On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko

pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
You miss the point. SEI was DOA. Why can't you just admit that?....

Because I'm not talking about that issue at all!  YOU'RE missing MY
point.

Let's go back.  Several iterations of this thread ago, you said
something about how SEI had not shown results.  Correct?  

Well, we agree that Bill Clinton cancelled it sometime in the '90s --
you say '96 and I say '93, but the fact remains it was done.  Right?

Whether it was right or wrong it was done.  Ok?  With me?  

Now, SINCE cancellation, whenever it happened, it makes sense it
produced nothing because .... it was cancelled.  Whatever they wanted
to do doesn't matter.  If the program was cancelled, then nothing came
of it.  

Prior to cancellation, there were studies done in the 1989-1992 time
frame; I'm not aware of any done as part of SEI from 1993 to 1996, but
that would make sense if work had stopped on it.  But SEI was
envisioned as a thirty year long program --say from 1989 ton 2019.  I
looked through my copy of AMERICA AT THE THRESHOLD, and none of their
architectures have an unmanned precursor to either the Moon or Mars
prior to 1998; the earliest manned missions to the Moon would have
been around 2003 or 2004, assuming everything they proposed had been
funded, which, of course, it never was.  BY WHICH PARTY DOESN'T
MATTER.

So SEI was cancelled between two and five years before anything would
have been launched under the most optimistic plans, and nothing has
been done since.  I think this demonstrates why it showed no results:
Cancellation.

 The value of the program and/or hypothetical nefarious
motives by the administration proposing it are irellevant to this
point.

 If it had continued we would be 2/3 of the way through it and
would be arguing about how well which administration had done on it,
but that is not what happened.  It was cancelled, therefore, no
results.  QED.

.....  Only when they attribute Quayle quotes to Gore. You are aware of your
fellow GOPers who do that, right?

I am a Democrat -- not a liberal Democrat but still a Democrat -- so I
do not have any "fellow GOPers."  So no, I wouldn't know what they
say.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:36:43 GMT, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand

Simberg) wrote:
One would have thought that you'd have figured out after all these
years that Eric is an idiot.

Maybe so, but I try to be fair.  Call it the curse of being a Libra.  

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko

pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
.... Bush's SEI was bad because it was never
implemented!

And we have gone in circles because cancellation prevents
implentation.

I'm getting off the merry-go-round.  Have fun.

One would have thought that you'd have figured out after all these
years that Eric is an idiot.

.... Bush's SEI was bad because it was never
implemented!

Barack Obama's recent statements concerning the direction of the civil
space program in his potential administration is the cause of
confusion at best, of very grave concern at worse. Since the
conventional wisdom has made Senator Obama the probable Democratic
nominee for President in 2008, an examination of his proposed space
policy is in order.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/665447/barack_obama_continue...

You cannot assumed that had SEI gone forward that we'd have anything
worthwhile from it ....

...... any
more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....

..... As it stands right now,
it is very clear
that the next administration will actually shape VSE if it is really
going to happen.

On Apr 18, 12:16 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but I try to be fair.  Call it the curse of being a Libra.  


Is that southern for "liberal"?

Lib-ra, not Lee-bra... LOL!

This is from a conservative site, and therefore has a certain angle on
it from the start.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html

If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
space-industry worker would want Obama as president.

On Apr 22, 7:50 am, "mh...@ohiohills.com" <mh...@ohiohills.com> wrote:

This is from a conservative site, and therefore has a certain angle on
it from the start.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html

If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
space-industry worker would want Obama as president.

Yes, especially when it hits their pocketbook.
I remember how the space scientists here at JPL howled when Bush cut
the NASA science budget.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko

pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
You cannot assumed that had SEI gone forward that we'd have anything
worthwhile from it ....

True .... but then by the same token, no one can say NOTHING would
have come of it, either.  We simply don't know.  Nor can anyone accuse
the Bushes of doing VSE and SEI simply to get money for Texas without
backing that up with hard evidence to that effect, such as they
actually told someone that and the quote is verifiable.  A Wikepedia
graphic of NASA grants doesn't count.  

...... any
more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....

????  And what did you expect after four years?  Orion isn't supposed
to have a manned flight until 2015.  So what was supposed to have
happened by '08?  If anything?  

.....  As it stands right now,
it is very clear
that the next administration will actually shape VSE if it is really
going to happen.

EXACTLY!

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:50:26 -0700 (PDT), "mh...@ohiohills.com"

mh...@ohiohills.com> wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html

If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
space-industry worker would want Obama as president.

Well, it's true in that there's nothing new here. Obama's education
policy came out months ago; supposedly, other documents came out to
"clarify" his position, that he would build Orion on shedule but delay
the lunar and Mars missions parts of Constellation.

I've said many times it would help if Obama had his space policy
spelled out in no uncertain terms on his web site, but to date, no
policy has appeared there. Documents have been released purported to
be from his campaign, but without copies on his web site, they have
the whiff of plausible deniability about them -- assuming they are
genunine. And so we are left to speculate based on what tidbits we
can get about a candidate who has raised being vague to an art form.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html

If any of it is true, I can't imagine why any space enthusiast or
space-industry worker would want Obama as president.

On Apr 21, 12:29 pm, Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko


...... any
more that we have made progress with W's VSE ....

????  And what did you expect after four years?  Orion isn't supposed
to have a manned flight until 2015.  So what was supposed to have
happened by '08?  If anything?  

You tell me! Should we have NOTHING after four years? Shouldn't we
have some sort of real metric of success?

..... It will take a non-Texas
politician to get them to show results as the Bushes didn't care.
Which was my very point.