Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Events & Happenings
  Ronald Reagan dies (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Ronald Reagan dies
eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-14-2004 04:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think it is obvious that a politician, whether Reagan or anyone else, antagonizes people. That's what politics is about. We have different opinions about him and his achievements. More so if the politician in question does not look for center ground, but rather the extreme sides. Consequently, if some people post praise about a politician, they should expect a few comments which do not agree with them. That's how life is. I appreciate Francis' contribution to establish this balance which I missed in the previous contributions.

Personnally, I don't understand how after 911 some people can still lend their support for a politician who financed and supported the very author of the crime, and other criminal terrorist groups. Seems some people never learn.

Getting back to Reagan and space: did anybody mention that while Reagan propagated a space station, his administration never succeeded in getting it off the ground? If we talk legacy, I think a distinction between "propagating" and "getting it done" is not entirely unimportant. Perhaps Reagan was a good presenter, a good policy salesperson. But else?

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-14-2004 07:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've got to agree with Jurgen on this. If our assessments aren't based on reality, not romance, then why bother? Writing as a European the latter was more noticeable in the last week - understandable, I'm sure, but all a bit over the top for me.

I'd say that in Space as in so many things, Reagan talked the talk wonderfully, but didn't really walk the walk. So, I'm off to catch the Orient Express spaceplane...

xdef66
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-14-2004 11:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for xdef66   Click Here to Email xdef66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert.....Be a pal and close this thread already. I've heard enough and I'm sure most agree although silently......!

Richard
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-14-2004 11:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Richard   Click Here to Email Richard     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree.

xdef66
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-15-2004 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for xdef66   Click Here to Email xdef66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Censorship.........Gotta love that.....I guess I can't tell you how I really feel. But please Lets here more from the Regan bashers......."God Bless America" and especially our freedom of speech.

767FO
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-15-2004 10:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 767FO   Click Here to Email 767FO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Although I have very strong feelings about Reagan and how truly great a President he was, as history as shown and will continue to show, I will refrain from continuing to add "fuel to the fire". With all due respect to the European members of this group who chose to post on this subject, the fact that they are not Americans and did not live in the US during the Reagan presidency, I feel their comments carry very little weight. Politics is not simply black and white...many of the "negative" comments made about Reagan and his politics can be explained and justified. But this is not the place for that.

Again, we all have strong political views and opinions and as adults we should know when and where to present them. And this being a space forum during the time of the passage of our President is neither the time nor the place for those comments.

[This message has been edited by 767FO (edited June 15, 2004).]

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-15-2004 10:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, as one of the Europeans sort of being rebuked by some members, I'd add that it would seem to frustrate debate and intellectual endeavour if the logic suggested is that you can only give a meaningful opinion if you were alive at the time and are American.

It's 50/50 for me, as I was alive, but am not an American (though I study it for a living.)

But yes, happy to shut up if others do.

scout706
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-15-2004 11:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for scout706   Click Here to Email scout706     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When I was in the Navy in the mid 1980's, serving proudly under Mr. Reagan I might add. I was taught that there were 3 things never to be discussed at the Wardroom table: Women, Religion and Politics. It would seem that those topics should be also avoided in forums as well

God Bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.

Tom

spaced out
Member

Posts: 2597
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-15-2004 11:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The idea of not being able to comment on a leader if you didn't live in the country they ruled is a bit off.

If the news media in a country is biased towards the leadership or even just biased towards the country it is in then those living in that country may well be the worst placed to comment objectively on what the leadership is achieving.

If you live in Italy today you will get the impression from watching the TV news - controlled almost completely by the Prime Minister - that everything he does is wonderful and just the right thing for the country. Does that mean that people growing up in Italy today will look back on Berlusconi as a great leader? Maybe so. Does that mean that it's true? Maybe not.

Reagan was a charismatic leader that was a godsend to the Republicans. Good things that happened while he was in power (e.g. the fall of the Iron Curtain, an economic boom) and indeed bad things (huge budget deficits etc) may or may not have been the direct result of his policies but any good politician knows how to take credit for the good stuff and gloss-over the bad. That's politics.

If you want to know what really happened during his reign (good or bad) you need to look beyond the obituaries and your own impression of those times. Things are usually much more complex than they seem from the outside and it usually takes time for the facts to become clear.

767FO
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-15-2004 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 767FO   Click Here to Email 767FO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spaced out..

You make a few good points. I was not trying to suggest that comments made from those living outside the US were not valid. What I was trying to say is that our perspective and opinions concerning our government are created and molded by living each and every day under the leadership of our country (not form a 3 minute news report). The fact that those living outside the US do not have this advantage is, IMO, a big factor in how those opinions are created, both good and bad.

As far as the news media goes...in this country if anything is true it is that the news media is biased towards a liberal point of view, not the other way around. And for those of us who follow politics, we know that bs flows from both ends of the spectrum.

As far as the positives of the Regan administration, there were many...the fall of Communism, the upsurge in the economy, to name a couple. But I think probably the greatest thing Reagan did for our country was to restore a national sense of pride that we lost under Carter. What is interesting in this post is that those who criticize Reagan for the budget deficeit fail to mention the "Carter" years....double digit inflation, high interest rates, a very weak and poorly supplied military, etc. Considering the mess we were in as a country when Reagan took over in 1980 and how he was able to turn that around is astounding. This is something we as Americans lived through and experienced first hand...something you Europeans did not.

Obviously, not everything he did was great, was right, or was done without help from others. In a democracy, it takes input from many sources to function correctly. But the President sets the "tone" and when you look at Reagan's record as a whole, you can not help but conclude he was a success and one of the greatest Presidents of the last century, if not of all time.

[This message has been edited by 767FO (edited June 15, 2004).]

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27327
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-15-2004 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 767FO:
But the President sets the "tone" and when you look at Reagan's record as a whole, you can not help but conclude he was a success and one of the greatest Presidents of the last century, if not of all time.

With all due respect, I believe most presidential scholars would disagree with this statement -- but not for the reasons you may think. From the discussions, articles, essays, and interviews generated by Reagan's passing, a general consensus has risen among historians that a fair and accurate portrait of a president's legacy cannot begin to be assembled until three decades after he has left office. We are not even two decades out. To try to place Reagan into the context of the nation's great leaders is rather premature.

Reagan may indeed be remembered as great; then again he may not. Regardless, it is only the ability of individuals here to suggest what they thought of him, not what the world or nation will or should.

Now, can we please stay on-topic?

767FO
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-15-2004 01:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 767FO   Click Here to Email 767FO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While I agree with your statement concerning that a fair an accurate portrait of a President's legacy takes time, I disagree strongly with the "tone" of your post. There are some events that occur during a President's tenure that do allow us to make a fair and accurate judgment of the man, both as a man and as a President.

For example, Truman's decision to drop the bomb, Johnson's inability to end the Vietnam war, Clinton's womanizing, etc. While the jury may be out on how these particular (singular) events reflect on that person's presidency, they are still valid indicator's of that individual and should not be ignored while "history" digests there possible effect on that person's legacy. All I was suggesting is that Reagan was able to do some great things...does that make him a great President? That is for each one of us to decide.

And although I agree with your position as a moderator to keep things "on-topic", you can't make the statement you made and tell the rest of us to just move on...although I will! <g>

[This message has been edited by 767FO (edited June 15, 2004).]

eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-16-2004 09:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by scout706:
When I was in the Navy in the mid 1980's, serving proudly under Mr. Reagan I might add. I was taught that there were 3 things never to be discussed at the Wardroom table: Women, Religion and Politics. It would seem that those topics should be also avoided in forums as well

God Bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.

Tom


Last time I looked CollectSpace was a civilian place. Perhaps you would wish to re-integrate into Civilian life and adapt to the social customs there?

Discussing politics is certainly a favourite part of civilian life.

There is another major difference though, both between civilian life and military life, and between civilian life and life according to the movies Mr Reagan plaid a part in: in real life, we don't shoot our adversaries. ;-)

In that spirit: cheers to civilian life and lively discussions, and cheers to movie country with the simplicity of good guys and bad guys, and cheers to the wisdom to tell the one from the other! And women can be talked to, not just about.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-16-2004 01:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Let's avoid straying too far off topic. All but the Free Space forum are intended for discussion of space-related topics. This thread was on-topic so long as it focused on Reagan's influence on space exploration.

quote:
Now, can we please stay on-topic?

On March 23, 1983 President Reagan announced his vision to leverage American space and missile technology in bolstering the nation's defense against an existing hostile Soviet nuclear threat:

"My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me tonight.

"The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national security, is both timely and important...Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. "Deterrence" means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable–quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats...

"For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn't stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven't stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons–weapons that can strike directly at the United States...There was a time when we were able to offset superior Soviet numbers with higher quality, but today they are building weapons as sophisticated and modern as our own.

"As the Soviets have Increased their military power, they've been emboldened to extend that power. They're spreading their military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital interests and those of our allies.

"There was a time when we were able to offset superior Soviet numbers with higher quality, but today they are building weapons as sophisticated and modern as our own...

"The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect.

"This is why I'm speaking to you tonight to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day..."

Lest anyone be under the false impression that the dangers faced by many nations from hostile missiles no longer exists or that the "star wars" program has fizzled and became a dead end technology, check out this missile defense timeline for the period 1983-2007:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/road.pdf

1984-1993: Strategic Defense Iniative Organization (SDIO)
1993-2001: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)
2002-: Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

[This message has been edited by Glint (edited June 16, 2004).]

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-16-2004 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's one view. For another about where that $200 bn went and more is going, just type something like "Star Wars boondoggle" into Google. You could buy a several lunar bases or a Mars mission or two for that.

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-16-2004 02:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
That's one view. For another about where that $200 bn went and more is going, just type something like "Star Wars boondoggle" into Google...

For additional examples of similar lines of reasoning try keying any of the following into your favorite search engine:

"Apollo boondoggle"
"space station boondoggle"
"space shuttle boondoggle"
"NASA boondoggle"

spaced out
Member

Posts: 2597
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-16-2004 02:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mnay people laughed at the whole idea of the Star Wars (SDI) program, especially since it failed so spectacularly, but these people are looking at the simple picture.

Things are rarely as straightforward as they seem. As much as anything else the SDI was a way to give massive subsidies to the US aerospace/defence industry whilst bypassing the rules against such measures. Whether the technology worked or not was irrelevant in this respect.

NMD may be different. Maybe the new technology will work, maybe not. In any case once again huge subsidies will be given to the contractors involved, and it's reasonable to assume that this is one of the key reasons for the relaunch whole program.

I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing or a good thing, just pointing out that there is more to these programs than getting a working product at the end.

By the way, there's an interesting article on the science of NMD Countermeasures here: http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=132

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-16-2004 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, there's a considerable difference between legitimate criticisms about the huge sums of taxpayer's (eg your) money spent on SDI (referred to above as "subsidies") and such criticisms of space science. Plus, of course however much they cost, there is an ISS, there were men on the moon...

If people aren't aware of the criticisms, I don't think the subject can be discussed meaningfully - and your post didn't do that. Was the intention that people should just reply "Yeah!" "100%" "I agree entirely"?

I'm new to this board, but I find myself disappointed that there is so much strident single-issue posting here. Nobody seems to even recognise the idea of a debate or balance? Which of course makes the replies the same...

Rizz
Member

Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 06-16-2004 04:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rizz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
Was the intention that people should just reply "Yeah!" "100%" "I agree entirely"?

I don’t think so. It was news that the president had died.
Most people that replied to the post did so respectfully. I didn’t see it as an opportunity to ’debate’ his policies as much as it was a time and place to ‘mourn’ a former president, which a couple of cS members had served under.

Debating/bashing a dead president can be done on any number of 'other' message boards.

Someone in an earlier post said it nicely…”if you don’t have something nice to say – don’t say it.”

That’s good advice.

quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:

I'm new to this board, but I find myself disappointed that there is so much strident single-issue posting here. Nobody seems to even recognise the idea of a debate or balance? Which of course makes the replies the same...

There are plenty of healthy debates here.

The political ones bore me to no end.

Fortunately, they are few.

Welcome to the board.

Rizz

[This message has been edited by Rizz (edited June 16, 2004).]

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-16-2004 05:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
Mnay people laughed at the whole idea of the Star Wars (SDI) program, especially since it failed so spectacularly, but these people are looking at the simple picture.

I agree with you. The picture is far from simple.

Much of the SDI effort and cost was used for testing the underlying hypotheses. Before a system for intercepting incoming nuclear missiles could be constructed a reliable method for detecting and distinguishing them needed to be in place.

For this reason experiments and sensors were developed to spot ballistic missiles in various stages of flight - boost, coast, and descent. Incoming missiles needed to be distinguished from the backgrounds of the earth itself when looking down from space, through atmospheric layers while coming over the horizon, and against the starry celestial sphere overhead.

The experiments and science which was developed had dual uses in areas such as atmospheric science and astronomy. Dual use is a common thread throughout nany military technologies. Just look at where GPS is today.

[The Atlas and Titan boosters began development in 1955 and were intended for delivering nuclear warheads. The fact that they are now used for lifting weather satellites is another dual use benefit of military technology.]

Dual use is an argument often used to defend development costs of civilian space programs as well. But in contrast some will point out that the costs for a flight to the moon were worth it because we really did leave 12 sets of footprints there whereas a space based defense system has not yet been deployed.

But here is where the picture gets blurry and looses its simplicity.

First, recall that the space race was a direct result of the cold war between the USA and USSR. It marched along right until the manned lunar goal had been achieved. However you could also argue that the space race "failed spectacularly" since the USSR was still left standing.

Second, as far as it was allowed to go SDI was a success. As mentioned above, the early stages involved research and technology evaluation. If testing concluded that a reliable system could not be developed using existing technology, then the test is a success because it would lead to the avoidance of building a system that could fail to perform using technology then in existence.

Could the technology have been developed to detect and intercept incoming nuclear missiles? Perhaps, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed during its development. After that came talk of a "peace dividend" and a slow down of military spending.

So was SDI a success or a failure? It depends on what one believes its ultimate goals were. But I don't think it was anything close to the utter failure portrayed by the popular press.

Also, your point about subsidizing the technology industry is well taken. Again, there are parallels to civilian space programs. (One person's boondoggle is another person's spinoff.)

quote:
By the way, there's an interesting article on the science of NMD Countermeasures here: http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=132

That is very interesting. A good cast of authors too.

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-16-2004 05:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Rizz,
My comment was intended to apply to Glint's Star Wars post more than the entire thread, but frankly it does seem that the style here isn't very much to post issues to debate or questions to discuss - look back and you see people seem to just post bare statements. No wonder they get equally bare statements back.

[This message has been edited by Captain Apollo (edited June 16, 2004).]

Aztecdoug
Member

Posts: 1330
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 06-16-2004 06:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Aztecdoug   Click Here to Email Aztecdoug     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Happy trails, "Dutch." Rest in peace.

------------------
Warm Regards

Douglas Henry

Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!

eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-17-2004 07:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
it does seem that the style here isn't very much to post issues to debate or questions to discuss - look back and you see people seem to just post bare statements. No wonder they get equally bare statements back.

A very lucid observation.

Some of these people (and I don't say all of them) are perfectly incapable to take part in any debate, to listen and consider arguments, think for themselves, and develop a discussion.

Their posting is rather like leaving a odor mark: marking their territory, recognizing fellow dogs, and then clap each others shoulders with those thinking likewise.

Odor marks that are not recognized as identical or equal are then barked at ("Anti-American", "foreign", "nasty political debate", "boring") ....

Personnally, I prefer cats ;-)

Jürgen

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-17-2004 10:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Meowwwww!

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-17-2004 10:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by eurospace:
A very lucid observation.

Some of these people (and I don't say all of them) are perfectly incapable to take part in any debate, to listen and consider arguments, think for themselves, and develop a discussion.

Their posting is rather like leaving a odor mark: marking their territory, recognizing fellow dogs, and then clap each others shoulders with those thinking likewise.

Odor marks that are not recognized as identical or equal are then barked at ("Anti-American", "foreign", "nasty political debate", "boring") ....

Personnally, I prefer cats ;-)

Jürgen


Some people? Can you be more specific. I don't know if you are referring to my postings, but if you are I would appreciate it if you could come right out and say it instead of beating around the bush.

So far I have not seen any specific objections given to my posts so I assume that your comments are addressed to others. If this is not correct, then please say so.

eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-17-2004 11:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Glint,

If each and every reader of this message publically asks himself "is it about me?", we're quickly going to have five pages of this sort of soul searching.

I have cited a few expressions in my message ("Anti-American", "foreign", "nasty political debate", "boring") that crop up in this sort of "discussion". I trust readers will find those terms in the respective original message without too much difficulty, this thread and others.

Jürgen

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27327
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-17-2004 11:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This thread is now completely off-topic.

Unless you are commenting specifically about Reagan, his passing, or his space policies please refrain from replying further.

Off-topic posts made that appear after this request will be removed. If users persist, the topic will be closed.

Rodina
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-18-2004 01:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rodina   Click Here to Email Rodina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Is it too early to tell Reagan's legacy? Perhaps, but certainly his space policy will ultimately be judged on how we reacted to the loss of Challenger. Yeah, sure, we were back in space 2.5 years later, but more importantly, we gave up on the silly notion that NASA was could or should be in the commercial spaceflight business.

I'm guessing without that, NASA would be just as much of a disaster on the commercial payload business as it is on the space station.

* * *

As for Reagan himself? There's not a man in the history of the world I would have rather have been President from 1981 to 1989.

If folks here, or abroad, don't yet appreciate him. They will. In time.

eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-18-2004 04:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This "commercial space business" is indeed one of the catch phrases that is still haunting us today. I always felt it was - at the time - more of an ideological label than a realistic analysis of market opportunities, in particular what manned spaceflight was concerned.

Now there is no doubt that the commercial launcher business and the satcom industry has received a much needed push towards liberalization, even though the US launcher business still primarily depends and achieves its survivability by government contracts. That is "fake commercial business", if you ask me. No non-US competitor can compete on the market for US government payloads. That is unchanged for 20 years. Reagan could have changed that. He never did, not did the succeeding administrations. Talking about commercial space and keeping your own market closed is not what I would call credible.

However, for manned spaceflight, I don't see any viable commercial activity as yet, independent whether NASA handled this part well or not.

Whether the X-Prize will yield anything viable on the long term (when the sponsor's money has run out), remains to be seen. Judging from comments made by Rutan, the only option he sees is tourism in space. That's not bad, but it is not what I would consider any productive or industrial activity for real world business.

Reagan's fans and successors have still to spell out what viable commercial business there is for Manned spaceflight. I don't see it. I still think it is pioneering, exploratory endeavours that are based on a society searching for wisdom and exploration. We are still in our infancy here.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-18-2004 09:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This link has not been posted on this page to my knowledge (and apologies if it has). Below is NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe's closing remarks as he remembered the legacy of President Ronald Reagan:

quote:


As President Reagan said, "Our progress in space, taking giant steps for all mankind, is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry and academia have all pulled together. And we can be proud to say: We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we're free."

May God bless President Ronald Reagan. We are indebted to him for his visionary and persistent leadership. On behalf of all members of the NASA family, we offer our condolences to the Reagan family in their time of reflection on his contributions to them and, indeed, all Americans.

Sean O'Keefe
NASA Administrator


The full text of his remarks may be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/reagan_legacy.html

On the military side, The Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site of Kwajalein Atoll located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands bears the name of the President in honor of his initiative toward combating threats from the non-peaceful usage of space:



http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/RTS.pdf http://www.smdc.army.mil/RTS.html

Rodina
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-18-2004 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rodina   Click Here to Email Rodina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by eurospace:
However, for manned spaceflight, I don't see any viable commercial activity as yet, independent whether NASA handled this part well or not.

Whether the X-Prize will yield anything viable on the long term (when the sponsor's money has run out), remains to be seen. Judging from comments made by Rutan, the only option he sees is tourism in space. That's not bad, but it is not what I would consider any productive or industrial activity for real world business.

Reagan's fans and successors have still to spell out what viable commercial business there is for Manned spaceflight. I don't see it. I still think it is pioneering, exploratory endeavours that are based on a society searching for wisdom and exploration. We are still in our infancy here.


Tourism is the one real world business for manned space flight -- the one possibility for commercial success. And the only thing with enough demand to drive down the costs for "real world" business. Tourism will lead, not follow, Bechtel or ABB into orbit.

And, indeed, I don't see how tourism isn't just as "real" as any other business. If you don't believe me, visit Hawaii or Ibiza or Portofino -- places that, but for tourism, would be very, very different places.

* * *

And as for the US Government spending its money on US booster services, if you know anything about the politics of international trade, you'll know that it's not about whether a given industry is free on both sides, but whether the EU is willing to give ground on an issue a bigger political hot button to the US.

It's national industrial policy. I'm not saying the United States is free of this problem -- we're impossible on sugar, wool and a host of ag products. We're horrible about steel. Try to find a weapons system that the Pentagon will buy that's not made in the USA. I don't like it, but Europe's hands are anything but clean on the point (see, e.g., the Typhoon, Airbus, GMO foods, etc. etc.)

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 06-18-2004 03:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting to see tourism as the driver, though if we make a comparison to aviation, we'd need to move beyond the luxury market (eg charging $50-100k for 10 minutes) to something considerably more mass market. I wonder if that is ever going to be feasible?

Also, what's being sold is the experience more than the destination - it's as if the rationale for going to Hawaii was to enjoy the economy flight. In being experience led it resembles cruising - where money is made offering a relatively high priced product to a less than mass market. But again, the appeal of experience is seen as long, involving and slow, not short, involving and fast. It also exploits the source of the premium tourist dollar - the retired. Can tourist spaceflight?

Nice to debate
All in all an interesting conundrum

eurospace
Member

Posts: 2275
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-18-2004 05:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for eurospace   Click Here to Email eurospace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Rodina,

I'm not an economist, but my feeble knowledge of it tells me that it is the primary, productive sector that produces an economy's wealth. The sector of tourism is not, it is siphoning money earned elsewhere. In other words: money earned in a real world is re-distributed. At the moment, you do not earn "real" money in space. That's why you got no "real" company invest in space. The big ones (Boeing, LM) take the state money and run, but they won't invest their own real money and risk it there. If Reagan's ideas would work, why doesn't United Space Alliance operate their own space station in LEO? They won't, and for good reasons.

As for the booster liberalisation, the US have often demanded liberalisation where it helps them and refused where they fear competition (and I am aware that the EU is often doing the same, in particular when it come to agriculture). I think the US taxpayer is simply getting an overpriced product without competition on the domestic booster market. You have created a monopoly for the market, and another by having just two companies sharing this market. This is almost as good as in the old Communist regime where only the State tells the way - and today's Russia is more liberalist than the US, in this sector. Ironic, isn't it?

Funny to see me advocate competitive economy and see someone like you and Mr Reagan defend a monopolistic situation of the military-industrial complex (that is a term coined, I think, by Eisenhower). Ironic again ....

Jürgen

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

Rodina
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-18-2004 10:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rodina   Click Here to Email Rodina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by eurospace:
I'm not an economist, but my feeble knowledge of it tells me that it is the primary, productive sector that produces an economy's wealth. The sector of tourism is not, it is siphoning money earned elsewhere. In other words: money earned in a real world is re-distributed. At the moment, you do not earn "real" money in space. That's why you got no "real" company invest in space. The big ones (Boeing, LM) take the state money and run, but they won't invest their own real money and risk it there. If Reagan's ideas would work, why doesn't United Space Alliance operate their own space station in LEO? They won't, and for good reasons.

Most people who get into the space tourism business are going to lose money -- a lot of it. Just like Vought and Consolidated and Bleriot and Comet don't exist except, perhaps, as divisions somewhere in Boeing or Rolls-Royce or Airbus, most people are going to lose an arm and a leg. Great. That's the free market.

The top-down big government approach to space exploitation isn't going to work -- and I'm opposed to any industrial policy that tries to create wealth by spending tax payer money.

quote:

As for the booster liberalisation, the US have often demanded liberalisation where it helps them and refused where they fear competition (and I am aware that the EU is often doing the same, in particular when it come to agriculture). I think the US taxpayer is simply getting an overpriced product without competition on the domestic booster market. You have created a monopoly for the market, and another by having just two companies sharing this market. This is almost as good as in the old Communist regime where only the State tells the way - and today's Russia is more liberalist than the US, in this sector.

Except for the gulags and tyranny and stuff, yeah. Big government isn't going to get me into space, and smart folks from Israel and Canada and the US of A and a bunch of other places think they can do it and turn a buck. A better approach, by far.

quote:
Funny to see me advocate competitive economy and see someone like you and Mr Reagan defend a monopolistic situation of the military-industrial complex (that is a term coined, I think, by Eisenhower). Ironic again ....

Where, exactly, did I defend this? I beat up on government space programs more than just about anyone here. I explained it.

Mike Isbell
Member

Posts: 342
From: Silver Spring, Maryland USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-19-2004 04:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike Isbell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Prior to start of the Shuttlle program, I understood that the cost of launching a shuttle flight with commercial satellites aboard would be covered in full by the fees NASA would collect from the companies paying to have their satellites placed into orbit. By the time STS-5 made the first such commercial satellite launch flight in 1982, it became apparent that NASA was only being reimbused a percentage of the launch costs. NASA had a contract launch fee for commercial sateellite launches through the mid-1980's, although I cannot remember now what the launch fee was back then. Following the loss of the Challenger in 1986, all commercial satellite launches were to be made on expendable launch vehicles. It is my recollection that the Atlas launch vehicle was to have been discontinued, but production resumed in 1987 to continue the launching of commercial satellites that had been scheduled to launch on the Shuttle.

[This message has been edited by Mike Isbell (edited June 20, 2004).]

Dirk
Member

Posts: 575
From: Belgium
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 06-20-2004 06:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dirk   Click Here to Email Dirk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In fact it was Gorbatchov who made Reagan.
He made it possible that Russia started the communication with the US.
If at that time there had been no Gorbatchov, Reagan had been a president as the others.
History must been seen in his correct context, and you don't have to make heroes of man who has not been heroes...


Dirk

star51L
Member

Posts: 117
From: Vilano Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-24-2004 06:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for star51L   Click Here to Email star51L     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No matter the political view one may have, I thought this was a very nice touch.
http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d305/

Mike Isbell
Member

Posts: 342
From: Silver Spring, Maryland USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-10-2005 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike Isbell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It was one year ago this past week that the nation said goodbye to our 40th President. It does not seem like it has been that long at times and at other times it seems like it has been longer. Larry King made note of the anniversery earlier this week and wished Mrs. Reagan well.
In the past year I have been to Los Angeles twice and took the time to visit the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley. I would recommend that anyone who journeys to southern California go see the exibits there which include the Boeing 707 that served as Air Force One from 1973 until 1990 and one of the helicopters designated as Marine One. The view from the outside of the library is also impressive.
Thank you for your service to the country President Reagan.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement