingly.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Iain Rae
>> you'd be amazed how far below the line they cut the
>> military. Look into whether or not it is able to
>> fulfill its mandated mission of two conflicts and one
>> smaller action,
> actions like that have to be internationally coordinated.
> Isolationism doesn't make sense, but neither does trying to
> have a military big enought to take on half the world by
> itself.
aircraft carriers", through cancelling a £25Million spend to keep fixed-wing
carriers going until the mid 80's", trying to get the Invincible
and sea harrier programs cancelled to promising to build the two largest
carriers in the history of the RN. Pity so many people had to die before
they realised that if you want to play international policeman you need
more than a blue beret and a white landrover with UN plastered on it.
Also bear in mind that most countries armed services have civil support
roles, in the UK RAF and RN SAR flights are on call to civilians, the RN
does an awful lot of disaster relief work which rarely appears in the
National press other than oneliner and most army regiments deployed
overseas on exercise will help the locals out if there are problems.
>> Things were definitely cut too far and weapon platforms
>> are growing rather old and then, there are maintenance
>> and training issues...
> Definitely an issue, although perhaps more a factor of how
> the money is handled internally? Better to have one aircraft
> in proper shape than two which can't quite make it....
> Of course, I'm not a military strategist. There's just
> something fundamentally repugnant about throwing that much
> money at warfare. Seems there should be a smarter way to do
> this.
I read somewhere that British forces have been on active service overseas (i.e.
getting shot at) for all but 2 years of the century (this was about 4 years
ago i don't imagine that number is much different) we have been at war for
~10 of those years. Clearly peacekeeping is as dangerous as warfare and tends
to be a much longer commitment (the UK has been doing peacekeeping work for
something like 40 years in Cyprus with no end in sight).
If, in peacetime, you're not willing to properly fund and support your
armed forces to the capabilities you require of them remember who will have
to pay for it with their lives if you ever call on them. You can for example
point directly at the loss of the Sheffield during the Falklands as being
caused by such an attitude taken years before by some of the people calling
for the heads of "whoever was responsible" for letting it happen.
Oscar Wilde wrote that Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, well
I've seen dammed few competent politicans and they're usually the ones who
send the troops out.
I'm afraid tht not much has changed since Kiplings day.
http://users.deltanet.com/users/llambert/public_html/tommy.html
(NB I've been using the generic "you" throughout, this isn't aimed at
one individual)
Shaz
"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:83b2ut$goa$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> During the last century there have been literally hundreds of wars, some
of them
> large enough to bring in the majority of nations. Of all of the major
combatants
> of the big wars, the United States has stood out in one singular respect -
we
> have been smart enough to keep most of the fighting off our native soil.
This
> has had the effect of preserving our cities and industries intact,
something
> that cannot be said for the rest of the major combatants.
Leaving the rest of the post aside for a moment, I feel it has to be pointed
out that it's relatively easy to stay out of a war when you haven't got the
main protagonist standing five miles away from you across a very small
channel of water. Or, worse, one foot across a road and, in either case,
extremely determined to close that gap and loaded up to the gunwales with
the men, arms and resources to do it. It's not a matter of intelligence.
It's a matter of geography and history.
Shaz
Tom Holt
The message <83c09k$o10$1...@lure.pipex.net>
from "Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
> Leaving the rest of the post aside for a moment, I feel it has to be pointed
> out that it's relatively easy to stay out of a war when you haven't got the
> main protagonist standing five miles away from you across a very small
> channel of water.
With respect; consult an atlas, with particular reference to the
Bering Strait, Mexico and Cuba.
Arguably, the US has been somewhat paranoid from time to time in its
attitude towards its immediate neighbors*, particularly as regards
who they may or may not be friends with. To say that the US has no
neighbors is, however, inaccurate.
* (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
sleep at night, I'll never know)
Mac Breck
news:199912170...@zetnet.co.uk...
>...immediate neighbors*
>
> * (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
> namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
> its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
> sleep at night, I'll never know)
LOL. Thanks, I was drinking a Coke when I read that! :-)
Mac
Dwight Williams
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > >In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
> > >increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
> > >hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
> > >Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
> > >even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
> > >you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
> > >
> >
> > compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
> >
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> > B5 Official Fan Club at:
> > http://www.thestation.com
>
> Sorry Joe, have to disagree with you. NASA started to go down the tubes in
> 1973 when they fired the engineers and brought in "professional managers."
> Read that as bureaucrats. NASA has no guidance, no technical ability, and no
> clue what to do next. I would not trust NASA to put a man on Hawaii, never
> mind the moon. From here on out, if we are going to do space exploration, it
> is going to be down by private business or not at all.
Hmmm...as much as I believe that private industry has a place in space,
I would prefer to leave the exploration side in the hands of national
governments for the moment.
Maybe it's because I grew up here in Canada where the tradition is to
trust the institution of government(the *people* in that institution,
though, you watch *very* carefully), but I'm not ready to throw out
NASA, ESA, CSA, NASDA and the rest just yet.
Dwight Williams
>
>
> The problem is that NASA has to worry about public relations, because
> their budget depends to some extent on the public view of NASA, and
> the public doesn't understand that this is space *exploration*, that
> missions *will* fail, and sometimes it is better to have more unmanned
> missions fail, when the alternative is fewer more expensive missions.
Well, that...uncharitable perception of the public's opinion and level
of understanding would seem to be undercut by a recent usatoday.com
online poll. What was the result? Something like 70-75% in favour of
continuing the Mars campaigns in spite of recent losses and perceived
setbacks?
Thomas Leroux
>
> * (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
> namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
> its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
> sleep at night, I'll never know)
I am surprised they can sleep at all. Just knowing that we
Canadians are working to subvert the US government gives me a warm feeling
in my belly. ;)
--
It's a little known | AMIGA OS: |
fact that the Dark Ages | Attaching the electrodes | Qui desiderat pacem,
were caused by the | of knowledge to the | preparaet bellum.
Y1K problem. | nipples of ignorance. |
Dwight Williams
>
> Tom Holt (lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk) writes:
> >
> > * (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
> > namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
> > its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
> > sleep at night, I'll never know)
>
> I am surprised they can sleep at all. Just knowing that we
> Canadians are working to subvert the US government gives me a warm feeling
> in my belly. ;)
Never mind their government. What about their computer software and
entertainment industries?
>|-D
Mark Maher
>
>"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:83b2ut$goa$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>> During the last century there have been literally hundreds of wars, some
>of them
>> large enough to bring in the majority of nations. Of all of the major
>combatants
>> of the big wars, the United States has stood out in one singular respect -
>we
>> have been smart enough to keep most of the fighting off our native soil.
>This
>> has had the effect of preserving our cities and industries intact,
>something
>> that cannot be said for the rest of the major combatants.
>
>out that it's relatively easy to stay out of a war when you haven't got the
>main protagonist standing five miles away from you across a very small
>extremely determined to close that gap and loaded up to the gunwales with
>the men, arms and resources to do it. It's not a matter of intelligence.
>It's a matter of geography and history.
>
Point well taken Shaz. It goes back to the old fighter jock motto, "I'd rather
be lucky than good any day." Up until recently, geography certainly has made it
very difficult for potential threats to reach the USA, while past history
clearly demonstrates that the same cannot be said for other nations who need
only look across a channel, a river, a street or next door to see a mortal
enemy. That gap has now been closed for us too, thanks to the advent of ICBMs in
the hands of many potentially hostile nations who have the technology and are
all too willing to use it. Of course, I cannot leave out the numerous terrorists
lining up to see who's next to simply drive their carload of explosives across
the border. We also have antagonists who are very determined to close some gaps
between them and us.
Geography has been kind to the USA, for certain. Many Americans are lulled by it
into a false sense of security and isolationism by it. A lot of people who
justifiably hate war wonder why we need to maintain such an expansive military
when we have no perceived immediate military threats from our next-door
neighbors (I'm sure Corel wouldn't *mind* if the Seattle metro area went up in
smoke, but that's business as they say). But geography alone has not kept the
fighting of the major wars out of our borders. Perhaps it did so for the first
part of this century but not during and after the Second World War. It was our
willingness to go to the fight rather than let the fight come to us. It could be
argued that we didn't enter into World War II until pearl Harbor was bombed, but
the US had already been providing substantial aid to Britain and other allied
nations by that time. The US military has pursued a strategy of forward
deployment of forces in or near regions of instability when and where such
instability threatens the interests of this nation or its allies. We have
actively sought to bolster the economies and defensive capabilities of our
allies. Those actions are no coincidence of where borders are drawn up or oceans
are located.
Enough of this very depressing subject...let's talk about something interesting,
like speculating on what revelations JMS has in store for us in the Babylon 5
timeline that is coming out in the Babylon 5 magazine.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Daniel Morris
> >increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
> >hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
> >Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
> >even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
> >you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
> >
>
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
>
>
>
>
Hear hear, Joe...
Rant mode on.
It seems to me that science by the lowest bidder is a huge step backward
for this country. The only way that we got as far as we did in this century
was by saying "This is where we want to go. Do it and forget about the
cost."
I was born in the year that the last of these projects came to fruition.
My parents watched man set foot on the moon while holding six month old
Danny.
If the war department had a one million dollar budget, would the
Manhattan project have been completed? If JFK had said only go to the moon
if it is cost effective, would I have been six or seven by the time the
event happened? Or would it have happened at all?
The government still spends billions on maintaining a stockpile of
weapons. Why do they constantly cut the funding to the space program?
Because NASA doesn't have high powered lobbyists, pestering, cajoling and
wine and dining our representatives in Washington.
One day someone will realize that we need science... Take the shackles
off and open the bank vault.
Rant mode off.
Danny
Bob Joesting
Also Dish, which has had NASA-TV on one of their secondary
satellites, has just moved it to their primary satellite so
one now only needs one dish to get it. It is on Dish channel
213. (I wish they would have told me they were moving it.
I am almost finished installing the second dish.)
Get paid to browse the web:
http://www.refmaker.com/members/valen/shtml
Bob Joesting <valen (at) psicorps (dot) com>
Robert Martin
--
Maybe it is your purpose in life to set a bad example
"Mac Breck" <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote in message
news:1Nh64.3267$Ke.2...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:199912170...@zetnet.co.uk...
> >...immediate neighbors*
> >
> > * (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
> > namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
> > its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
> > sleep at night, I'll never know)
>
>
Rob Perkins
> entertainment industries?
Oh, I'm much much much much more worried about the public television
programs they sell to PBS. I don't really want to call that "entertainment"
The Big Comfy Couch! Auggggggggggghgh.... <gurgle>
Rob
Pelzo63
> What's your solution here exactly? Don't make stupid conversion >errors?
Because
> that's the only solution you've got any info to back up at the moment. >And
> fixing that error doesn't take a major reconception of how your mission
>plans
> are put together.
stronger coffee, it'll make sure they're awake enough to not make stupid
conversion errors. <g>
well, the second option is to do away with that metric system, ;-) it
encourages mental laziness by making it TOO EASY to convert between units.
<note: i am being sarcastic>
here's an idea, after this whole Anti-Trust thing is over with MicroShaft, have
their "punishment" be to donate BILLIONS to NASA, and other "thinktank" type
gov't organizations. afterall, M$ is accused of "slowing innovation", what
better way to start to un-do that damage? :-)
---chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
can't we just end the stupid season already? <mumbling>
Pelzo63
> news:199912170...@zetnet.co.uk...
> >...immediate neighbors*
> >
> > * (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
> > namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
> > its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
> > sleep at night, I'll never know)
actually, having spoken to many Detroit natives(particularly, Hockey fans*),
they seem to consider themselves canadian! <running for his semi-automatic
machine gun that he finds quite useful for hunting deer with> John Candy** was
right all along!
*perhaps they're angry at the US for "stealing" several of their teams? namely,
the winnipeg jets, and quebec nordiques, then again, they stole the atlanta
Flames first!
**in his last movie, Canadian Bacon, a hilarious movie, as was usual for john,
wait, wasn't he canadian?
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"yes, what y2k prevention methods have you initiated?" "we switched to all
macintosh systems, at a considerably less cost than hiring tech's to go over
our entire windoze system" "sign me up!"
Tom Holt
The message <19991218210322...@ng-co1.aol.com>
from pel...@aol.com (Pelzo63) contains these words:
> **in his last movie, Canadian Bacon,
Saw that. A nice idea ruined, IMHO...
Justin Bacon
>I've seen dammed few competent politicans and they're usually the ones who
>send the troops out.
Violence *isn't* the last refuge of the incompetent -- it is the first.
Violence is the last refuge of the *competent* -- a course of action which is
pursued only when all other options have been exhausted and only when the
stakes are of particular importance.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Andrew Wendel
"Thomas Leroux" <aa...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:83e2lq$su4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> I am surprised they can sleep at all. Just knowing that we
> Canadians are working to subvert the US government gives me a warm feeling
> in my belly. ;)
Why should we worry about that? You think we don't want you to? Keeps you
busy, gets rid of the Federal government, and we convinced you to do it for
free. ;)
--
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Engineering God
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www.planetkc.com/pyro
-------------------------------------------
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere.
Dwight Williams
>
> "Thomas Leroux" <aa...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:83e2lq$su4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > I am surprised they can sleep at all. Just knowing that we
> > Canadians are working to subvert the US government gives me a warm feeling
> > in my belly. ;)
>
> Why should we worry about that? You think we don't want you to? Keeps you
> busy, gets rid of the Federal government, and we convinced you to do it for
> free. ;)
And eventually we'll get you trading up from the FBI to the Mounties!!!
Daniel Upton
> Thanks for saying that, JMS... that's pretty much what I had to tell a
> complainer in my family. She's been grumbling a lot about how all that
> money for failed missions could've gone to the homeless and worthier
> programs, and my reply is, well, if we had a president who supported NASA
> in the least, and a government that gave a @$%&, maybe NASA would be
> funded well enough so that they *wouldn't* lose money on failed missions,
> and would instead be able to build stuff that worked as intended. "Better,
> faster, cheaper"? I don't really think so... but B5 showed a future where
> "built by the lowest bidder" was still prevalent...
You might pick up a copy of Victor Koman's "Kings Of The High Frontier" for
another perspective on NASA and the space program.
Dan
Jon Niehof
> it is the first. Violence is the last refuge of the
> *competent* -- a course of action which is pursued only
> when all other options have been exhausted and only when
> the stakes are of particular importance.
when he had to resort to force. It's not a quick, happy,
easy saying--Heinlein knew very well that sometimes, you
have your back against the wall and have to use force. The
contention is (the way I read it), that no matter what, you
have failed if this happens. Incompetence is an absolute,
not a relative, and ultimately everybody winds up
incompetent.
"The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It
failed."
It failed. It didn't do its job. Was it the fault of the
people in charge? Not really. Was it their
responsibility? Yes. They were charged with maintaining the
peace, and peace was not maintained.
Just because your job is impossible doesn't mean that you
aren't at fault for not carrying it out.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
The boy's pure dang-nasty evil! Everyone else
can sense it, why can't you?
--Star Wars, Episode II: The Menace Strikes Back
Jerome
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >In light of the recent failures of the Mars probes, I'm hearing
> >increased talk of cutting funds to NASA, launching Congressional
> >hearings, and just rethinking the whole space idea and/or strategy.
> >Your work and perspective are highly regarded by many at NASA, maybe
> >even Congress. As someone with a vision of space, is there anything
> >you can think of to say to these obviously frustrated people?
> >
>
> Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
> compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
Elicits images of a company who replaces well paid highly trained technicians with low paid lesser educated employees. Then when things go awry the project itself is criticized as opposed to the decision to cut the budget. So the result? Cut MORE budget.
The 'brilliance' of the human species never ceases to amaze me.
jms - how long do you think we have as a species? Will we make it another millenium?
-jk
P.S. Lets cynical hat fall to ground while seeking sleep....
Mac Breck
news:385DF819...@ctinet.net...
> Elicits images of a company who replaces well paid highly trained
technicians with low paid lesser educated employees. Then when things go
awry the project itself is criticized as opposed to the decision to cut the
budget. So the result? Cut MORE budget.
Elicits images of a company who replaces all the lower paid, overworked,
highly talented technicians with highly paid, no-talent managers. Then when
things go awry (because no one left to actually *do* the work), the project
itself is criticized as opposed to the decision to hire the managers. So
the result? Hire more managers.
Yes, we're sinking because there's a hole in the boat. Let's drill a bigger
hole! Yeah!
> The 'brilliance' of the human species never ceases to amaze me.
Me too.
>
> jms - how long do you think we have as a species? Will we make it another
millenium?
I don't think so. The greed and stupidity of real life is getting too
painful to watch. It makes Mr. Potter of It's A Wonderful Life" look like a
philanthropist.
Mac
Mark Maher
>Jerome <kal...@ctinet.net> wrote in message
>news:385DF819...@ctinet.net...
>> Elicits images of a company who replaces well paid highly trained
>technicians with low paid lesser educated employees. Then when things go
>awry the project itself is criticized as opposed to the decision to cut the
>budget. So the result? Cut MORE budget.
>
>Elicits images of a company who replaces all the lower paid, overworked,
>highly talented technicians with highly paid, no-talent managers. Then when
>things go awry (because no one left to actually *do* the work), the project
>itself is criticized as opposed to the decision to hire the managers. So
>the result? Hire more managers.
Try C. None of the above. This just in from this week's edition of Aviation Week
and Space technology: Excerpted from comments published in an article by William
B. Scott:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
---------------
NASA...'s "faster-better-cheaper"dictum...was both helpful and stressing. But it
also dictated some severe constraints, perhaps greatly increasing risk to save a
few dollars. These included:
- Contracting with Lockheed Martin Astronautics to design, build, test and
provide initial operation of two spacecraft [Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar
Lander] for $119.6 million---as compared to $171 million for the successful
Mars Pathfinder mission (excluding the rover). "We were trying to do two for
one," said David G. Olschansky,...
- Each Mars '98 spacecraft would be built and launched within three years.
- NASA dictated that a Delta II 7425 launcher would be used, which severely
limited each spacecraft's allowable weight. Consequentially, an airbag landing
system that proved successful on the Pathfinder mission was not an available
option...The Mars Polar Lander would have to settle onto the Martian surface on
outstretched mechanical legs, which may or may not have positioned the vehicle
upright in a rough landing zone.
- Traditional design, development and testing processes had to be streamlined
drastically to cut costs.
- Also to save money, fewer people could work on the programs. Use of modern,
productivity-enhancing engineering design tools compensated, to a degree, for
the smaller staff.
...in essence, the combined program had a seasoned, very capable first team but
it had minimal depth---no "bench" of backup players.
...An infectious "can-do" attitude characterized the teams, and that tended to
keep individuals working long and hard. It also may have discouraged any
expression of doubt about certain practices. "We were probably at our peak
stress level in the six months before [MCO] launch," Euler said (ED. note:
Edward A. Euler - L M program director for Mars Surveyor '98). We were doing
software testing on the whole vehicle...People were putting in a few 100-hour
weeks. Eighty-hour weeks were the norm...
Final comments:
"I don't think we [overreached] in a technical sense" Euler said. "I think we
stressed our people too much."
------------------
[END EXCERPT]
Sounds just like the kind of deadlines, pressures and arbitrary specifications
placed on the early Apollo program. You'd think they'd learn one of these times.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Stanley Friesen
>
>Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
>compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
in both projects, and the basic failures in both cases could at least
have been ameliorated by means of additional expenditure, either on more
equipment, more programming, or more personnel on the project.
P.S. A recent survey of the public shows an amazing 75% are in favor of
continued Mars missions.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>In article <19991212190725...@ng-cm1.aol.com>, jms...@aol.com (Jms
>at B5) writes:
>
>>Maybe if they'd *had* proper funding, instead of having to scrape by and
>>compromise things, the damned thing WOULD have landed intact.
>
>While that was my initial gut-reaction, too, but let's face it: It was the
>failure of a $1 billion probe that lead to this new cheap-and-quick approach.
Nothing can *guarantee* success. But additional programming to improve
the navigation system on the first of the two Mars missions, or budget
for one or two navigation specialists assigned full time to the project
would probably have saved it.
And for the polar lander, NASA doesn't even know *what* went wrong
because, due to budget limitations, they did not make any provision for
status transmissions *during* atmospheric entry. The probe had to turn
its main long range antenna away from the Earth to give the craft the
proper aerodynamic properties (and to preserve it from reentry damage).
But I understand that small short range radio, plus some additional
software uploaded to the Mars Surveyor would have allowed the Surveyor
to act as a relay station during that phase. This was not done due to
budget constraints.
What is probably needed is something in between. Or a way to mass
produce the primary components of deep space probes (the lack of shared
hardware or software is a large part of why they are so expensive).
>And since adopting the cheap-and-quick approach we've had a 50% success ratio
>with a smaller total budget over the four Mars missions. One failure is not yet
>adequately explained (it could be simple, random chance that would have
>affected the probe whether you poured a trillion dollars or $2 into it) and the
>other was a mathematical flaw between two different laboratories.
Combined with a part time navigator on Earth who didn't have time to
investigate the minor discrepancies in the navigation data being
received. The discrepancies could as easily have been caused by
incorrect weather information at the receiving station, since that needs
to be taken into account when computing the course. Thus they were not
a red alert grade issue that warranted extra time. (Also, the craft
*had* a navigation camera, but it was only used to take fixes on stars
to establish orientation, but not to take fixes on Mars to validate the
course computations - that would have required an additional million
dollars spent on programming it).
Justin Bacon
Niehof <jnie...@Calvin.EDU> writes:
>"The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It
>failed."
>It failed. It didn't do its job. Was it the fault of the
>people in charge? Not really. Was it their
>responsibility? Yes. They were charged with maintaining the
>peace, and peace was not maintained.
But were they *incompetent*? No. I suggest you look up "competent" and
"incompetent" in a dictionary.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Tom Holt
The message <19991222053949...@nso-fv.aol.com>
from tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) contains these words:
On a point of order; not only did Sheridan & Co fail to keep the
peace, they deliberately involved themselves in the Shadow war (which
Earthgov wanted no part of; hence the Centauri treaty), triggered the
martial law decree by going after the excavated Shadow ship,
jeopardised the Centauri treaty by sheltering the Narn heavy cruiser
and blowing up the Centauri warship, provoked the attack on the
station by defying Earthgov and initiated the civil war that led to
the fall of the Clark regime. Nobel Peace Prize material? Nope.
(Moral; it's not the job of heroes to keep the peace. Little guys in
suits with briefcases keep the peace. Heroes win the war.)
Michael J. Hennebry
>
>"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:83b2ut$goa$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>> During the last century there have been literally hundreds of wars, some
>of them
>> large enough to bring in the majority of nations. Of all of the major
>combatants
>> of the big wars, the United States has stood out in one singular respect -
>we
>> have been smart enough to keep most of the fighting off our native soil.
>This
>> has had the effect of preserving our cities and industries intact,
>something
>> that cannot be said for the rest of the major combatants.
>
>Leaving the rest of the post aside for a moment, I feel it has to be pointed
>out that it's relatively easy to stay out of a war when you haven't got the
>main protagonist standing five miles away from you across a very small
>channel of water. Or, worse, one foot across a road and, in either case,
>extremely determined to close that gap and loaded up to the gunwales with
>the men, arms and resources to do it. It's not a matter of intelligence.
>It's a matter of geography and history.
This one suspects that in the given context, "smart enough to" means the
same as it does in the following sentence:
He was smart enough to have been born to wealthy parents.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I'm just an old country doctor." -- Bones
Michael J. Hennebry
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>* (While, inexplicably, ignoring the greatest threat to its security,
>namely the ravening Canuck hordes hovering like malign shadows around
>its northern borders. How the people of Detroit & Buffalo manage to
>sleep at night, I'll never know)
The folks in Buffalo use a big white security blanket.
Mark Maher
You would be in error.
__!_!__
Gizmo
LCDR-USNR (Ret.)
Mark Maher
>
>The message <19991222053949...@nso-fv.aol.com>
> from tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) contains these words:
>
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991219...@udu.calvin.edu>, Jon
>> Niehof <jnie...@Calvin.EDU> writes:
>
>> >"The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It
>> >failed."
>> >It failed. It didn't do its job. Was it the fault of the
>> >people in charge? Not really. Was it their
>> >responsibility? Yes. They were charged with maintaining the
>> >peace, and peace was not maintained.
>
>> But were they *incompetent*? No. I suggest you look up "competent" and
>> "incompetent" in a dictionary.
>
>On a point of order; not only did Sheridan & Co fail to keep the
>peace, they deliberately involved themselves in the Shadow war (which
>Earthgov wanted no part of; hence the Centauri treaty), triggered the
>martial law decree by going after the excavated Shadow ship,
>jeopardised the Centauri treaty by sheltering the Narn heavy cruiser
>and blowing up the Centauri warship, provoked the attack on the
>station by defying Earthgov and initiated the civil war that led to
>the fall of the Clark regime. Nobel Peace Prize material? Nope.
1. How do we know that EarthGov didn't want to be involved in what became known
as the Shadow war? Just because they were willing to turn there backs on the
Centauri/Narn situation doesn't mean that they did not intend to someday come
after the aliens that Clark's regime so despised. Besides, Sheridan involved
himself in a conspiracy to uncover who was behind the assassination of Santiago.
He didn't get a full sense of the scope of the conflict until after Marcus
arrived and they rescued the Rangers at Zagros 7.
2. The Senate hearings digging deeper and deeper into Clark's involvement in
Santiago's assassination is what triggered martial law. The incident at Jupiter
was just a convenient way of getting some of the military onboard who were
reluctant to beforehand.
3. Sheridan didn't know that there was to be a treaty until after the G'Dok
(sp?)(Narn heavy cruiser) arrived and its repairs well under way. Once its
presence became know, Sheridan was content to escort the Narn ship out of the
area. The Centauri ship jumped in, blocked the way and opened fire first. John
was forced to take out the Centauri ship, he didn't want to.
4. The civil war in the Earth Alliance was already well underway when the
initial wave of Clark's forces arrived to take Babylon 5 by force. Fighting
between several elements in Earth Force - the defection of at least two colony
worlds. That war continued on off-screen throughout the remainder of what became
the Shadow War, which ended for more abruptly than anyone, especially the
Shandows and the Vorlons, thought. When the Shadows left Clark, he panicked and
went after Sheridan because he knew was the only likely opponent that stood a
chance of succeeding in coming after him. Sheridan finally had enough and only
then did he go after Clark.
5. Nobel Peace Prize material - absolutely. Just like George Marshall, who
oversaw the US war effort in the Second World War, but established peace and
prosperity in western Europe for decades by initiating the Marshall plan to
rebuild what had been torn down in that war.
I guess that in Sheriden's case, the prize would have to be shared with a
certain half-Minbari...
>(Moral; it's not the job of heroes to keep the peace. Little guys in
>suits with briefcases keep the peace. Heroes win the war.)
Truth: All battles are fought by scared people who'd rather be anywhere else
than where they are. Little guys in suits with briefcases rarely keep the peace.
They're too busy scheming to do more than postpone the fight. After it's over,
little guys in suits with briefcases write the treaty. More often than not, it's
those same scared people who fought the war who are called on to maintain the
peace after the war is over.
__!_!__
Gizmo
LessXTreme
>continued Mars missions.
Much as I wish that that were true, that was the USA Today poll, yes? I was
under the impression that that poll was done on a volunteer basis, which makes
the results basically useless. A similar poll here on aol revealed a few weeks
back that the best tv show of the twentieth century was The Simpsons, by a
margin of 45%. Riiiiiiiiiight. Unbiased random sample polling is the only way
to go...
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>On a point of order; not only did Sheridan & Co fail to keep the
>peace, they deliberately involved themselves in the Shadow war (which
>Earthgov wanted no part of; hence the Centauri treaty), triggered the
>martial law decree by going after the excavated Shadow ship,
>jeopardised the Centauri treaty by sheltering the Narn heavy cruiser
>and blowing up the Centauri warship, provoked the attack on the
>station by defying Earthgov and initiated the civil war that led to
>the fall of the Clark regime. Nobel Peace Prize material? Nope.
Yes, but everything you cite takes place *after* Bab5's initial mission had
failed.
But now we're just playing a game of semantics.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Mark Maher
Justin Bacon wrote in message <19991225053627...@nso-cl.aol.com>...
regardless of what those who ran Babylon 5 did or did not do. The mutual hatred
between the Narn and Centauri just served as the first dry tinder to catch
flame.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Pelzo63
(in reference to _Canadian Bacon_ starring John Candy)
>Saw that. A nice idea ruined, IMHO...
it's been a whole since i've seen it, so the memory(and the fact that i was a
big John Candy fan sad about his passing) may have been clouded, but i don't
remember anything particularly "wrong" with it, mind a little friendly
discussion of what you felt ruined it? :-)
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
Stock Car train racing! 3 cars chained together, racing against 3 other cars
chained together!
Pelzo63
>>P.S. A recent survey of the public shows an amazing 75% are in favor of
>>continued Mars missions.
saw that too, results suprised me. regardless of the "invalidity" of
"volunteer" polls, it's still a suprising #. (afterall, there's a LOT of people
who go out of their way to talk down against anything that "wastes tax
dollars", they volunteer too ;-)
lessx...@aol.com wrote:
>A similar poll here on aol revealed a few weeks
>back that the best tv show of the twentieth century was The Simpsons, >by a
>margin of 45%. Riiiiiiiiiight.
i would agree with such a poll (note: aol polls don't fall victim to the common
internet "ballot stuffing" nearly as easily as website polls).
The Simpson's is, IMO, utterly brilliant. :-) and to be that way after,
11(?) seasons is amazing. but that's just IMO :-)
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"hellooooo, this is mr burns"
"ok mr burns, what is your first name?"
"i.....don't....know..."
Tom Holt
The message <19991225195205...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
from pel...@aol.com (Pelzo63) contains these words:
> lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
> (in reference to _Canadian Bacon_ starring John Candy)
> >Saw that. A nice idea ruined, IMHO...
> it's been a whole since i've seen it, so the memory(and the fact that i was a
> big John Candy fan sad about his passing) may have been clouded, but i don't
> remember anything particularly "wrong" with it, mind a little friendly
> discussion of what you felt ruined it? :-)
IMHO it was a good idea, making a valid point (about unscrupulous
politicians starting unnecessary wars in order to boost their
flagging approval ratings - is it a whole year already, BTW, since
Clinton bombed Iraq?), backed up by a strong cast (Alan Alda *and*
John Candy made it a must-see as far as I was concerned), screwed up
by by a singularly unfunny and often offensive script. I felt sorry
for Candy, and Alda, wasting their time and talent on it.
Pelzo63
>IMHO it was a good idea, making a valid point (about unscrupulous
>politicians starting unnecessary wars in order to boost their
>flagging approval ratings - is it a whole year already, BTW, since
>Clinton bombed Iraq?),
yep, amazingly enough, and also a whole year since he's had any controversy in
his "personal life" hmmmmm. ;-)
>backed up by a strong cast (Alan Alda *and*
>John Candy made it a must-see as far as I was concerned),
completely forgot that alda was in it.
>screwed up
>by by a singularly unfunny and often offensive script.
well, when u think about it really hard, all comedy is potentially offensive to
someone. ;-) butm being the butt of many of the jokes myself(as an american) i
found nothing offensive, and knowing many canadians, who were the butt of the
rest of the jokes, they weren't offended either. :-) unless you're referring
to it being offensive in the "that insulted my intelligence" category, in that
case, oh well. :-)
>I felt sorry
>for Candy, and Alda, wasting their time and talent on it.
well, i never feel sorry for people who make a "bad" choice. if those 2 felt
the script was bad, they could have chosen to not act in it, givin that they
didn't, they either didn't feel it was bad, or felt it was bad, but chose to be
assoc. with it anyways, eitherway, no pity here(even if i didn't like it).
though, i agree it could have been better:-)
btw, i used to live in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. which, if the border cities
fell, would become the front lines of the war. ;-)
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
who else is still laughing at ali and gates ranking in the top most mannered
people list? almost made me choke when i read it.
Tom Holt
The message <19991225213644...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
from pel...@aol.com (Pelzo63) contains these words:
> >I felt sorry
> >for Candy, and Alda, wasting their time and talent on it.
> well, i never feel sorry for people who make a "bad" choice. if those 2 felt
> the script was bad, they could have chosen to not act in it,
Query that. From what little I know of the film industry, it's the
exception rather than the rule for the end result to closely resemble
the original plans & elevations on the basis of which the actors make
their decision to take part in the project. It's entirely possible
that they signed on to the project before the script was finalised,
or even written; or that they signed up on the basis of an earlier
draft, which got substantially altered for the worse after they'd
committed to it and had declined other work on that basis. Once they
were committed to the project, contractual penalties and/or
professionalism would tend to keep them from jumping ship, even
though they realised they were stuck with a Grade A lemon.
Alda in particular seemed to me to be walking through his part, which
is probably why you'd forgotten he was in it. To judge by the quality
of his performance, half of the time so had he. I don't blame him for
that. Some sows' ears just aren't silk purse material.
Dwight Williams
>
> lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
> well, when u think about it really hard, all comedy is potentially offensive to
> someone. ;-) butm being the butt of many of the jokes myself(as an american) i
> found nothing offensive, and knowing many canadians, who were the butt of the
> rest of the jokes, they weren't offended either. :-) unless you're referring
> to it being offensive in the "that insulted my intelligence" category, in that
> case, oh well. :-)
Well, *I* wasn't offended. Mildly irritated by the language, but that's
something I can live with given the points Moore was trying to make with
the movie.
> >I felt sorry
> >for Candy, and Alda, wasting their time and talent on it.
>
> well, i never feel sorry for people who make a "bad" choice. if those 2 felt
> the script was bad, they could have chosen to not act in it, givin that they
> didn't, they either didn't feel it was bad, or felt it was bad, but chose to be
> assoc. with it anyways, eitherway, no pity here(even if i didn't like it).
> though, i agree it could have been better:-)
I tend to believe that Candy and Alda felt it fell into the "This is a
good story" camp. I seem to recall interview quotes to that effect, but
can't recall which newspapers they appeared in. _Ottawa Citizen_, maybe?
> btw, i used to live in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. which, if the border cities
> fell, would become the front lines of the war. ;-)
Who says the *US* border cities would be the first to fall in the
fighting?
Hey, I know the budget cuts our military's gone through over the past 30
years. And so does Washington. :-(
Pelzo63
>Well, *I* wasn't offended. Mildly irritated by the language, but that's
>something I can live with given the points Moore was trying to make >with
>the movie.
the only situation involving language i can recall is that "all signs must be
in french and english" scene ;-) of course, it has been a while, i just know i
enjoyed it then, and if i get the chance, will watch it again. but i won't
ever rent it again*
>> >I felt sorry
>> >for Candy, and Alda, wasting their time and talent on it.
>
>> well, i never feel sorry for people who make a "bad" choice. if those 2
>>felt
>> the script was bad, they could have chosen to not act in it, givin that
>>they
>> didn't, they either didn't feel it was bad, or felt it was bad, but chose
>>to be
>> assoc. with it anyways, eitherway, no pity here(even if i didn't like it).
>> though, i agree it could have been better:-)
>I tend to believe that Candy and Alda felt it fell into the "This is a
>good story" camp. I seem to recall interview quotes to that effect, but
>can't recall which newspapers they appeared in. _Ottawa Citizen_, >maybe?
i seem to recall hearing similar quotes.
>> btw, i used to live in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. which, if the border
>>cities
>> fell, would become the front lines of the war. ;-)
>Who says the *US* border cities would be the first to fall in the
>fighting?
there was an IF in that statement ;-)
>Hey, I know the budget cuts our military's gone through over the past 30
>years. And so does Washington. :-(
i didn't know you guys had a military, well, just re-call all of the chicago
blackhawks back to canada, they can fight. that's about all they can do
though...
*i have only rented one movie more than once. monty python, and the quest for
the holy grail. though i have purchased, or recorded(off of TV) several.
----Chris AOL/AIM---Pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"Chyna just gave Al Snow head! and al is flat on his back!"
Pelzo63
<snip>
>It's entirely possible
>that they signed on to the project before the script was finalised,
>or even written; or that they signed up on the basis of an earlier
>draft, which got substantially altered for the worse after they'd
>committed to it and had declined other work on that basis. Once they
>were committed to the project, contractual penalties and/or
>professionalism would tend to keep them from jumping ship, even
>though they realised they were stuck with a Grade A lemon.
IMO, if it was "that bad" to them, they should have walked. in particular,
alda, and candy were both "big enough" to be able to do just that, and still
get work. and yes, i read you say "prefesssionalism". but if the script was
as amatuerish as it appears you feel it was, then there are no worries. ;-)
though, i don't believe alda or candy felt the script was bad, and neither did
i. :-)
----Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
i hate <clap clap> TCI
Tom Holt
The message <19991227220345...@ng-cq1.aol.com>
from pel...@aol.com (Pelzo63) contains these words:
> lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
> <snip> Once they
> >were committed to the project, contractual penalties and/or
> >professionalism would tend to keep them from jumping ship, even
> >though they realised they were stuck with a Grade A lemon.
> ... and yes, i read you say "prefesssionalism". but if the script was
> as amatuerish as it appears you feel it was, then there are no worries. ;-)
No I didn't. I wrote 'professionalism'. I can spell.
Chibi-Light
>Or one stealth bomber.
>
>Do her and yourself a favor: buy her a copy of Michael Moore's DOWNSIZE
>THIS...and let her get a sense of where far, FAR more money is really going.
>
> jms
>
Uh oh, JMS just gave me a book that I'm going to have to read. I love
Michael Moore. *wonders if he can get to b&n after work tomorrow*
CL
Pelzo63
>> ... and yes, i read you say "prefesssionalism". but if the script was
>> as amatuerish as it appears you feel it was, then there are no worries.
>>;-)
>No I didn't. I wrote 'professionalism'. I can spell.
so can i. :-) i never made any claims to typing ability however, considering i
recently had the tip of my left ring finger sliced off, oh look, the left index
finger falls on top of the S key. of course, this is totally irrelevant to the
topic at hand, oh well. there goes that friendly discussion. :-)
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
supercalifragilistikespialidocious. that's the proper way to spell it. :-)
Keith Wood
Dwight Williams wrote:
>
> Pelzo63 wrote:
> > btw, i used to live in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. which, if the border cities
> > fell, would become the front lines of the war. ;-)
>
> Who says the *US* border cities would be the first to fall in the
> fighting?
Depends on how quickly the Canadians can get Washington to disarm the US
citizen. ;)
Jon Niehof
> "competent" and "incompetent" in a dictionary.
Ah, but competence is such a relative thing.
Taking your advice, I checked my main dictionary: Ambrose
Bierce's _The Devil's Dictionary._ Alas, it lacks an
entry. According to American Heritage, then:
1) Properly or sufficiently qualified
2) Adequate for the purpose
3) [Law] Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.
Ignoring #3 as a technical term, I'd say that someone who
fails in their duty does not fit the definition of #1 or #2.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
"Unfortunately you have reached tech support"
--Electronic Arts Tech Support
Trek Barnes
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:199912280...@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> The message <19991227220345...@ng-cq1.aol.com>
> from pel...@aol.com (Pelzo63) contains these words:
>
>
> > lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
>
> > <snip> Once they
> > >were committed to the project, contractual penalties and/or
> > >professionalism would tend to keep them from jumping ship, even
> > >though they realised they were stuck with a Grade A lemon.
>
> > as amatuerish as it appears you feel it was, then there are no worries.
;-)
>
> No I didn't. I wrote 'professionalism'. I can spell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jon Niehof
> that the best tv show of the twentieth century was The
> Simpsons, by a margin of 45%. Riiiiiiiiiight.
hands down.
Oh, you mean airing in the US? B5, obviously.
[Now, what was the best TV show of the 19th century....?]
Cassius81
>Ah, but competence is such a relative thing.
>Taking your advice, I checked my main dictionary: Ambrose
>Bierce's _The Devil's Dictionary.
Ah, yes... one of my favorite pessimistic books of all time. The entry for
prayer is still my favorite...
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Orson Scott Card:
"This emotion I'm feeling now, this is love, right?"
"I don't know. Is it a longing? Is it a giddy stupid happiness just because
you're with me?"
"Yes."
"That's influenza. Watch for nausea or diarrhea within a few hours."
George Missonis
> > But were they *incompetent*? No. I suggest you look up
> > "competent" and "incompetent" in a dictionary.
>
> Ah, but competence is such a relative thing.
> Taking your advice, I checked my main dictionary: Ambrose
> Bierce's _The Devil's Dictionary._ Alas, it lacks an
> entry. According to American Heritage, then:
> 1) Properly or sufficiently qualified
> 2) Adequate for the purpose
> 3) [Law] Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.
> Ignoring #3 as a technical term, I'd say that someone who
> fails in their duty does not fit the definition of #1 or #2.
>
> --Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Perhaps we can agree on "competent but unsuccessful."
Pelzo63
>Nooooo! Not the spelling Debate again! Run! Here comes Gharlane (Of >Eddore).
Lol (which, btw, is in OED ;-). shhh...maybe, if the post is buried deep
enough inside a thread, and we're all really quiet, noone will notice.
for the record, twas a typo ;-)
----Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
3 goals, 4 assists, can we have jagr play against the islanders every day?