“In any case I will let you have the last word D.”

I repeat, you have me confused with someone else. None of the initials in my name start with a “D”, nor am I referred to by that letter.

For the umpteenth time, please stop making up assumptions about who you think I am or am not. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying who the other poster is, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

“You keep talking about Chicago, but he never mentioned Chicago in the op-ed.”

I never stated that Jackson discussed Chicago in that op-ed. For the umpteenth time, please stop putting words in my mouth. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying what the other poster has written, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

You were the first one to discuss Chicago. The only reason that I’m talking about Chicago is to correct the erroeneous and overblown historical references that you brought up in the first place.

“”In any case I see another article coming in the Space Review by your alter-ego”

I have never written for, or had any works published by, Mr. Foust or his online journal.

“It says McCain plans to stay the course.”

Untrue. The statement makes no such promise. It only references McCain’s prior legislative record and belief that a general “U.S. presence in space” is important to the nation. McCain’s online statement makes no forward commitment to continuing the human space flight program, even in Earth orbit (at least the Clinton and Obama S&T policies do this), nevertheless staying the course on the VSE or otherwise extending human space flight beyond Earth orbit. In fact, McCain’s statement is conditioned by langauge regarding management and fiscal reponsibility, which arguably would cut against NASA’s human space flight programs.

“BTW The discussions flow smoother on those old discussion boards now that you are no longer hijacking threads by twisting words or facts”

Well then, by all means, go back to those “discussion boards”, whereever they are, and take up your feud, whatever it’s about, with “D”, whoever they may be, there.

Bleah…

Wow! a NEW RECORD for misinformation and twisting someone’s words. Clearly you haven’t done any research or read Jesse Jackson’s op-ed. Its not that hard to find. You keep talking about Chicago, but he never mentioned Chicago in the op-ed. He only used Appalachia as an example. You were the one who dragged in the Cabrini-Green projects to muddle the issue and hi-jack the thread away from Obama’s policy, one of your classic tactics.

But its clear you seem to agree the social spending is more important then space exploration, else why would you defend his words so hard? Or do you agree with his statement on celebrating the Moon landing?

”How can this nation swell and stagger with pride with technological pride when it has a spiritual will so crippled, when it is so weak, so wicked, so blinded and misdirected in its priorities”

In any case I see another article coming in the Space Review by your alter-ego on how individuals like Jackson were right to criticize Apollo and proving that their criticism had no impact on the funding for it.

And Yes, I don’t think we should take NASA’s money away and spend it on welfare. The amount spend on NASA wouldn’t even offset the waste in current welfare spending.

As for your statement on McCain…

No it doesn’t. The McCain statement only talks about his past actions.

Really. It says McCain plans to stay the course. What is unclear about that? How it is not talking about the future to say you plan no major changes in the current policy? ? Isn’t that exactly what is necessary to implement the VSE? Or would it be better to have it change with each administration as was the case with the space station? Or have you made such a career of twisting words you don’t see what they mean anymore…

Which gets is back to where we were before you hijacked this thread with Cabrini-Green. Who would be better for NASA? Someone like McCain who plans to stay the course on the VSE, or some one like Obama who comes from the Jackson/Mondale space is a waste tradition?

I say McCain, unless Hillary get the nomination, which looks like a long shot now.

In any case I will let you have the last word D.

BTW The discussions flow smoother on those old discussion boards now that you are no longer hijacking threads by twisting words or facts 

You’re confusing me with someone else. None of the initials in my name start with a “D”, nor am I referred to by that letter.

“Jesse Jackson NEVER discussed Cabrini-Green in his Op-Ed.”

Where did I claim that Jackson did mention Cabrini-Green in the op-ed? Please do not put words in my mouth. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying what the other poster has written, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

And if you want to tutor the board in history, then please do the research and understand the historical background for Jackson’s comments before blowing them out of context. Jackson’s comments were not about Apollo or human space exploration. They were about making the federal government accountable for the suffering that its mismanagement took a hand in creating in Chicago over several decades.

“And although the first towers, the Cabrini part, were built in the 1940’s,”

Congratulations on finally doing some of your homework.

So again, given that Johnson was not President and the Great Society legislation did not pass until the 1960s, what makes you think that either was responsible for the situation in Chicago?

“And the people living in them were already getting federal welfare, that was why they were living there… an example of a FAILED federal attempt to fight poverty”

Where did I (or Jackson) state that the solution was more spending on Cabrini-Green infrastructure or failed federal welfare programs? Please do not put words in my mouth. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying what the other poster has written (or what a political leader has written), then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

“The towers were later wrecked”

Incorrect. The towers are still being taken down today. Demolition is not expected to be complete until later this year.

“As a historian”

I’m not an historian. Please stop making personalizing your arguments and making up assumptions about who you think I am or am not. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying whom the other poster is, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

“SO Jesse Jackson arguments that people were starving because the money was being spent on Apollo were no more supported by facts then your arguments are here.”

Where does Jackson argue that more money was being spent on Apollo than on welfare? You’re the one making that untrue statement, not Jackson. Jackson was arguing that some fraction of the money being spent on Apollo (or elsewhere in the federal government) should be spent fixing problems that the federal government had created in Chicago over several decades of mismanagement.

“BTW the original Cabrini towers were the inspiration for the tower Roake built and then destroyed in the Fountainhead.”

And the point is… that we should use science fiction novels as a guide for national policy in the real world?

“Yes, it would have been a great idea to spend more money on failed federal welfare projects like the Cabrini-Green projects then on NASA.”

You’re the one making that argument, not me or Jackson. Jackson wanted to alleviate suffering among the people he represented, but that doesn’t mean that he wanted to spend the money in the same way that it had been spent before.

“Unfortunately, people did listen to him and other like him, with the result that NASA was starved for money after Apollo while the nation’s welfare budget soared.”

NASA’s budget started coming down in the mid-1960s under President Johnson, years before the Jackson op-ed. You’re drawing a cause-and-effect relationship that cannot exist based on the timeline.

“The Shuttle never had the funding needed to achieve its original potential…”

So you’re arguing that the Republican Nixon Administration, which was responsible for the Space Shuttle decision and setting its budget, was taking advice from Democrat Jesse Jackson on NASA programs? Again, you’re drawing a cause-and-effect relationship that’s laughable based on the political relationships and historical documents.

“The U.S. has been marking time in Human Space Exploration for the last 30 years. And the Poor? They are still there just as before.”

During the past 25 or so of those 30 years, we’ve had conservative Republican or moderate Democrats in the White House who have variously constrained or reformed welfare spending. But welfare constraints and reforms have not resulted in a larger or more effective human space flight program.

Why do you repeatedly argue that we have to curtail welfare programs in order to sending astronauts beyond Earth orbit? History shows that there is little to no relationship between the two. Beyond only the largest and most general of federal budget constraints, what does a war on poverty have to do with the civil space program?

“At least McCain makes it clear on his website he would stay the course on NASA.”

No it doesn’t. The McCain statement only talks about his past actions. Unlike the Clinton and Obama statements, it makes no reference to what McCain would do with NASA in the future, were he to win the White House.

“Odds are that he would even keep Griffin as Administrator.”

Based on what evidence?

Moreover, Griffin has stated publicly his intention to not stay on with the next Administration.

“That many space advocates here want to see elect someone coming out of that political tradition and see a new wave of stagnation at NASA is very, very sad.”

Unfortunately, the “new wave of stagnation” has already hit under Griffin. NASA is once again pursuing a needlessly expensive and technically crippled means of getting humans to and from orbit, one that won’t even meet the VSE schedule, at the expense of any actual human space exploration hardware development (not to mention a lot of robotic space exploration missions and other valuable activities in space and aeronautical technologies).

If you’re a real supporter of human space exploration, why would you want to keep on an Administrator who wasted a golden opportunity to get human space exploration restarted under the Bush II White House and pushed out the development start of any actual human space exploration hardware into 2011 (at the earliest) where it’s likely to be deferred or cancelled by the next Administration?

Ugh…

Please don’t engage in ad hominem attacks. You have no idea how old or young I am, whether I’m of a race that would find the term “son” offensive, or even whether I’m a man or a woman. If you can’t support your argument without namecalling, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

How its going in DC? I was wondering where you went to. Next thing you will do is say my arguments are “not logical”. You style is missed on the old discussion boards you used to haunt

And once again you twist the facts and throw in a red herring to confuse the issue in your favor. Jesse Jackson NEVER discussed Cabrini-Green in his Op-Ed. YOU threw it in as a red herring. And although the first towers, the Cabrini part, were built in the 1940’s, the Green part WERE built in the 1960’s. And the people living in them were already getting federal welfare, that was why they were living there. The towers were later wrecked as an example of a FAILED federal attempt to fight poverty. As a historian you should have checked up on their history before using them so carelessly.

BTW the original Cabrini towers were the inspiration for the tower Roake built and then destroyed in the Fountainhead.

Yes, it would have been a great idea to spend more money on failed federal welfare projects like the Cabrini-Green projects then on NASA.

Now, back to facts. The NASA budget in 1969 WHEN Jesse Jackson was protesting it was a few billion. A little over 4 billion to be exact. One again you used your signature style of twisting facts until they are out of context. I was not discussing today’s NASA budget as you well knew.

The point you are trying to confuse is that in 1969 when Jesse Jackson was protesting the federal government was ALREADY spending several times more on WELFARE then it was on NASA. President Johnson had ALREADY may the War on Poverty a national crusade. The only bigger portion of the budget was the DOD and Vietnam War. SO Jesse Jackson arguments that people were starving because the money was being spent on Apollo were no more supported by facts then your arguments are here.

Unfortunately, people did listen to him and other like him, with the result that NASA was starved for money after Apollo while the nation’s welfare budget soared. The Shuttle never had the funding needed to achieve its original potential and other space goals were DOA. The U.S. has been marking time in Human Space Exploration for the last 30 years. And the Poor? They are still there just as before. That many space advocates here want to see elect someone coming out of that political tradition and see a new wave of stagnation at NASA is very, very sad.

At least McCain makes it clear on his website he would stay the course on NASA. Odds are that he would even keep Griffin as Administrator. And that is good enough for me if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination.

Please don’t engage in ad hominem attacks. You have no idea how old or young I am, whether I’m of a race that would find the term “son” offensive, or even whether I’m a man or a woman. If you can’t support your argument without namecalling, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place.

“President Johnson had already started his War on Poverty in 1964 and by 1968 the federal government was already spending billions on urban renewal and welfare.”

Not relevant. Federal funding for the Cabrini-Green projects started in the 1940s under the New Deal and Roosevelt. Your argument generalizes a problem that was very specific for the people and leaders of Chicago at that time and does so based on erroneous premises.

“The few billion spent on NASA in 1969 would not have made much difference in fixing the nation’s social ills.”

Again, not relevant. A very small fraction of NASA’s budget would have made a huge difference to the Chicago projects. That’s Jackson’s point.

“To think otherwise shows a huge lack of knowledge about U.S. history in the 1960’s.”

To misapply a very specific argument about human suffering and federal mismanagement at a very specific point in history, and to do so using erroneous assumptions and facts, demonstrates something else entirely.

“The political tradition I am referring to is the one you are defending, that we must solve ALL the social problems on Earth before exploring space…”

Where did I make that statement? Please do not put words in my mouth. If you can’t support your argument without misportraying what the other poster has written, then please don’t waste your time or mine by entering into the discussion in the first place

“Individuals like you…”

Again, please stop personalizing your argument. You don’t know me from Adam or have any idea what my political viewpoints are. I corrected the context for your argument but that doesn’t mean that I fully endorse the other side’s position, either.

“that somehow the few billion spent on NASA”

NASA’s FY 2008 budget $17.3 billion, not a “few billion”.

“would make a difference when we are already spending 10-15 times that amount on social programs to address those issues.”

Including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and welfare programs, federal spending on entitlements is something well over $1.2 trillion (with a “t”). That’s a factor approaching 70 times greater than NASA’s budget, not “10-15 times” greater.

“Take some time and study the federal budget and compare NASA’s budget to those of the various entitlement programs. You might learn something.”

Please take the time to doublecheck your grossly erroneous figures before instructing others to school themselves on the federal budget.

Oy vey…

You need to read some history son. President Johnson had already started his War on Poverty in 1964 and by 1968 the federal government was already spending billions on urban renewal and welfare. The few billion spent on NASA in 1969 would not have made much difference in fixing the nation’s social ills. To think otherwise shows a huge lack of knowledge about U.S. history in the 1960’s.

The political tradition I am referring to is the one you are defending, that we must solve ALL the social problems on Earth before exploring space and that somehow the few billion spent on NASA would make a difference when we are already spending 10-15 times that amount on social programs to address those issues. Individuals like you have been singing that song for decades. Take some time and study the federal budget and compare NASA’s budget to those of the various entitlement programs. You might learn something.

anonymous.space wrote :
“However, for the sake of NASA’s human space flight programs, it would be much better if there was a serious discussion at high levels in the next Administration about what important national goal(s), if any, NASA’s human space flight activities can and should contribute to and what the right programmatics are for doing so.”

This I think is the best statement here and the one I actually push to politicians. IMO it is obvious that both robotic and manned exploration have important roles in a robust program.
Ferris Valyn wrote :
“a much better arguement can be made by the creation of a new industry, in the form of NewSpace”

In the debate over what to do, there will be lots of “justifications” for this program and that. “National goals”, will hopefully be set. The truth, and at this point the only real reason for going, Is the less tangible. Because we have been looking up at those stars/planets for millenia, long before star trek and the like, wanting to know (your question here). It is important politicians hear this as well.

Bob Mahoney wrote
The human spirit is moved by exploration, discovery, and overcoming challenges; both manned and unmanned space programs collaboratively contribute to this end.”
Add “all nations space programs” and you might have a recipe for whirled peas. As others have said here, we are all in the same boat, the only boat.

You are here!
http://uplink.space.com/attachments//524472-EfromMars.jpg

An understandable but moot point. Regardless of who wins the White House, they are going to have to revisit the VSE. It’s just a question of at what level and depth the engagement occurs. Griffin/ESAS/Constellation and Ares I/Orion costs have pushed the development start for all lunar hardware into the budgets of the next Administration, so the new White House will be doing some reexamination and rethink of the VSE starting as part of the FY 2011 budget process, at a minimum. The easiest and most likely course of action will be to terminate Ares V/EDS/Altair before those projects begin and apply those dollars elsewhere. However, for the sake of NASA’s human space flight programs, it would be much better if there was a serious discussion at high levels in the next Administration about what important national goal(s), if any, NASA’s human space flight activities can and should contribute to and what the right programmatics are for doing so.

“We have a very good space policy now which encourages commercial space and returns NASA to space exploration.”

We did have a “very good space policy”, past tense. I’m the biggest fan of the VSE, but its implementation has been gutted by Griffin’s poor planning, flawed ESAS analysis, inexperienced Constellation management, and a multiplicity of serious cost, schedule, and technical issues on Ares I/Orion. The VSE certainly did “encourage commercial space”, but after several years, only one firm currently has any “commercial” involvement in Constellation and a great deal of contract dollars have uncompeted to sole-source awards. And the VSE certainly did try to “return NASA [human space flight] to exploration”, but Constellation doesn’t even have a path forward to get back to the ISS on schedule, forget returning astronauts to the Moon.

“‘Does any one here remember Jesse Jackson’s op-ed in the New York Times on July 21, 1969 arguing against the Apollo 11 mission? Look it up. It has great statements like “While we can send men to the moon or deadly missiles to Moscow or toward Mao, we can’t get food stuffs to starving folks in the teeming Ghettos.'”

Even for space cadets (myself included), this should be an understandable line of argument. Given what was going on at the Cabrini-Green projects in that time period and given federal involvement in the creation of those projects, it was a legitimate question whether the national government had its priorities in order.

“DO you honestly think someone out of that political traditional [sic]…”

What political tradition is that? African-Americans from Chicago? Or local representatives standing up for their constituents?

“BTW, did anyone else notice how Obama referred to astronaut explorers as ‘bodies.’ That seems rather insulting,”

The term is being used to differentiate between crewed and automated space flight. The former involves human bodies in space. The latter does not. It’s not an insult. Rather, it shows that the speaker knows enough to tell the difference between the two, not something that could be said of every Presidential candidate.

“especially when one considered how a few of them have given the last full measure of devotion. I think it shows a very ugly side to the candidate.”

You’re the one drawing connections between the word “bodies” and the astronauts who lost their lives in Apollo and Shuttle accidents, not Obama. The ugliness arguably exists in your thoughts, not the speaker’s words.

FWIW…

lol but not as funny as dubya’s “spacial entrepreneurs”

Oh and “everyone to they’re corners!” geez

Space haters: your spending .018 cents per tax dollar so get the hell of my cloud!