Prev: McCarthy: There Were Reds Under the Bed
Next:  Making Waves
From: G. L. Bradford on 27 Jul 2010 01:55

"Frank Robertson" <laisrevortnoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79cbc8ca-647c-41ba-b952-7f47b74451e9(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 3:58 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Frank Robertson" <laisrevort...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ccff804-b7f2-4998-9e86-b7a3a5393ef8(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > A&S: how do you feel about the retirement of the space shuttle
> > prograsm?
>
> > Musgrave: I have purely personal affection for it. I never wanted to
> > do that machine in the early 70s - I thought it was the wrong idea.
> > But American engineeering pulled it off, and it did what it did
> > magnificently. A lot of new technologies, new science, and new ways of
> > doing things in space, but at a massive cost, fragility and
> > vulnerability. It's had an awful long run. And everything has its
> > timing. The timing now is strange, when you're doing away with the
> > only way to get to the space station. It really is time to move on to
> > the next one. But it turns out we're moving on to nothing.
>
> > A&S: How do you feel about the Obama adminstration's cancellation of
> > the Ares/Constellation program?
>
> > Musgrave: The entire future of space policy - it's dead. It's nothing.
> > We need access to space in the year 2010, because the shuttle is going
> > away. We need access this year, so what is the response? We're going
> > to think about it for five years, and then make a decision. Which
> > means we're 15 years to getting access to space. That is not my kind
> > of space program.
>
> > ---------------------
>
> > Also, interview, cont'd:
>
> > A&S: Who impresses you?
>
> > Musgrave: Lots of people - von Braun was one. He read science fiction.
> > His vision was unbelievable large. From a teenager on, he was loyal to
> > spaceflight. He pursued it through the doctorate in physics. The story
> > of him and 118 Germans coming to this country in '45, and the fact
> > that our moon program rested on that man's shoulders. He was a
> > charasmatic communicator, and presence. If you were within 100 yards
> > of him, you felt him.
>
> > ---------------------------
>
> >http://www.airspacemag.com/
>
> > ---------------------------
>
> > My extra note: And Wernher von Braun became a born again Christian
> > after he moved to the U.S. ! Something for Topaz to think about!
>
> =====================
>
> NASA should have been deeply and continuously involved in helping to
> develop and expand private enterprise access to, and occupancy of, space a
> long time ago instead of becoming a certain American political group's
> ideological experiment in a controlled command society's Totalitarian
> Communist Republic of Space. Nothing fails so utterly and so
> catastrophically as a Totalitarian State (singularly a Fascist Communist
> State (One for All and All for One)).
>
> GLB
>
> =====================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You say "certain American political group." But the Apollo program
received bipartisan support. JFK started (the new, 1960's version of)
it, and Richard Nixon shook the hands of the returning lunanauts.

You say "totalitarian." Well, the USSR DID upstage us because a
DICTATORSHIP can commandeer public funds at will, without public
support. I've heard the USSR spent up to 90% of its GNP on defense
(one reason they were non-competitive, in the long run, in the attempt
at the moon). So, a huge socialist dictatorship the size of the Soviet
Union could pull off being the first into space. (The U.S. would have
beat Sputnik but Eisenhower forcibly kept von Braun's group from
launching an earlier-than-Sputnik satellite because A.) Braun's group
had a bunch of Germans and B.) von Braun was with the U.S. MILITARY,
not a civilian agency.)

But the U.S, with ITS resources (much greater than the USSR's), AND
its freely elected gov't, choose to answer the Russian prestige-
grabbing feat. SO, no totalitarianism if freely elected leaders do
something.

===========================

The Russians are the only ones who have launched private individuals (in
their case as paying customers) into space. The United States space agency
has not only NOT DONE IT, but consistently over the decades blocked it from
done. An labyrinthine iron curtain web of treaties (particularly the Outer
Space Treaty), laws (particularly anti-trust laws), regulations,
bureaucracies and so on so dense and so ideological as to [totally] block
all private means to space. Long have space groups compared the bureaucratic
blocking actions of the United States government to the bureaucratic
blocking actions of the Chinese government of the 14th century C.E. They've
compared the total void of expansionism in space and means caused by the
Outer Space Treaty to the identical total void of expansionism and means in
Antarctica caused by the Antarctic Treaty.

The United States as a total nation ends up with three increasingly
infinitely expensive government only 1970s era antique space shuttles more
than 50 years after our first entrance upon that frontier. AFTER FIVE
DECADES NOT ONE PRIVATE SHIP (NOT ONE EVER!) MANNED BY A PRIVATE CREW
CARRYING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PASSENGERS AND CARGOS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
BUSINESS INTO, OR EXISTING ANYWHERE IN, THAT FRONTIER!!!!! NOT AN UPDATE OF
A VEHICLE, NOT ONE NEW VEHICLE, IN THREE DECADES!!!! AND NOT A PUBLIC /
PRIVATE LARGELY MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE STATION IN EXISTENCE!!!! That, since
you obviously didn't know what one is, is a Totalitarian State existing and
actiing as one!!!!!

There never was an alternative to an aging implosive decline and fall into
Dark Age (Age of Utopia) except the explosive youth and energy of Space Age
(Frontier Age). The very instant the latter nature and momentum is ever
blocked (stopped short or mouseholed by Big Brother), the former nature is
instantaneously in full force accelerating in momentum. That's the
implacable history, the implacable physic.

GLB

=========================

From: spudnik on 27 Jul 2010 15:00
first step is somewhat negative:
stop the last bailout of Wall St. and "the City" by cap&trade
(exhonerate Rep. Ringell), and
put a tariff on imported forms of renewable ernergy
(including "petroleum" and LNG).

thus:
waves don't have velocity; only (undirected) speed. although,
a "photon" or other corpuscle could have a direction. I guess that
Fizeau showed that the speed of light waves could depend
upon the velocity of the *medium*, though -- some thing
that eluded me til this moment. (however,
I am not saying that the cosmical redshift is doppleroid .-)

I already gave the cite of M&M, where they give their "velocity
of or w.r.t. the aether" or not-null resultage.

thus:
I do recommend tripolars, to set-up the problem.
> UTM is not needed here. No geodesics required at this time.
> I'm just trying to find a coord system or method that allows me to
> position my view at each station to determine alt/az from the two
> stations of two points on the path of an event, start and end.

thus:
although one is primary, is it ever considered, a proper divisor?
> A number is prime if and only if it have two divisors.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Frank Robertson on 29 Jul 2010 22:48
On Jul 27, 3:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> first step is somewhat negative:
> stop the last bailout of Wall St. and "the City" by cap&trade
> (exhonerate Rep. Ringell), and
> put a tariff on imported forms of renewable ernergy
> (including "petroleum" and LNG).
>
> thus:
> waves don't have velocity; only (undirected) speed.  although,
> a "photon" or other corpuscle could have a direction.  I guess that
> Fizeau showed that the speed of light waves could depend
> upon the velocity of the *medium*, though -- some thing
> that eluded me til this moment.  (however,
> I am not saying that the cosmical redshift is doppleroid .-)
>
> I already gave the cite of M&M, where they give their "velocity
> of or w.r.t. the aether" or not-null resultage.
>
> thus:
> I do recommend tripolars, to set-up the problem.
>
> > UTM is not needed here. No geodesics required at this time.
> > I'm just trying to find a coord system or method that allows me to
> > position my view at each station to determine alt/az from the two
> > stations of two points on the path of an event, start and end.
>
> thus:
> although one is primary, is it ever considered, a proper divisor?
>
> > A number is prime if and only if it have two divisors.
>
> --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...
>
> --Light, A History!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

on "flybys" rather than landings, would be easy to
> sell to the public.
>
> "I wonder myself if just flying around and not landing anywhere would
> be very attractive," he said.
POSTED AGAIN...GOOGLE TROUBLE


You fail to mention that Obama, and the Dems of recent decades, as
well as the Republicanss, all fail to provide major funding for space.

Oh! The Washington Post and Joel Achenbach! THAT brings back mamories!

OF course, quoting the Post is just a notch above using MSNBC as your
source. The Post is sure to give Obama's insufficient funding for
space a postive review, and paint darkly anything a Republican does.

But Joel Achenbach! I used to read his column in the "Tropic" Magazine
that used to be published by the liberal rag, The Miami Herald! Great
writer, though of course, liberal to the hilt. He one time said, I
used to think every man deserves pizza [including death row inmates,
etc.], but...' then he made a possible exception for a couple he knew
that ran their own private liquor club in their own home, because of
what or how they charged for drinks. (He did a piece on his stint as a
pizza delivery driver.)

He did a piece on either "The Hot Zone" or the same subject matter
that that book coverered. Very excellent, dismal-view writer. He knew
how to get you down in the dumps, right where he was! But always
fascinating reading!

He did a piece on "happiness" one time. He checked with people of
various walks of life and religions. His most useful conclusion was
that all those who claimed they really had found happiness always said
it had something to do with God. As a liberal, he's probably still
searching. But at least he stumbled on something that one time that
might remain in his head and help him, eventually.
From: Frank Robertson on 29 Jul 2010 22:55
On Jul 27, 1:55 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Frank Robertson" <laisrevort...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:79cbc8ca-647c-41ba-b952-7f47b74451e9(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 3:58 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Frank Robertson" <laisrevort...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4ccff804-b7f2-4998-9e86-b7a3a5393ef8(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > A&S: how do you feel about the retirement of the space shuttle
> > > prograsm?
>
> > > Musgrave: I have purely personal affection for it. I never wanted to
> > > do that machine in the early 70s - I thought it was the wrong idea.
> > > But American engineeering pulled it off, and it did what it did
> > > magnificently. A lot of new technologies, new science, and new ways of
> > > doing things in space, but at a massive cost, fragility and
> > > vulnerability. It's had an awful long run. And everything has its
> > > timing. The timing now is strange, when you're doing away with the
> > > only way to get to the space station. It really is time to move on to
> > > the next one. But it turns out we're moving on to nothing.
>
> > > A&S: How do you feel about the Obama adminstration's cancellation of
> > > the Ares/Constellation program?
>
> > > Musgrave: The entire future of space policy - it's dead. It's nothing..
> > > We need access to space in the year 2010, because the shuttle is going
> > > away. We need access this year, so what is the response? We're going
> > > to think about it for five years, and then make a decision. Which
> > > means we're 15 years to getting access to space. That is not my kind
> > > of space program.
>
> > > ---------------------
>
> > > Also, interview, cont'd:
>
> > > A&S: Who impresses you?
>
> > > Musgrave: Lots of people - von Braun was one. He read science fiction..
> > > His vision was unbelievable large. From a teenager on, he was loyal to
> > > spaceflight. He pursued it through the doctorate in physics. The story
> > > of him and 118 Germans coming to this country in '45, and the fact
> > > that our moon program rested on that man's shoulders. He was a
> > > charasmatic communicator, and presence. If you were within 100 yards
> > > of him, you felt him.
>
> > > ---------------------------
>
> > >http://www.airspacemag.com/
>
> > > ---------------------------
>
> > > My extra note: And Wernher von Braun became a born again Christian
> > > after he moved to the U.S. ! Something for Topaz to think about!
>
> > =====================
>
> > NASA should have been deeply and continuously involved in helping to
> > develop and expand private enterprise access to, and occupancy of, space a
> > long time ago instead of becoming a certain American political group's
> > ideological experiment in a controlled command society's Totalitarian
> > Communist Republic of Space. Nothing fails so utterly and so
> > catastrophically as a Totalitarian State (singularly a Fascist Communist
> > State (One for All and All for One)).
>
> > GLB
>
> > =====================- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You say "certain American political group." But the Apollo program
> received bipartisan support. JFK started (the new, 1960's version of)
> it, and Richard Nixon shook the hands of the returning lunanauts.
>
> You say "totalitarian." Well, the USSR DID upstage us because a
> DICTATORSHIP can commandeer public funds at will, without public
> support. I've heard the USSR spent up to 90% of its GNP on defense
> (one reason they were non-competitive, in the long run, in the attempt
> at the moon). So, a huge socialist dictatorship the size of the Soviet
> Union could pull off being the first into space. (The U.S. would have
> beat Sputnik but Eisenhower forcibly kept von Braun's group from
> launching an earlier-than-Sputnik satellite because A.) Braun's group
> had a bunch of Germans and B.) von Braun was with the U.S. MILITARY,
> not a civilian agency.)
>
> But the U.S, with ITS resources (much greater than the USSR's), AND
> its freely elected gov't, choose to answer the Russian prestige-
> grabbing feat. SO, no totalitarianism if freely elected leaders do
> something.
>
> ===========================
>
>   The Russians are the only ones who have launched private individuals (in
> their case as paying customers) into space. The United States space agency
> has not only NOT DONE IT, but consistently over the decades blocked it from
> done. An labyrinthine iron curtain web of treaties (particularly the Outer
> Space Treaty), laws (particularly anti-trust laws), regulations,
> bureaucracies and so on so dense and so ideological as to [totally] block
> all private means to space. Long have space groups compared the bureaucratic
> blocking actions of the United States government to the bureaucratic
> blocking actions of the Chinese government of the 14th century C.E. They've
> compared the total void of expansionism in space and means caused by the
> Outer Space Treaty to the identical total void of expansionism and means in
> Antarctica caused by the Antarctic Treaty.
>
>   The United States as a total nation ends up with three increasingly
> infinitely expensive government only 1970s era antique space shuttles more
> than 50 years after our first entrance upon that frontier. AFTER FIVE
> DECADES NOT ONE PRIVATE SHIP (NOT ONE EVER!) MANNED BY A PRIVATE CREW
> CARRYING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PASSENGERS AND CARGOS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
> BUSINESS INTO, OR EXISTING ANYWHERE IN, THAT FRONTIER!!!!! NOT AN UPDATE OF
> A VEHICLE, NOT ONE NEW VEHICLE, IN THREE DECADES!!!! AND NOT A PUBLIC /
> PRIVATE LARGELY MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE STATION IN EXISTENCE!!!! That, since
> you obviously didn't know what one is, is a Totalitarian State existing and
> actiing as one!!!!!
>
>   There never was an alternative to an aging implosive decline and fall into
> Dark Age (Age of Utopia) except the explosive youth and energy of Space Age
> (Frontier Age). The very instant the latter nature and momentum is ever
> blocked (stopped short or mouseholed by Big Brother), the former nature is
> instantaneously in full force accelerating in momentum. That's the
> implacable history, the implacable physic.
>
> GLB
>
> =========================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A totalitarian state is a dictatorship that has total ownership of the
whole economy and allows little or no dissent. Russia (no longer
totalitarian,just a semi-dicatorship) sells private trips but still
subsidizes much of the cost. I'm wondering what a fully private Soyuz
trip the ISS would actually go for....$100 million or so, maybe?
From: Frank Robertson on 29 Jul 2010 23:00
On Jul 27, 5:35 am, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/2010 9:55 PM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>
> > You say "totalitarian." Well, the USSR DID upstage us because a
> > DICTATORSHIP can commandeer public funds at will, without public
> > support. I've heard the USSR spent up to 90% of its GNP on defense
> > (one reason they were non-competitive, in the long run, in the attempt
> > at the moon).
>
> Although it probably wasn't that bad, it certainly was a lot higher
> proportion of USSR GDP than the US - which is spectacular enough; right
> around 24% currently.
> As Hitler figured out, you can blow your economy right through the roof
> be throwing vast amounts of money at "National Defense", as it's
> constantly getting obsolete and needs updating...and your populace will
> be far more ready to save their nation by building the world's best
> fighter plane than spending billions to come up with a way to save five
> MPG in average car gas consumption...even though that would save them
> more money in a personal sense in the long run.
>
> Pat

I appreciate your common interests with me, even though refeneces to
the USSR as "not being that bad" and implying the US (Though not so
direclty implicating the USSR) is like Hitler when it dares have a
military, are marks of a typically misinformed or head-in-the-sand
liberal. It does not matter how much bad facts about America's enemies
are exposed...liberals are sure the problem is AMERICA and
conservative thinking is always labelled as HItleresque! nothing could
be further rfrorm the truth,. But we probably agreeon space.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: McCarthy: There Were Reds Under the Bed
Next:  Making Waves