Posted on 08/12/2005 10:23:15 PM PDT by Shuttle Shucker
I just looked at the airing time schedules and thus far see nothing to contradict my theory that it's filmed on Saturday:
http://www.mclaughlin.com/stations/state_search.asp
Most weekend shows that are not live film on Friday. Beltway Boys and Fox News Watch for example. It might not be smart for the most up to date news and insight, but I guess the "big names" don't want to work weekends.
Can anyone here tell me, in today's dollars, how much did each apollo moon flight cost? I'm SURE it was less, than 600m.
I was right. It is on Fridays in Denver. Check out zip 80203.
You're right, and I presume they're not airing LAST weekend's show either. Sigh...
Well, at least we can still watch the show if we want... There isn't a lot of media coverage of the need to finally shelve the Shuttle, as the media craves sponsorship and support from the NASA contractors and bureaucrats.
I believe I've read that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has said that NASA has as much money now (in real dollars) as it did during the Apollo Era.
It's just that nowadays we're not achieving nearly as much with it in terms of cutting edge breakthroughs.
"Issue 3, Shuttle Scuttle Rebuttal, I ask you..............Mor-ton...."
But Soyuz can't get the job done. It doesn't have the heavy-lift capacity to finish the space station. And though Soyuz is a solid, tested (to say the least) program, I'm not comfortable with leaving manned space flight wholly dependent on the Russians.
Other than that, I'm with you -- fast-track, competitive bids for the next-generation craft. There's a good argument that heavy-lift cargo and crew transport should be two separate programs -- we need tractor-trailers, but it isn't a sensible vehicle for my daily commute.
Assuming that they can solve the foam problem, I'd keep flying the shuttle until the station is finished, but fast-track the replacement(s). There's no good reason we shouldn't have been looking to replace the shuttle at least ten years ago.
Cool. Let me know when private industry lands on the moon.
C'mon...NASA did it with 1960s technology. Surely with 21st century technology, someone like a Bill Gates or Burt Rutan could do it.
Oh...wait...they're only now doing what NASA did in the early 1960s. And they're only getting 1/3rd as high off the ground as the shuttle goes.
Let's see now...NASA's proposed budget for FY06 is $16,471,050,000 (House Appropriations Committee). That is a lot of money, but consider for a moment that President Bush's proposed FY06 Information Technology (IT) Budget for the U.S. is $65.2 billion dollars. That is FOUR TIMES more than NASA's budget.
If you want to gripe about money going down the drain, why don't you start with an arena that has an obsolescence span of 36 months and ask why so much money is being dumped into it.
'Course, I doubt you will. It's not "fashionable" for you pseudointellectuals to badmouth IT...yet.
The bureaucrats and their contractor leeches DID try to replace the Shuttle a decade ago, with Al Gore's corrupt help as is documented here:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/x33
That is your only valid point.
Pseudointellectuals, huh? I don't see you criticizing wasteful policies of the Dept. of Energy or the Department of Defense...both of which have two of the nation's three largest federal procurement budgets. Does that make you a pseudointellectual, or just focused on a particular niche? I'm focused on space, and am not your intellectual inferior. I suppose I'm supposed to want to spend my political capital on your pet cause now though, in order to win your approval? Seriously though, we can hang together to reform government in general or we can continue letting the IRS hang us individually.
I was aware that NASA's budget used to be around 5% of GDP. Mike Griffin's quote pertained to real dollars though...adjusted for inflation. NASA's budget is apparently what it was back then, but its pioneering output of today simply doesn't compare.
Pompous asses bloviating.
What's wrong with my OTHER points? Tax incentives for pioneering space endeavors, and competitive prizes offered by NASA are pretty hard to refute but maybe a purported fiscal conservative like you can persuade me...
I agree with what you say about those on McLaughlin Group, especially considering how they didn't let us know what they'd be debating until after it was apparently too late to make sure they had access to enough info.
It looks like one can orbit the Moon now for just $100 million dollars, a sixth of the cost of a Shuttle flight:
http://www.space.com/news/050810_dse_alpha.html
Prizes? You need to start thinking big. The American Industrial Revolution was not done by thinking small.
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.