User:Mdelaney - Revision history

Strangelv: categorization

2015-04-11T00:25:15Z

categorization

Mdelaney at 02:29, 20 May 2008

2008-05-20T02:29:17Z

Cfrjlr: spam

2007-09-26T13:22:33Z

spam

Mdelaney at 20:09, 8 May 2007

2007-05-08T20:09:57Z

Mdelaney at 01:32, 8 April 2007

2007-04-08T01:32:51Z

Mdelaney: Protected "User:Mdelaney" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

2007-03-19T11:45:08Z

Protected "User:Mdelaney" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

Mdelaney at 11:44, 19 March 2007

2007-03-19T11:44:37Z

Mdelaney at 23:03, 20 October 2006

2006-10-20T23:03:45Z

Mdelaney at 23:01, 20 October 2006

2006-10-20T23:01:12Z

Mdelaney at 22:11, 20 October 2006

2006-10-20T22:11:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:25, 11 April 2015
Line 32:		Line 32:
	\|{{User Past Director}}		\|{{User Past Director}}
	\|}		\|}
		+
		+	[[Category:User Pages]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 20 May 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I do not subscribe to "Space Exploration" in the NASA or Star Trek mold. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end in itself as depicted by NASA and Star Trek.		I do not subscribe to "Space Exploration" in the NASA or Star Trek mold. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end in itself as depicted by NASA and Star Trek.
−
−	~~==Spam==~~
−
−	James, I recommend we disable anonymous logins completely, can you do this? We are only getting spam now, and I cannot keep up with it. [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 13:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

	{\|		{\|

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 26 September 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I do not subscribe to "Space Exploration" in the NASA or Star Trek mold. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end in itself as depicted by NASA and Star Trek.		I do not subscribe to "Space Exploration" in the NASA or Star Trek mold. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end in itself as depicted by NASA and Star Trek.
		+
		+	==Spam==
		+
		+	James, I recommend we disable anonymous logins completely, can you do this? We are only getting spam now, and I cannot keep up with it. [[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 13:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

	{\|		{\|

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 8 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	First let me explain something about myself. I was born and raised in Ireland, I lived and worked in the USA for about 10 years. I returned to Ireland primarily for family reasons. This gives me an unusual perspective on some things, having seen them (to some extent) both from inside and outside.
		+
		+	Just so nobody gets the wrong idea from some of the responses I write on Lunarpedia, I am not anti-NASA, I'm just not spellbound by NASA or most of the models and plans for returning to the Moon presented by them. I believe there are other models we should examine in the pursuit of our goal.
		+
		+	Over the last several years I've seen many ideas bandied about. From preserving the status quo to making NASA the space equivalent of the FAA, and everything in between. All of these ideas have pros and cons and should be examined.
		+
		+	NASA needs to be seen for what it is, a very staid conservative government body that's treated as a political football and generally made to wait around for the money it needs to to the jobs it's told to do only to discover that the politicians have moved the goalposts if they ever do get the funding. NASA should also be viewed as a near-corporate entity, their plans may not be for our lifetimes, but the lifetime of NASA.
		+
		+	NASA has done many great things and will continue to do so, but while some of those great achievements could only have been executed by a government body, some could have been carried out by private companies had they been given the chance.
		+
		+	It is also important in 2007 to realize that there are now several countries with astronaut corps. The EU has expressed an interest in getting properly involved in the ESA space programs. The ESA will have Soyuz launch capability from it's own facilities starting in 2008. The launch infrastructure has been designed so that it can be smoothly adapted for human spaceflight.
		+
		+	So from 2008 it looks like manned launch capabilities will exist for USA, Russia, EU and China and I'm sure the Indians are not far behind. The recent visit of HM Queen Elizabeth II to Goddard Space Flight Center may be an attempt to foster more British interest in space.
		+
		+	I do not subscribe to "Space Exploration" in the NASA or Star Trek mold. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end in itself as depicted by NASA and Star Trek.
		+
	{\|		{\|
	\|{{User Exd Sysop}}		\|{{User Exd Sysop}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{| style="align: right; float: right; border: 0px" cellspacing = 0
+{|
-|{{User Server Admin}}
+ |{{User Exd Sysop}}
-|{{User Member}}
+ |{{User Exd Server Admin}}
-|-
+ |{{User Member}}
-|{{User Sysop}}
+ |-
-|{{User List Master}}
+ |{{User Lunarp Sysop}}
-|-
+ |{{User Lunarp Server Admin}}
+ |{{User List Master}}
-|{{User 3 Digit}}
+ |-
-|-
+ |{{User Marsp Sysop}}
+ |{{User Marsp Server Admin}}
-|{{User Past Director}}
+ |{{User 3 Digit}}
-|-
+ |-
-|}
+ |{{User Sf Sysop}}