Re: Inexcusable Policy - {Was: Re: Red Tape For SpaceShipTwo}

[Damian Georgeff <damian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings All

How much ($$$) has the Bush administration spent on 'his' war against terror?

However much it is, I would assume that there is less money available for NASA and
many other worthwhile projects.

With this is mind, would it be possible to establish a global collection plate of
a sorts, to allow private people to invest what they can to the cause of space
exploration?

Be Well
Damian



Inat Hajduk wrote:

> [Note: I?m pretty sure this might offend some of the
> more partisan persuasion and I apologize in advance.
> My intent is not to post a partisan or off-topic
> commentary but to respond to something I think is
> really important and not the least bit frustrating of
> course.  I would not post if I did not feel very
> strongly about what I think the government is doing
> wrong in this case.]
>
> Thanks for the post Mark.
>
> : The difficulties with export controls have emerged
> despite the fact
> : that British-owned Virgin Galactic plans to operate
> its commercial
> : spaceflight services initially in the United States.
>
> : "I thought Britain was a relatively friendly
> nation," Rutan told
> : committee members, adding the export-control issues
> also are
> : affecting the financing for the project.
>
> : "We have had to move away from the basic concept of
> this being a
> : foreign-funded development," he said.
>
> Should have known, it was all too good to be true,
> such a fast launch date?Of course, I?m sure we all
> expected red tape to get in the way, what regulars on
> this list would not?
>
> The thing that somewhat surprises me is the
> administrations lack of any movement on this?any
> comments even? (Today's press conference would have
> been a good time, especially to throw reporters and
> the public a curve-ball in some bad times for the
> admin.).
>
> Maybe it is still too early, perhaps ?free-marketeers?
> that they supposedly are, something is still
> forthcoming, but that they let it get to this point I
> don?t think is a good sign.
>
> Perhaps another thing some long-time list regulars
> (and those with good memories ;) well you will now
> anyway) will remember that I have no particular love
> for Republicans of any sort (well the odd Senator
> Chafee or McCain aside perhaps, though love is a very
> strong word ;) or Democrats for that matter.
>
> This administration I find particularly odious.  I can
> definitely say that I oppose every singly
> issue/policy/attitude/rhetoric etc., et al ;) of this
> administration virtually without exception?
>
> Perhaps the one big exception is of course is the
> administration?s space policy.  I think they did
> pretty well in their handling of the Columbia accident
> and have been good about promoting commercial space
> and privatizing NASA.  Though I think a lot of this
> support has been more rhetorical then directly
> benefiting ?startups? and the fledging private space
> industry (Scaled Composites, SpaceDev, etc.).
>
> Again very qualified and limited support on my behalf
> since I am not gung-ho on either count but I think if
> done responsibly, in the interests of U.S. taxpayers,
> such as opening the bidding process for contracts to
> more -all?- parties and perhaps limiting the
> influence-role-etc. of monster
> pseudo-government-contractors like Lockheed, Boeing,
> etc. they would have my support in that at least.
>
> So now they (or their bureaucracy) are holding up a
> technology transfer to Britain????
>
> Is not Britain the only major country in the
> administrations ?Coalition of the Willing??  Is not
> the United Kingdom the one significant and invaluable
> (seriously now, Britain pulls out of Iraq and you can
> kiss the already severely struggling occupation
> goodbye not to mention the embryonic Iraqi
> ?government?) government who has supported the U.S. in
> its horrid occupation and failed fiasco of Iraq?  Is
> not Britain one of the world?s last important U.S.
> allies?  I mean of course I could go on and on here
> (and already have) but come on, this is just
> ridiculous.
>
> If not addressed quickly I who knows what deleterious
> effects it will have on the nascent private space
> industry.  There must be immediate action to fix this
> absurd mistake and keep the private space industry on
> its collective feet (well not even out of the cradle
> really, but I think you get my drift).
>
> Maybe some agree that we have to be careful
> transferring technology to our greatest ally...but
> does anyone really??  I hope not, but I'm sure there
> are some who still harbor some antipathy towards those
> shifty red-coats... ;)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
> www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005

-- 
Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".