www.pan-multiverse.blogspot.com

All of CITIZEN JOURNALIST PROFITS go to NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS and CHARITIES. For the latest: Connect to our five comsats via Second American Revolution at Facebook (Bookmark/ Add to Favorites). Visit: MASH; Holmes Sherlock; Bonanza; Twilight Zone; Prisoner. Also: Diogenes Club... but don't talk!!! The posts here and at Citizenj concern social policy or Western Civilization, including, American Branch. Numerous posts: the truth about homos & women in uniform.

Monday, August 16, 2010

www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com

Fwd: YOU are CORDIALLY INVITED to a FUNERAL...

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 6:08 pm
Subject: Fwd: YOU are CORDIALLY INVITED to a FUNERAL...

...THROWN by OBAMA to CELEBRATE HIS MURDER of NASA

by Richard DePersio (All comsats listed and described at groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic)

(WHAT CAN YOU...

and follow it up with a party at the Capital Building for the purpose of laughing at

congressional logic. BYOB! You will need it when you realize that it is dangerous not funny

regarding AMERICA's SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC FUTURES not to

mention our NATIONAL PRESTIGE!.Let's do a quick review. The Bush Plan: Ending the Space Shuttle Program in 2011 and ......DO TO STOP...

the ISS (International Space Station) in 2015. Replacing the Space Shuttle with the Orion

Spacecraft atop the Ares 1 Rocket in 2013 (due to under-funding goal was pushed back to

2015). The Orion Spacecraft would take astronauts to the Space Station, to the Moon in

2020 and Mars in 2035. The Ares 1 would be used by Orion to get to the Space Station and

to the Moon. The Ares 5 Heavy-Lifter would be able to lift as much weight to earth orbit as the

Space Shuttle and be unmanned. It would lift the propulsion system needed to go to Mars

and beyond and be operational by 2016. ...THE...

The Obama Plan canceled the Shuttle in 2010 too but extended lifetime of Space Station to

2020. Orion, Ares 1, Moon Base, Ares 5 all scrubbed. SpaceX's Falcon 9 would bring

cargo to Space Station beginning in early 2012 and astronauts in early 2014. The private

sector would be responsible for earth to earth orbit and back. A Heavy-lifter would be NASA's

job and be ready by 2016 but it wouldn't be Ares 5. Mind you, he wants to terminate

Constellation Program (Orion, Ares 1, Altair - moon lander - Ares 5) on which we already

spent $9 billion - it would go down a presidential black hole! He favors the commercialization

of space - a capitalistic idea? We subsidize the Oil and Agricultural Industries, Fannie

and Freddie and, now, the auto industry, commercial and investment banks - all

uncapitalistic and wrong! Obama had to give SpaceX an additional $1 billion and it

sill won't meet it's 2012 and 2014 goals! .....MADNESS..

We don't object to SpaceX using NASA facilities for R & D and picking the brains of NASA

experts. The House Plan calls for spending less on SpaceX then Senate - both

less then Obama wants - - both too much in our opinion. Private industry is at it's best

when their is a minimum of government interference not when their heavily regulated and

worse funded and controlled by BIG GOV. The House Plan calls for developing space

hardware largely based on Orion, Ares ! and Ares 5 while the Senate to a lesser degree.

Both do away with Moon landings leading to a base and extend lifetime of Space

Station to 2020. PUTTING THE CART AHEAD of the HORSE... The Senate gives equal priority to Heavy-lifter and NASA vehicle for earth to earth orbit to earth by 2016 (and, perhaps, eventually,system will be part of beyond earth orbit mission system for 2025).Both are under-budgeted. House is under-budgeted but gives priority to returning NASA to earth orbit and spreading money over more years - Heavy-Lifter by 2019 - - for what purpose if Space Station ends in 2020 and we don't plan to leave earth orbit until 2025!

..SEE...

THE ELEPHANT in the ROOM...Let's assume SpaceX can succeed in spite of gov

interference. It can't do cargo by '12 and crew by '14. We are going to have to pay

Russia an astronomically large price tag to take astronauts to our Space Station - we

paid bulk of the cost! The HUMILIATION!!! We BEAT THEM in MOON RACE, we will

have to beg them for a ride on their timetable! The Three Space Shuttles have been

certified Flight-Capable for over 75 more missions a piece. Spend less on SpaceX -

subsidizing is socialistic and don't pay Russia to carry us like a baby. NASA

shouldn't be grounded.WE are the GREATEST!!! With the money saved, we can afford

7 to 10 Shuttle Missions over next three years and, perhaps, 12 to 15 over next six

years. $3 billion additional can get us Ares 1 by between 2014 and 2016 ending Shuttles Remember: NASA is unique gov program; NASA gives a $7 return in the form of pure science and spin-offs/applications (technology)on each dollar it's budgeted and creates jobs unlike

Obama(NASA and private companies that contract with NASA have begun issuing

pink slips.because Obama is spending tax-payer money irresponsibly and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!!! TWENTY-SIX BILLION to states to save jobs of teachers and police because governors and mayors are afraid of unions and won't act to cut wasteful spending. Spend like Obama until the dollar is worthless!

He's A.D.D..-ing.You know the rest of Citizen's Reporter's Plan regarding Moon, NERVA,

X-37B. ...BELOW...

Ladies and gentlemen, What makes more sense: extending Shuttle for 4 to 6 years or

giving money to Russia and subsidizing another private company. What makes more

sense: Saving as much of Ares 1 and 5 as possible or staring from scratch like

Obama wants to do?Recently, NASA announced that for $2.5 billion it can have an Upgraded New-Version Shuttle that can lift only half as much as present Shuttle but be capable of lifting as much by 2020I It would have the large external fuel tank and two solid booster rockets but instead of portion of Shuttle that looks like a space plane, it would have something similar to Orion/Ares 1which some day can be part of beyond earth orbit missions.NASA builds on existing technology which is a cost-effective.

and safe thing to do while it develops new technologies.

Shuttle by 2016 which can lift only half as much as present Shuttle.

EXTEND LIFESPAN OF SHUTTLE FOR FOUR TO SIX YEARS AND SAVE, MODIFY

and BUILD ON WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THUS FAR IN

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM.... TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE....TIME IS RUNNING

OUT. YOU MUST PHONE AND/OR LEAVE A MESSAGE AT WEBSITE OF 9 KEY

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS - EVERYDAY THIS WEEK, SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY.TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY - - - ONE TO THREE PER DAY.

SENATE PHONE: 202-224-3121; HOUSE PHONE: 202-226-7200 GET THE PHONE
NUMBERS OF YOUR TWO U.S. SENATORS AND ONE US. CONGRESSMAN.

USUALLY, SENATE OPERATOR WILL SUPPLY ALL INFO. YOU NEED NOT KNOW THEIR NAMES BUT YOU MUST KNOW STATE IN WHICH YOU LIVE!

TWO KEY PLAYERS: SHELBY (R; ALABAMA) and NELSON (D; FLORIDA).

(www-?)Nelson.senate.gov/public/ PHONE: 202-224-5744; SHELBY: 202-224-5274.

Conrad, Greg, Sprant, Ryan

NASA RESTORED AS MAIN SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ENGINE OF ECONOMY.

NEITHER PLAN IS GOOD BUT HOUSE BETTER THEN SENATE PLAN. NEITHER PLAN
PREVENTS AMERICAN HUMILIATION!!! WE WILL NO LONGER BE NUMBER ONE
IN SPACE AND THAT WILL DO GREAT DAMAGE TO OUR PRESTIGE AND OUR ECONOMY!!!!

Monday, August 2, 2010

Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:26 am
Subject: Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

Fair and Balanced. Honorable Opposition Below.

New Welcome Message at /group/rickcosmos-eclectic

Check out and consider joining one or more new sites: NASA_Ares, NASA and THE Meeting Place (Adult; contribute something: G or PG) at Facebook. ( Join rickcosmos-eclectic group site; visit don't join following): groups.google.com/group/

newfederalism, /group/spcosmology, /group/yellowfeverlime or yellowfeverlime101

nasa-ares, nasa-ares-associate, facebook-nasa-ares at Twitter
Warning: latest post at www.rickcmtsite.blogspot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: sci.space.policy@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:25 pm
Subject: Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

by Richard DePersio (groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic to our Cyber-Friend

/group/sci.space.policy

There are members of NASA and of Congress who are proposing

replacing Ares 1 with a new version of the Space Shuttle. Like the present Space Shuttle

the new version would have virtually the same two solid booster rockets (as would Ares 1)

and the large external fuel tank. Instead of the space plane portion, it would have a

cylinder with an Orion spacecraft on top. This smaller version would likely carry 3

astronauts instead of 4 as would the Altair Moon Lander if New Moon Program isn't

canceled. The proposal also calls for the Ares 5 Heavy-Lifter or a version of it in order to

visit Mars or an asteroid. The 3-man Orion could dock with Space Station or with Altair

landing on moon. Both crafts would be about one-third smaller then originally planned

but one-third larger then Apollo and LM. The Mars Orion would still have to be capable of

carrying 6 astronauts.

We at CR believe that this would be acceptable to us Ares 1 fans. There is a major

drawback though - there always is: It won't be operational for 3 to 4 years. Again, we

insist that present Shuttle (each of which have been certified capable for over 75 flights

apiece) be extended for 2 to 4 years. Alternative: Humiliation; NASA grounded for 3 years

or more. We would be dependent on Russia (who we beat in the Moon Race) and/or

China (our Banker) to talk us to our Space Station - we paid bulk of the cost - on their

schedule - - to add insult to injury, Russia has already made it clear that they are going to

charge us an astronomical price tag! Obama doesn't care about U.S. embarrassment

and is hell-bent on laying off Shuttle, Orion, Ares and Altair workers.

We stated previously that we were willing to forgo Moon Base due to price tag and offered

original proposals. Three moon missions each lasting 5 to 7 weeks visiting lunar arctic

and antarctic; 4 to 7 follow-up missions if justified by the 3 missions. One of the reasons,

President Bush wanted Americans to return to the moon was to test components,

equipment, experiments and procedures (as well as, tests on the ground, in earth orbit,

en route to moon) for a Mars mission in 2035. We can still due that and without a base.

We can do it during 3 or more moon missions. Hopefully, lunar mining will be encouraged

by what's learned during those missions. We shouldn't muck-up a pristine area for mining

(this is for the sake of environmental wackos, of course, they'll demand no mining). Joint

Project: NASA and Private Sector beginning in 2025 (if missions between 2020-2023 justify

it), geologists, metallurgists, surveyors and support teams explore an area scientifically and

for the purpose of determining if it is a potentially economically viable area for mining. The

private sector takes it from there. They will construct mining camps.

Additional Proposal: We might do the above plus built a small NASA Base if practical to use

moon water for service module: water for drinking (as well as, recycled urine) splitting water

for oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for nuclear thermal (see our proposals in four articles at

www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com) rocket engine. Launching Orion with it's service module from

moon orbit would be a lot cheaper then launching from earth's stronger gravitational field. We propose that The Heavy-Lifter might not be needed or we can make due with a smaller, less powerful one to bring transfer module to lunar orbit with just enough hydrogen to get there. We can

launch it to lunar orbit where the Orion Command and Service Module is already in lunar orbit.

Altair and unmanned crafts can bring water to service module and transfer module from lunar

surface - cheaper then lifting it from earth's surface.

The transfer module can use Ares 5 or 2 liquid (safer then solid; H aboard transfer module) booster rockets and large external fuel tank.

We also proposed a mini-Orion or and operational-version of AF X-37B - both of which would be

easier to move and maneuver from the ground then as regular satellite - using heavy-lifter to park

it near our GPSs to temporarily move them if they became a target during a war or replace them

when necessary as a backup.

Or, Obama Plan to place "NASA in a Casket," give SpaceX unrealistic timetable and make Russia

a super-power again! (Russia orders Obama to shrink Bush Missile Shield, Obama obeys, Russia

announces that it has unstoppable missile; Russia declares that it has fighter jet as good as our

best fighter - the F-22, Obama orders production to stop on F-22s).

Fwd: Facebook | NASA's New Direction

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 2, 2010 10:14 pm
Subject: Facebook | NASA's New Direction

Click on "New Direction and Others" at site. I won!  http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/NASAs-New-Direction/324649085212?ref=ts  --- This message was sent by rrdd3939@aol.com via http://addthis.com.  Please note  that AddThis does not verify email addresses.  Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar:  http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Fwd: THREE LAUNCH PADS TO THE FUTURE

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 3:28 am
Subject: Fwd: THREE LAUNCH PADS TO THE FUTURE

EDITOR'S NOTE: OUR SLOGAN IS: "FAIR and BALANCED."

A POST FROM THE HONORABLE OPPOSITON FOLLOWS WHICH IN TURN IS FOLLOWED BY THREE MORE SPECIFIC POSTS FROM OUR SIDE.

Sent: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 3:24 am
Subject: Fwd: THREE LAUNCH PADS TO THE FUTURE

1) SENATE Sub-Committee on Justice-Commerce-Science (that's logical!)

2) HOUSE Committee on Science-Technology 3) CITIZEN REPORTER groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic
1)A: 3 more Space Shuttle Flights B: Orion Continues C: Ares 1 cancelled D: Development begins on a new Heavy-Lifter somewhat based on Ares 5 begins next, completed 2016 E: Taxpayer money spent on private/commercial sector development of earth-to-orbit-to-earth capability - $6 billion over 8 years F: Moon Base Cancelled G: Money spent on NASA developing new technologies reduced 2)A: 2 more Space Shuttle flights B: Orion continues C: Ares 1 may or may not be cancelled D: Development of Heavy-Lifter largely-based on Ares 5 begins next year, completed by 2016 E: Taxpayer money for private sector - $4.5 over 8 years F: Moon Base cancelled G: Money spent on developing new technologies less then Senate Sub-Committee 3) A: Space Shuttle program extended for 2 to 4 years B: Orion continues C: Ares 1 continues D: Ares 5/Saturn S-N Combo More money spent developing new technologies, including, nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear-generator E: Aid to private sector - less then $2 over 3 years for NASA consultation and use of NASA facilities F: Moon Base cancelled; 4 missions to Moon in 2020 and 2021 Lunar 'arctic' and 'antarctic' regions and 3 to 5 additional missions if justified by the 4 missions Plans subject to change as they go through congressional process. We must continue our plan to save NASA with monthly phone call and/or message left at website of the 9 key members of Congress; info available at www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com, rickscisite.blogspot.com, YouTube: Rickaddsite. Each of the 3 shuttles are certified for over 75 more missions. It's a disgrace for U.S. to be dependent on Russia (whom we beat in Moon Race and have made it abundantly clear that they are going to charge us an arm and a leg; what if they don't comply with our scheduling and scientific 'window' requirements) and/or China (our banker!) to take us to and from our Space Station - international my foot, we paid bulk of the cost! - for 4 to 6 years while we're grounded; important science to be done at Lunar poles; Ares 1 can get Orion or modified X-37B can get us to Space Station in 2 to 4 years; spend more to built on existing technology and create new technologies for economy's sake. Obama wants the two top priorities of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration to be: 1) Making Muslims feel good about themselves:

their historic contributions in science, math., engineering (International Psychotherapy and

2) Green 'Hockey Stick' pseudo-science. Obama learned science from scientific illiterate Al Gore!

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Fwd: SAVING "CONSTELLATION"

EDITOR'S NOTE: WE PRESENT THE OPPOSITION; WE ARE FAIR AND BALANCED. WE ENCOURAGE
OPPOSING VIEWS FOR ALL OUR WEBSITES (LISTED AT: groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic).
Thank you, Al.

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Globus <alglobus@gmail.com>
To: Rickcosmos <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 1:10 am
Subject: Re: SAVING "CONSTELLATION"

Constellation is a turkey. Already late. Not enough money. No funds for a lunar lander. No Ares I until 2017. Dump ISS in the ocean in 2015. Canceling it is the best thing that's happened to human space in decades. The key feature of the new program is commercial human launch. Huge game changer for the better.

The new plan, particularly the original before Congress got ahold of it, is MUCH better. See http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-space-policy-targets-launch.html and http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy.html for details.

On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:

> Check out first four posts at www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com and frst
> five at rickscisite.blogspot.com
> It includes recent Senate Sub-Committee on Justice-Commerce-Science
> (that sure makes sense!) and
> House Committee on Science and Technology and "Citizen Reporter"
> proposals concerning NASA. You
> want new technology as do we; we also want to build on existing
> technology which makes technological
> and fiscal sense (since NASA no longer has virtual 'blank check that
> it enjoyed in '60's and it too eventually
> makes it's way to the private sector)Saving "Constellation" or the
> bulk of it accomplishes those objectives
> plus saves the jobs of those involved in Shuttle (must be extended 2
> to 4 years; SpaceX is already over budget
> and can't reach it's goal of transporting cargo to space station by
> early 2012 and astronauts by early 2014) and
> "Constellation' Programs.
>
> On May 29, 1:24 pm, Al Globus <alglo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the decision to kill Constellation is a sound one. I think
>> that the new space policy is much, much better.
>>
>> Here's why: (from my bloghttp://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy...)
>>
>> Prologue: I want to build space settlements. I want Life to grow
>> outward from this beautiful but tiny planet and fill the solar >> system.
>> This is technically feasible but incredibly difficult (for engineers,
>> that's the fun part).
>> Yesterday's space program was all about putting a very small number >> of
>> people on the Moon entirely at enormous government expense. It wasn't
>> doing much for space settlement. For space settlement, we need to put
>> huge numbers of people in space mostly at their own expense. The key
>> is much, much better transportation from Earth to space because today
>> it costs thousands of dollars per pound and the failure rate is a
>> percent or two. Yet another expensive government owned transportation
>> system, as we were developing, can't deliver. We need better
>> technology, a private sector human-rated launch industry so people >> can
>> buy a ticket with their own money, and, above all, much higher launch
>> volume. Today, the whole world launches less than 100 times per year.
>> At that rate we'll never settle space.
>>
>> In Paths to Space Settlement I identified three near term projects
>> that would develop most of the technology and infrastructure >> necessary
>> to settle the solar system: space tourism, space solar power, and
>> planetary defense. President Obama's new space policy takes a big >> step
>> for all three.
>>
>> Much of President Obama's new space policy, about $2 billion/year, is
>> to develop better Earth to orbit transportation and, especially,
>> develop private sector companies to take people into orbit. After a
>> year of ramping up, the budget provides $1.4 billion per year to help
>> private firms develop human-rated launchers and successful companies
>> will have a core tenant flying government astronauts to the
>> International Space Station (ISS). But the real payoff isn't flying >> to
>> the ISS, it's space tourism. In "Researching the Space Tourism
>> Market," Crouch estimates that at $100,000/flight about 400,000 >> people
>> will want to go a year. Even with a 100 person vehicle, and the
>> largest today carries 10, that would pay for 4,000 launches a year.
>> There are many surveys supporting traffic at similar levels and >> higher
>> if the price comes down. Furthermore, Bigelow Aerospace has launched
>> two small space hotel prototypes and plans to launch a full sized
>> system in a couple of years, but there will be no customers without a
>> private sector vehicle to bring them there. President Obama's new
>> space policy may be just the ticket.
>>
>> The other big potential market for launch is space solar power (SSP)
>> -- gathering solar energy in huge satellites with wireless power >> transmission to Earth. For SSP to supply 1/3 of today's energy needs
>> would require approximately 125,000 launches of a heavy lift vehicle
>> capable of taking 500 tons to orbit (the largest vehicle today can
>> lift perhaps 40 tons). President Obama's budget allocates almost $600
>> million/year to develop heavy lift launch technology. SSP development
>> is not part of the new program, the policy's biggest deficiency, but
>> vehicle development won't start for a few years giving SSP advocates
>> time to make the case for SSP-related requirements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy also quintuples NASA's planetary defense
>> budget, from $4 million to $20 million. This will not only help find
>> asteroids in time to deflect them before hitting Earth, but locate
>> most of the larger near-earth asteroids which will tell us where the
>> materials we need for space settlement are. For example, one of the
>> key problems in orbital settlement development is access to >> sufficient
>> materials as millions of tons of radiation shielding and structure >> are
>> needed. Building an orbital settlement co-located with an asteroid
>> solves this problem very nicely.
>>
>> The new budget also ramps up to $3 billion/year to develop and
>> demonstrate new space technology, including fuel depots, life >> support,
>> and space resource utilization, which will help when the time comes >> to
>> build space settlements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy does a lot of other sensible things. For
>> example, the old policy, after spending something like $100 billion >> to
>> develop the ISS, planned to destroy it five years after completion >> and
>> had very few plans to actually use it. The new policy extends the
>> ISS's life and provides funds to actually use the ISS for America's
>> benefit. The new policy also increases Earth observation funding
>> substantially so we can understand what is happening to Earth and
>> perhaps avoid creating serous problems.
>>
>> President Obama's space policy abandons "Apollo on Steroids," the
>> third attempt to recreate the glory of the brilliant 1960s era >> program
>> by going back to the Moon and on to Mars. Apollo was great. It ended
>> 35 years ago. Get over it. We don't need "Apollo on Steroids," we >> need
>> a program that benefits the people of Earth and lets millions of us >> go
>> to space on their own dime. I doubt that Obama read Paths to Space
>> Settlement before creating his space policy, but he might as well
>> have. Brilliant!
>>
>> On May 16, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I spent much of the day on Twitter and Facebook encouraging people >>> to
>>> contact the
>>> Chairmen and Ranking Members of House and Senate Budget Committees
>>> suppling
>>> email addresses.Further, I recommended that they contact Shelby of
>>> Alabama and
>>> Nelson of Florida, as well as, their senators and congressman. I
>>> suggested that they
>>> visit comsat-ak.blogspot.com for "Mission Statement" which might >>> give
>>> them ideas
>>> as to what to say in emails. I have other ideas and would like to >>> hear
>>> yours. I'm
>>> a member of your group. Quid pro Quo: How about joining: "Cosmic
>>> Trinity" at: groups.
>>> google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic and NASA_Ares at Facebook or
>>> Twitter.
>>> Does the group or any members want to work with me on CONSTELLATION
>>> Project?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
>> If we had gotten serious about space solar power (SSP) in the 1970s
>> it's quite likely that we would not be in the global warming and
>> energy pickle we find ourselves in today. Let's make sure we're not
>> saying the same thing in 2040.
>>
>> For details see:http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
>>
>> Al Globushttp://alglobus.net
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Solar Power (SSP) can solve our energy and global warming problems. For details see: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/

Al Globus
http://alglobus.net

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Fwd: "THERE'S AN OLD ARMY SAYING..." VERSION 3 UPDATED SUPPLEMENT

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 9, 2010 1:40 pm
Subject: Fwd: "THERE'S AN OLD ARMY SAYING..." VERSION 3 UPDATED SUPPLEMENT

(Double) Editor's Note: Bizarre!?! This constitutes a 3-part series (all material updated and expanded). It gets tricky to follow...Part One sans article proper followed by an update followed by a hybrid: all concerning economics, including NASA's role in it; American history; missile defense; other things.

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To:
Sent: Sat, Feb 6, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: "THERE'S AN OLD ARMY SAYING..." VERSION 3 UPDATED SUPPLEMENT

PREFACE:

EDITOR'S NOTE: rickcosmos' (Richard DePersio) high school teachers and college professors

would have a field day with article and supplement and utterly relish giving him a BIG FAT 'D' and

he would enjoy it immensely!! He wrote articles back then and not book reports and term

papers to their dismay and frustration. They would turn the BIG FAT 'D' into a BIG FAT 'F' because

of the supplement with a preface and a game. Let the A.D.D. good times roll. He hated school and

driving teachers up the proverbial wall but took great proud in his self-education.

Let the games begin...There is a contest at group site: groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic The three questions are:1) Who was the Patron Saint of hookers; 2) Who remembers Topper and Harvey; 3) What odd couple is alleged to be members of the "Illuminati" (Saw movie "Angels and Demons" but that won't help you with question)?

The prizes: a BIG WET KISS for one correct answer, two BIG WET KISSES for two correct

answers and five BIG WET KISSES for three correct answers (by reservation only). Everyone is

eligible except homos and you must be a female between the ages of 18 and 70. (Answers at

end of supplement; don't peek; honors system: you can only collect your prize if you can refrain

from peeking - which is hard for girls to do!). (The end of preface shouldn't be 'red' Just realized it

and too lazy to rectify it (memories of school days!).

"Journey from the Earth to the Moon" Western Europeans, especially, the smelly French have

always looked down at us (The British are true friends). Yet, Jules Verne, Frenchman, was a

visionary and science prophet (he and the Englishman, H.G. Wells, are called the "Fathers

of science fiction; although, there are those who only recognize one - it has been a raging debate for decades. Wells was a science teacher and Verne was self-educated in science and had

many friends who were scientists. They were 'science' science-fiction writers. Is your ADDed

reporter going off on a tangent!) who chose a site in Florida not far from today's space center. Why would he think that the first flight to the moon would take place from the U.S. and

not his beloved France. How unlike a Frenchman not to be a snob!. He believed that the U.S. had great potential and would soon be number one in science, technology and economics. He

penned his book in the 1860's. It was around 1870 to 1900 that we began our move to number one. We won the trophy in '20 and held it to '29 and regained it between '43-'46. Verne was indeed a science prophet! In a fit of madness they gave us the Statue of Liberty circa 1880 for our growth as a nation,

in the hope that we would remain true to our ideals and that France would move in our direction (of course, they didn't; they even have a unionized army! Wait! The way things are going that could happen here!). So un-Frenchy! Our growth in the '40's - atomic age, the '50's - the television age and the '60's - the space age. Problems began in the '70's when we reduced spending on the space agency - a unique federal program which benefited so many of the sciences and was at the cutting edge of developments in electronics, computer technology, micro miniaturization, engineering (other government programs are limited to just one thing) which enabled our enemies in World War 2 - Germany and Japan - which we rebuilt after the war (what a strange thing for the WINNERS? to do after a war) and set them on the right path in science and technology so that they could begin breathing down our economic necks by the '70's. Germany and Japan were tied for second by the '80's. Japan fell due economic crisis in Japan in '90's - tried to spend their way out of it - - sound familiar?: FDR before and Obama now. Rebounded after 2000 with sound policies and was replaced by China in 2005 which placed. (An economic miracle begun by China in '85. Today, we still have the world's richest and biggest economy but it is shrinking .China is number two while Japan shows. China (our banker) is expected to take trophy off of our mantle courtesy of Obama by or before 2015. Science and technology

have been the engines of the economy since the Industrial Revolution and now we are number

one in very few areas - one of which is improving existing and creating new medications(new regs could change that Japan is now number one in the most important area: computer/robotic technology. China was a third-world nation until '85 when it began to become a developing nation. They are now an industrialized nation. They will be a post-industrialized nation (or service economy) within 5 years but with a strong industrial base which we failed to do thanks to growing outlandish demand of unions. China makes you dizzy. They moved through the phases even more rapidly then us!

It is broke but can be fixed. NASA only receives 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget. It

should have the budget that it enjoyed in the '60's adjusted for inflation. Obama wants to cancel Orion - Version one to replace space shuttle, version two return Americans to the moon and version three take humans to Mars!.Instead, thanks to the un-American we will have to beg the Russians for a ride to the 'International Space Station' international my foot! It was largely built with American money - when our money was worth something internationally! With it's usual collateral benefits in other areas - unlike other government programs - medicine, solar energy, ion energy, nanotechnology and applications from home to car to office to factory to farm to hospital.Once again, there will be a couple of nations in the world in second place but third or fourth place for U.S. or worse with India's horse on a sprint! Obama is unwilling to take broken and put in that thing that they use to crush cars. We must invest in grey energy - using heat generated in the process of making something...say, steel... to turn turbines to produce electricity for the plant. It's what's done at traditional and nuclear power plants where nothing else is produced in the process - say: steel. Grey plants which produce comparatively little in the way of pollutants don't receive subsidies and have an astronomically high number of regulations most of which are silly or unnecessary or duplicates or expensive or stifle innovation. They shouldn't receive un-capitalistic subsidies but deregulation. We must assume that certain plants are eyesores while solar and wind plants are pretty to explain discrepancy in treatment by green fed gov.NASA could directly or indirectly help develop grey. More importantly, it could play a dramatic role regarding nuclear thermal and ion (see articles at rickscisite.(and rickaddsite)blogspot.com). Experts predict that we will have nuclear fusion plants between 2030-35. NASA could accellerate that process with proper funding for ion and nuclear thermal propulsion and power-generators. Nuclear fusion will be more effective, safer, efficient, cost-effective and bring us closer to energy Independence and for cattle farters and hockey pucks less greenhouse-producing gases then coal, natural gas and oil. During 2008, T. Bone Pickens, oil magnate, ran a lot of radio and T.V. PSAs promoting using all domestic energy sources to achieve energy independence instead of purchasing energy from countries with lower environmental standards then ours (strange: it doesn't bother libs -wait: George Soros has a lot of Brazilian oil stock!). He was willing to put his money where his mouth was by promising to build wind-generators across a whole state. Recently, he reconsidered declaring it wasn't viable but might be in an indeterminate numbers of years. Not surprisingly, story was ignored by lib mainstream media. Hypocrite? No. Shrewd businessman? YES. Obama will continue to spend your green on green! The red-white-blue will soon be yellow!

HOOKERS AND OTHER THINGS...Hint: December. Santa Claus - more precisely, Saint

Nicholas, who amongst other things purchased 6 hookers from a pimp (or whatever, they

were called about 1600 years ago. There is no truth to the rumor that he was a party guy.

Although, there is no record of what became of the 6 pros! Catholics - Roman and Orthodox -

are angry with me. Wait a minute, didn't the Pope demote him in the '70's. No compromising

photos surfaced - there was no photography back then. What about the Shroud of Turin.

I don't want to get in trouble was all Christians.

There were a movie and a sequel in the '40's about Topper and a T.V. series in the '50's.

people have bad memories and think Topper was the ghost - the ghost were Merriam and George.

Harvey was a 6' tall invisible rabbit in the movie "Harvey" starring Jimmy Steward in the'40s.

According to Wikipedia, the Illuminati, "is the name a several groups, both historical and

modern and both real and fictitious." Further, it is rumored that members of this 'secret society'

include Bush and Obama!

WINNERS CAN COLLECT THEIR PRIZES OVER THE WEEKEND!!!

Fwd: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:15 pm
Subject: Fwd: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

UPDATE TO UPDATE: Obama's "NASA in a CASKET." Decisions, he makes now will have lasting effect. Does anyone really think that America will ever leave earth orbit when he wants to shift NASA focus from space to 'hockey stick' pseudo-science and as Charles Krauuthammer of FOX News puts it: "Making Muslims feel good about their historic contribution in science, math., and engineering...group therapy... pseudo-psycho babble...adolescent

diplomacy

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: shelby.senate.com/public/@aol.com
Sent: Mon, May 31, 2010 5:40 pm
Subject: Fwd: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

To: Senator Shelby

Expend Space Shuttle for two to four years,create and replace with declassified unmanned and manned version of Air Force X-37B(if feasible;experimental not in final operational form) which likely be operational in less then four years and call it CONSTITUTION to drive libs crazy! SpaceX is over-budget and can;t reach 2012 goal (cargo) and 2014 (astronauts) Building on proven technology (cost-effective) and cutting-edge technology resulting in Orion/ Ares and Aries/ Saturn S-N Combo(S-N was cancelled in 1970; would have had certified in 1967nuclear thermal engine for third stage) heavy-lifter for which we picked a name that libs will love! until commercial sector is ready to handle earth to orbit to earth with their heavy-lifter, as well as, turn over Orion and CONSTITUTION (Two chemical stages and two solid booster rockets) programs to them when they are capable of responsibility except for nuclear thermal third stage version which should be used by Air Force to place operational mini-Orion or CONSTITUTION - both of which can more easily be moved and maneuvered from the ground then a satellite near GPS to temporarily move it and replace it if necessary - speed would be of the essence- if becomes an enemy target in the future. NASA-version nuclear third-stage with Orion for deep space using reusable first stage and second stages plus liquid boosters (liquid for safety reasons: can be turned on and off). Cost: Recent directive allows for greater cooperation between NASA and military.Check out original theory and proposals at www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com Also check out: YouTube: Rickaddsite - "A Vision of America's NASA's Future," "Citizen Perspective" and "Nick."

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 9:14 pm
Subject: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

Subtitle: WE GOT A PLAN

by Richard DePersio "Citizen Reporter" components listed at groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic, including, NASA_Ares (Facebook; by permission), Twitter: nasa-ares, nasa-ares-associate and nasa-ares-aerospaceguide (by permission),YouTube: Rickaddsite.

Fact: NASA and Boeing were working on X-37B and mini-drone Orion (controlled from ground;

unmanned) in 1993 to carry supplies, equipment, experiments to

ISS (International Space Station; our station, we paid most of the cost, as usual -

worth it but to think that we might be denied access to it by the president who

travels the world putting down America and who learned science from Al Gore!;

we also pay the bulk of the cost of the useless U.N. and the cold-war relic - NATO...

is writer's A.D.D. showing again!?!) and return materials to the earth. There were those

who complained that NASA was behind schedule in completing

station - that wouldn't have been the case if it had the X-37B or mini-Orion. It lost it due to

budget cuts and was taken over by the military (while mini was scrubbed) which always wanted a military

space plane...don't ask; they won't tell. It was the X-37B which was tested

on April 23 (This reporter saw it 'live' on Fox News - the only network which isn't

liberal-biased and gives all points-of-view) and the 'secret' launch was televised! Leading one to suspect that program is closer to operational then they would have us believe.All the military would say was that it would A) Carry new technology for testing

purposes before possibly being used in future satellites and B) lift components

and subsystems into orbit (presumably, for assembly). They denied that it was in

response to last year's Chinese missile knocking out one of it's own satellites -

China claimed that the 'faulty' satellite had to be terminated because it might crash

in a populated area - - many foreign observers, including, American suspected

that China was signalling that it would have no compunction militarizing space if

it so choose (think about comsats and weather sats, especially, GPS during a

war). The Air Force (did you know that it's only the Air Force and CIA that have U.S.

missile programs!) has been developing it since '94; how many tests have they

had?; is it nearly operational? Speculation has it that the X-37B which is about

one- third the size of the shuttle could be expanded to carry 2 or 4 'military'

astronauts (we never had those). The military gives that question a BIG "No

Comment."

PROPOSAL:

1) Most Shuttle, Space Station and CONSTELLATION administrators, managers ,scientists, engineers and

technicians, as well as, many members of congress want the Space Shuttle

extended for two to four years (the green president wants it cancelled).( NASA is a

unique government component - you actually get a return on your investment!

It is estimated the for every dollar invested in NASA - which receives about

1/2 of 1% of the federal budget that we get approximatively $7 back in pure

science and technology - applications and sin-offs: NASA in your phone,

pacemaker, microwave, T.V., car, office, farm, factory, hospital. It is

imperative that we cut federal spending in real terms in certain areas and

we reduce the growth of spending in others, including, so-called entitlement

programs. We must freeze and, in some cases, grow spending in departments,

agencies and programs having to do with national and domestic security.

NASA must be the exception. It only receives a pittance compared to it's

hay days back in the '60s. It is our main scientific/technological engine of

our economy but it must be BIGGER again...tangent?..Is he A.D.D.ing again!).

The danger factor as regards the aging shuttle fleet.All Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,

Skylab astronauts (commanders and pilots) were former test pilots as are

shuttle astronauts (although, some shuttle might be a notch below: fighter pilots) and

all have the "RIGHT STUFF." Exceptions: one Apollo astronaut was a

scientist-astronaut as were a couple in Skylab; there are - unless, we do

something, probably were - many in the the shuttle and the name has been

changed to mission specialist and a new breed known as payload specialist

usually an engineer dedicated to one activity or experiment. Spaceflight

is dangerous business. Talk of it becoming routine back in the '8'0's was

premature to say the least. Commercial spaceflights like airliners can

potentially become routine by 2020. Due to delays with respect to

R & D, the space shuttle no longer represented cutting edge technology when it

first flew in the '80's...I'll get back to the mission specialists...He caught

himself...I'm wasn't implying that they necessarily didn't have the "RIGHT

STUFF...Unlike other areas of NASA due to budget cuts causing R & D

problems, it was predicated on '60's and '70's technology. All shuttles enjoyed

'80's-level technology in virtually all of their systems and subsystems by the

early-'90's. Major upgrade between '93 and '97 and now each of the three are certified for over 75 more flights. We must extend the lifespan of

the shuttle for two to four years during which time, we continue to upgrade it and, if,

possible, have it test Orion command and service module components, after all, your

president said that he would 'tolerate' a mini-lifeboat version of Orion - not that

Ruskkies would hold our astronauts hostage even in the event of war!; Russians

always have one at the ready- which also doubles as a cargo vessel. We extend

longevity of shuttle, would astronauts fly it? We're confident that 95% of commanders

and pilots would...We told you that we would get back to it, people don't have

enough confidence in us...and 50% of mission specialists. No problem. We are

only talking about 7 to 10 flights over two years or more - contigent on progress of Falcon 9 (not promising at this time but we have confidence in private sector) and we must evaluate feasibility and budgetary constraints. Your president extends life of space station from

2015 to 2020 to humiliate U.S. Americans have flown aboard Soyuz and Russians

aboard shuttle - no problem. This president like progressive Wilson doesn't have

deep love of country - yes, we're questioning level of patriotism, Obama hasn't to

the best of our knowledge instituted sedition yet(Soon, we might not be able to write things like this as Obama takes control of internet) like Wilson - nor a profound

interest in American history and Constitutional Law. FDR wanted to reinvent

America, damaged it severely, but I think loved it and respected what it had been.

Obama is the first president to travel the world for the purpose of knocking U.S.

Human beings - and they were American - walking on a heavenly celestial body

for the first time - - we won the space race and dramatically demonstrated to

the world the superiority of our space technology and indirectly our military

technology - for the two technologies are related. We will have to beg Russia

(whom we beat) to fly us to our space station (international, my foot, we footed

most of the cost) and they've made it clear that they will charge an astronomical

price. What if they refuse to fly us or fly us when we need to be flown due to scientific windows or scheduling considerations. Do you

think that this president - bowing: how low can he go - will have the Bs to tell

Russia to keep their putin hands off of our station - he's no Bush. Worse yet,

riding our banker's Shenizhou! Obama wants the private sector to carry tourists

and astronauts to and from space station. Unlike Obama, this reporter is a

capitalist and not a Marxist and he is also realistic. The private sector would

have to do R & D with NASA for at least 2 years to develop a vehicle followed

by at least 2 years of tests flights.It should be able to conduct some cargo missions beginning around 2014 and astronauts missions in approximately 2016. It will become operational and virtually

independent of NASA except for periodic inspections for some times they will be carrying NASA cargo and sometimes precious cargo -

astronauts missions approximately 2016 after 6 years of humiliation if Obama has his way. And,

further, there is no guarantee that national and international commitment to

station will last until 2020. You're right, sometimes, the writer wears science some times

hat and, sometimes, political hat.

2) We made the case for extending the space shuttle. And, now for a proposal that

we haven't heard elsewhere: what about the X-37B. The Air Force has been

secretly working on it since '94. Allowing launch to be televised would serve to

indicate components had been tested on the ground followed by sub-orbital

flights followed by orbital ones. They showed confidence in it via T.V. could a

modified version - modified for security reasons - be employed by NASA within

two years to ship materials to and from station? Would it surprise anyone if the

Air Force had blueprints for, and more then that has a mock-up of a 2- or 4-

manned version? And, further, that it is prepared to conduct a suborbital flight in two years. We wouldn't be surprised.

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo had unmanned suborbital tests prior to human

occupancy. The shuttle was the exception. The military will have to come-up

with a cover story. Telemetry: Russia, China and other countries would know that

men were aboard. It's being developed to repair military satellites? Russia, China

and U.S. have military sats and sats that are used for military purposes and it hasn't

been considered a violation of the international treaty on the militarization of space.

Pleasant surprise: have NASA astronauts sub-tests for AF and then thumb our nose at Russia

and China. NASA should go with less expensive 2-manned version. Green

president wants to shift focus of NASA from space science to 'hockey stick' pseudo-science. Sure he's committed to deep space!

We can't afford to be too pushy. Outlandish? This reporter contends that

speculation has been plausible and reasonable.

3) Don't cancel "Constellation" Program. The Ares heavy-lift rocket was suppose to to be operational by 2015 and Americans were suppose to return to the moon as part of an international team with the EU or EU and Russia. Forget about it! We will do

it with our real friends: England, Canada, Australia and Isreal (?), Georgia, Czech

Republic and Poland and our semi friends: Quirter and UAE (because they have

green stuff. We would pay 50% of the cost, Quitar and UEA - 27%, England and

Canada - 18%, Isreal, Georgia, Check Republic and Poland - 5%. $s would determine

where facilities would be built and how many, level of responsibility, number of seats

and backup seats per country. We would get the most, of course. We would be

in charge, of course. We would develop certain technology in the program separately from the others so that are private sector can eventually benefit from it! Obama plan wouldn't

put us in charge, he is diminishing us in prestige. Israel might very well be our

best friend in the world. Although, president with Muslim roots is jeopardizing

that relationship. Every president from Truman to Bush has claimed a balanced

approach as regards Middle East while in reality learning slightly in Israel's favor.

He's leaning the other direction. Or, we can say to Muslims: "Play ball if you want to be on the winning team!"It might help peace process. The other team being the EU or the EU and Russia. China, India and Japan are question marks. We could include them on our team. Peaceful competition can accomplish more. We're not suggesting cold war-like competition. Buzz Aldrin likes Obama's plan and is in minority,

as far as, former astronauts, including, even BIGGER WORLD-HERO ARMSTRONG.

We hate to say this but he seems to have lost it. Recently, we saw clip of him

on wresting show (He did suffer a nervous breakdown after his return to earth).

About a month ago, he wrote about Russia's Soyuz and A2 rocket which they

have been sing since late '60's - it has been modernized and upgraded a number

of times put never with cutting-edge technology, otherwise, it might necessitate

a name or number change. He praised this approach and indicated that it would

be good for us. We've been there. Gemini was 90% based on Mercury and Apollo

25% based on Gemini. Mercury was atop Atlas and Gemini - Titan. Slight

modifications were made to Titan from what we learned from Atlas. Saturn 1B

and Saturn V were rockets in truest sense. They weren't modified missiles like

Atlas and Titan. Our first space station, Skylab, consisted of the Apollo command

and services modules, the lunar lander and a Saturn V third stage outfitted with

equipment and experiments instead of containing fuel. The shuttle was brand-new.

What's wrong with building on it? In another article, Buzz states that "Constellation"

is based on Apollo and Shuttle. We need brand-new cutting edge technology. Buzz

is a rocket scientist, this writer has a lot of nerve disagreeing with Buzz but while

about 75% of Program takes Apollo and Shuttle technology up a few notches which

is good from a safety perspective, it also involves cutting edge technological

development in areas like solar energy-generation (that should please hockey

pucks), nuclear energy-generation, ion propulsion, medical equipment, space suits,

construction and materials engineering and more - much of which will find applications on Terra fer-ma. It would combine Buzz's apparently contradictory articles

4)Let's be practical - money! We should forgo years building and using a moon base.

We're not talking abandoning moon.For technical and budgetary reasons, we should have 4 to 7-week mission to between lunar north and arctic circle and south pole and antarctic circle and the moon's backside at the antartic circle with a satellite in

orbit high above moon so that astronauts can keep in touch with home for 5 weeks during 2020.

Up to 5 follow-up missions(2021-2023) will take place if NASA can justify returning to a particular

site one or more times or returning to new site.Private sector should begin Lunar mining in 2025. It would necessitate geologists, metallurgists, surveyors to locate promising and viable sites for mining.NASA should participate in this aspect making it scientific as well but not in constructing mining camps. The EU and Russia have

made it clear that they are bypassing moon. China and Japan are competing for

moon while India is an unknown. Will these counties join EU or EU/Russia for Mars?

Russia and EU have also made it clear that they will test technology on the ground,

in earth orbit (how many times?) and in Martian orbit (how many times?). Similar

to approach we took in Apollo. Under Bush plan: tests on ground, in earth and lunar

orbits and at moon base. He wanted a moon base for two reasons: scientific and

technological (developing new technologies, including, technologies for Mars mission.

We wouldn't conduct test missions in Martian orbit prior to a landing.

5)Orion Version One was to replace shuttle. We will eventually turn that over to commercial sector.

Orion Version 2 with 4 astronauts for moon and Version 3 carrying 6 for Mars.

MARS MISSION 1: nuclear thermal - round trip - - 3 months; landing site - equator - - length

of stay - - - 1 & 1/2 to 3 months; length of mission: 4 1/2 to 6 months. Mission 2: Same as MISSION 1 except landing

site between Martian north pole and arctic circle. MISSION 3: Same as 2 except

south. MISSION 4 or 4 and 5 or 4, 5 and 6 (depending on budget constraints): Round trip 6 months;

length of stay 1 & 1/2 to 2 years. Where? Missions 1, 2 and 3 will dictate that.

Bush and Obama called for a Martian mission in 2035. Due to big savings on moon

base, we can move that up to about 2030. We might decide to begin building

a moon base in 2035 and a Mars base in 2033 or 2037. Obama calls for a

manned landing on an asteroid in 2025. Why not? We can consider landing on

a comet and a moon of Jupiter after 2040. At this point a majority, not a large

majority, but a majority, nonetheless, speculate that using suspended animation or

nuclear propulsion or a combination of both or by using matter/antimatter propulsion

that we could visit one or more of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons and visit the nearest

star by 2050 or sooner! And, why not, en route, land on a Plutoid (a large Kuiper-iod) or Oort comet to boot!

SUPPLEMENT:

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Chairman: (www.-?) Sprant.house.com/public/

Ranking Member: Ryan

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Chairman: Conrad.senate.com/public/

Ranking Member: Greg

House: 202-226-7200 Senate: 202-224-3121

Contact your two senators and one congress. You need not know their name but you must

know the state in which you live!

Two BIG NASA proponents: Senators Shelby of Alabama and Nelson of Florida.

All 9 phone
numbers and websites - older posts: "Our Plan to Save NASA." Join the CAUSE!!!

Recommendation: Leave a message at their website demanding shuttle extension and saving most of CONSTELLATION program, perhaps, in combination with upgrade and cutting-edge Saturn S-N which was never built, every month. According to law, the budget is suppose to

be completed by Oct. 1 but never is! In September, leave a message and speak to

staff member. You might want to alternate beginning this month: message and phone calls. Phone numbers available at rickscisite.blogspot.com