RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > Dan wrote: > > > Well, IMHO, the manned space prog

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > > Too bad that at least nine out of ten people you ask will > have no idea what happened on that date . . .and that > includes people who were alive and old enough to be in school then. Spoil sport! OK. I was 3 1/2. I don't remember the exact date but could

Re: NASA Goes Deep

At 10:08 PM Tuesday 2/27/2007, Doug wrote: >Dan wrote: > > > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess > > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10% > > of that for spending on science. > >How do you think the general public would rank

Re: NASA Goes Deep

Dan wrote: > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10% > of that for spending on science. How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of human achievements? I'm confid

Re: NASA Goes Deep

Original Message: - From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep >One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that >yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better

Re: NASA Goes Deep

At 11:36 PM Sunday 2/25/2007, Max Battcher wrote: >On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something > > that was actually useful? > > If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making > > products tha

Re: NASA Goes Deep

On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something > that was actually useful? > If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making > products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:29 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > It was and it wasn't, eh? > I think we

Re: NASA Goes Deep

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:20 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > IMO, the shuttle era space program (and a

Re: NASA Goes Deep

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: NASA Goes Deep > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20p

Re: NASA Goes Deep

> In hindsight, maybe the pace of progress was > predictable. Humans first explored Antarctica in > the early 20th century. Decades passed before we > had the technology that would allow us to > establish a permanent presence. History will > indicate the same for our interplanetary forays. > Our i

NASA Goes Deep

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1> NASA Goes Deep By CAROLYN PORCO Published: February 20, 2007 Boulder, Colo. — AFTER years of spending our nation’s space budget building an orbiting space station of questionable utility, serviced by an ope