President will speak about space future. On C-SPAN now.

[bonesmccoy]

MSFC has a website that discusses advanced propulsion concepts, including the space elevator.

Public discussion of other launch technologies is probably inadvisable due to the military implications of that technology. Remember that guy Gerald Bull and his supergun in Iraq? I recall watching a PBS documentary on super guns and they were discussing how the super gun failed to materialize due to the assassination of Bull prior to him completing the project for Saddam Hussein.

If other technologies exist, I am growing more and more skeptical that the US is permitting exploitation of those concepts.

Our nation needs to build science and technology to push our economy forwards.

Stalling our economy by doing retrograde commitments to outdated transportation modes is disappointing federal priority. Commitment to a one-shot, unreusable space vehicle is stupidity.

[bonesmccoy]

Guys,

Based upon our thread here, I have reached the conclusion that there is widespread instantaneous skepticism in the aerospace engineering community regarding yesterday's speech by the President.

The engineers have all done the math.

The White House apparently thinks that their social calculus would win over the engineers. But, engineers are not swayed by the "emotion" of the event. Engineers do math.

If the numbers don't add up, the engineers don't support it.

This plan doesn't add up.

Our California GOP congressmen need to work with the White House to save the President's 2004 re-election campaign in California. At this point, I think the President just nailed California, Florida, and Texas in the loser column.

[XBob]

296 - Thanks much for bringing back the names. Now, if we could just bring back some of that 'thinking', to use what we already have in different, cheaper, more innovative ways, like bonesmccoy's idea to mount a capsule instead of an orbiter on the shuttle stack.

[XBob]

297 - exactly - "They are, but it is like asking a toddler to build the space shuttle. We just don't have the first clue how to actually go about doing those things or if they are possible in the first place. Physics isn't there yet, let alone the engineering."

Which is why I said spend some money on 'research'. I checked out the NASA advanced propulsion systems program. It WAS very interesting. Most interesting current thing was the funding for the current fiscal year = "$00.00"

[XBob]

299 - "The ones I really feel sad for are the people at KSC.
They have just been given pink slips dated six years from now. What a morale booster that will be."

===

Guys, I got to thinking, about how to make some 'lemonade' and came up with one - which you pointed out SC - the 6 year pink slip.

That means that NASA has 6 years to get off it's collective asses and come up with a NEW program/idea/something. It's being given notice - stop wasting budget money going in small 150 mile high circles, doing the same things repeatedly. Use the money to come up with a new 'game'.

This could be just the kick in the butt that NASA needs, if they can do it. Without it, in 6 years, we would certainly be in exactly the same circumstances we are now.

But, then the question becomes, can NASA do it? Get out of their secure, 'comfort zone' in that 'easy chair' 'driving a truck'?

Sadness - I think - NASA will prefer the 'easy chair' and pay 'lip service' to new plans.

I envision the main result = lots of 'meetings'. Lot's and lots of 'meetings'. About a Billion$ worth of 'meetings'.

[unspun]

I'll pay $6 to see the next Star Trek movie, but not $600B to send a man to Mars. (No, not even a Democrat.)

[bonesmccoy]

Perhaps we need to investigate this "commission" headed by the USAF guy. The WH and POTUS say that this commission will meet to implement the new vision.

If they include us, I would change my mind on this vision thing.

[XBob]

307 - see your FReep mail -