A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 19th 11, 07:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now

On Nov 19, 5:35*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:14*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 18, 12:38*pm, bob haller wrote:


On Nov 18, 3:02*pm, Glen Overby wrote:


Val Kraut wrote:
I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with


There are, and always will be, proponents of cutting NASA and, instead,
spending it on pet program "on earth" (aka in their district). *In reality,
all of the money NASA spends is on earth; it's just about sending things into
space.


I never see the government tighten up spending when the economy is weak, and
in the pas few years the argument always seems to be about how the government
should be spending more money to boost the economy.


Glen


spending should be on infrastructure, roads bridges, water serer mass
transit fixed assets like people movers.


why burn money on ISS with mo science payback?


Typical liberal thinking, bobbert. There's always something else to
spend on instead of NASA. And in case you were living in your Luddite
shell, yesterday, there was a Senate hearing on NASA's Exploration
plans for HSF. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) opened the hearing by saying
that there are two drugs either in FDA trials or about to enter said
trials, that were developed on ISS: one's a vaccine for Samonella. ISS
was in the CONSTRUCTION Phase, dolt. Now, they're doing real science.
Big difference. Then again, you're against any HSF, so that colors
your thinking.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


link to that story please, and if nasa had science returns, they would
publicize it.

nasa admits the purpose of ISS is OPERATIONS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


http://www.c-span.org/Events/NASA-Le...n/10737425601/

That enough for the Bobbert?
  #12  
Old November 19th 11, 08:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now

On Nov 19, 1:29*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:35*am, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 18, 9:14*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:


On Nov 18, 12:38*pm, bob haller wrote:


On Nov 18, 3:02*pm, Glen Overby wrote:


Val Kraut wrote:
I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with


There are, and always will be, proponents of cutting NASA and, instead,
spending it on pet program "on earth" (aka in their district). *In reality,
all of the money NASA spends is on earth; it's just about sending things into
space.


I never see the government tighten up spending when the economy is weak, and
in the pas few years the argument always seems to be about how the government
should be spending more money to boost the economy.


Glen


spending should be on infrastructure, roads bridges, water serer mass
transit fixed assets like people movers.


why burn money on ISS with mo science payback?


Typical liberal thinking, bobbert. There's always something else to
spend on instead of NASA. And in case you were living in your Luddite
shell, yesterday, there was a Senate hearing on NASA's Exploration
plans for HSF. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) opened the hearing by saying
that there are two drugs either in FDA trials or about to enter said
trials, that were developed on ISS: one's a vaccine for Samonella. ISS
was in the CONSTRUCTION Phase, dolt. Now, they're doing real science.
Big difference. Then again, you're against any HSF, so that colors
your thinking.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


link to that story please, and if nasa had science returns, they would
publicize it.


nasa admits the purpose of ISS is OPERATIONS- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


http://www.c-span.org/Events/NASA-Le...ture-of-Human-...

That enough for the Bobbert?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


heres a paste of the article wheres the science?

Washington, DC
Thursday, November 17, 2011

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and other top officials discussed
the space agency's broad goals and how they plan to collaborate with
the private sector and international community before a Senate
Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space.

Now that the space shuttle program has ended NASA is dependent on
Russian Soyuz rockets to carry astronauts to the international space
station until private contractors take over the job. Meanwhile NASA is
developing its own new human spaceflight system.

Subcommittee chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL), himself a former astronaut,
heard testimony from Administrator Bolden and the directors of the
three main NASA centers tasked with implementation of the new
exploration program.

The center directors from Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center,
and Marshall Space Flight Center also appeared on the second panel.

Updated: Thursday at 4:16pm (ET)
  #13  
Old November 20th 11, 03:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now

On Nov 19, 11:51*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:29*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 19, 5:35*am, bob haller wrote:


On Nov 18, 9:14*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:


On Nov 18, 12:38*pm, bob haller wrote:


On Nov 18, 3:02*pm, Glen Overby wrote:


Val Kraut wrote:
I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with


There are, and always will be, proponents of cutting NASA and, instead,
spending it on pet program "on earth" (aka in their district). *In reality,
all of the money NASA spends is on earth; it's just about sending things into
space.


I never see the government tighten up spending when the economy is weak, and
in the pas few years the argument always seems to be about how the government
should be spending more money to boost the economy.


Glen


spending should be on infrastructure, roads bridges, water serer mass
transit fixed assets like people movers.


why burn money on ISS with mo science payback?


Typical liberal thinking, bobbert. There's always something else to
spend on instead of NASA. And in case you were living in your Luddite
shell, yesterday, there was a Senate hearing on NASA's Exploration
plans for HSF. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) opened the hearing by saying
that there are two drugs either in FDA trials or about to enter said
trials, that were developed on ISS: one's a vaccine for Samonella. ISS
was in the CONSTRUCTION Phase, dolt. Now, they're doing real science.
Big difference. Then again, you're against any HSF, so that colors
your thinking.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


link to that story please, and if nasa had science returns, they would
publicize it.


nasa admits the purpose of ISS is OPERATIONS- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


http://www.c-span.org/Events/NASA-Le...ture-of-Human-...


That enough for the Bobbert?- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


heres a paste of *the article wheres the science?

Washington, DC
Thursday, November 17, 2011

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and other top officials discussed
the space agency's broad goals and how they plan to collaborate with
the private sector and international community before a Senate
Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space.

Now that the space shuttle program has ended NASA is dependent on
Russian Soyuz rockets to carry astronauts to the international space
station until private contractors take over the job. Meanwhile NASA is
developing its own new human spaceflight system.

Subcommittee chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL), himself a former astronaut,
heard testimony from Administrator Bolden and the directors of the
three main NASA centers tasked with implementation of the new
exploration program.

The center directors from Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center,
and Marshall Space Flight Center also appeared on the second panel.

Updated: Thursday at 4:16pm (ET)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Lunkhead: watch the opening statement of Sen. Nelson. Or is that too
much for the bobbert?
  #14  
Old November 20th 11, 02:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now


"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...

. Then get on with Mars. If they show that Lunar operations can yield a
profit - let the corporations follow - on their dime. But this also needs a
ultimate goal or game plan. Right now NASA seems to be shriviling on the
vine with a president who wishes they would go away and an administrator
that doesn't seem to be providing any leadership.

NASA doesn't have to be reinvented - it just has to return to it's
original function from it's successful days in the 60s.



Exactly the way I feel. NASA's manned propram hasn't been oriented
around profit making accomplishments, but more about national, military
or technological goals. We needed to go to the Moon as much for
political reasons as anything else. So we have some enormously
expensive project having nothing to do with profit making, and later
try to glean some commercial use out of it. Like the ISS, figuring out
what to do with it after it's built. Putting the cart before the horse.

That's why I liked NASA's Space Solar Power program (SERT)
which Pres.George W Bush killed. It would build a few increasingly
larger demonstrators until they had one full scale satellite.
Then the business world would have a way of guaging potential.

Like the government building the first nuclear or fusion power
plant expressly to help start a new commercial industry.
But for NASA to devote it's signature goal to the commercial
industry, the goal needs to be ...Worthy.

Not just a new mouse-trap, but a new future.
Not just new commercial launchers, but a new reason
for having them. The current satellite industry is doing
fine with current launch costs. The costs need to go down
for ..bulk cargo, not specialized small satellites, but
large structures in orbit.

Which is yet another reason I like the idea of Space Solar Power.
What other goal is a better fit for potential 'worth', existing
technology, and global reach than ...Energy?

Unlike any other grandiose goal, SSP has no major hurdles
to climb, the technology is almost entirely well-established.
The construction time isn't dealing with half-century periods
and the current need, and especially for the future is...glaring.

The effects of a new, clean, inexhaustible and (WIRELESS)
energy source would cascade across the planet and time
touching one issue after another. Whether a matter of economic
or social justice issues. Or from a green or military view.
Left, right, rich or poor. All 'sides' could find reasons to
embrace and benefit from a new, cheap and clean
energy source.

I say cheap as in now, since SSP can easily travel to places
no conventional source can travel today. I mean, did AC
power transmission worry at all about competing with DC?

Of course not, their 'ranges' didn't overlap very much.

And as oil prices go up, and technology moves forward, the
idea of SSP gets better and better. Every single day.

SSP is on The Edge of becoming realistic.
NASA is on The Edge of a new reason for being.

It's a marriage made in heaven, in my humble opionion.


Jonathan


s






Val Kraut






  #15  
Old November 23rd 11, 01:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now



"bob haller" wrote in message
...



link to that story please, and if nasa had science returns, they would
publicize it.


I know *I* am not willing to do your homework bob, but I HAVE posted at
least once (twice actually I believe) a list of successful experiments done
on ISS and the link on the NASA page to them.

The problem is most science is BORING so it doesn't make the news.


nasa admits the purpose of ISS is OPERATIONS



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IEEE Spectrum special issue on getting to Mars. Robert Clark Policy 5 June 6th 09 05:05 PM
IEEE Spectrum special issue on getting to Mars. Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 4 June 6th 09 04:58 AM
IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution Jim Oberg History 199 May 10th 05 11:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.