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
  Free Space
  Outer Spouse (Page 1)

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:   Outer Spouse
Duke Of URL
Member

Posts: 1301
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-01-2005 11:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Duke Of URL   Click Here to Email Duke Of URL     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, this may strike some as goofy but it's a legit question that will become MORE legit as humans begin to stink up other Planets: What's NASA's policy on married people (or "Significant Others") in Outer Space?
I mean this as a serious question.

I'm not asking about people doing the Hunka-Chunka in orbit. I mean, what does NASA say about putting married, formerly married or married-for-all-practical-purposes individuals on the same crew?

With longer-duration missions and human exploration of the Moon and Mars looming there must have been some thought given to this subject.

I'm not asking this as someone who has been married six times (although it was only to five different women) but as a curious individual.

And by "curious" I mean "inquisitive", thank you. You guys can keep the sly jokes for later.

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-01-2005 12:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would think, in my ipinion, speculatively speaking and using common sense, that married couples (2 married astronauts - male & female - married to each other) would logically be included in a crew well in the future to the Moon and to Mars after a colony of some type is established. I have no references to quote for this. It is pure speculation, but it does make common sense.

But who knows. common sense seems to take a back seat when NASA is planning for the future. I mean, if the crew on our return to the Moon mission will be only four (perhaps 5) astronauts as Robert has said and they will not include a doctor (but they will have a checklist and perhaps some bandaids) and probably no astronauts/cosmonauts from other countries, then that is beyond comprehension.

Sending a couple on a space mission should happen well into the future after we get a few more shipments of moon rocks. After all, we only have 800 pounds of moon rocks, in addition to those returned by the USSR.
So lets spend $63.8-billion on a return mission to the Moon and get a few more shipments of rocks, which Robert has said can be turned into jewelry on Earth.

Why don't we make some of the current 800 pounds of moon rocks into jewelry? As far as I know, none of the 800 pounds has been distributed to the public, except for scientific purposes as is allowed by the UN "Moon Treaty" of 1979 (which the US has not signed).

After all, it isn't like we could use the $64-billion on medical research or health care or repairing our infrastructure or for national security. But what if we COULD find a cure for Muscular Distrophy, or Multiple Sclarosis, or Cerebral Palsy or lukemia, or for the eradication of any major illness? After all, something causes these illnesses. Do you think that would be a better use of the $64-billion than planting a 7th US flag on the Moon?

Sending a couple into space will be a reality, but not for many decades. []

FFrench
Member

Posts: 3093
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-01-2005 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FFrench     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Sending a couple into space will be a reality, but not for many decades. []

Except that it already has happened, thirteen years ago: STS-47, in 1992. Jan Davis and Mark Lee were married at the time and both flew that mission.

FF

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-01-2005 01:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is that right? I wasn't thinking of the Shuttle, I was considering the much smaller crews that Robert says will be sent to the Moon and much later to Mars.

Duke Of URL
Member

Posts: 1301
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-01-2005 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Duke Of URL   Click Here to Email Duke Of URL     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I mean, if the crew on our return to the Moon mission will be only four (perhaps 5) astronauts as Robert has said and they will not include a doctor (but they will have a checklist and perhaps some bandaids) and probably no astronauts/cosmonauts from other countries, then that is beyond comprehension.
[]

First aid would be about the extent of what's needed on short-duration missions, no? The Astronauts would have been pretty well checked out and observed before Blast Off. Colonization would be a different matter, of course.

As far as cosmonauts and et cetera-nauts, we should have them because any major initiatives should be international in nature. As long as Americans are in charge, of course!

(You want to burn up a French guy? In Paris once I got on a 1st Class train car with a 2nd Class ticket. Who knew? A guy wanted me to pay a fine. I told him i had no idea what was wrong and I wasn't gonna pay no steenkin' fine. He kept jabbering until I said, "I want to speak with the American in charge around here." The man actually turned purple - I've rarely done that to someone i hadn't been married to - before he showed me the right car and stormed off. No fine and I didn't go to jail either. Good thing, because they feed you stuff covered in rich sauces.)

[This message has been edited by Duke Of URL (edited May 01, 2005).]

KSCartist
Member

Posts: 2488
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 05-01-2005 02:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for KSCartist   Click Here to Email KSCartist     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't forget Steve Nagel and Linda Godwin who flew together on STS-37 in 1991 and were married after the flight. Not quite the same as Jan & Mark who are now divorced but close/

Tim

Duke Of URL
Member

Posts: 1301
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-01-2005 03:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Duke Of URL   Click Here to Email Duke Of URL     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
Don't forget Steve Nagel and Linda Godwin who flew together on STS-37 in 1991 and were married after the flight. Not quite the same as Jan & Mark who are now divorced but close/
Tim

Can you IMAGINE the mischief two married human beings can create given a week, a confined space, a mixed-gender combination of other humans and some spare time?

NASA has to have rocks in its head if it lets this happen.

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-01-2005 06:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I would think, in my ipinion, speculatively speaking and using common sense, that married couples (2 married astronauts - male & female - married to each other) would logically be included in a crew well in the future to the Moon and to Mars after a colony of some type is established. I have no references to quote for this. It is pure speculation, but it does make common sense.
Does it now? As this is your opinion I would suppose that common sense is subjective wouldn't you say? I should think psychiatrists, sociologists and pther professionals might be making this determination and they're common sense may be a shade different than us common folks.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
But who knows. common sense seems to take a back seat when NASA is planning for the future. I mean, if the crew on our return to the Moon mission will be only four (perhaps 5) astronauts as Robert has said and they will not include a doctor (but they will have a checklist and perhaps some bandaids) and probably no astronauts/cosmonauts from other countries, then that is beyond comprehension.
Beyond WHO'S comprehension? Rather sarcastic point being made here in regards to bandaids etc. As the medical training received by those on the ISS and other venues is greater than a paramedics, then common sense would dictate that the only "first aid" a paramedic can do is administer a band aid with the help of a checklilst by your formula of commen sense and its applications. I hope if someone on this list has a heart attack the paramedics who respond do more.

CMon Astro Bill - give NASA more credit for medical training than that please.

quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Sending a couple on a space mission should happen well into the future after we get a few more shipments of moon rocks. After all, we only have 800 pounds of moon rocks, in addition to those returned by the USSR.
So lets spend $63.8-billion on a return mission to the Moon and get a few more shipments of rocks, which Robert has said can be turned into jewelry on Earth.

What on EARTH does this have to do with couples in a relationship being on a mission? Wow one would think youre being sarcastic here and attempting to make a point, but silly me I just don't get it.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Why don't we make some of the current 800 pounds of moon rocks into jewelry? As far as I know, none of the 800 pounds has been distributed to the public, except for scientific purposes as is allowed by the UN "Moon Treaty" of 1979 (which the US has not signed).
Oh I get it now, common sense, I forgot to apply that here. That would dictate this jewelry you refer to would be for married couples to use as a wedding ring.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
After all, it isn't like we could use the $64-billion on medical research or health care or repairing our infrastructure or for national security. But what if we COULD find a cure for Muscular Distrophy, or Multiple Sclarosis, or Cerebral Palsy or lukemia, or for the eradication of any major illness? After all, something causes these illnesses. Do you think that would be a better use of the $64-billion than planting a 7th US flag on the Moon?
No I kinda like the idea of jewelry from space. Especially since Robert has campaigned for it repeatedly here.

And too there has not been any improvements to the medical arena from research into manned space missions in the past either. Hmm. Nope. Our missions are only for rock collecting and as you point out jewelry.

quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Sending a couple into space will be a reality, but not for many decades.
Im not sure where you base this firm stance on - Im hoping youve read it in a NASA directive somewhere.

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 01, 2005).]

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-01-2005 07:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The jewelry thing was Robert's idea, unless HE was being sarcastic.

I mentioned, in my humble opinion, that couples will not be sent on a long space mission until a colony is established and that is not for DECADES - 2020 (Moon) and 2040 (Mars) or so. No I do not work for NASA. This is my personal opinion and why do people keep asking if I get my ideas from NASA? If that is all YOU want, go read a NASA manual. We are speculating here and everyone but you knows it.

I WAS sarcastic is many of my comments because Robert sarcastically said that the return mission to the Moon will have a crew of only 4 and will cost $63-billion and their mission will be to return more moon rocks and that they may be made into jewelry. For $63-billion I hope that we can make then into 24kt gold. For $63-billion we could cure a major illness that afflicts thousands of people and shortens their lives.

The bottom line is, if you read between the lines above in my sarcartic postings is that A RETURN MISSION TO THE MOON FOR THE 7TH TIME WITH A SMALL CREW FOR A REDICULOUS MISSION IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY when we have many other uses for it on Earth at this time. Perhaps Robert could not think of NASA's real goal on the Return to the Moon mission. I do not know. But collecting more rocks is not a mission worth $63-billion or even $10-billion. We need the money here to fund Aids research and Cancer research and all those mentioned above, in addition to national security.

I would not expect that a married couple would be sent to the Moon or Mars for a long time because, apparently, the crews will be too small and the colonies will not be built on the first mission to each.

Do you want simple answers to every question asked on every thread? OK, the answer is, in my opinion, NO, NASA will not send a couple into space (excluding the Shuttle in EARTH ORBIT) for a great deal of time.

As for the doctor idea, it was proposed that on a long mission with a large crew that a doctor would be a good idea, but all of you seem to object to this for some reason and I do not know why. It sounds reasonable to me. I know that they have medical training. I am talking about now using "an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure later." I would prefer a professional NASA astronaut who is also a doctor. If a few astronauts start now, they could get real medical training by the time of the Moon mission. Their internship could be earned on the Moon mission.

No, I do not expect an accident. That is why they call it an accident. But if something does happen, I would feel better if a doctor was on board. But "That is only my opinion. I could be wrong." []

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 01, 2005).]

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 05-01-2005 09:04 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 Astro Bill:
I WAS sarcastic is many of my comments because Robert sarcastically said that the return mission to the Moon will have a crew of only 4 and will cost $63-billion and their mission will be to return more moon rocks and that they may be made into jewelry.
I don't mind you quoting me Bill, but I would ask that you do so accurately. I neither was sarcastic nor did I say the only goal should be moon rocks, or that moon rocks were ever NASA's goal.

What I wrote under a different thread was that to decrease the cost of a mission, NASA should partner with private industry which itself could justify underwriting part of the mission for the commercial and scientific appeal of moon rocks alone.

The crew compliment and the cost of the mission was not written sarcastically; I was quoting the research and mission requirements put forth by people who do this for a living.

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-01-2005 09:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:

No I do not work for NASA. This is my personal opinion and why do people keep asking if I get my ideas from NASA? If that is all YOU want, go read a NASA manual. We are speculating here and everyone but you knows it.

I WAS sarcastic is many of my comments because Robert sarcastically said that the return mission to the Moon will have a crew of only 4 and will cost $63-billion and their mission will be to return more moon rocks and that they may be made into jewelry. For $63-billion I hope that we can make then into 24kt gold. For $63-billion we could cure a major illness that afflicts thousands of people and shortens their lives.

The bottom line is, if you read between the lines above in my sarcartic postings is that A RETURN MISSION TO THE MOON FOR THE 7TH TIME WITH A SMALL CREW FOR A REDICULOUS MISSION IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY when we have many other uses for it on Earth at this time. Perhaps Robert could not think of NASA's real goal on the Return to the Moon mission. I do not know. But collecting more rocks is not a mission worth $63-billion or even $10-billion. We need the money here to fund Aids research and Cancer research and all those mentioned above, in addition to national security.

I would not expect that a married couple would be sent to the Moon or Mars for a long time because, apparently, the crews will be too small and the colonies will not be built on the first mission to each.

Do you want simple answers to every question asked on every thread? OK, the answer is, in my opinion, NO, NASA will not send a couple into space (excluding the Shuttle in EARTH ORBIT) for a great deal of time.

As for the doctor idea, it was proposed that on a long mission with a large crew that a doctor would be a good idea, but all of you seem to object to this for some reason and I do not know why. It sounds reasonable to me. I know that they have medical training. I am talking about now using "an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure later." I would prefer a professional NASA astronaut who is also a doctor. If a few astronauts start now, they could get real medical training by the time of the Moon mission. Their internship could be earned on the Moon mission.

No, I do not expect an accident. That is why they call it an accident. But if something does happen, I would feel better if a doctor was on board. But "That is only my opinion. I could be wrong." []

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 01, 2005).]



Well Bill me boy - people may ask if you work for NASA a lot, because you come across as having specific knowledge - rather than allowing its an OPINION.

Funny - you say Robert mentioned the jewelry - I DID research it and found no reference to it anywhere.

The $60+ billion you refer to - again - you miss the point. Please read a publication NASA prints called "Spinoffs".

As for a SHORT mission to the Moon, well amigo - ya gotta build up. NO one - not even "messed up NASA" - wants to return to the Moon "just because" - know what I mean?

As for medical personnel, NO one OBJECTS to it, #1, and #2 this was in reference to SHORT missions. LONG missions we ALL agree will have medical personnel.

Gee Bill - kinda confused here arent you amigo? Especially as NOT ONE THING about the jewelry had ANYTHING to do with the original idea of this thread - and THAT amigo was MARRIED COUPLES IN SPACE.

Al

[This message has been edited by albatron@aol.com (edited May 01, 2005).]

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-02-2005 11:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al,

As you know, Robert Pearlman has clarified his statement today in the "Cannibalism in space" thread regarding his opinion that rocks brought back from the Moon can or should be made into jewelry. I will therefore not quote his extensive comments in this section. Sorry to disappoint you, but he did say it.

As for "spinoffs" I do know about them. I also am aware of the many other reasons that are being presented for returning to the Moon: exploration, moon rocks, rare monerals and just the adventure of it. Did I leave anything out?

You said that on longer missions that a medical doctor would be a good idea. Robert apparently disagrees. He stated that the current or next class of astronauts is not scheduled to include medical doctors and that this was not a requirement or something that NASA is considering. He said that the astronauts will have extensive medical training and a checklist and they can call a doctor on Earth.

NASA can send a married couple in the future if it wishes, but in a crew of 4 (or perhaps 5) there is not enough room for a couple, unless NASA is extremely lucky in finding a couple that qualifies for the mission. On a trip to Mars, which I would expect to be much larger, Robert also disagrees. So we have an impass. I do not expect to be here to see it, but I hope I am right in saying that the Mars mission should include at least ten people (including one or perhaps two couples).

Robert - I would appreciate it if all of your comments regarding the use of the moon rocks could be cross-posted here also, if you wish. You might be absolutely correct about them. I work in the jewelry industry in Rockefeller Center and I am sure that your Moon-Rock Jewelry will be a very big and very expensive hit. Excuse me for saying that if I had my choice I would not create jewelry for rich people with the $63.8-billion expended on the "Return to the Moon" mission. I would use the finds for health care and national security and to find cures for one or two serious diseases. But "That is my opinion, I could be wrong." []

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1273
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 05-03-2005 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
$54 million dollars raised in 2001, $56 million dollars raised in 2002, $56.5 million dollars raised in 2003.. over 1 BILLION DOLLARS raised in the lifetime of the Jerry Lewis Telethon to combat Muscular Dystrophy.......tell me, how's that cure coming??

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1273
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 05-03-2005 10:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
$204 million earmarked last year for 1 faction of Parkinson's research.. plus availability for $56 million more in grants for private study..thats just 1 disease where funds are distributed by the Federal Gvt. PLUS the billions of dollars spent in "pork barrel" projects in the congressional districts that support bills sponsored by "high ranking" Republicans and Democrats. Every vote in Congress and the Senate is bought in some way or another.. NASA needs $$ to survive, and they're getting WAY LESS than many other programs or projects.

[This message has been edited by John K. Rochester (edited May 03, 2005).]

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1273
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 05-03-2005 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not to mention the 'couple of Million dollars the City wants the rest of New York State to pay for a new downtown Manhattan stadium.. I'd just as soon give THAT money to NASA, thank you!!

Glint
Member

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

posted 05-03-2005 11:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Okay, this may strike some as goofy but it's a legit question that will become MORE legit as humans begin to stink up other Planets: What's NASA's policy on married people (or "Significant Others") in Outer Space?
I mean this as a serious question.

Does the woman have to knit them herself, or is it NASA's policy to provide a contingency pack of space booties -- just in case?

On Edit: Obviously, I'm talking deep space journeys here. Excursions to planets with at least a nine month round trip, including side trips to the black hole.

[This message has been edited by Glint (edited May 03, 2005).]

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-03-2005 01:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Al,

As you know, Robert Pearlman has clarified his statement today in the "Cannibalism in space" thread regarding his opinion that rocks brought back from the Moon can or should be made into jewelry. I will therefore not quote his extensive comments in this section. Sorry to disappoint you, but he did say it.

Yes he did, however in a much greater context than you seem to notice. You are so focused, Sir, on your sarcasm and point you ARE missing the POINT of his statement and the attendant points in that regards.

As for "spinoffs" I do know about them. I also am aware of the many other reasons that are being presented for returning to the Moon: exploration, moon rocks, rare monerals and just the adventure of it. Did I leave anything out?

#1 OK amigo - then PLEASE reply to the spinoffs concept and apply that to your theorem.

#2 THEN lets segue back into the "many other reasons" which, you DO leave out a TREMENDOUS number of. Fair?

You said that on longer missions that a medical doctor would be a good idea. Robert apparently disagrees. He stated that the current or next class of astronauts is not scheduled to include medical doctors and that this was not a requirement or something that NASA is considering. He said that the astronauts will have extensive medical training and a checklist and they can call a doctor on Earth.


Wow - what a stretch to say Robert disagrees based on THAT flimsy statement. He did say this CLASS of astronauts, slated to be involved in exploration has no trained phsyicians. You may recall, or did you CONVENIENTLY leave out, that this is the FIRST class for exploration, and that eventually a second class MAY include them? Roberts statement is such that CURRENTLY, and these would be the BEGINNING of the explorarion classes, there are none. So for SHORT missions whereby none are necessary - then there you go. Again - what a stretch Bill.

NASA can send a married couple in the future if it wishes, but in a crew of 4 (or perhaps 5) there is not enough room for a couple, unless NASA is extremely lucky in finding a couple that qualifies for the mission. On a trip to Mars, which I would expect to be much larger, Robert also disagrees. So we have an impass. I do not expect to be here to see it, but I hope I am right in saying that the Mars mission should include at least ten people (including one or perhaps two couples).

Why the NEED for couples in any event? Unless its for procreation and would a child born in a reduced garivty environment be ABLE to thrive on Earth upon return?

Robert - I would appreciate it if all of your comments regarding the use of the moon rocks could be cross-posted here also, if you wish. You might be absolutely correct about them. I work in the jewelry industry in Rockefeller Center and I am sure that your Moon-Rock Jewelry will be a very big and very expensive hit. Excuse me for saying that if I had my choice I would not create jewelry for rich people with the $63.8-billion expended on the "Return to the Moon" mission. I would use the finds for health care and national security and to find cures for one or two serious diseases. But "That is my opinion, I could be wrong." []


Its a great opinion but flawed amigo. Med research is a priority in this country but there will never be ENOUGH money. And lets put the blame squarely where it lies, not with the Government nor what it "doles" out. No it's the pharmaceutical companies, who do some good things, but also inhibit a lot.

Talk to any Doctor and ask their opinion on this - and whether cancer COULD be cured. Where's the money - in TREATING cancer victims or in CURING them?

Al

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 06:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
Not to mention the 'couple of Million dollars the City wants the rest of New York State to pay for a new downtown Manhattan stadium.. I'd just as soon give THAT money to NASA, thank you!!

John,

Most residents of Manhattan also are AGAINST the proposed stadium. It will bring traffic in the City to a halt at game time. Manhattan is already too crowded for such a stadium. They are now considering building it in Brooklyn or Queens. If they do wish to build in in this general area, they should go up the NYS Thruway beyond Yankee Stadium in the Bronx and they should build it in Yonkers in Westchester County where the Yonkers Raceway is now located. If necessary, the Raceway could be moved to another location in Yonkers, since it does not require much space.

I am also against any public funding of this new stadium in any way. The Major League Baseball Assn. and National Football League should use their own funds for this project, or it should not be built. So, therefore, my point is that I agree with you. Public funds should not be used for this stadium. They should be used for purposes that will benefit the entire state or the entire country, like the Space Program. []

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 07:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
$54 million dollars raised in 2001, $56 million dollars raised in 2002, $56.5 million dollars raised in 2003.. over 1 BILLION DOLLARS raised in the lifetime of the Jerry Lewis Telethon to combat Muscular Dystrophy.......tell me, how's that cure coming??

John,

This statement and your statements following it regarding funding for medical research are very cynical and sarcastic. While I agree that medical research for many of the major diseases is a very slow and expensive process, the need for greater funding is apparent.

What are you trying to say, that funding for medical research is wasteful and should be stopped? That is what it sounds like. Perhaps you should elaborate on your statements in this regard. Does this include funding for AIDS research or breast cancer, both of which will claim thousands of lives this year?

Are you suggesting that the funds would be better spent by using them for the $63-billion needed for a 7th mission to the Moon to pick up more "moon rocks?" I know that they will do more than pick up moon rocks, they will also drive the new LRV's and play golf and take pictures and then the TINY crew of four will return to Earth. I know that this is a stepping stone for our advance into space and I know that it is only the first step and that we may have to do all of the research on the Moon from the '60's-'70's over again because the time lag for our return (50 years) is too long. I know all of that.

Somehow you have the impression that I am against the space program. I am not. I have been collecting and writing about the space program since its inception in the late '50's. I was fascinated by it and I will be fascinated when we return to the Moon in 2020 or so. The point that I was trying to make, which you missed, is that we apparently found $63-billion for more Moon missions that will have limited benefits and will be over before you know it. However, when it comes to medical research, which will have enormous benefits for all mankind forever, the funding is much less and much of it is from public donations. I know that medical research is not as exciting as a mission to the Moon and scientists cannot sell their autographs for $495 each or for any amount. Perhaps that is what the Nobel Prize is for. Let's let "moon rocks" stand for ALL research on the Moon.

Many members of Collect Space have suggested that we could do BOTH. I of course agree, but we are not doing BOTH on the same level. My point is that we should do BOTH, starting NOW. As we begin planning for the Return to the Moon mssion we should ALSO begin a cencerted effort to eliminate the major illnesses one at a time. We eliminated Polio and Smallpox, we can do the same for MS and MD and CP and even AIDS and CANCER. You would choose more "moon rocks." I would choose BOTH "moon rocks" and CURES for our major illnesses.

As for Al's (Albatron's) speculation that pharmaceutical companies are withholding a cure for cancer or other major illnesses because there is more money to be had by withholding a cure, this is pure fantasy on your part. You have just insulted all of the scientists working worldwide who are now trying to find such cures. If any pharmaceutical company was to announce that it had discovered a cure for any of the above diseases OR any other najor illness, they would become extremely rich by selling the cure. Your statement is therefore complete nonsense. Your retraction of this statement in particular would be appreciated.

I am not suggesting that the government should find a cure for any particular disease before we can return to the Moon or do any research in space. I am suggesting that they should be done at the same time. Actually, I did not expect to receive any rebuttals to my suggestion that the US should put as much effort into medical research as they are about to put into space research. I thought that it was apparent that there was really a need for more medical research. Also, my suggestion for more funding was not limited to medical research. I also mentioned national security, education and infrastructure (bridges and roads). They all need more funding. We were able to find $200-billion to remake Iraq. The funds for medical research can be found.

If the President announced that he had reconsidered his position on funding a Return Mission to the Moon and that he would like to propose that we fund BOTH a space exploration program (the Moon and Mars) AND a major funding for medical research, education and national security, he would be met with immediate agreement from both Congress and the general public.

I know that there is funding in the millions for all of these efforts, but not on the scale of the proposed Return to the Moon mission. If he were to make such a statement he would be seen by all Americans as BOTH a great leader and a visionary. []

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 13, 2005).]

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 07:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Okay, this may strike some as goofy but it's a legit question that will become MORE legit as humans begin to stink up other Planets: What's NASA's policy on married people (or "Significant Others") in Outer Space?
I mean this as a serious question.

I'm not asking about people doing the Hunka-Chunka in orbit. I mean, what does NASA say about putting married, formerly married or married-for-all-practical-purposes individuals on the same crew?

With longer-duration missions and human exploration of the Moon and Mars looming there must have been some thought given to this subject.

I'm not asking this as someone who has been married six times (although it was only to five different women) but as a curious individual.

And by "curious" I mean "inquisitive", thank you. You guys can keep the sly jokes for later.


Duke,

I think that we will eventually have married couples on our longer space missions. Some postings above have stated that we have already done this on the Space Shuttle. However, this does not answer the question, in my opinion. It would be logical to think that NASA will consider this question as they begin to develop a more detailed plan for a colony on the Moon or a mission to Mars, which could last three years. In the latter case it would be logical to include a married couple. However, I hope that they will understand that they will be "guinea pigs" and that their every morvement will be watched and judged for research purposes. []

Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
posted 05-13-2005 07:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
C'mon guys this sounds SCIENCE FICTION to me!;-)
good one indeed...

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 08:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Monica,

In what way specifically is this science fiction? Do you mean having couples in space or do you mean funding medical research on the same scale as we plan to fund the Return to the Moon mission? Bill

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1273
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 05-13-2005 08:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
John,

This statement and your statements following it regarding funding for medical research are very cynical and sarcastic.
What are you trying to say, that funding for medical research is wasteful and should be stopped? That is what it sounds like. Perhaps you should elaborate on your statements in this regard.

Are you suggesting that the funds would be better spent by using them for the $63-billion needed for a 7th mission to the Moon to pick up more "moon rocks?"

Somehow you have the impression that I am against the space program.

The point that I was trying to make, which you missed


You would choose more "moon rocks." I would choose BOTH "moon rocks" and CURES for our major illnesses.


As for your speculation that pharmaceutical companies are withholding a cure for cancer or other major illnesses because there is more money to be had by withholding a cure, this is pure fantasy on your part. You have just insulted all of the scientists working worldwide who are now trying to find such cures. If any pharmaceutical company was to announce that it had discovered a cure for any of the above diseases OR any other najor illness, they would become extremely rich by selling the cure. Your statement is therefore complete nonsense. Your retraction of this statement in particular would be appreciated.


Wow..where to start..
A)You sure know how to twist other peoples words around to try and justify what you believe..but kudos to you for identifying sarcasm!

B)No..what I'm saying is that little of the Federal Budget is allotted to NASA..certainly less than for medical research. Plus NASA can't rely on private sector "Telethons" and charitable donations to survive.

C) I never said you were against the Space Program..just being on this site proves that you care about it.

D) I didn't miss your point, for you present it almost every day ad-nauseum

E) I would love to see the elimination of ALL disease, but not at the elimination of the possibility of space exploration (beyond your ubiquitous desire to reduce the exploration to "collecting Moon Rocks".. again)

F) Now lets tackle that last bit, shall we!!
You are the one living in "Fantasyland" if you really believe that pharmaceutical companies want to cure diseases..they make their money from selling drugs to manage the disease..not cure them! Cure means no-one any longer needs the drugs required to treat..which means less money for the firm that spent money to research, create, market and distribute the meds. Why do you think the drug companies try so hard to have Canadian Rx's banned..they are made by the same companies that distribute drugs in the US.. but Canada can export them to us for less money, and LESS PROFIT FOR US DRUG COMPANIES!! They have one of the biggest lobbies in DC.. just for that reason..to protect their bottom line. You dont get rich by selling the CURE!!

G) Youv'e been peddling this "better and smarter than everyone else" attitude for a while now..it's time to give it rest Hot-Shot!!

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 13, 2005).]

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 09:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John,

Thank you for your reply.

I have tried not to mis-quote anyone or to change the meaning of anything that someone said. That is why I repeat the original quote when making my postings. I have not done it this time because the quote is just above this posting.

You state that medical research gets more funding than NASA. Is that what you said? I do not have a copy of the federal budget in front of me, but I have been told that NASA intends to budget at least $63.8-billion for the return missions to the Moon and possible for other space exploration missions. During the same period how much will the federal government spend on medical research? I do not know either. But I would suspect that it is CONSIDERABLY BELOW $63-billion.

How can spending any large amount for medical research eliminate the space program? You have no reason for making such an irrational statement. There will always be a space program, particularly after we are successful in returning to the Moon.

I repeat, by "moon rocks" I mean ALL of our efforts on the Moon. I use this example because it will be the most apparent result of the missions to the Moon. The crew is too small to make any concerted effort in any of the areas mentioned elsewhere in this thread and other threads. I know that this will be the first of many missions, but the future missions will have to be larger and longer to have any effect.

In my posting I replied to Al's (Albatron's) statements that pharmaseutical companies are withholding a cure for major diseases. I did not realize that you believed the same thing. That is why I changed the word "your" to "Al's" in my posting on this subject. You apparently answered the posting at the same time that I was correcting it.

You and I disagree on the meaning of the word "cure". I think that you are wrong in stating that pharmaseutical companies cannot make any money by selling a cure. Yes, there was a cure for Polio and Smallpox and they are all but eliminated from the Earth. I had a major illness and I was cured by medical research. But that is not what I meant by "cure." Some "cures" when they are discovered may require the patient to take drugs for the rest of their lives. The "cure" for some diseases may not be total cures. They may only eliminate all symptoms of the disease. That is what I meant bt "cure." Also, "selling the cure" to the entire world will make billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical company.

I still think that your comments about pharmaceutical companies are insulting to them and to all medical researchers. Can you substantiate any of your claims in this matter? Do you also believe that we did not land on the Moon?

There are thousands of medical researchers throughout the world. Are you saying that they are engeged in a vast conspiracy to keep "cures" from the public?

Finally, I will continue to make statements on these message boards as long as I am allowed to do so. I am interested in the subject of space research and development and I do have an opinion on how to go about some of it. I do not have an "agenda". Some of you do seem to have an "agenda." It seems to be: "manned space research at any price and before any other matter." If I seem authoritative that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps the problem is that you do not have any information to support your "points." []

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 13, 2005).]

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 05-13-2005 10:44 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 Astro Bill:
You state that medical research gets more funding than NASA. Is that what you said? I do not have a copy of the federal budget in front of me, but I have been told that NASA intends to budget at least $63.8-billion for the return missions to the Moon and possible for other space exploration missions. During the same period how much will the federal government spend on medical research? I do not know either. But I would suspect that it is CONSIDERABLY BELOW $63-billion.
Here's what I find frustrating about you Bill. You're sitting at a computer, obviously capable of accessing websites. Yet instead of taking the few extra moments it would take to find the information, you choose to make assumptions.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) FY 2005 budget was $28.6 billion.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2005 budget was $16.1 billion. (Let's ignore for a moment that part of that $16.1B went to medical research.)

The $63 billion figure you cite above is spread over six years, or 10.5 billion per year.

According to the NIH, over 50% of its yearly budget is dedicated to research grants, a.k.a. medical research. That means, at the least, assuming the NIH budget neither is cut or increased over the next six years, they will be spending $85.8 billion on medical research over the same period that NASA is spending $63 billion on a lunar landing.

And in fact, the NIH budget is proposed to increase. And that's not to mention the other federal agencies that have medical research as part of its activities or charter (i.e. EPA, FDA, NASA, etc.).

So I think your suspicion that the federal government is spending more on a moon landing than on medical research is in fact, wrong.

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 11:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
John,

This statement and your statements following it regarding funding for medical research are very cynical and sarcastic.

Are you suggesting that the funds would be better spent by using them for the $63-billion needed for a 7th mission to the Moon to pick up more "moon rocks?" I know that they will do more than pick up moon rocks, they will also drive the new LRV's and play golf and take pictures and then the TINY crew of four will return to Earth. []

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 13, 2005).]


IRONY: Calling someones statements "very cynical and sarcastic" in a paragraph right before your OWN cynicism and sarcastic statements.

Way to go Bill (Astro Bill) you are attaining "new heights".

Al (Albatron)

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-13-2005 11:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
John,

As for Al's (Albatron's) speculation that pharmaceutical companies are withholding a cure for cancer or other major illnesses because there is more money to be had by withholding a cure, this is pure fantasy on your part. You have just insulted all of the scientists working worldwide who are now trying to find such cures. If any pharmaceutical company was to announce that it had discovered a cure for any of the above diseases OR any other najor illness, they would become extremely rich by selling the cure. Your statement is therefore complete nonsense. Your retraction of this statement in particular would be appreciated.

[]

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited May 13, 2005).]



Im sorry Bill (Astro Bill) - I just reread my proffered question and saw just the question. I did not see where I said anyone was WITHOLDING a cure - nor did I insult anyone. There are many good and ethical researchers out there - this is about CORPORATE folks.

You certainly do have a great propensity for twisting words around, which, is the sign of someone incapable of proferring a valid point. In other words, if ya gotta do that, then you don't have a valid point that corresponds to what was discussed. Thank you.

No my dear friend, I SAID, where is the greatest amount of money - in treating the disease or in the cure? MY point is there IS no cure right now, and, to take it FURTHER from where YOU speculated in regards to my point, there are many and varied reasons why NOT. From the political, to the practical, and yes, to the desire.

Here's the deal Bill (Astro Bill), yes there are many diseases that COULD be cured. Having worked with pathologists over the years I have heard them all agree many diseases are curable.

But then when funding is given to them, and think about this very closely, how much of that dollar GOES to legitmate aspects of research, and how much goes to, shall we say "administration"? Cmon Mr. Bill, please, wake up and smell the coffee.

It's not about how many dollars are thrown at them, the reasons are many as to why theres no cure.

And lest you doubt my "speculation" about "witholding cures", work in the healthcare system for a while. In England they did a study on coronary artery health care, and found a baby aspirin a day and a 400 iu d-alpha tocopheral daily prevents much heart disease. Aspirin of course, slightly thinning the bllod, and the d-alpha keeping the cornoary arteries pliable and preventing plaque from forming. England as you know, is huge on preventative health care as opposed to insurance companies, fees and rates getting out of control playing catch up.

2 of the pathologists I worked with showed me this study, as did my Internist who is a close friend. But ask YOUR Doctor about it, and if he addresses it, most likely will blow it off. Why? Hmmm, a baby aspirin + d-alpha tocopheral vs. BP medicines, and Coumadine. He can keep you coming to treat the hypertension, or he can tell you to start early, take the aspirin and d-alpha and you dont come back often or at all. Hmmm. Do the math. And if you DONT think thats the case, then please refer to the Dunkin Donuts in a previous posting.

So please, I am all for critical funding, for personal reasons as well as ethical reasons. But I am also realistic as to what's going on here.

I am also realistic the spinoffs of the space program help in those veins (medical research).

I am further realistic enough to realize trimming one will NOT help the other.

Here, have another cup.

Al (albatron)

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 03:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by albatron@aol.com:
Its a great opinion but flawed amigo. Med research is a priority in this country but there will never be ENOUGH money. And lets put the blame squarely where it lies, not with the Government nor what it "doles" out. No it's the pharmaceutical companies, who do some good things, but also inhibit a lot.

Talk to any Doctor and ask their opinion on this - and whether cancer COULD be cured. Where's the money - in TREATING cancer victims or in CURING them?


Al,

Thank you for your reply.

I wish that I had the real FACTS to allow me to agree with you so that I would seem less combative. But I have no such facts. You and John both believe that pharmaceutical companies are doing something or not doing something in order not to have a cure for our major illnesses on the market. I am sorry, I have no facts that enable me to agree with that. Perhaps Collect Space does.

I do not know if you are being cynical or if you are fabricating this information or if you really believe what you were told by a few of your friends in a discussion at a bar. Well, I was at a bar tonight (Mimi's on 52nd & 2nd Ave. in NYC) and my friends did discuss this matter and they were all in agreement that there are no cures yet for these major illnesses and that it would be impossible to cover up such a discovery.

So you now say that it is not the medical researchers who are covering up the "cures", it is the corporations. I could name a few of the major pharmaceutical corporations, but I will not. Everyone knows who they are. Are you now saying that the major pharmaceutical corporations are complicit in some vast conspiracy to quash any discoveries that will lead to a cure for a major disease? Is that what you are now saying? Don't you realize that if this information was true and if it got to the press that it would be front page headline news? Don't you realize that such a discovery would lead to a Nobel Prize or such?

So, is this speculation on your part or is it real. Actually, you cannot just blame the corporations for the coverup. The thousands of medical researchers would know the truth and the truth would get out. This is the SAME reasoning used to prove that the six moon landings DID take place. That many people at NASA and related companies could not all be involved in a great conspiracy. And, neither are the thousands of medical researchers and the pharmaceutical corporations involved in a conspiracy.

Your example of using a daily aspirin for medical treatment is not applicable in this discussion. I know of many people who take aspirin daily. They realize that it helps their blood in their veins and arteries to flow normally. This does help alleviate many minor simptoms of some ailments. But what we are discussing here are major illnesses: MS, MD, CP, Aids, Cancer, etc. etc. etc. The aspirin a day does not work for them. Daily injections of medications do help alleviate some symptoms but they do not cure the disease, they mask it. I have a friend who takes weekly injections to alleviate the pain of MS. Are you saying that pharmaceutical companies have something that will ELIMINATE her pain but they are not placing it on the market or am I "twisting" your words?

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion and I realize that everyone must think that we are "off topic." But we are not. The topic was whether NASA has plans to send a married couple into space - to the Moon or to Mars, not in Earth orbit in the Space Shuttle. This led to a discussion of the relative importance of sending ANYONE to the Moon if we needed the funding on Earth to cure major illnesses. I suggested that we can do BOTH with a concerted effort and others agreed with me, or I agreed with them.

This led to a discussion that the US government DOES fund medical research on a scale comperable to the space program or perhaps even more (thanks Collect Space). You and John agree that "cures" are possible for these diseases but that the cures are being withheld or are not being sought after by major pharmaceutical corporations. I still do not understand how the medical researchers are all complicit in the coverup of discoveries to cure major illnesses. How would this be possible? The scientists would KNOW that they discovered the cure. Or are you saying that they are accepting the government funds but they are not trying to find a cure? Which is it?

You stated that most of the funding goes for administration (PAYROLL). Everyone knows that and it is acceptable because medical scientists are educated and they have a life and they deserve to be paid for their work. It has always been like that. Do you expect them to work for less than they are worth? Yes, you do, don't you? You expect them to be devoted to their work and to accept little for their years of education. It is only natural to assume that non-profit means that you do not receive a salary appropriate for your education and experience. Payrolls for researchers are appropriately very high and there is nothing wrong with that. If you mean that the officers of such corporations are accepting inordinantly high salaries, can you name a few?

I realize that there are discoveries in the petroleum industry that could immediately, or very soon thereafter, eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil. I have heard of many of them over the years. We all know that the inventors of these discoveries were eliminated in some manner.

This is not the same as saying that major pharmaceutical companies have or know where to get remedies for major illnesses such as MS, MD, CP, AIDS and CANCER. I presume that the "POINT" of all of this discussion is that spending more money on medical researce is futile because the discoveries will never be made public and that the funds would be better spent on SPACE RESEARCH. Is that right? Are you saying that research institure are accepting government grants but are not using the funds for the intended purpose?

One small thing to consider, the relatives of some of these researchers may have these major illnesses. Do you believe that they know the cures for these illnesses but they are not making them public, even if it means more agony for their parents or their children or their spouses? []

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 14, 2005).]

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 03:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Here's what I find frustrating about you Bill. You're sitting at a computer, obviously capable of accessing websites. Yet instead of taking the few extra moments it would take to find the information, you choose to make assumptions.

I can admit when I am wrong when I am shown the facts. Thanks. But according to both Al and John, we are capable of finding cures for some major illnesses or may have already discovered some of them (they were not clear about that.). Do YOU agree with them that further research grants are futile because the funds will not lead to a cure of any kind because it is more lucrative for the pharmaceutical companies to NOT find a cure for any of the major diseases?

I appreciate the fact that you have more information available to you or that you know where to look. I was only using a presumption that medical research was underfunded because of the lack of solid results and the need for public telethons. If funding is on such a high level, why are telethons needed and why are there no major results?

Of course, the point of all this is that Al, John and probably many others would prefer to use all such research grants for space research, not medical research. Their speculation that the funds are mis-spent or are futile lead me to this conclusion. []

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 14, 2005).]

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 08:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I do not know if you are being cynical or if you are fabricating this information or if you really believe what you were told by a few of your friends in a discussion at a bar. Well, I was at a bar tonight (Mimi's on 52nd & 2nd Ave. in NYC) and my friends did discuss this matter and they were all in agreement that there are no cures yet for these major illnesses and that it would be impossible to cover up such a discovery.
OK let me see if this matches up somehow. You were at a bar (as if the name of which is meaningful) and discussed this with friends. I had this conversation with 3 Doctors. Ok, I see the relevance in your statement (not).

And gee Mr. Bill, I looked all thorough my posting and of course, saw NO where I said anything about a discussion in a bar in my case.

quote:
Your example of using a daily aspirin for medical treatment is not applicable in this discussion. I know of many people who take aspirin daily. They realize that it helps their blood in their veins and arteries to flow normally. This does help alleviate many minor simptoms of some ailments. But what we are discussing here are major illnesses: MS, MD, CP, Aids, Cancer, etc. etc. etc. The aspirin a day does not work for them. Daily injections of medications do help alleviate some symptoms but they do not cure the disease, they mask it. I have a friend who takes weekly injections to alleviate the pain of MS. Are you saying that pharmaceutical companies have something that will ELIMINATE her pain but they are not placing it on the market or am I "twisting" your words?
You are VERY much twisting my words, but after reading this I am less inclined to think you are doing this on purpose. More from a lack of understanding I believe.

#1 it IS applicable in this case as it was an example of how the SYSTEM works, had nothing to do Mr. Bill, with alleviating pain.

#2 I said nothing about pain.

quote:
This led to a discussion that the US government DOES fund medical research on a scale comperable to the space program or perhaps even more (thanks Collect Space).
You are confusing me even more, are you NOW saying it IS more than moon jewelry?
quote:
You and John agree that "cures" are possible for these diseases but that the cures are being withheld or are not being sought after by major pharmaceutical corporations. I still do not understand how the medical researchers are all complicit in the coverup of discoveries to cure major illnesses. How would this be possible?
<sigh> Again I never said anything about a cover up.
quote:
You stated that most of the funding goes for administration (PAYROLL). Everyone knows that and it is acceptable because medical scientists are educated and they have a life and they deserve to be paid for their work. It has always been like that. Do you expect them to work for less than they are worth?
Again you are not getting what I am saying Mr. Bill - "administration" was said in quotes, indicating its far more than payroll. I can see a trend here my friend which I shall address in my "summation".
quote:
Yes, you do, don't you? You expect them to be devoted to their work and to accept little for their years of education.
You Sir, are something else, and I say that with the utmost in sincereity of refraining from saying what I truly feel. HOW you pick this stuff out of thin air is beyond me.

My summation Mr. Bill: I shall no longer address any of your ramblings, conspiracies (petroleum industry??), word twisting incoherencies. Seeing how you took everything I said and made it into something completely above and beyond what I was saying is quite the feat. It is obvious that you are sitting on a pedestal somewhere (or a bar at W. 57th and Ave. "D" or whatever), pontificating as to each and every subject here. Well Mr. Bill, you win. I am not as smart as you (obviously) and now defer to your ramblings.

Congratulations! Further discussion would be totally useless as, it has been so far.

Have a GREAT weekend!

Al (Albatron)

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 14, 2005).]

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1273
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 05-14-2005 11:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al..
Don't bother..some people just like to be right all the time, or at least think they are. From now on I'm just skipping over anything he has to say, for as I said..it's just the same old ( your word here ) rehashed over and over with a dash of insult, and word twisting thrown in for good measure. Too many others who post on these sites have things to say that make sense, why waste our time?

albatron@aol.com
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 11:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron@aol.com   Click Here to Email albatron@aol.com     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
Al..
Don't bother..some people just like to be right all the time, or at least think they are. From now on I'm just skipping over anything he has to say, for as I said..it's just the same old ( your word here ) rehashed over and over with a dash of insult, and word twisting thrown in for good measure. Too many others who post on these sites have things to say that make sense, why waste our time?

Il give YOU an amen as well. Excellent point. Kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight isn't it.

Cheers!

Al (albatron)

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 12:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al,

Don't throw in the towel. Get back into the "ring". This is a discussion. If you have no facts to back up your statements, say so. We will understand that you are trying to make a point. It's OK my amigo.

You ask why my discussion with my friends last night was relevant to the discussion. The answer is simple and direct - this is the general public and the general public is unaware of any cures that are available for any modern major illnesses that are not being released to the world for their use. Or, that medical researchers or pharmaceutical companies prefer to not find cures for major illnesses.

If I misunderstand your comments regarding the pharmaceutical industry, please enlighten me. If you wish to continue with this discussion amigo, please state in clear terms if cures for major illnesses are possible and if they are being withheld, or ignored or not followed through. Are the grants from the government being misused? Please make yourself clear on this point because what you said leads me to think that there is some waste of funding, or a conspiracy or coverup of a cure. What are you trying to say in this regard.

Every time that I have tried to clarify your comments (from my point of view) you argue about semantics, saying that I chose the wrong word (coverup, withheld, etc.) and that my reasoning is wrong. Well what are the right words? Are there cures for major illnesses that are possible but pharmaceutical companies are ignoring them or withholding them or something. If you do not reply, I will presume that there are no such cures possible and that your original theory is flawed and is therefore incorrect.

This is a discussion. I am not saying that I am always correct. I am an accountant, what do I know about medical research? Nothing! And, I admit it. And the general public does not know about any possible cures either. I understand that you think that pharmaceutical companies prefer to dispense drugs to perpetuate a diseace rather than "cure" it. I disagree, and because of this you engage in a personal attack on me. I challenge you or your three doctor friends to present any evidence for your allegations regarding the pharmaceutical industry. The gauntlet is in front of you. Pick it up if you can defend your allegations. []

star61
Member

Posts: 258
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-14-2005 02:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for star61   Click Here to Email star61     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thought i`d stick my oar in here and point something out.
Take a look in several science journals that advertise jobs. Probably more than 90% of the jobs advertised by medical type companies are for researching new drugs........NOT cures. It does`nt require a cover up.
The same happens in Physics. More than half of Physicists work in military or weapons related work. If more than half worked in pure theoretical fields, by now we might well have a viable Grand Unified Theory.
There is also a lot of duplication due to the competitive nature of research. For a $100million of cancer research you may only get 15 or $20million of actual unique work.

Duke.
Yes they will send couples into space ....other wise who the hell is going to do the washing on long missions!

Phil

Duke Of URL
Member

Posts: 1301
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-14-2005 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Duke Of URL   Click Here to Email Duke Of URL     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wouldn't be suited for a long-duration flight because I'm not suited for a long-duration marriage.

RMH
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 07:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RMH   Click Here to Email RMH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Duke:

Just send her out for a long EVA and lock the hatch of the space craft.

"Houston, I've got a problem the SOB wont let me back in"

Duke Of URL
Member

Posts: 1301
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-14-2005 08:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Duke Of URL   Click Here to Email Duke Of URL     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They were all too smart for a gag like that!

Rochemontagne
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-14-2005 09:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rochemontagne   Click Here to Email Rochemontagne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is a big difference in giving 63.8 billion $$ for going back to the Moon and giving 63.8 billion $$4 for medical research. We have proven that we can land on the Moon and we know how to do it. We do not know how to cure cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. So just because the govt gives 63.8 billion for cancer research doesn't mean that a cure will be found. But 63.8 billion should get us to the Moon if the $$$ are managed correctly ( which is another story).

Carrie
Member

Posts: 225
From: Syracuse, New York, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 05-15-2005 07:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Carrie   Click Here to Email Carrie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by star61:
Yes they will send couples into space ....other wise who the hell is going to do the washing on long missions!

Oh Lord, I should hope if I got accepted for a spaceflight it would be for more substantial reasons than this...not that I'd be in the running for the couples flight, thankfully, by the sounds of it!!

pokey
Member

Posts: 345
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 05-15-2005 11:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pokey   Click Here to Email pokey     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hard to follow all the back and forth stuff, but FYI, current married astronaut couple is Andy Thomas and Shannon Walker. Bios got updated just after JSC's Open House. &


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