At 10:08 PM Tuesday 2/27/2007, Doug wrote:
Dan wrote:
Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess
that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10%
of that for spending on science.
How do you think the general public would rank Apollo
On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
Too bad that at least nine out of ten people you ask will
have no idea what happened on that date . . .and that
includes people who were alive and old enough to be in school then.
Spoil sport!
OK. I was 3 1/2. I don't remember the exact date but could
Dan wrote:
Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess
that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10%
of that for spending on science.
How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of human
achievements? I'm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:29 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
It was and it wasn't, eh?
I think we will agree that as it is advertized
On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something
that was actually useful?
If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making
products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck
At 11:36 PM Sunday 2/25/2007, Max Battcher wrote:
On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something
that was actually useful?
If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making
products that could
Original Message:
-
From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that
yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better, more
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: NASA Goes Deep
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1_r=1
The cost
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era immediately
preceeding
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1_r=1
NASA Goes Deep
By CAROLYN PORCO
Published: February 20, 2007
Boulder, Colo. AFTER years of spending our
nations space budget building an orbiting space
station of questionable utility, serviced by an
operationally
In hindsight, maybe the pace of progress was
predictable. Humans first explored Antarctica in
the early 20th century. Decades passed before we
had the technology that would allow us to
establish a permanent presence. History will
indicate the same for our interplanetary forays.
Our initial
13 matches
Mail list logo
