[FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Tom

Once again you re-write history to justify your desire to keep NASA focused 
on manned flight to Mars.

Dyna-soar was cancelled mainly due to the fact that reconnaisance could best 
be done unmanned, and secondly because there really was no desire by anyone 
to see nuclear warhead delivery systems based in space.

Now the AF has an operational need to deal with PHOs, as the early warning 
systems regularly sense their detonations. Always has, always will.

The AF satellite tracking systems also detect NEOs at no additional cost, 
always have, always will, so...

But these systems are meant to track satellites, not 75 meter lumps of 
carbon rapidly heading our way from deep space.  Once again, the hazard 
appears includes COMETS and their fragments, besides asteroids.

Now no one else in the world is going to rely on the USAF for PHO warnings, 
anymore than we would rely on China's or Russia's armed forces for this 
service.

"The Congress made a mistake"? No, the NASA Administrator made a mistake in 
thinking that the laws of passed by the Congress are meant to be ignored. 
You make a mistake in encouraging him to do so.

EP
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

>From: "Matula, Thomas L." <MATULAT at uhv.edu>
>To: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at hotmail.com>,<FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: RE: [FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]
>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:58:21 -0500
>
>Ed,
>
>The fact that NASA is not interested in doing anything about the NEO threat 
>other then studying it is all the more reason to assign it to an 
>organization that is interested in addressing it.
>
>Congress made the same mistake with manned spaceflight, taking it away from 
>the USAF in the 1960's and stopping development of the X-20 and for the 
>same reason, namely some belief that space must be the perserve of "pure" 
>civilian science and such military missions were incompatiable with it.
>
>But I will tell you this. Over the years I have organized a couple of NEO 
>sessions at conferences. The folks in the front row are always always in 
>USAF blue while NASA folks, unless inivted, are rarely seen. And when the 
>time comes to stop a NEO the spacecraft that that go out won't have the 
>NASA logo, instead then will proudly carry the USAF insignia.
>
>Again compare what the NASA was doing to search for NEO to what the USAF 
>quietly did with Linclon Labs. And then decide who is better qualified to 
>protect the Earth.
>
>Tom
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
>Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 11:48 PM
>To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]
>
>Hi Tom -
>
> >The reason haven't discussed it in the context of NASA is because I don't
> >think the NASA of today is the proper agency to be given the lead in NEO
> >protection.
>
>Well, Tom, the Congress of the United States disagrees with you.  As a
>matter of fact, they passed a law in December, 2005, which declared that
>NASA is indeed the proper agency to lead the NEO protection effort of the
>United States.
>
>The current NASA Admninistrator, Michael Griffin, now stands in contempt of
>the Congress. Further, he has made the operation of the ISS dependent on
>launch systems which have nearly zero chance of being operational at the
>time required.
>
>Get over it.
>
>EP
>E.P. Grondine
>Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Live Search Maps - find all the local information you need, right when you
>need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you 
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01