Posted on 07/01/2011 10:17:34 AM PDT by Pyro7480
On the eve of the final mission of the U.S. space shuttle program, most Americans say the United States must be at the forefront of future space exploration. Fifty years after the first American manned space flight, nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration; about four-in-ten say this is not essential (38%)....
Majorities in nearly all demographic groups say it is essential that the U.S. continue to be at the vanguard of space exploration. And partisan groups largely agree that American leadership is vital, although this view is more prevalent among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the nation must continue to play an international leadership role in space exploration; smaller majorities of Democrats (54%) and independents (57%) say this....
Large majorities say that the space program has helped encourage interest in science, led to scientific advances and contributed to feelings of patriotism....
(Excerpt) Read more at people-press.org ...
Nice work if you can get it.
It’s cheap insurance.
It's worse than that. He's a guy who can't drive because he spends his time telling the principal that everybody else is using too much CO2, and trying to make Muslims feel better about their contributions to science.
Of course I read it. They are clueless. There is no way in the world that we could have new tanks next year. Three years ago it sort of made sense to discuss keeping the Shuttle flying, but that horse left the barn then, and many, including Wayne Hale, noted the point of no return at the time.
We retired Shuttle for a reason (more than one, actually). Those reasons don’t go away just because a lot of Apollo/Shuttle veterans write a politically and programmatically clueless letter.
It is insurance, but it is certainly not "cheap' insurance. It would cost billions, we'd have to keep the work force standing around forgetting how to process orbiters for the two or three years it would take to get the first ET off the line, and NASA doesn't have the budget. It will be much more cost effective to stand up the commercial providers more quickly, which can happen for a fraction of the cost of trying to keep Shuttle alive.
You’re the clueless one but then the clueless are just, well, so clueless.
You really can’t see the big picture, can you?
I’m pretty sure that you’re the one not seeing the “big picture,” which includes a wide array of cost-effective and redundant means to solve this problem to which those who are totally focused on the Shuttle are apparently blind.
See, there you go assuming.
It’s not “about” the shuttle.
I guess you didn’t read their letter for content.
Unfortunately so many “experts” can’t think strategically or tactically and that’s why we’re in this mess. The most interesting thing about being told by “experts” what I know and don’t know is that they’re the same ones who have brought us to this point and have the nerve (stupidity?) to brag about it.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
I did read their letter for comprehension (not sure what “for content” means).
They are concerned about being able to deal with an emergency at the ISS. Their solution (keeping Shuttle going) is politically, budgetarily and programatically unrealistic, and there are ways to deal with those sorts of issues sooner, and for much less money. The fact that they think they can wave a wand and somehow have new tanks magically appear next year, and the fact that they ignore the capabilities of the ISS arm, Soyuz, Dragon, Boeing’s CST to do these sorts of operations doesn’t make them magically go away.
It is a letter of not thought, but emotion — mindless panic, and a fear of letting go of the familiar.
It is a letter of not thought, but emotion...
And what have you done?
These men understand engineering, history and the reality of the situation.
Because of their "emotion" and their "thoughts" and AND their deeds, I salute them.
Go ahead and have the last word. Somehow it seems fitting.
What I've "done" is to actually study, and familiarize myself with the issues.
These men understand engineering, history and the reality of the situation.
If that letter is any evidence, they apparently don't. Regardless of their life achievements and experience, while they are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts. I'm happy to salute them for their deeds, but that doesn't make that letter correct. And to think it does isn't logical at all. It's a fallacy called "Appeal to authority."
What I've "done" is to actually study, and familiarize myself with the issues.
That's it?
Yes. That’s it. It is sufficient. Particularly since they obviously have not.
I don’t care whether or not someone walked on the moon — if they tell me two and two are five, I’m going to (politely) tell them they are mistaken.
Thank you for letting everyone know what an arrogant, self promoting, no-nothing you are.
I don't think anyone knows that except illogical people like you. And you apparently know many other things that aren't so. It's one of the reasons that space policy is such a mess.
I have to say, it’s particularly hilarious to be accused of “self promoting” when I post under a pseudonym, and to be accused of being a “no-nothing” [sic] by someone who doesn’t even know how to spell “know-nothing.”
Which president signed the UN Space treaty that killed our space program and gave us the international boondoogle wealth redistribution project, the international space station?
It was Lyndon B Johnson!
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s
Remarks at the Signing of the Treaty on Outer Space.
January 27, 1967
Secretary Rusk, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:
This is an inspiring moment in the history of the human race.
We are taking the first firm step toward keeping outer space free forever from the implements of war.
It was more than 400 years ago when Martin Luther said:
“Cannons and firearms are cruel and damnable machines. I believe them to have been the direct suggestion of the devil. If Adam had seen in a vision the horrible instruments that his children were to invent, he would have died of grief.”
Well, I wonder what he would have thought of the far more terrible weapons that we have today.
We have never succeeded in freeing our planet from the implements of war. But if we cannot yet achieve this goal here on earth, we can at least keep the virus from spreading.
We can keep the ugly and wasteful weapons of mass destruction from contaminating space. And that is exactly what this treaty does.
This treaty means that the moon and our sister planets will serve only the purposes of peace and not of war.
It means that orbiting man-made satellites will remain free of nuclear weapons.
It means that astronaut and cosmonaut will meet someday on the surface of the moon as brothers and not as warriors for competing nationalities or ideologies.
It holds promise that the same wisdom and good will which gave us this space treaty will continue to guide us as we seek solutions to the many problems that we have here on this earth.
It is a hopeful and a very promising sign.
We are so pleased that we could be joined here today by the representatives of so many of the other nations of the world.
I now take great pleasure in presenting to you our distinguished Secretary of State—Mr. Dean Rusk.
On February 7, 1967, the President transmitted the treaty to the Senate (see Item 38). It was favorably considered by the Senate on April 25, 1967. The text of the treaty is printed in Senate Executive D (90th Cong., 1st sess.).
Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1967. Volume I, entry 18, pp. 91-92. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968.
Johnson signed the Outer Space Treaty, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the International Space Station.
Yes it did.
It established ‘international space law’, with the UN as the legislative and governing body.
Thus empowered, the UN then produced the ‘five declarations’ on outer space, one of which was the ‘international cooperation’ read wealth and technology redistribution, to poor countries who couldn’t afford to go to space, i.e. the international space station.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.