<strong>I just think a lot of money gets wasted on the shuttle. It really is a shitty way to get a large payload into space. It's good at bring things back but ... there's got to be a cheaper way.
Also it sucks up so much money that real science takes it on the chin. Better space research too. Maybe a new better cheaper shuttle is out there. But I want to see a ton of soil come back from Mars and the shuttle's budget could pay for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here. We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here. We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it is more obvious that you have no clue.
It is a real simple thing to understand. We have been putting satellites around this planet since Sputnik in 1957 and all of a sudden we need to "drive" each and every part there in a multi-billion dollar shuttle.
It is a real simple thing to understand. We have been putting satellites around this planet since Sputnik in 1957 and all of a sudden we need to "drive" each and every part there in a multi-billion dollar shuttle.
I would wonder at the cost of putting things in orbit if every time we did it we wasted a rocket to do so... I don't even think one of the Sttion modules or the Hubble would fit into a standard launch vehicle, and we could certainly never have repaired it or serviced other pieces of orbiting machinery.
Yes, it's a big, expensive cargo mover. It took way too long to build. I would like to see some figures which shows it has been more expensive in its many missions than doing things with disposable rockets, especially when you consider the many different things it does on each mission...
Standard rocket... Sattelite... there.
Shuttle... Sattelite there... expereiments there... repair there... retrieval there... cargo there... and then back to earth.
It is a generation... the first, there are bound to be others now that it has been proven to work...
Guys, it costs more to waste a rocket in the long run. That's why they built the shuttle in the first place. Before the shuttle was built they had many designs on the board and they went with the most cost effective. Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. But, at the time the budget for the space program was being cut back so in order to get their project off the ground they went with this design.
Reusable shuttle vs. use once rocket.
Thinking a rocket that you throw away is cheaper is nuts. Yes we need a new design for something that was designed in the 70's. But it isn't a throw away rocket. Sorry guys but I've been a fan of the space program since I was in 3rd grade. That was about oh about 1963.
<strong>Guys, it costs more to waste a rocket in the long run. That's why they built the shuttle in the first place. Before the shuttle was built they had many designs on the board and they went with the most cost effective. Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. But, at the time the budget for the space program was being cut back so in order to get their project off the ground they went with this design.
Reusable shuttle vs. use once rocket.
Thinking a rocket that you throw away is cheaper is nuts. Yes we need a new design for something that was designed in the 70's. But it isn't a throw away rocket. Sorry guys but I've been a fan of the space program since I was in 3rd grade. That was about oh about 1963.
the shuttle is far beyond what NASA ever estimated in terms of cost.
example:
"NASA initially touted the shuttle as a reusable launch vehicle that would provide a cheap way to place satellites into orbit. The proposed and actual numbers have proved quite different.
"The [original] numbers that NASA gave to the White House were that shuttle would cost about $5.5 million per launch and the launch rate would be anywhere between 50 and 60 launches a year," said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.
Shuttles have instead averaged about five launches a year, and NASA was way off on the cost.
"Most people use a figure like $400 [million] or $500 million [per launch]," Logsdon said. "Anyway you look at it, it's a lot of money."
Kalpana Chawla works in the Columbia science lab on January 18.
After Columbia became the first shuttle in space in 1981, shuttle crews became, in effect, human couriers to do deliveries that unmanned rockets could do at the same or lower cost, and without human risks. "
I'm not suprised that the shuttle has had cost over runs. Nobody has built anything like this before. It's not an airplane or a locomotive.
Also this pales in comparison to military projects cost over runs for items that need work, never see the light of day, or just plain don't work.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for an alternative to the shuttle. Something that wasn't designed in the 70's ( I remember liking another design for the shuttle better back then but I'm just a lay person ). But given that we are still at the begining of space travel you can't expect new designs ( cutting edge ) to turn out perfect right from the concept. Also the shuttle has had twenty years of success with only two failures. Name something else that has had that kind of success record. Still it's time for a new design.
We learned to build better boats throughout history by trial and error. Much of research in this area is still like that. The computer model can't account for every veriable. Another thing is without this same research much of the device you are using to communicate with right now wouldn't exist.
That's one of the reasons the space program is so valuable. Nothing spurs technological developement across the board like it. Not even the military. And by comparison the space program gets by on a tiny budget.
But using throwaway rockets isn't the answer. We need a reusable craft for near earth orbit missons. It's time for a new design.
<strong>That's one of the reasons the space program is so valuable. Nothing spurs technological developement across the board like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I previously stated, most of the "Technology Development" agruments are BS.
Or do you think it is so important that we know now that ants can colonate in zero gravity. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle.
For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
As I previously stated, most of the "Technology Development" agruments are BS.
Or do you think it is so important that we know now that ants can colonate in zero gravity. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle.
For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know where Corningware came from? Research in heat resistant material for nose cones. Space research has brought many technological advancements. And you sir are full of hot air.
" For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now "
__________________
One reason is they exist on a shoestring budget by comparison to other government programs. Do I need to quote those statistics again? I like the one about americans spending 3 times the yearly budget on cigarettes. And I smoke!
Do you know where Corningware came from? Research in heat resistant material for nose cones. Space research has brought many technological advancements. And you sir are full of hot air.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And as I stated earlier Pyrex has been around since 1915, long long long before anyone even thought about Space. Gee I guess they were just lucky, huh. Sorry but High heat technology was not a NASA gift to the world.
Many of you believe everything that NASA is spoon feeding you through the media. They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.
<strong>... They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly... they are not the cutting edge of technology... But they are the agency which is organized for space missions. That is why there is a competition from the private sector to come up with ideas on how to find cheaper alternatives to getting into space. Safer, too, with fewer people and less time for turn around...
Noone is arguing with your reasoning that Nasa and the shuttle are a waste of money, Mr.BillData. We all agree that the expenditures are far more than they were intended to be. What we are arguing with are your comments that the space program is a waste, and experiments which have no practical use on earth are useless...
Everything done in space can be useful.
can be...Perhaps if we read the applications that some of the students wrote to promote these experiments to win the competitions for the limited lab space on shuttle missions we can understand how they can be useful in space...
And as I stated earlier Pyrex has been around since 1915, long long long before anyone even thought about Space. Gee I guess they were just lucky, huh. Sorry but High heat technology was not a NASA gift to the world.
Many of you believe everything that NASA is spoon feeding you through the media. They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not talking about the glass I'm talking about the oven safe dishes that weren't around until I was about 11 or 12. Remember I'm old enough to know this stuff.
Some of the experiments they do are to see how metal alloys form in zero G ( you see you can make metal alloys in zero G that you couldn't possibly make here on earth ).
Or we could talk about the stuff you can do in a perfect vacuum ( something you could only approach here on earth ). If you think we haven't received any benifit from space research you're a fool.
If there isn't anything we can gain from space then how come people in the private sector are interested. I'll give you a hint : it's made of paper and it's green.
I used to spare with the preople who said " why did we go to the moon to pick up those rocks. " When I hear people talk like that I only think they are showing their ignorance. If all you are interested in is what goes on right here with the hairless apes on this little ball of mud I feel sorry for you because there's so much more.
Much of our recent technological advancement that we use everyday didn't come from Area 51 but it did come from space.
To set the record straight, I'm not against space exploration, I'm against the costly sending of astronauts into orbit to eat Tang a shoot silly footage to be played on childrens' science TV shows.
Inexpensive space probes and hubble-type telescopes are fairly useful, but they can be sent up with big-dumb-boosters for a faction of the cost of a shuttle lunch.
Face it: the shuttle itself was designed as a PR stunt -- starting bck in the late 60s -- so that we could show the world that the communist run program in Russia was dreadfully inferior. The shuttles have outlasted their useful lives.
Given tht most research in this country (and the world) is independent, I'd also apgue that NASA's contribution to technology is minimal. They just developed and released products based on existing research which weren't finalized in the private sector at their time because of correctly perceive inadequacies of these products to deliver economic results in the open market.
As for Zero G experiments, when it's financially viable for a coporation to make lot's of trips to space, then space based experiments won't be so dammned pointless. And let me tell you this: it will be corporations -- not the goverment -- that will end up developing power supplies suitable for cheap space travel.
<strong>To set the record straight, I'm not against space exploration, I'm against the costly sending of astronauts into orbit to eat Tang a shoot silly footage to be played on childrens' science TV shows.
Inexpensive space probes and hubble-type telescopes are fairly useful, but they can be sent up with big-dumb-boosters for a faction of the cost of a shuttle lunch.
Face it: the shuttle itself was designed as a PR stunt -- starting bck in the late 60s -- so that we could show the world that the communist run program in Russia was dreadfully inferior. The shuttles have outlasted their useful lives.
Given tht most research in this country (and the world) is independent, I'd also apgue that NASA's contribution to technology is minimal. They just developed and released products based on existing research which weren't finalized in the private sector at their time because of correctly perceive inadequacies of these products to deliver economic results in the open market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from this being a bunch of crap I don't believe they have drank Tang for quite a while now. As far as the children shows go, yes they were a PR stunt so they could hold on to their tiny budget for the following year. Remember cigarettes every year = 3 times the yearly budget of the space program.
Aside from this being a bunch of crap I don't believe they have drank Tang for quite a while now. As far as the children shows go, yes they were a PR stunt so they could hold on to their tiny budget for the following year. Remember cigarettes every year = 3 times the yearly budget of the space program.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it a bunch of crap? All I've seen from your side of the argument are emotional retreats. Hell, even NASA couldn't hold this up when the facts came to the table. Secondly, when their budgets were slashed in the 90s, they began mouting some of the most useful probing missions ever.
Why is it a bunch of crap? All I've seen from your side of the argument are emotional retreats. Hell, even NASA couldn't hold this up when the facts came to the table. Secondly, when their budgets were slashed in the 90s, they began mouting some of the most useful probing missions ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pure speculation on your part. And I applaud their efforts to make do with less. If you really think what we've learned about our solar system and our world in general in the last 30 years is useless then we are at a big disagreement.
I've heard about the early days about the wasted money on exspense accounts but, that also hasn't been true for a long time. NASA isn't perfect. It's a government agency. But, right now it's all we've got. I'm for sharing the expense with other countries. For the record I'm also in favor of the private sector getting into it. Forgive me if I get emotional about something I believe in whole heartedly.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you say that? Other than you disagreeing with me.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We DO NOT need a shuttle for space exploration. If the future shuttle will WASTE as much money as the current one then forget it. REAL space exploration is getting push aside by the shuttle obsession.
Well you didn't think I was watching did you? Space exploration serves two parts. Manned and unmanned.
Both are important. We can't have manned without some kind of reusable craft. I believe part of the problem here is NASA is starved for money to develope new designs. Not that they are this huge government agency that gets big budgets every year and squanders them.
Yes, the shuttle costs more than advertised. But, I already stated this is the first time anyone has built something like this. You can't just go down to the military surplus and get off the shelf parts. Until you can I'd be wary of a " cheap " shuttle.
Read this slowly so you understand. We have to get to that point first. That may take many incarnations before spacecraft parts are common place like airplanes.
We've already passed the age of unmanned probes only so get over it.
For manned exploration to happen we have to follow steps in a certain order. We need a reliable resuable craft. We need the space station so we can begin building future craft in orbit so we can go get that " Ton of dirt from Mars ".
By then the near earth orbit craft should be getting less expensive and more common place. Only the ones going to other planets will be cutting edge technology. Trust me logically it can't happen any other way. Launching a mission to Mars from the ground would be in the long run many times more expensive and difficult.
I get the feeling you think we can get by with only unmanned probes because for you space exploration isn't a priority. You don't see the use in it. Well that's your short coming. Arguing with you gets no where because you don't really listen to other people ( and not just me ).
I think you really just like to argue. Is there anything you're not negative about except yourself?
Comments
<strong>I just think a lot of money gets wasted on the shuttle. It really is a shitty way to get a large payload into space. It's good at bring things back but ... there's got to be a cheaper way.
Also it sucks up so much money that real science takes it on the chin. Better space research too. Maybe a new better cheaper shuttle is out there. But I want to see a ton of soil come back from Mars and the shuttle's budget could pay for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here. We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be.
<strong>
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here. We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be.
No it is more obvious that you have no clue.
It is a real simple thing to understand. We have been putting satellites around this planet since Sputnik in 1957 and all of a sudden we need to "drive" each and every part there in a multi-billion dollar shuttle.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
EDIT: Billion not Million
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
No it is more obvious that you have no clue.
It is a real simple thing to understand. We have been putting satellites around this planet since Sputnik in 1957 and all of a sudden we need to "drive" each and every part there in a multi-billion dollar shuttle.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
EDIT: Billion not Million
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would wonder at the cost of putting things in orbit if every time we did it we wasted a rocket to do so... I don't even think one of the Sttion modules or the Hubble would fit into a standard launch vehicle, and we could certainly never have repaired it or serviced other pieces of orbiting machinery.
Yes, it's a big, expensive cargo mover. It took way too long to build. I would like to see some figures which shows it has been more expensive in its many missions than doing things with disposable rockets, especially when you consider the many different things it does on each mission...
Standard rocket... Sattelite... there.
Shuttle... Sattelite there... expereiments there... repair there... retrieval there... cargo there... and then back to earth.
It is a generation... the first, there are bound to be others now that it has been proven to work...
" No it is more obvious that you have no clue. "
Guys, it costs more to waste a rocket in the long run. That's why they built the shuttle in the first place. Before the shuttle was built they had many designs on the board and they went with the most cost effective. Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. But, at the time the budget for the space program was being cut back so in order to get their project off the ground they went with this design.
Reusable shuttle vs. use once rocket.
Thinking a rocket that you throw away is cheaper is nuts. Yes we need a new design for something that was designed in the 70's. But it isn't a throw away rocket. Sorry guys but I've been a fan of the space program since I was in 3rd grade. That was about oh about 1963.
It's you who don't have a clue.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Guys, it costs more to waste a rocket in the long run. That's why they built the shuttle in the first place. Before the shuttle was built they had many designs on the board and they went with the most cost effective. Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. But, at the time the budget for the space program was being cut back so in order to get their project off the ground they went with this design.
Reusable shuttle vs. use once rocket.
Thinking a rocket that you throw away is cheaper is nuts. Yes we need a new design for something that was designed in the 70's. But it isn't a throw away rocket. Sorry guys but I've been a fan of the space program since I was in 3rd grade. That was about oh about 1963.
It's you who don't have a clue.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
jimmac,
the shuttle is far beyond what NASA ever estimated in terms of cost.
example:
"NASA initially touted the shuttle as a reusable launch vehicle that would provide a cheap way to place satellites into orbit. The proposed and actual numbers have proved quite different.
"The [original] numbers that NASA gave to the White House were that shuttle would cost about $5.5 million per launch and the launch rate would be anywhere between 50 and 60 launches a year," said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.
Shuttles have instead averaged about five launches a year, and NASA was way off on the cost.
"Most people use a figure like $400 [million] or $500 million [per launch]," Logsdon said. "Anyway you look at it, it's a lot of money."
Kalpana Chawla works in the Columbia science lab on January 18.
After Columbia became the first shuttle in space in 1981, shuttle crews became, in effect, human couriers to do deliveries that unmanned rockets could do at the same or lower cost, and without human risks. "
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/05/sprj.colu.shuttle.future/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/05/sprj.colu.shuttle.future/index.html</a>;
I'm not suprised that the shuttle has had cost over runs. Nobody has built anything like this before. It's not an airplane or a locomotive.
Also this pales in comparison to military projects cost over runs for items that need work, never see the light of day, or just plain don't work.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for an alternative to the shuttle. Something that wasn't designed in the 70's ( I remember liking another design for the shuttle better back then but I'm just a lay person ). But given that we are still at the begining of space travel you can't expect new designs ( cutting edge ) to turn out perfect right from the concept. Also the shuttle has had twenty years of success with only two failures. Name something else that has had that kind of success record. Still it's time for a new design.
We learned to build better boats throughout history by trial and error. Much of research in this area is still like that. The computer model can't account for every veriable. Another thing is without this same research much of the device you are using to communicate with right now wouldn't exist.
That's one of the reasons the space program is so valuable. Nothing spurs technological developement across the board like it. Not even the military. And by comparison the space program gets by on a tiny budget.
But using throwaway rockets isn't the answer. We need a reusable craft for near earth orbit missons. It's time for a new design.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>That's one of the reasons the space program is so valuable. Nothing spurs technological developement across the board like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I previously stated, most of the "Technology Development" agruments are BS.
Or do you think it is so important that we know now that ants can colonate in zero gravity. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle.
For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
As I previously stated, most of the "Technology Development" agruments are BS.
Or do you think it is so important that we know now that ants can colonate in zero gravity. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle.
For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now
Do you know where Corningware came from? Research in heat resistant material for nose cones. Space research has brought many technological advancements. And you sir are full of hot air.
" For all of the idiots that keep talking about "throw away rockets" are expensive, if NASA has learned so much they should be able to at least make a reusable rocket by now "
__________________
One reason is they exist on a shoestring budget by comparison to other government programs. Do I need to quote those statistics again? I like the one about americans spending 3 times the yearly budget on cigarettes. And I smoke!
<strong>
Do you know where Corningware came from? Research in heat resistant material for nose cones. Space research has brought many technological advancements. And you sir are full of hot air.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And as I stated earlier Pyrex has been around since 1915, long long long before anyone even thought about Space. Gee I guess they were just lucky, huh. Sorry but High heat technology was not a NASA gift to the world.
Many of you believe everything that NASA is spoon feeding you through the media. They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.
<strong>... They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly... they are not the cutting edge of technology... But they are the agency which is organized for space missions. That is why there is a competition from the private sector to come up with ideas on how to find cheaper alternatives to getting into space. Safer, too, with fewer people and less time for turn around...
Noone is arguing with your reasoning that Nasa and the shuttle are a waste of money, Mr.BillData. We all agree that the expenditures are far more than they were intended to be. What we are arguing with are your comments that the space program is a waste, and experiments which have no practical use on earth are useless...
Everything done in space can be useful.
can be...Perhaps if we read the applications that some of the students wrote to promote these experiments to win the competitions for the limited lab space on shuttle missions we can understand how they can be useful in space...
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>
<strong>
And as I stated earlier Pyrex has been around since 1915, long long long before anyone even thought about Space. Gee I guess they were just lucky, huh. Sorry but High heat technology was not a NASA gift to the world.
Many of you believe everything that NASA is spoon feeding you through the media. They are not the cutting edge of technology, far from it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not talking about the glass I'm talking about the oven safe dishes that weren't around until I was about 11 or 12. Remember I'm old enough to know this stuff.
Some of the experiments they do are to see how metal alloys form in zero G ( you see you can make metal alloys in zero G that you couldn't possibly make here on earth ).
Or we could talk about the stuff you can do in a perfect vacuum ( something you could only approach here on earth ). If you think we haven't received any benifit from space research you're a fool.
If there isn't anything we can gain from space then how come people in the private sector are interested. I'll give you a hint : it's made of paper and it's green.
I used to spare with the preople who said " why did we go to the moon to pick up those rocks. " When I hear people talk like that I only think they are showing their ignorance. If all you are interested in is what goes on right here with the hairless apes on this little ball of mud I feel sorry for you because there's so much more.
Much of our recent technological advancement that we use everyday didn't come from Area 51 but it did come from space.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Inexpensive space probes and hubble-type telescopes are fairly useful, but they can be sent up with big-dumb-boosters for a faction of the cost of a shuttle lunch.
Face it: the shuttle itself was designed as a PR stunt -- starting bck in the late 60s -- so that we could show the world that the communist run program in Russia was dreadfully inferior. The shuttles have outlasted their useful lives.
Given tht most research in this country (and the world) is independent, I'd also apgue that NASA's contribution to technology is minimal. They just developed and released products based on existing research which weren't finalized in the private sector at their time because of correctly perceive inadequacies of these products to deliver economic results in the open market.
As for Zero G experiments, when it's financially viable for a coporation to make lot's of trips to space, then space based experiments won't be so dammned pointless. And let me tell you this: it will be corporations -- not the goverment -- that will end up developing power supplies suitable for cheap space travel.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
<strong>To set the record straight, I'm not against space exploration, I'm against the costly sending of astronauts into orbit to eat Tang a shoot silly footage to be played on childrens' science TV shows.
Inexpensive space probes and hubble-type telescopes are fairly useful, but they can be sent up with big-dumb-boosters for a faction of the cost of a shuttle lunch.
Face it: the shuttle itself was designed as a PR stunt -- starting bck in the late 60s -- so that we could show the world that the communist run program in Russia was dreadfully inferior. The shuttles have outlasted their useful lives.
Given tht most research in this country (and the world) is independent, I'd also apgue that NASA's contribution to technology is minimal. They just developed and released products based on existing research which weren't finalized in the private sector at their time because of correctly perceive inadequacies of these products to deliver economic results in the open market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from this being a bunch of crap I don't believe they have drank Tang for quite a while now. As far as the children shows go, yes they were a PR stunt so they could hold on to their tiny budget for the following year. Remember cigarettes every year = 3 times the yearly budget of the space program.
<strong>
Aside from this being a bunch of crap I don't believe they have drank Tang for quite a while now. As far as the children shows go, yes they were a PR stunt so they could hold on to their tiny budget for the following year. Remember cigarettes every year = 3 times the yearly budget of the space program.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it a bunch of crap? All I've seen from your side of the argument are emotional retreats. Hell, even NASA couldn't hold this up when the facts came to the table. Secondly, when their budgets were slashed in the 90s, they began mouting some of the most useful probing missions ever.
You ever think that the kids shows might be to spark some interest in science and technology?
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>
<strong>>As far as the children shows go, yes they were a PR stunt so they could hold on to their tiny budget for the following year.
You ever think that the kids shows might be to spark some interest in science and technology?
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes And I think that's very important. Kids seem more interested in other less inspiring things nowadays. Now back to my beer.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Why is it a bunch of crap? All I've seen from your side of the argument are emotional retreats. Hell, even NASA couldn't hold this up when the facts came to the table. Secondly, when their budgets were slashed in the 90s, they began mouting some of the most useful probing missions ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pure speculation on your part. And I applaud their efforts to make do with less. If you really think what we've learned about our solar system and our world in general in the last 30 years is useless then we are at a big disagreement.
I've heard about the early days about the wasted money on exspense accounts but, that also hasn't been true for a long time. NASA isn't perfect. It's a government agency. But, right now it's all we've got. I'm for sharing the expense with other countries. For the record I'm also in favor of the private sector getting into it. Forgive me if I get emotional about something I believe in whole heartedly.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
You clearly don't know what you are talking about here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you say that? Other than you disagreeing with me.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>We are just at the begining of space exploration. The shuttle needs replacing yes. But, I don't expect the new design will be cheap. And it shouldn't be. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We DO NOT need a shuttle for space exploration. If the future shuttle will WASTE as much money as the current one then forget it. REAL space exploration is getting push aside by the shuttle obsession.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Right back at ya.
<strong>
Right back at ya.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well you didn't think I was watching did you? Space exploration serves two parts. Manned and unmanned.
Both are important. We can't have manned without some kind of reusable craft. I believe part of the problem here is NASA is starved for money to develope new designs. Not that they are this huge government agency that gets big budgets every year and squanders them.
Yes, the shuttle costs more than advertised. But, I already stated this is the first time anyone has built something like this. You can't just go down to the military surplus and get off the shelf parts. Until you can I'd be wary of a " cheap " shuttle.
Read this slowly so you understand. We have to get to that point first. That may take many incarnations before spacecraft parts are common place like airplanes.
We've already passed the age of unmanned probes only so get over it.
For manned exploration to happen we have to follow steps in a certain order. We need a reliable resuable craft. We need the space station so we can begin building future craft in orbit so we can go get that " Ton of dirt from Mars ".
By then the near earth orbit craft should be getting less expensive and more common place. Only the ones going to other planets will be cutting edge technology. Trust me logically it can't happen any other way. Launching a mission to Mars from the ground would be in the long run many times more expensive and difficult.
I get the feeling you think we can get by with only unmanned probes because for you space exploration isn't a priority. You don't see the use in it. Well that's your short coming. Arguing with you gets no where because you don't really listen to other people ( and not just me ).
I think you really just like to argue. Is there anything you're not negative about except yourself?
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>