Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:30:25 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"PV" <pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:TIidnRzG2I7hE2fanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>And you'd be right. Obama discussed delaying the Constellation Project

>>>>for
>>>>five years, not shutting down NASA. *
>>>
>>>What did he say NASA was going to be doing during those five years
>>>instead of Constellation?
>>
>> (groups trimmed, subject refocused)
>>
>> You seem to think this is a policy decision - it was a question he 
>> answered
>> at one interview. Among the other things he said about nasa is that it
has
>> lost the ability to inspire. And I really, really agree with that.
>
>When Nasa EXPLORES it will inspire. The Mars rovers did inspire--natch
they 
>are on the chopping block.

Not to mention that the Mars rovers are a lot cheaper than the shuttle
program.
>
>> What would NASA do lacking constellation? My guess would be stick with
>> current technologies, and use the russians (and soon, the europeans and
>> japanese) to ferry people to the space station if needed.
>
>Um, "current" technology or 30-year-old technology?

A big part of the constellation was that it recycles a lot of old
shuttle technology which itself is something like thirty years old.
The shuttle was a huge money pit which is why much of our space
exploration technology is "current" instead of current.
>
>> I don't like the idea of a cancellation, but I don't like a lazy and
>> screwed up NASA making crap either - the shuttle was the single biggest
>> engineering boondoggle of all time. They need something substantial to
do,
>> and political will to let them do it without bull****. I'm not sure
that's
>> possible with the current organization. *

>Private space has been more inspiring with the private space flight, Greg

>Rutan's Space****pOne, Virgin Galactic, the Ansari X-prize and Google's
Lunar 
>X-Prize (demonstrating again geeks are not always the best at naming
stuff).
>
>Plus robotic space exploration would be cheaper, faster and, um,
inspirer.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Pathfinder
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover
>
>-- Ken from Chicago (who does like "Space****pOne" and "Gate****pOne") 
>
I've heard a number of bloggers and podcasters (some of whom are
actual scientists) make the same argument. That NASA should work on
pu****ng the boundaries of research and development with planetary
science and leave the manned space flight to the private companies
which are just beginning to come into their own.
--
"Don't try to be a hero. It's not in the health plan."
        -- Hermes Conrad

Roberto Castillo
robertocastillo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]