|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Eddie Valiant wrote in
: While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't diminish it's value or our return on the investment. Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
I agree that aeronautics is often overlooked when looking at the
accomplishments of NASA. But Apollo did not drain away all of the aeronautics funding either. Think of all of the lifting body,VSTOL and SST research that went on during the 60's. Let's face it, the National Love affair with Aerospace has long since ended and since 9/11 I might even say that America is beginning to hate Aerospace. Especially airliner transport and general aviation. Look at all the draconian regs that have loaded upon GA pilots these days. In addition, it is awfully hard to be a ramp rat these days without being branded as a suspected terrorist. Gene "Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... Eddie Valiant wrote in : While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't diminish it's value or our return on the investment. Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars | Jorge R. Frank | Space Shuttle | 17 | July 20th 03 10:01 PM |
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars | Jorge R. Frank | Policy | 1 | July 17th 03 05:17 AM |