"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?
Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets
:-),
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
We will get into space in a big way when people are spending their own
money to do so, and not the taxpayers'.
No, we'll fill the new niche of space as soon as our currect niches
are filled. Just as it has been with naturally evolving systems for
eons. Or, we'll move into space big time when that is the best
solution for our needs.
We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels.