Re: Moon key to space future?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 30 Nov 2003 20:58:19 -0800, in a place far, far away,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (william mook) made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> On 28 Nov 2003 02:39:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen Meece) made the phosphor on my
> >> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> >> 
> >> ><<The World's problems are one of the motivations for travelling in space in
> >> >the
> >> >first place, that is to get away from them.>>
> >> >  While this is true, let's not forget that plain old space tourism will fuel
> >> >the civilian conquest of space.
> >> 
> >> This is likely.
> >> 
> >> >There would be a steady stream of Lunar
> >> >tourists today if Nixon, that ~bleep!, had allowed nasa to follow up the Apollo
> >> >program. (which included a manned Lunar station!)
> >> 
> >> This is a fantasy, not a fact.
> >
> >
> >Now, now - that statement comes directly out of your gut with no
> >analysis whatever.  There is a reasonable probability that a second
> >Kennedy term  expands the space program while adopting more direct
> >international controls to limit and reduce the spread  of nuclear and
> >missile weapons systems.
> 
> There is almost zero probability of that, 

Of what exactly?  That the US adopts a more direct means of control of
WMDs than keeping them secret?  If so, recent statements by the
President and Congress make the probability more like a certainty.

> to anyone who understands
> Kennedy's true attitude toward the space program.

Oh, please tell me, the true attitude of Kennedy toward's the space
program, and how in a hypothetical second term the space program would
not be expanded.  Especially given speeches like;

http://www.rice.edu/webcast/speeches/19620912kennedy.html



> >This isn't fantasy.  
> 
> It is.