Posted on 06/07/2005 7:34:39 PM PDT by KevinDavis
A major US research body has warned that cuts in Nasa's 2006 budget will hamper progress in understanding our planet and the rest of the Universe. The American Geophysical Union says there are signs space and Earth science have dropped in priority at Nasa.
The AGU says research in these areas is threatened by the financial demands of meeting President Bush's Moon-to-Mars initiative and other manned programmes.
It also says Nasa is doing "more than it can with the resources provided".
"The problem is that Nasa has a great deal on its plate," said Eric Barron, who has chaired an AGU Panel on the President Bush's Moon-to-Mars vision for space exploration.
"[It] wants to return the space shuttle to flight, finish the space station, [build] the next generation of space transport vehicles as well as exploring the Moon and Mars with humans," Dr Barron told reporters at a news conference in Washington DC.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
My laundry gets hamppered everyday....nyuk! nyuk!
I guess sending people back to the moon has nothing to do with "space science".
The Saganites are bunch of crybabies who think space is their own playground
And I'm fretting because the BBC thinks the American taxpayer should be doing more what with NASA? Maybe the UK Parliament would like to filibuster our Space budget.
But, we own it. Not NASA, which cannot be owned but merely funded, but the universe, unpossessed property, by Treaty.
NASA, unmanned section only, is being reorganized starting today.
BBC news about NASA's fund shortage.
It must be good for the U.S. taxpayer.
The fact is high taxes hinder scientific research.
For every manhatten project, there are 10,000 ideas for improvement because taxes take the money that the person with the idea could use to develop his own idea.
Centralized government bureaus of high technology usually succeed in limiting research in their area, then get penetrated by enemy spies (like the chinese now, and like the rosenbergs in WWII) so the theoretical benefit usually is much more short lived.
The Manhattan project saved at least a million lives. When we do something like that, we really really have to be sure that the outcome is worth the death of thousands of other ideas, the advantage to the enemy when the results are stolen, and the loss of liberty associated with government programs.
"
The universe will be there later.
Sending men to the moon and Mars doesn't have anything to do with space science. It has everything to do with politics.
Your argument does not wash. If we don't have the instruments in place, there are unique once in a lifetime events that will be missed.
Please clarify.
BTW, do you work in the space program and/or are you a "space" scientist/engineer?
So does every other endeavor undertaken by NASA.
Explain to me then the lack of scientific return from, oh say the Hubble telescope, and explain to me why it is all about politics. If you can show me the total lack of scientific merit in that program I'll take your comment seriously.
Any major NASA project is approved by congress, hence it's all about who gets attention from the politicos.
How so? By denying educational facilities to the youth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.