Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) and her Republican challenger, Sandy Adams, sparred in a debate earlier this week, with space policy as one of the topics, the Orlando Sentinel reported. Kosmas, according to the report, took credit for the additional shuttle flight included in the recently-signed NASA authorization bill, as well as support for an extension of the ISS and commercial spaceflight. Adams said she wanted to “increase funding so that spaceflights can continue regularly”; what “spaceflights” she meant wasn’t specified in the article but Adams has previously discussed a further extension of the shuttle program, such as on the issues section of her web site. However, at this point in the wind-down of the shuttle program adding more flights may not be possible without at least an extended gap after next summer’s mission.
On Friday Florida Today endorsed Kosmas for reelection, citing in large part her work on space policy. “The tireless efforts of Kosmas to help craft a solid blueprint for NASA’s future and her fierce advocacy for the spaceport and creating post-shuttle jobs” has been the “one constant” for the Space Coast in this period of change, the editorial states. “The work has been the centerpiece of her term and earns Kosmas our strong recommendation for re-election.” Adams, the editorial continues, has an “appalling” lack of knowledge about NASA: during an interview with the paper’s editorial board on the day the House was voting on the NASA authorization bill “Adams hadn’t even read the measure and did not know any of its specifics.”
The same editorial also endorses the reelection bid of Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who, unlike Kosmas, is not facing a strong reelection challenge in his district immediately south of Kosmas’s. Although Posey was opposed to the administration’s original plan for NASA, he later supported the Senate version of the authorization bill. “It was the right decision in the best interests of the Space Coast, with both a NASA heavy-lift rocket and commercial rocket fleet approved,” the editorial notes, adding that “his knowledge of the commercial space industry can serve the Space Coast well”.
Kosmas previously won the endorsement of the Orlando Sentinel, but that paper has decided not to endorse Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), instead throwing its support behins his Republican challenger, Dan Webster, for the Orlando-area district. Grayson is known in space circles for his sharp questioning of NASA administrator Charles Bolden in House Science and Technology Committee hearings earlier this year, as well as his opposition to commercial elements of the administration’s plans for NASA (“the epitome of socialism and corporate welfare”, as he put it during the markup of the House version of the NASA authorization bill in July.) Space policy, though, does not figure in the Sentinel’s decision to support Webster over Grayson.
Is there any indication where Dan Webster stands wrt NASA, commercial space etc?
I haven’t seen any, but I don’t think issues matter much in that race. Webster is running on the “I’m not a Democrat, and I’m not a total douche” platform, which seems to be quite popular this year.
You could say (and I think some have) that this race is a replay of the Devil versus Daniel Webster.
On the other hand, it’s a shame that Sandy Adams is as dumb as a bag of hammers, at least on space policy, because she’s likely to win.
Does it really matter? Is Adams likely to inherit Kosmas’ subcommittee membership? Even if she does she like Kosmas will be a very junior member.
Is Adams likely to inherit Kosmas’ subcommittee membership?
Why not? Kosmas was a fresh(wo)man, and she got the membership.
Meanwhile, the U.S. space program soap opera continues:
The road to Mars leads right past the moon. So why isn’t a return trip on the agenda?
That’s what Buzz Aldrin wants to know.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/15/mars-moon-nasa-buzz-aldrin/?test=latestnews
When is Anne going to start separating the lines in her comments with dots, a la Moreno?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/15/mars-moon-nasa-buzz-aldrin/?test=latestnews
Wait a minute. I thought Aldrin has advocated an approach that bypassed the Moon as a NASA objective. I remember that that was one of his main criticisms of Constellation and the ESAS objective. Sounds like he’s flip-flopped completely.
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
there really isnt any soap opera …its just a lot of people like you, Paul, and Mark Whittington who live in a fantasy world where the reasons for doing something can be made up on the fly and do not have to be grounded in any version of reality.
I see that Whittington is now for Colonialism
Robert G. Oler
More from the Fox News interview with Buzz Aldren:
[excerpt] “We have been given a new path in space that will enable our country to develop greater capabilities,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden told reporters.
But Aldrin disagrees. Citing key holes in NASA’s new plan, he and other space gurus think a minor mid-course correction in strategy could lead to a “mission accomplished” sign when it comes to revamping NASA. For example, the new budget was “not clear” on how the rollout for a mission to Mars would happen, Aldrin told FoxNews.com.
Aldrin believes NASA should move in stages toward a manned mission to Mars, by building outer space fuel stations and developing the moon. He said NASA has already spent hundreds of millions researching the projects, and their investment
should be utilized — as recommended by Norm Augustine, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board and chairman of the Review of the U.S. Space Flight Plans Committee.
What’s more, Aldrin said, the American government should not simply shrug off the considerable experience we have with lunar travel. “The U.S. has the most experience in the world, of any nation, in dealing with the moon,” he told FoxNews.com. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that flexibility is needed here.” [end excerpt]
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/15/mars-moon-nasa-buzz-aldrin/?test=latestnews
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
people are losing their homes in record numbers, the currency is deflating and people like you talk about going back to the Moon…thats going to happen..
Robert G. Oler
sc220 wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I don’t think “the powers that be” will be able to lock Buzz Aldren in the attic like they have Administrator Bolden.
Anne:
This whole article is a riot!!
Buzz was right next to the President when he said, “I just have to say pretty bluntly — we’ve been there before,”. Well Buzz, why didn’t you speak up then?!
Then there is this gem…
“But David Weaver, a spokesman for NASA, said that there is wide support in private industry and in the government for Obama’s strategy.
“There are statements supporting the president’s new vision for NASA from Norm Augustine, Charles Bolden and John Holdren,””
Wow, that’s really impressive Dave. Could you name some who was NOT involved with the administration or the formulation of the plan.
Then finally…
“Some experts support the new path, including Jeffrey Manber, who oversaw commercial space policy for the Reagan administration and is now managing director of space research technology developer NanoRacks. He says the moon is an old goal — and Mars is the future.
“America has been to the moon six times. A seventh voyage would neither inspire the next generation nor require massive investments in new technology,” ”
Hello…… McFly……..
The issue is NOT a seventh flight to the moon, it’s the effectiveness of using the resources and experience gained by a permanent manned settlement of the moon that is in dispute.
Anne, I’m with you and Paul on the need for lunar exploration and exploitation but this is not a well resurrected article.
Aldrin, Aldrin, Aldrin — Spelling goof apology.
MrEarl wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“Could you name some who was NOT involved with the administration or the formulation of the plan. ”
Newt Gingrich, and most of the American people who simply sat quietly by and were satisfied as Cx died.
the only people who support going back to the Moon are people stuck in the 60’s
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I had to check the date on the story.
What gall.
Right Oler….
When I need advice on space policy the first name that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson would probably be a better choice.
I wonder what happened in the last 10 days.
Buzz Aldrin speaking October 5, 2010 in Sydney, Australia :
“Obama has better space plan, Aldrin”
[excerpt]US President Barack Obama’s new space program embraces technological advances and is an improvement on the former administration’s plan to return to the moon, US moonwalker Buzz Aldrin said.
Dr Aldrin was speaking in Sydney on Tuesday after coming out in April in support of President Obama’s program, which controversially scrapped former President George W Bush’s plan to return US astronauts to the moon by 2020………
“The manner in which it was implemented turned out to be so over-budget, over-scheduled and going back to the moon just did not satisfy the advances in technology and the opportunities that we had.”
Dr Aldrin, who will be guest of honour at the Australian Geographic Society Awards on Wednesday in Sydney, said he was disappointed there wasn’t more support for President Obama’s space policy.
The policy includes funding for radically new space technologies and a manned spacecraft orbit around Mars within the next three decades.
Those opposed to the cancellation of the program included the first man to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong.
“I feel like a great future does await us or does await the society that decides to take advantage of the technology that has advanced,” Dr Aldrin said. [end excerpt]
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/obama-has-better-space-plan-aldrin-20101005-165vq.html
When I need advice on space policy the first name that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.
With the exception of Bob Walker, and perhaps Dana Rohrabacher, Newt is one of the most knowledgeable and enthusiastic politicians on space policy. He was on the board of the L-5 society in the early eighties. That’s why, despite the fact that he’s a Republican, he and Walker supported the new direction for NASA this year.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 4:28 pm [Walker supported the new direction for NASA this year.]
True. Rep. Robert Walker supported pulling the plug on NASA.
[“Cramer is chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, which registered as a lobbyist for SpaceX on March 1. He is one of three Wexler & Walker lobbyists listed on the registration. ………Cramer said he knew when he joined Wexler & Walker in January 2009 that its executive chairman, former Rep. Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, was an advocate of commercial space interests. ]
http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/03/lobbyist_for_commercial_space.html
It could be that Fox has totally misrepresented Aldrin’s views (which wouldn’t surprise me in the least). For any of you with short memories, here’s an oped written by Buzz himself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/the-way-forward-achieving_b_651648.html
He supported development of the Moon, but only as an international and commercial endeavor. In other articles, he was sharply critical of any direct NASA involvement in these efforts.
I think we’ve been hoodwinked by Faux News again!
MrEarl wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Right Oler….
When I need advice on space policy the first name that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.I think Neil deGrasse Tyson would probably be a better choice.”
sure and that is why you are tone deaf to the political realities.
The problem with the “lets explore with people, come on we have to explore” group is that past their own little fantasy’s about exploration (something most of them will never participate in) none of this group have a clue about how politics actually works or much more importantly, how things have worked in history to develop (or not develop) the various frontiers that are now or are not now commonplace.
Newt has many flaws and I dont think that he will ever be President but he does believe in The Republic surviving and he does have a sense of history and that is one reason he recognizes that endless exploration by humans in space, where there is never any requirement that the value come close to the cost…1) is politically impossible now and 2) has no chance of advancing humanity into space.
besides the issue was not who one would name you asked for someone who supports the change in policy and was not their at its formulation.
I picked Gingrich because on almost everything else he differs with the trajectory of Mr. Obama’s Presidency.
that should alone tell you something
Robert G. Oler
sc220 wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
That’s what he was saying in July to everyone.
Rep. Robert Walker supported pulling the plug on NASA.
No one has proposed “pulling the plug on NASA.”
Here’s a possible explanation for Buzz’s change of mind (people are allowed to change their minds, right?).
FWIW, I am increasingly concerned about Dr. Aldrin’s health. Both in his behaviour and his opinions, he has become increasingly… erratic over the past couple of years. He is an old man and I fear that those years may be catching up with him.
@Ben Russell-Gough
I’m afraid you may be correct. For a while there, it appeared that Buzz was becoming the “George Carlin” of space, that is, the crotchety, experienced uncle who would “tell it like it is.” Unfortunately, his “is” is starting to meander all over the map…not a good sign.
I actually think Buzz’s original rationale for support of the Flexpath strategy was quite good. Now it seems that he took a drink of a half-empty glass of koolaid leftover from Mike Griffin’s going-away party.
it seems that he took a drink of a half-empty glass of koolaid leftover from Mike Griffin’s going-away party.
Oh, c’mon. Buzz isn’t supporting Constellation. He’s just saying that maybe we need to build some cis-lunar infrastructure. If he’d been drinking Griffin koolaid, he’d be praising Ares.
Yes, he is getting on, but he’s always been (as I said at my blog) mercurial. Buzz’s problem, which he would admit himself, is that he’s amenable to being persuaded by the last person who talks to him. I think that people (like me) have been working on him over the past few months.
Robert G Oler wrote:
“the only people who support going back to the moon are people stuck in the 60s”
if ever I have read a dick of a comment that is the one. Returning to the Moon is about exploration and about science. (Read understanding.) What we have achieved so far is a small foothold, a tentative begining. There is knowlege to be gained there and resources, and it is but a short step for mankind…
Meanwhile the political arguments orbit about an economy damaged by bad management and “out of control commercial banking.” Taking advantage of this mess of human behavior to can space science in its pure form is a sad reflection on the human spirit.
RE Kosmas/Adams and a subcommittee seat …
Kosmas district includes KSC. Since that subcommittee implicitly operates to direct pork to the space center districts, one can assume that Kosmas or Adams will be there come January.
Posey, by the way, has Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The border between KSC and CCAFS is the border between those two Congressional districts. That way Space Coast has twice as many pork votes in the House.
Oler’s always been against HSF, it seems. He’d fit right in with the LA Times editorial board: whenever the space program comes up, they’re anti-HSF.
Brian Paine wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
”
if ever I have read a dick of a comment that is the one. Returning to the Moon is about exploration and about science. (Read understanding.)”
since you set the tone, well your statement is goofy.
If the notion of returning to the Moon were about “understanding” (your words) then the folks who advocate it would have a long time ago figured out that the understanding of the Moon is best on a bang for buck lever be done like almost all other exploration on Earth, with people in the loop, but in the loop sitting behind a console controlling expendable robots.
The notion that we have to spend tens/hundreds of billions to get people on the scene, people (astronauts) who as a secondary function are professionals in the field of understanding the lunar environment; when we could spend that same amount of money and have people who actually know the field collect data is goofy.
It is borne out of a sixty’s notion that ignores the enormous advances our machines have made; to make exploration better, safer, and quite more wide ranged.
In the end the notion of sending people to the Moon has nothing to do with understanding…and to claim that it does shows how out of touch you really are
Robert G. Oler
Matt Wiser wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Oler’s always been against HSF, it seems…
nope. I am for HSF that has some value relative to the cost. As it is practiced by NASA today, it is valueless…and very expensive.
Robert G. Oler
“I see that Whittington is now for Colonialism.”
In space, absolutely.
@Brian Paine wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
“Returning to the Moon is about exploration and about science. (Read understanding.)”
Maybe to you but the VSE was not and nor was Constellation, especially not Constellation. People were even asked to not work the scientific aspects after Griffin took over. Such is life.
“Taking advantage of this mess of human behavior to can space science in its pure form is a sad reflection on the human spirit.”
Clearly you have no idea what space science in its pure form really is, do you? Going back to the Moon is?
Oh well…
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 12:37 am
“I see that Whittington is now for Colonialism.â€
In space, absolutely…
that is goofy
Robert G. Oler
Buzz Aldrin has the October 15, 2010 Fox News interview linked on his web site:
http://buzzaldrin.com/latest-buzz/
Contact page at Buzz Aldrin’s web site:
http://buzzaldrin.com/community/contact_buzz/general-info/
“Buzz Plan goes to Moon first” by William Atkins, iTWire – October 16, 2010
[excerpt] From this information, one could conclude that both men agree we should go to Mars, only we should go to the Moon, first, in order to: (1) establish ourselves on another celestial body, (2) practice missions to Mars on bodies that are mch closer to Earth (the Moon is only days away, not months like Mars), (3) use all of knowledge and expertise we’ve already accumulated to establish ourselves as a space-faring world, before sending astronauts on a year-plus journey to Mars, and (4) make sure we have all of our ducks all in a row (that is, establish a detailed plan on how we’re going to do this, to make sure it will work within the time defined). [end excerpt]
The day a “machine” can accomplish what a well trained human can is still a long way off. While excellent at specific tasks their field of observation is very limited.
Regarding cost I cannot justify $200 billion for an outpost of some four intrepid explorers, that figure needs to be cut to at least a quarter for a functioning base.
Then again I cannot justify fifty percent of human scientific endevour being applied to defence, that is an investment of such massive proportion that space science pales into insignificance in comparison. I know which investment offers the better future.
Thank God the human spirit will in the end be the driving force behind our exploration of near space, including returning to the Moon, regardless of some oppinions to the contrary.
And yes Robert, it was a dick of a comment. Mind you the sixties were one hell of a buzz…
excepting some obvious events.
Brian Paine wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 11:29 am
“The day a “machine†can accomplish what a well trained human can is still a long way off….”
you are stuck in the 60’s. Humans can accomplish almost nothing on the Moon with out their machines…we cannot accomplish a lot here without our machines.
The trick is where one has to be to use those machines. In the 60’s it was one place, today not so much.
Robert G. Oler
Common Sence(?) I have been involved in my own way in “space science” for most of my life!
Now that is a long time, and it has matured into an attempt to understand and quantify the structure of space itself…”don’t understand space science?”…tut tut.
Having said that my vote is for lunar exploration next. Let’s just get the transport and costs right.
God knows we all are aware that government costs are way above private enterprise, no big news there.
Gloves back on please.
Robert I might not agree with you…in fact I don’t…but at least it gets the issues aired.
As for stuck in the sixties, please you can do better than that! (No such thing as the good old days except that I could run a damned lot faster.)
Re: Aldrin saying the moon is on the way to Mars.
Our space program is now officially a hybrid of ISS and exploration simultaneously. Where is the money for moon landers and gear in that program? Better to stay focused on certain aspects of spaceflight rather than try to bust the budget at every turn.
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 10:08 am
“From this information, one could conclude that both men agree we should go to Mars, only we should go to the Moon, first…”
Who said we were never going to go back to the Moon before going to Mars?
If you’re trying to imply something here Anne, it’s not working. We’re not going to Mars next decade, so we don’t need to rush to the Moon before that. Weird.
Brian Paine wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Robert I might not agree with you…in fact I don’t…but at least it gets the issues aired…
Brian. the issue is “why go back to the Moon” (or if you are the Chinese…”why go”?)
The answers that I have heard consistently are based on 1960’s notions of how big powers operate…a notion that is pretty obsolete.
Anne and others bang the drum of “resources” but the argument that we need to spend 100’s of billions so we can do cheaper rocket fuel is goofy and almost nothing else there can sustain the price of transportation (forget infrastructure) to be competitive on Earth.
So one is left with “exploration” and the robotic side of the house does that very very well. We have learned far more from remote sensing and robotic efforts on the Moon, then we learned from Apollo.
Robert G. Oler
A dick of a comment. I agree.
Some value required to justify HSF? What does that mean? Profit? What are you referring to? So vague, so open ended. Who decides if HSF is valuable? The public? They are all watching dancing with stars and reading about Lohan. Or getting fat on the couch zombied out on a couple hundred channels of garbage. Do you think you are the one to decide Oler?
How about I decide;
human space flight is the single most important DOD program there is. Except the DOD is run by worse fools than NASA. Idiots like the people who make dick comments about HSF not being “valuable.”
Space IS the final frontier. It is the only place left to go if people want to make a new life for themselves and their children. Earth has become an open air prison. The few places left for a human to go and homestead have extremes of environment similar to space. Except in space they will not come and kick your door open in the middle of the night.
The DOD has all the money. They spend more money than NASA just on spy sats. Anne was right about the bank ripoff. It is just an excuse for all of you newspace entrepreneurs to nay say government programs. A HLV might kill your fantasmagorical commercial crew plans. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. If we want to open up space to the common man it will be by way of the military industrial complex. Period. I dare you to argue with that logic with something more than open ended vague assertions.
Politics is either about the general welfare in a democracy or preserving power in a hegemony. I would say the people posting on this site ranting about NASA and worshipping the idea of capitalism in the void are all making dick comments as a matter of course. They are the only comments their narrow minds can possibly squirt out.
human space flight is the single most important DOD program there is.
This statement is demonstrably insane, on multiple levels.
@Brian Paine wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 11:46 am
“Common Sence(?)”
Nope, sense with an s not a c, Are you from the UK or something? Like defence…. And it’s all lower case, here: common sense.
“I have been involved in my own way in “space science†for most of my life!”
In your own way? What way is that?
“Now that is a long time, and it has matured into an attempt to understand and quantify the structure of space itself…â€don’t understand space science?â€â€¦tut tut.”
Any peered review publication? Please reference so that I can deeply apologize. It’s not the first time I’d make a fool of myself and probably won’t be the last.
“Having said that my vote is for lunar exploration next. Let’s just get the transport and costs right.”
In what way lunar exploration (your word) is space science? What is scientific about lunar exploration? When and where do you vote for lunar exploration? See my cash pays for it and I say no, not this way anyway. No need to vote not really.
“God knows we all are aware that government costs are way above private enterprise, no big news there.”
Not sure where you’re going here.
“Gloves back on please.”
Well, no, not really. Because otherwise we might have to content with people like MichaelC above and his nonsense about HSF being DoD. If you really want the gloves on then please make sensical statements and try to support them with facts. I assure you it will be a lot more welcome. Not like some “dick of a comment”, see what I mean?
The space community is divided in several fiefdoms right now. But you can split them into mainly two groups: Constellation supporters (Moon etc) and commercial supporters (SpaceX etc). The supporters for Constellation cannot come with a well articulated justification for anything they want. Not one. A mumbo jumbo of national prestige, national security, resources. Those for commercials are a lot more hawkish: They want cash return! Then at the very extreme of commercials you have the robonuts. HSF would gain a lot by joining forces but no! Why? See Buzz Aldrin apparently said it might make sense to have a Moon base or something. So? All the Constellation supporters to deride what he says, senility and all. The Constellation supporters are the “full steam ahead” kind. Oh btw here is a wall. Nah so what? I don’t think. I just push ahead. In the end HSF is dying at NASA, the next strike will be HEFT+HLV but hey who cares? We’ll find another $10/15B to do exactly nothing soon. Well maybe not. Wait and see.
Now what is it about space science that you actually do?
Demonstrably? Sounds like you never heard of the dinosaurs. Are you one of those creationists that think anything not in the bible is insane? Or are you a right wing ditto head that thinks the rich should rule the world?
Which is it, one or the other?
Demonstrate to me any greater threat than an asteroid hitting us and making your mouth meaningless.
@MichaelC wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“If we want to open up space to the common man it will be by way of the military industrial complex. Period. I dare you to argue with that logic with something more than open ended vague assertions.”
Do you know this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
“Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.”
Logic right?
It makes me sick to read this kind of post.
This statement is demonstrably insane, on multiple levels.
Par for the course…
Sounds like you never heard of the dinosaurs. Are you one of those creationists that think anything not in the bible is insane? Or are you a right wing ditto head that thinks the rich should rule the world?
Which is it, one or the other?
My, you do lead a rich fantasy life.
Have you ever taken a course in logic? If so, you should ask for a tuition refund.
common sense wrote “We’ll find another $10/15B to do exactly nothing soon. Well maybe not. Wait and see. “
Sir, brilliant.
Translating Brian Payne. Donations Accepted
The day a “machine†can accomplish what a well trained human can is still a long way off. While excellent at specific tasks their field of observation is very limited.
trans: “Most marital aids are far from sophisticated and most do not understand that I am of the male gender”
Regarding cost I cannot justify $200 billion for an outpost of some four intrepid explorers, that figure needs to be cut to at least a quarter for a functioning base.
trans: ” $200 billion is an awful lot (that’s how many big macs have been sold worldwide fer crisakes!), so I’m MUCH happier with $25 billion (strikes conservative pose).
Then again I cannot justify fifty percent of human scientific endevour being applied to defence, that is an investment of such massive proportion that space science pales into insignificance in comparison. I know which investment offers the better future.
trans: “I’m getting ready to move to Russia so I can watch the rockets without worrying about freedom.”
Thank God the human spirit will in the end be the driving force behind our exploration of near space, including returning to the Moon, regardless of some oppinions to the contrary.
trans: “error! First 10-15 words equal either null or nonsense, overall emotion expressed I believe!.
And yes Robert, it was a dick of a comment. Mind you the sixties were one hell of a buzz… excepting some obvious events.
trans: “Insult. Drug reference. Dead burnt babies crying for their mothers reference.”
“makes me sick to read this kind of post.”
Playing the nazi card means you have already lost the argument.
“My, you do lead a rich fantasy life.
Have you ever taken a course in logic? If so, you should ask for a tuition refund.”
That all you got?
Pathetic
@Brian Payne
Bennet must have just broken your heart. What a scathing vicious attack on your soul!
So clever, so incredibly insightful, so…….funny?
I feel bad laughing at someone making a fool of themselves, but he is such a clown I cannot resist. Maybe he should lay off the marital aids for awhile.
How does a dead burnt baby cry for mommy? So stupid.
MichaelC
Has anyone ever told you that you take yourself, and blog comments, a tad too serious?
That you’re too young to catch the references is obvious, oh well…
Too young? You ARE a clown.
Maybe Brian will tell you how old he is. Why don’t you ask him?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7249634.html
a story in which there are no facts, just speculation.
And I see that it has hooked old Mark W…
Robert G. Oler
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/small-exploding-asteroids-big-risk-101005.html
insane huh? More probably you are blind to the most common facts about space.
HSF is THE most important DOD mission. They just do not want the public to find out and make them do their jobs.
They are too busy setting up their second careers working in the defense industry. That is the truth.
“When an airbursting asteroid, called a bolide, exploded over an island region of Indonesia late last year, it rocked the residents’ world with an estimated energy release of about 50 kilotons, equal to some 110,000 pounds of TNT.”
Even the journalist’s writing these stories do not understand the basic forces involved. Anyone see the mistake?
MichaelC wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 12:20 am
“Even the journalist’s writing these stories do not understand the basic forces involved. Anyone see the mistake?”
Few journalists are experts in the subjects which they might write about, so why is this such a surprise?
As far as the potential danger from asteroids, I do think they are a threat, but we are still too immature space technology-wise to do anything about it. That’s part of the reason I think lowering the cost to access space is one of the first things we need to do. Without a solid transportation foundation, we’ll never be able to afford, much less put in place, an asteroid defense system.
Also, as it is in human nature, until “we” feel the need for something, we tend not to focus energy or money into preventing it. That’s why claims & various movies about asteroid strikes don’t cause us to spend massive amounts of money to prevent them – it hasn’t affected us yet.
Of course, that could change tomorrow…
Apparently we have a new troll to ignore.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 1:24 am [Apparently we have a new troll to ignore.]
Long-established posters appear “dug-in,” taking pot shots aimed at anyone with a different opinion. Thank God for new posters willing to take the barrage of abuse to bring some interest and discussion to this forum.
MichaelC…old enough to know better but still young enough at heart to become embroiled in a never ending debate. Thick skinned enough to ignore the comments of Bennet and wise enough to know that Robert’s initial comment about being stuck in the sixties was a crass attempt to obliviate opposition from my generation, hence my response.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ October 16th, 2010 at 1:08 pm [….So one is left with “exploration†and the robotic side of the house does that very very well. We have learned far more from remote sensing and robotic efforts on the Moon, then we learned from Apollo.]
We’ve learned much from both Robert. Since you either have forgotten or possibly never knew or fully understood, from Apollo we learned about impact and that, sir, translates into our very survival. And since you fall so far in the robotics not humans camp, it might be wise for you to consider who’s constructing and operating the machines.
“HSF is THE most important DOD mission. ”
Obliviously from someone who knows nothing about military science or spaceflight.
There is no role for HSF in the defense of the USA, which can not be done better by unmanned systems. Another country colonizing the moon is not a military threat to the USA.
“They are too busy setting up their second careers working in the defense industry. That is the truth.”
It is not the truth and logic does not support it.
If this were true, then the military powers to be would be providing more money and contracts to defense industry, and a sinkhole like military HSF would fit such a bill.
MichaelC is another candidate for the list
Byeman wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 8:05 am
How is defending humanity’s survival, through advancing their ability to migrate into space, not important?
@ Anne Spudis,
It’s isn’t exactly part of DoD’s terms of reference, is it? Now, for planetary defence (PHO identification, tracking and, potentially, mitigation) you could make a good case for putting that into DoD’s hands. However, exploration, resource exploitation and colonisation could arguably be best put in the hands of the Commerce Department, or the Department of Energy for space-based power generation.
Thank God for new posters willing to take the barrage of abuse to bring some interest and discussion to this forum.
If you don’t know who’s been abusing whom, you haven’t been paying attention, Anne.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Why don’t you make a list and post it Rand.
So what does everyone think about Mars Direct. Sending humans on a one way ticket to colonize Mars. True Pioneers if you will. It would be forced colonization. Is it a good idea, or not. If done right I think it could be accomplished successfully.
Just read this thread.
A gentle reminder to people commenting here to be civil and on topic. It’s not that hard, really. Thanks for your cooperation.
“but we are still too immature space technology-wise to do anything about it.
That is completely wrong, to put it gently.
“a sinkhole like military HSF would fit such a bill.”
That is not true. Cold war weapons are easy to make money off of- they do not really have to work.
“Long-established posters appear “dug-in,†taking pot shots aimed at anyone with a different opinion. Thank God for new posters willing to take the barrage of abuse to bring some interest and discussion to this forum.”
So true. I am going to seek out new blood and bring them here. That will bring the established posters back to reality.
Dennis Berube wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 10:38 am
So what does everyone think about Mars Direct. Sending humans on a one way ticket to colonize Mars….
not much. there is no support for paying for any of this.
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 7:45 am
We’ve learned much from both Robert…
but we got far more value from the uncrewed programs based on cost.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm [….but we got far more value from the uncrewed programs based on cost.]
Uncrewed programs have value but to get real return on your investment, it will be people and their ingenuity who bring it. Machines are precursors, made and used by thinking explorers and settlers.
Which would you allow to give you a necessary heart transplant Robert, a top of the line programmed robot or a highly respected heart surgeon? What value do you place on your life?
There’s value and then there’s value.
Perhaps the answer to exploring and eventually colonizing Mars can be found in a rather “Earthly” way. Proposition:
1 Establish a Government of and a Bank of Mars with a charter to explore and colonize the planet.
2. Vest all titles and mining rights on the planet with the said government.
3. The progressive sale of these titles and rights then provides the funding for the venture.
It takes little imagination to expand the above and realize a massive world wide investment that would kick start the human space flight program…with true competition hot on its heels.
Just a thought!
So true. I am going to seek out new blood and bring them here.
Oh, goodie. Just what we need. An organized troll invasion.
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Uncrewed programs have value but to get real return on your investment, it will be people and their ingenuity who bring it.:”
but this is the problem that you, Paul, Mark W and all the other drumbangers of lunar exploration by humans collapse on.
While there is some “hand on tool” work in even heart surgery, mostly these days the surgeons are manipulating machines that are doing the serious work. That trend will do nothing but continue.;..
The uncrewed vehicles we have these days allow scientist, not astronauts playing as scientist to do serious work with their machines even though they are over a data link generally in far better conditions then if the folks were actually on the Moon, working their machines. And this is the key point, you nor Paul nor Mark W nor any of the lunar goobers have been able to explain why the value of having the astronaut playing at scientist being on the Moon is worth the added cost, particularly when the cost can actually be pushed toward better tools.
Put it another way. Cx has taken 10 billion dollars. There are few questions we have today about the Moon that could not have been answered if those 10 billion had been programmed into a real lunar uncrewed exploration program…and the questions that the 10 billion dollar uncrewed lunar exploration program would have poised would be far more extensive then the astronauts playing at scientist would have provided.
Sorry Anne, this is why people like you resort to “American exceptionalism”…
Robert G. Oler
Well Robert, you put your faith in the machines and I will put my faith in humans, who innovate and operate machines.
Don’t be sorry Robert. I enjoy reading your arguments. I find the free exchange of ideas one of the nicest parts of American exceptionalism.
“Sorry Anne, this is why people like you resort to “American exceptionalismâ€â€¦”
Don’t be sorry Oler, it did not make much sense so no damage done.
You just don’t want anyone in space for some reason. Is it because you can’t go? Resentment? Envy?
There is no reason for HSF if we are never going to live out there. Robots and science as cheaply as possible yes, HSF- no.
But we are going out there, so that makes you wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wake up.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Rand, you complained with a blog post on your site that this forum was overrun and barely readable, yet you come here and (if I may be so crude) do what most dogs prefer not to do in their own backyard.
MichaelC wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Don’t be sorry Oler, it did not make much sense so no damage done.
You just don’t want anyone in space for some reason..
I always feel sorry for people who dont have any grasp of the facts. To state that “You (meaning me) just don’t want anyone in space for some reason” is as inept and misstating as your comments about HSF and the DoD.
You will find, unlike some here I ignore people pretty well and am headed for that state with you
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ October 17th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Don’t be sorry Robert. I enjoy reading your arguments. I find the free exchange of ideas one of the nicest parts of American exceptionalism.,
I am always sorry for people whose grasp of the facts is so tenuous that their opinions are formed on fear and rhetoric rather then reality.
As I have pointed out in the past, you dont have a clue about American exceptionalism and the sentence of yours that I quoted from your last post is yet another reinforcement of that.
You are like many people on the ideological “right” (with compliments to Simberg)…you pretend to love the country, you barely know
Robert G. Oler
Sorry, folks, this conversation has run its course. Take your invective elsewhere.