If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOTbelieve in what the Augustine Commission will say them
On Aug 14, 4:15*pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
-- I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOT believe in what the Augustine Commission will say them, since... -- first of all, the AG hasn't really examined ALL proposals it has received -- I've sent them over a dozen emails and links without receive just ONE answer or feedback! -- that, despite, I've two blogs that talks about Space from four years and are regularly visited weekly by space agencies and aerospace companies, I've contributed to several space and science forums and blogs with (at least) 8000 posts (so far) in four years, I've developed and published dozens suggestions about Space, ESAS and Constellation and, despite, the rocket that will (likely) be used, could be one of which I've designed and published the concept 3.5 years ago: --http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html -- I'm not alone in saying that, since, on the HSF Facebook Wall page, other have claimed to have send documents and suggestions NEVER taken in consideration by the HSF Committee! -- since I've not received any answer to my email to the HSF, I've posted many ideas, opinions and links on the HSF Facebook Wall page -- well, the (unknown) moderator of the HSF page, has FIRST warned me to send my ideas ONLY through the HSF-email/BLACK-HOLE, then, he has BLOCKED my comment privileges -- but, before and after that, the HSF moderator HASN'T blocked the guys that posted LOTS of propaganda for the Ares-1/5 and (try to imagine...) ..."Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY) -- ALL the (7-8) "options" proposed by the AC's "experts" (but, which kind of "experts" are they, if not able to know EXACTLY the right choice?) are WRONG and PRETTY SIMILAR, that, since, the AC looks DEEPLY INFLUENCED by LOBBIES and, with their conclusions (like the big delays to 2019-2028) they JUST want to demonstrate that NASA, contractors and new.space companies need MUCH MORE MONEY (maybe, also the $35 Bn to develop the Ares-1) if the US President did not want to be the one that allowed NASA and USA to be surpassed by China, Russia and India in the new (commercial) "moon-race" (that, however, could happen anyway...) -- there are SEVERAL OTHER options that can be taken in consideration to come back to the Moon or go to Mars, but the AC hasn't discussed proposed them, while, they have discussed and taken in consideration old/wrong designs like the Shuttle-C, crazy and expensive technologies like the "orbital refuel" and things like the RESIZED-Ares-5 called "Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY) -- in fact, it's NOT TRUE that $81 Bn in the next ten years are "not enough" to accomplish ALL the orbital and Moon mission planned and it's NOT TRUE that NASA absolutely needs three more billion$ per years to accomplish these missions -- clearly, if NASA will receive more funds will be a very good news (hoping they'll not burn them like the $9 Bn spent in last four years for nothing...) but, $81 Bn (or a slightly higher) budget could be enough just IF the right choices are made and no one further cent is burned in crazy and bad things! -- Sally Ride says we're not going to the moon on the current budget, and she or another official said if the Aries, etc., system were in place right now they could not afford to operate it on the current budget. 'If Santa Claus gave us this system,' on the current budget, 'we would next have to cancel it.' They are talking about rendezvous with asteroids and such, no landing on other worlds, as an option. An official said (I read this article yesterday and am not remembering names and quoting exactly) that he didn't know if the public would find a space program with no landing on any alien worlds very interesting. I agree with that concern. While I am proposing, SEPARATE from the NASA's current plans, a long term goal of first INTERESTING the public in manned exploration of the outer planets, and then working from there to interest Congress, it looks like things are going the other way right now. I almost think we need to FIRST get the public's attention by saying, such as in online polls, etc., : "Should we stop sending humans into space?" If the public disagrees, then, we could take it step by step: would you like to see humans on the Moon? Mars? Awesome worlds orbiting the outer planets, such as Titan? With the expense considered - hundreds of billions of dollars to a trillion dollars over, say, 2 -3 + decades, the public might decide it supports this, nonetheless, when one considers:... large, high-tech programs create hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and in the near term; in the mid-to-long-term they generate new technology much sooner than it would otherwise get developed, probably with general life improvement results, and specifically, medical advances, AND: in the short to mid-term, MILITARY technology is advanced. So, if we take on a task which might admittedly take decades, but which at first BYPASSES the POLITICIANS and appeals directly to the public, then the public might eventually get behind it enough, and we and the public can CONVINCE THE POLITICIANS. The current climate might be depressing for space, among other things. But I'm not limiting this to the next election nor specifically to the current group of pols sitting on Capitol Hill (or Japanese or European or other parliaments, etc.). The goal here is long term: catch the public's interest first. If that finally works, the PUBLIC will be ready to kick the politicians butts on this issue. If the PUBLIC wants to see humans walk on distant worlds*, and come back and tell us about it....then the public can make it happen! *[with the other benefits mentioned: military technology advances, jobs, etc.] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...88cdca71abc?q= http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...0adaa9129438b2 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...85174eca31c?q= |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOT believein what the Augustine Commission will say them
giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 14, 4:15 pm, gaetanomarano wrote: -- I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOT believe in what the Augustine Commission will say them, since... -- first of all, the AG hasn't really examined ALL proposals it has received -- I've sent them over a dozen emails and links without receive just ONE answer or feedback! -- that, despite, I've two blogs that talks about Space from four years and are regularly visited weekly by space agencies and aerospace companies, I've contributed to several space and science forums and blogs with (at least) 8000 posts (so far) in four years, I've developed and published dozens suggestions about Space, ESAS and Constellation and, despite, the rocket that will (likely) be used, could be one of which I've designed and published the concept 3.5 years ago: --http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html -- I'm not alone in saying that, since, on the HSF Facebook Wall page, other have claimed to have send documents and suggestions NEVER taken in consideration by the HSF Committee! -- since I've not received any answer to my email to the HSF, I've posted many ideas, opinions and links on the HSF Facebook Wall page -- well, the (unknown) moderator of the HSF page, has FIRST warned me to send my ideas ONLY through the HSF-email/BLACK-HOLE, then, he has BLOCKED my comment privileges -- but, before and after that, the HSF moderator HASN'T blocked the guys that posted LOTS of propaganda for the Ares-1/5 and (try to imagine...) ..."Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY) -- ALL the (7-8) "options" proposed by the AC's "experts" (but, which kind of "experts" are they, if not able to know EXACTLY the right choice?) are WRONG and PRETTY SIMILAR, that, since, the AC looks DEEPLY INFLUENCED by LOBBIES and, with their conclusions (like the big delays to 2019-2028) they JUST want to demonstrate that NASA, contractors and new.space companies need MUCH MORE MONEY (maybe, also the $35 Bn to develop the Ares-1) if the US President did not want to be the one that allowed NASA and USA to be surpassed by China, Russia and India in the new (commercial) "moon-race" (that, however, could happen anyway...) -- there are SEVERAL OTHER options that can be taken in consideration to come back to the Moon or go to Mars, but the AC hasn't discussed proposed them, while, they have discussed and taken in consideration old/wrong designs like the Shuttle-C, crazy and expensive technologies like the "orbital refuel" and things like the RESIZED-Ares-5 called "Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY) -- in fact, it's NOT TRUE that $81 Bn in the next ten years are "not enough" to accomplish ALL the orbital and Moon mission planned and it's NOT TRUE that NASA absolutely needs three more billion$ per years to accomplish these missions -- clearly, if NASA will receive more funds will be a very good news (hoping they'll not burn them like the $9 Bn spent in last four years for nothing...) but, $81 Bn (or a slightly higher) budget could be enough just IF the right choices are made and no one further cent is burned in crazy and bad things! -- Sally Ride says we're not going to the moon on the current budget, and she or another official said if the Aries, etc., system were in place right now they could not afford to operate it on the current budget. 'If Santa Claus gave us this system,' on the current budget, 'we would next have to cancel it.' They are talking about rendezvous with asteroids and such, no landing on other worlds, as an option. An official said (I read this article yesterday and am not remembering names and quoting exactly) that he didn't know if the public would find a space program with no landing on any alien worlds very interesting. I agree with that concern. While I am proposing, SEPARATE from the NASA's current plans, a long term goal of first INTERESTING the public in manned exploration of the outer planets, and then working from there to interest Congress, it looks like things are going the other way right now. I almost think we need to FIRST get the public's attention by saying, such as in online polls, etc., : "Should we stop sending humans into space?" If the public disagrees, then, we could take it step by step: would you like to see humans on the Moon? Mars? Awesome worlds orbiting the outer planets, such as Titan? One word young man : Ceres. Key Dates : Vesta - August 2011 Two years from now. 50th Anniversary of Friendship 7 Mercury Flight - February 20, 2012. Ceres - February 2015. Obama's second term over January 20, 2017. Plenty of time to sort out the huge mess we have created for ourselves. You want want an alien world? I've got some land I'd like to sell you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why 3 out of 4 White Supremacists Support Barack Obama | .[_2_] | Europe | 5 | October 30th, 2008 01:56 AM |
IF Barack Obama is elected President | [email protected] | Cruises | 3 | October 20th, 2008 10:31 PM |
Barack Obama never met a Terrorist, he didn't like! | [email protected] | Cruises | 3 | October 18th, 2008 10:51 PM |
Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are related | Markku Grönroos | USA & Canada | 0 | October 17th, 2007 10:11 AM |
The courage to say Barack Obama might be a loser | PJ O'Donovan | Europe | 35 | February 13th, 2007 09:07 PM |