|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |