Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Excuse me but wouldn't it be better to fund NASA than squander the money on subsidizing, bailing out and stimulating a bunch of fat cats? I mean, this way you encourage bright young people to go into engineering and various scientific fields. You never know what benefits we might reap from it but isn't it better to create employment opportunities for people who can actually get some work done instead of encourage welfare moms to sit on their butts?
Posted by Abu Uluque 2012-02-10 10:42||
#2 Question....with the loss of the Space shuttle, what does NASA do?
Without Buck Rogers, no bucks?
Stay local. Weather satellites and GPS systems were fundamentally government programs, but communication satellites while initially also part of that plan have been largely overtaken by commercial utilization. Imagery, also once the initial purview of government, has also gone private. It's functional.
Exploration for exploration sake is not sustainable. There has to be a purpose and one that is not simply thought up for justify its own existence. That's why we haven't been back even to the moon. No compelling reason. The species has too short a memory and attention span to be motivated to get off the rock. Even commercial efforts at space flight is being largely sold on the 'thrill' and 'unique' aspect rather than some tangible end.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-10 11:17||
#3 How much NASA could we 'buy' with the 1B USD savings from cancelled Egyption foreign aid ?
Just a thought.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-02-10 13:08||
#4 I would love to see us land on Mars before I die but the best way to do that is a series of X-prizes, not some giant NASA mission plan that would take over a decade and cost money we are unwilling to spend at this point.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-10 14:55||
#5 Nasa should be a optional extra on your tax bill. See who really thinks the communist model for space is the one to go for.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-02-10 16:08||
#6 For me, and what a lot of people in space feel about NASA is that it should be the bleeding edge in exploration. It takes the first step since that is usually the most dangerous and expensive. After NASA had charted a path, i.e. low earth orbit, satellites, remote droids, etc., the commercial companies would take full advantage of the inventions and knowledge gained and follow with the commercial aspect.
With NASA not leading the charge anymore, what really is its point? For me, it seems the US has lost interest in the high ground (space) and is in full retreat from the universe.
Posted by DarthVader 2012-02-10 16:43||
#7 I want to see the water/mercury/gold motherload crater on the moon running with robot miners.
Posted by Water Modem 2012-02-10 17:58||
#8 estimated 1.4 - 2.4 Quintillion (1000 trillion ) dollars worth of gold in that crater alone.
Posted by Water Modem 2012-02-10 17:59||
#9 it seems the US has lost interest in the high ground (space) and is in full retreat from the universe.
I agree 100%. We've become totally consumed with stupid "social justice" crap here on earth. We should be doing all we can to get off this rock.
Posted by RandomJD 2012-02-10 18:03||
#10 Maybe people thought Queen Isabella was nuts when she funded Christopher Columbus. A shorter route to China? That never happened, did it? But look what did happen. When you head on out there you just never know.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2012-02-10 18:47||
#11 Maybe we could take one of those "lead from behind" roles. Will NASA have enough to be able to buy some used Dallas Cowboys cheerleader outfits?
Posted by gorb 2012-02-10 21:50||