|
Author
|
Topic: Where to now? Where should NASA go to next?
|
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 11:35 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I doubt that's even partly the reason for the indifference towards human spaceflight in the USA. Constellation hardly excited the masses and it was a purely US programme
I can attest to the fact that for some it is part of the reason.The ISS is boring. The Shuttle suffers from an identity crises of massive proportions. Even space enthusiasts have been bored by the trucker missions. Combine that boredom with the news reporting the costs of the ISS and then mentioning that the US is a "partner" with others even though they have done the heavy lifting and some do not want their tax money going to benefit other countries. Just like with anything else, you follow the money and people will support or not based on that. Once the people paying the bills have an opinion that their money is being wasted it is near impossible to change their minds. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 12:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The ISS is boring.
The American people got bored with Apollo rather quickly. And Constellation was a 21st century re-run ("Apollo on steroids"). If you want to win back every single one of those "paying the bills", then explain to them why NASA should get the billions it does to send people beyond LEO. They might reply (as I constantly hear from the average Briton) that robots are far less expensive and much more safer than sending astronauts. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-08-2010 12:03 PM
Robots don't pay taxes. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 03:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The opposition to the 2011 NASA budget is mainly coming from Texas and Florida politicians where JSC and KSC are. It's not national.
Really? Geez, here I thought that Lockheed Martin (builder of Orion) was based in another state besides Florida or Texas. Huh.In fact, I thought there were contractors in ...well, a bunch of states! In fact, there are some concerns right here in ol' Dover, DE (where I currently reside), folks I know at ILC Dover are wondering whether they will remain employed in the fallout following the President's budget release. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2010 04:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Geez, here I thought that Lockheed Martin (builder of Orion) was based in another state besides Florida or Texas.
Minor aside, but probably a poor choice of examples: Lockheed Martin's Orion development team is based in Houston. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 06:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Minor aside, but probably a poor choice of examples: Lockheed Martin's Orion development team is based in Houston.
Oh, come on, Robert -- would Orion have been built in Houston?Incidentally, ILC Dover has an office in Houston as well, but they don't construct spacesuits there. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2010 08:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
...would Orion have been built in Houston?
From the NASA release announcing Lockheed as Orion's prime contractor: Manufacturing and integration of the vehicle components will take place at contractor facilities across the country. Lockheed Martin will perform the majority of the Orion vehicle engineering work at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, and complete final assembly of the vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 09:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That's not to say that we cannot leave low Earth orbit, but even when we do, there will be a lot of time concentrated on "installing new toilets" and if you don't understand why, then I would suggest you don't really support manned space exploration, rather you support manned space entertainment.
You are so gun-ho for the ISS you will not admit the basic flaws in the program - it has accomplished nothing for the majority of it's life other than installing toilets and fixing broken items.Little research. Until recently the crew on the ISS was there for maintenance only. You may think the ISS is manned exploration, and that's fine. But to insist that those who do not agree with you are looking for entertainment is demeaning to the participants here and pretty insulting as well. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2010 09:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Until recently the crew on the ISS was there for maintenance only.
Even were I to accept that (which I don't, because a "little research" reveals its not true), what's your point? Any construction of a moon base or six month journey to Mars, for example, would include maintenance as well. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 09:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The American people got bored with Apollo rather quickly. And Constellation was a 21st century re-run ("Apollo on steroids").
No, it wasn't. Just because it was returning to the moon it had much larger objectives than Apollo. quote:
If you want to win back every single one of those "paying the bills", then explain to them why NASA should get the billions it does to send people beyond LEO.
I really don't think NASA should get billions more until they can present a coherent and bold plan to do the impossible. The 5 billion wasted for the last several years on Orion. The billions and billions spent on the ISS and even more on making the shuttle THE space program for the last 30 years, etc.The problem is not lack of money. The problem is how the money was and is being spent. Spend it well, you deserve an increase. Spend NASA money on global warming studies and more shuttle missions and people will not be willing to spend more. quote:
They might reply (as I constantly hear from the average Briton) that robots are far less expensive and much more safer than sending astronauts.
Except Britain does not send astronauts to space. They have others send them to space. That's a whole different discussion.Look, we all want a vibrant NASA manned space exploration program. This discussion and others on this site demonstrate what a mess NASA is in. If enthusiasts do not see common goals how is the average person going to? It may be best to simply scrap NASA and start over with a new organization with clear goals. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 10:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
From the NASA release announcing Lockheed as Orion's prime contractor...
It looks like we are saying the same thing. There are contractors across the country working on Orion. Thus, the effects are national, not just in Texas and in Florida. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 11:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Any construction of a moon base or six month journey to Mars, for example, would include maintenance as well.
And you could add that at least from the ISS, astronauts can share what they're seeing from orbit. During a 6-month trip to Mars, what are they going to show us? The emptiness of space? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 01:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I really don't think NASA should get billions more until they can present a coherent and bold plan to do the impossible.
Constellation wasn't as much "coherent" as unsustainable. Abandon ISS in 2015, visit the Moon by 2020, establish a base (by when?) then head towards Mars (by 2030).Now that would have required more investment than has ever been committed in NASA's history. Not only that, but unproven technologies - some of which don't exist. You ask for one "bold plan to do the impossible". That would be to send a crew to Mars as the beginnings of human expansion and settlement. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-09-2010 08:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Constellation wasn't as much "coherent" as unsustainable. Abandon ISS in 2015, visit the Moon by 2020, establish a base (by when?) then head towards Mars (by 2030).
I am in favor of abandoning the ISS ASAP. It's a massive money pit that will affect everything NASA does. The other goals at least are goals. More than NASA had for most of the Shuttle time or at the moment. quote:
Now that would have required more investment than has ever been committed in NASA's history. Not only that, but unproven technologies - some of which don't exist.
Investment, yes.Unproven technologies? Yes. Are they any more dangerous than "proven" technologies? No. Not when two Shuttles using proven technologies were lost. Space is dangerous. Technology that does not exist? Yes. The same thing mercury, Gemini and Apollo faced and we got from nothing to a moon landing in 8 years. It was a bold impossible goal and it happened. quote:
You ask for one "bold plan to do the impossible". That would be to send a crew to Mars as the beginnings of human expansion and settlement.
I have no problem with that and I would welcome it. However, there is not a chance with the dysfunctional mindset at NASA that they could pull it off. The wasted money, years of work, etc., we need the stepping stone of the moon. without it, we will never get to Mars. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-09-2010 08:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Even were I to accept that (which I don't, because a "little research" reveals its not true), what's your point? Any construction of a moon base or six month journey to Mars, for example, would include maintenance as well.
How can you not accept what is fact - the ISS for most of it's existence was only partially manned and most of those man hours was used to perform maintenance/repair. Is this the case currently? No, they have been flying full or nearly full crews but that does not change the majority of it's time in space to date.What's my point? Well, it's the question of the topic - Where to now? Where should NASA go next? - anywhere outside of LEO and the ISS, anywhere not on the Shuttle, anywhere with a goals using rockets built for the US Manned Space program to take Americans in space to actually do more than circle the earth while millionaires vacation on the ISS in seats that our "partners" sell them to a station the American Taxpayer paid billions for. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-09-2010 10:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
...most of those man hours was used to perform maintenance/repair.
You didn't claim most or majority, you claimed the ISS crew was only performing maintenance and there is a decade of science data to dispute that. quote:
...while millionaires vacation on the ISS.
To date, there have been some 130 people who have lived on the ISS and only seven have paid to go there. Of those seven, only one "vacationed," if by that you mean relaxed and did practically nothing. The other six all participated in and conducted experiments, for themselves, their companies and for the station's partners (including NASA). In other words, they were no more tourists than a temp working in an office. quote:
...American Taxpayer paid billions for.
You make this sound like such a burden, but on average, the cost to the American taxpayer for all of NASA's activities is $50 a year. Of that, only about $6 goes to the ISS. So please stop talking on behalf of all U.S. taxpayers. If you personally would like your $6 back, I'll gladly send it you. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-09-2010 05:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
To date, there have been some 130 people who have lived on the ISS...
With all due respect you simply can't stand someone not agreeing with you on the ISS. quote:
You make this sound like such a burden, but on average, the cost to the American taxpayer for all of NASA's activities is $50 a year.
I don't care if it is $1 wasted by the government. It's a wasted dollar and that dollar is being taken from someone who actually earned it. Since there were 155 million tax filers last year and NASA received about 17.3 billion, that would come out to $100+/year per filer - IF THEY ALL PAID TAXES, which is not the case. So your $50/year is not correct. quote:
Of that, only about $6 goes to the ISS.
If you are using fuzzy math on this as well, that number is also suspect. According to Wikipedia the ESA is the only agency that actually breaks out the costs for the ISS. quote:
So please stop talking on behalf of all U.S. taxpayers. If you personally would like your $6 back, I'll gladly send it you.
- Since I am a taxpayer I do speak out on how my taxes are spent.
- Please, feel free to send me $6. I would greatly appreciate it.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-09-2010 06:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
With all due respect you simply can't stand someone not agreeing with you on the ISS.
And judging by your own insistence of raising your personal objection to the ISS and shuttle within numerous threads, it would seem you can't stand to have anyone discuss the ISS without it being derided by you (all due respect, of course). quote:
So your $50/year is not correct.
It is not my figure. Since you seem to trust Wikipedia, then I'll quote them: According to figures and data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the White House, U.S. Census Bureau, the Coalition for Space Exploration, and other space advocacy groups such as the National Space Society and U.S. Space Foundation, when divided by the number of American citizens who pay their taxes on Tax Day, the amount of NASA's budget works out to approximately $57.10 USD per year per taxpayer -- $1.09 a week, or 15 cents a day in current 2007 spending. I said $50, if you'd rather use $57.10, then the ISS fraction is closer to $7. quote:
According to Wikipedia the ESA is the only agency that actually breaks out the costs for the ISS.
Ah, but here's the rub with Wikipedia, it is only as reliable as its last editor. NASA's actual budget documents are online and if you look at them, you will see a line item for the International Space Station. quote:
Since I am a taxpayer I do speak out on how my taxes are spent.
Fair point: you are more than welcome to speak out about how your $57.10 (okay, I'll be generous, $60) is spent. quote:
Please, feel free to send me $6. I would greatly appreciate it.
E-mail me your address and I'll have it out to you with a few informative documents about space station science over the past 10 years. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 06:50 PM
A six-month journey to Mars will not happen.Let me be clear: Ion engines will power the journey to Mars. Better-faster-cheaper. Six WEEKS, probably less. Former astronaut Franklin Chiang-Diaz and his VASIMR ion engine has the inside track. TONS of volatile fuels boosted from Earth vs. 100 lbs. of inert Xenon. These engines are ALREADY in use in spacecraft, from deep-space probes to station-keepers on GSO orbiting comm. satellites. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 06:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Since there were 155 million tax filers last year and NASA received about 17.3 billion, that would come out to $100+/year per filer - IF THEY ALL PAID TAXES, which is not the case. So your $50/year is not correct.
You're not taking into account the amount of the deficit, which lowers the actual amount paid by taxpayers. A better way to figure this is by going with the percentage of the national budget.According to Wikipedia, NASA's budget was 0.55% of the national budget in 2009. I know it's not wise to post personal economic data, but once again I'm paying almost exactly $10,000 in taxes this year, which would mean that $55 of my tax dollars are going to NASA. I won't disclose my actual salary, but I do make more than the median income, so most people are probably paying less than this. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I'd gladly double, or even triple, this $55 every year, if I knew the extra money would go to NASA. If everyone else would do the same, we'd have been back to the Moon by now. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 08:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
You're not taking into account the amount of the deficit, which lowers the actual amount paid by taxpayers.
Perhaps you didn't mean for this statement to sound ironic, but it sure sounds that way to me. I suspect you meant to make a point regarding the idea that, since there is a budgetary deficit, that means (by definition) that not all of the budget is being paid by taxes. However, you can rest assured that the deficit will insure that, while taxpayers may not be paying that amount in the current year, they will be paying that much and more in future years to keep up with the debt (or their children will be paying it). |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 08:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Spacefest:
Ion engines will power the journey to Mars. ...These engines are ALREADY in use in spacecraft, from deep-space probes to station-keepers on GSO orbiting comm. satellites.
You may be right, Kim. I'm certainly not an expert on VASIMR, although I have a basic working knowledge. Last I heard, power requirements are the major sticking point. VASIMR engines achieve on the order of 100x more thrust than existing ion engines, but to achieve that thrust you need an onboard nuclear reactor (or some other yet-to-be-invented power source) to get to Mars in the 40-day range. Such a nuclear reactor for use in space does not yet exist, and that technology is still a number of years off. As far as I have seen, current state-of-the-art ion engines for interplanetary probe travel can be powered via solar arrays (much lower electrical power requirement), but the thrust available requires about 4 days (in space) to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 11:08 PM
True, but it depends on mass and the rocket array. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the acceleration curve appears logarithmic to me. The problem would be slowing down once you get to Mars. A" ballute" might work for aerobraking.An initial boost can be had with a solid booster, such as those used on Mars and Venus probes today. Ion engines were imagined by Goddard himself, over 100 years ago. I remember seeing a Disney series in the 1950s whereby a fleet of umbrella ships with a nuclear reactor at the bottom, was used for a Mars expedition. Designed by Ernst Stuhlinger, I think an updated version would work. Put me down for Mars or Phobos.
|
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-10-2010 12:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
It's a wasted dollar and that dollar is being taken from someone who actually earned it.
I think Robert is making a very good case for the ISS actually. I am a US taxpayer myself and NOBODY else speaks for me. In fact I even went ahead and told certain members of Congress that in the mail this week as I felt I had to speak my mind on the budget issue. But that is a topic for a different thread.I really don't like it though when somebody suggests my hard earned $7.00 a year going to the ISS is considered to be wasted. Frankly I don't think it is at all. I myself have interviewed astronauts that spent time on the ISS and research was conducted up there with very little repair or maintenance work, other then what was assigned. This thing was running like a train unlike Mir was late in its life (as Mir had already hit its 10 year service life during the shuttle Mir program). In fact, Peggy Whitson told me that when she was up there as a science officer on Expedition 5, they conducted more science on that mission then they did on Expedition 16, due to all the construction and supply tasks scheduled for the later mission. She even managed to get ahead on some of the science tasks scheduled for Expedition 6. Even when Expedition 6 had to deal with more work by the crew on orbit due to no shuttle flights heading uphill after Columbia, Don Petit came up with some excellent microgravity research into how water droplets behave on orbit and he did it on the fly. I've seen his videos of it and you would be surprised how exciting it is to watch water behave in microgravity, doing things one never expected it to. He isn't he ubernerd for nothing (or the NASA equivalent of MacGuyver). The main problem with the ISS is it has about the same appeal as a large office building or research lab going up in a city. Except for the ribbon cutting ceremony done to great fanfare, nobody really knows what goes on inside. As such, things can go on for years and nobody in the general public hears about them until some major discovery is made. This is a fact of life of science gathering. Everyone who gets into a science field has this longing to make a great discovery, but it is not a certain thing and many years of hard work and data gathering have to take place first unless somebody is really lucky. And you can't say that a breakthrough in some research WILL be made as the road to a discovery is paved with just as many failures as successes. But the failures are just as important as the successes since that is how we learn things. As such, even when completed the ISS will continue on for many years conducting "boring" research. You likely won't hear too many mentions in the news except when a crew launches or returns. But it will be doing the job it was tasked to do and it will be doing in a place where no Earth bound lab can do it and be able to do it for longer then what a 1 to 2 week long Spacelab flight could accomplish. What will they discover? I don't know. But this is the grunt work of science. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2010 02:02 AM
Houston Chronicle: NASA chief: Mars is our mission NASA's emerging exploration plan will call for safely sending humans to Mars, possibly by the 2030s, and de-emphasize exploration of the moon, the agency's leader said Tuesday.“That is my personal vision,” NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. “I am confident that, when I say humans on Mars is a goal for the nation, not just NASA, I'm saying that because I believe the president will back me up.” Bolden cited appearances set before congressional committees on Feb. 24 and 25 as a deadline for creating the “beginnings of a plan” for human exploration. At those hearings, Bolden said, he will be able only to give a range of dates for a Mars trip because scientific questions, such as mitigating radiation exposure and bone loss, remain unanswered. But he confidently said the 2030s, even the early 2030s, were viable if given a reasonable and sustained budget. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-10-2010 03:59 AM
I think Bolden has to stop making public statements. When he's not actually in tears about what's happening he's admitting more and more openly that he hasn't got the first clue what's going to happen next. He's "confident", he "believes"; he has a "personal vision"...He has to go and talk to the astronaut office to see what they're going to do next, because he doesn't know. He'll be announcing a range of game-changing path finder missions to somewhere or other sometime soon, but not just yet. He's deeply committed to the bold new flexible path - although he's still a few weeks away from having even the "beginnings of a plan". He's just had his legs cut out from under him, so I appreciate it's handy for him to lean on a podium but please, stop filming the man and quoting his remarks when he does. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-10-2010 07:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And judging by your own insistence of raising your personal objection to the ISS and shuttle within numerous threads, it would seem you can't stand to have anyone discuss the ISS without it being derided by you (all due respect, of course).
It's not being derided, this is a site for discussion and unless it is a thread that wants all positive happy posts on a specific topic, you will receive a variety of posts from fully supportive to no support. Most will be somewhere in between.I'm not all negative on the Shuttle, I thought it served a purpose 30 years ago and for the first decade was worthwhile. Since then, not so much. I think NASA used it as the entire manned space program because they had no clue what to do next. The ISS I never supported. I'm all for manned space exploration, I'm all for NASA's budget being doubled and tripled if they can present a coherent plan with specific goals which they are required to stay with in order to receive their money. Also, if the Govt. requires NASA to draw up the plans, they should be required to follow through the money as well. I personally don't understand why the IRS does not have a little check box on tax returns for people to voluntarily gibe NASA money as they do for elections, special causes, etc. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2010 09:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I personally don't understand why the IRS does not have a little check box on tax returns for people to voluntarily gibe NASA money as they do for elections, special causes, etc.
Despite our difference of opinions, this is something we can both agree on. Or if not through a checkbox on taxes, NASA should be able to accept public funds (as they can under limited constraints for their family assistance fund). At the very least, NASA should be able to seek public financial support to extend their educational and public outreach programs. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:04 PM
To take it a step further, I would love to see our government give us the right to apply a given percentage (the more the better  ) of taxes owed as "discretionary spending" to any government branch, agency or department of our choosing, with a special website that allowed everyone to see where those dollars were flowing. What an eye-popper that would be for public policy! |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:26 PM
That might replace polling for legislators and give a snapshot of real public sentiment. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
To take it a step further, I would love to see our government give us the right to apply a given percentage (the more the better) of taxes owed as "discretionary spending" to any government branch, agency or department of our choosing
While that might sound like a good idea on the surface, I would be cautious about adopting that approach. Given a choice of where their money goes, the average taxpayer may prefer their money go towards other programs/agencies besides NASA. Not everyone out there is going to support NASA as much as we do. And if any of NASA's budget suddenly becomes contingent on public support, NASA could find itself even more underfunded. While the public often supports NASA via opinion polls, verbal support is different than monetary support. Keep in mind that when certain people think of a government agency that "wastes" a lot of money, they often think of NASA (even if their perception doesn't match the truth).I would prefer a check box option a little more. Much like the presidential campaign fund, I would want to make sure the check box would not necessarily reduce the amount of refund each taxpayer was getting...but would simply be a vote towards spending part of one's tax contribution towards NASA. That way, the taxpayer is more willing to contribute to NASA, knowing it won't affect their own pocketbook. But then again, if NASA's budget suddenly becomes dependent on people checking that box "yes," there is the risk of the budget falling short of expectations. I would want the check box to be in addition to what NASA already receives... and not replace dollars already set aside for NASA. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
I think Bolden has to stop making public statements. ...He's just had his legs cut out from under him, so I appreciate it's handy for him to lean on a podium but please, stop filming the man and quoting his remarks when he does.
Well said...you "nailed it." I strongly agree. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:06 PM
Realistically, the idea to have people direct where their tax dollars go directly would, I realize, necessitate keeping the "discretionary" percentage small, just because too many dollars may end up going to more popular areas (if you can conjure up the idea of a "popular" government agency) than more really essential ones. And that may very well mean too few dollars for NASA, of course. But it would still be a great way to highlight, I think, where the public really thinks its tax dollars should go, finally letting us put our money where our mouths (hearts/brains?) are. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
But it would still be a great way to highlight, I think, where the public really thinks its tax dollars should go, finally letting us put our money where our mouths (hearts/brains?) are.
I definitely see you point and can't disagree with it. I would just hate to see the already-small amount of money that goes to NASA get even smaller. |
mikej
Member Posts: 483
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-24-2010 06:32 PM
The Onion offers a glimpse of where NASA may be going next if things come to pass in this video: NASA Scientists Plan To Approach Girl By 2018 (audio NSFW). |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 03-30-2010 11:17 AM
Good news, NASA has a new mission. Per Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood they will be participating in the probe of Toyota's acceleration problems. They will specifically be looking at the electronic vehicle controls.Hey, work is work. At least they have some kind of a mission now. |
413 is in
Member Posts: 690
From: Alexandria, VA USA
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-30-2010 12:47 PM
Throw that dog a bone. This should ease tensions at next months presidential space summit.  |
mikej
Member Posts: 483
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-30-2010 01:15 PM
The words "bold" and "innovative" were conspicuously absent from that press release. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-30-2010 11:46 PM
What a waste of NASA's time and resources. Don't we have a Dept. of Transportation for matters like that? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-30-2010 11:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
What a waste of NASA's time and resources. Don't we have a Dept. of Transportation for matters like that?
NASA Watch, quoting Langley Research Center public affairs (emphasis mine): NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), located at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., has been asked to support the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) in its investigation of unintended acceleration related to Toyota vehicles and, potentially, of other vehicle makes. NASA's NESC has a cadre of engineers with specialized knowledge of electronic systems, and the effects of external interferences to electrical systems who can conduct an unbiased and independent review of the information. A formal (Space Act) agreement was signed Friday between NASA and DOT. The agreement is broad -- details are still being worked out. The agreement calls for DOT to fully reimburse NASA for its work... |
advertisement