Posted on 02/01/2007 9:45:45 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
Astronauts with binoculars would not be required. We have telescopes on the ground, listening devices, radars, spy satellites and could probably develop the capability to follow any payload launched to the moon with a stealth satellite.
Ping.
That's a common argument used by people who defend their favorite government program and its largess. Just use that for any one of the thousands of Government programs, "for our own good" and you start to see where the problem lies.
Moon is a harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein.
It sucks being at the bottom of a gravity well when your adversary can throw rocks at you.
"If NASA was spending its money on research and science instead of third-rate P.R. (a.k.a "return to the Moon"), I'd feel a lot more sympathetic."
I work at NASA (contractor). We aren't doing PR. We're designing more efficient means of space exploration. Oh, BTW, in the process, we're developing technology that is being utilized by the private sector.
I've been working on this project for the past couple of years.
http://news.space-explorers.com/display.asp?v=04&i=20&a=1
And, when you come down to it, you can't get much more wasteful of public funds than paying people who don't work (welfare). The 'Rats know spending public money in this fashion buys them votes from those they economically enslave. It is my guess that this is where these funds will now go.
High ground? What are you talking about? I'm not saying the US shouldn't continue to develop defense-related satellites. But if you think putting a clown on the moon has anything to do with defense, you're kidding yourself. Neil Armstrong, Jr. isn't going to keep the moon free from Communism.
"Big waste of cash. Why do they call it the International Space Station when we are footing the majority of the bill. It should be the United States Space Station with the International Food Court Annex."
Back in the early 90's, CONGRESS demanded changes to the program. CONGRESS ran the cost of the station up, then insisted that we get Russia involved. That was a great idea (unbelievably heavy sarcasm).
We had to go back and re-design ALL of the station electronics for heavy radiation sheilding, because getting Russia involved meant launching from a much higher latitude, thereby seriously increasing exposure in the radiation belts that surround earth. It's an orbital mechanics thing.
A lot of the external viewpoints people have of NASA are flat wrong. We work in OLD buildings with 1960's era infrastructure. I work in Huntsville. Many people would be SHOCKED at how rundown the center is.
Budgets are constantly being pared back.
Most all of the problems with the overall space plan is political. There are thousands of engineers that want to design and build newer and more efficient space craft, but the arena has become so politicized, most down give a crap anymore. Work on a program 6 months, get your funding pulled because Congress cuts the budget. 6 months of work wasted.
Again, we will see the nature of their facilities and take them out long before a threat is realized. We will also have about three days to track the rocks by high power radar and intercept them at high altitude. The smaller fragments will burn up in the atmosphere. I haven't read the book but it seems Heinlein missed something.
the list is in the 100's. Many here are unaware or unconvinced is all.
No they are not. Why don't we pour half of Nasa's money into resurrecting Xerox's R&D department and see what happens. I owe them a heck of a lot more than Nasa at this point. Nasa is a ridiculously large bloated agency that doesn't have to produce anything or sell anything to keep a float because we keep writting them larger and larger checks year after year.
Gut this pig and spread the money across other scientific endeavors.
And with regard to the posters stating all the wonderful inventions we owe to Nasa. My response is "what have you done for me lately Nasa?" We are going back 3 or more decades and pretending that Nasa is cranking out all kinds of useful new inventions and technology. They are not.
We will get much better economies of scale with our scientific investments by allowing any company other than Nasa to bid and when these individual projects.
But, but, but...
Given that most of the Dems believe that 'global warming' is going to destroy earth in five to ten years, don't they realize that they NEED NASA???
If not to erect that huge space umbrella to cool things off;
Then to give them, the elite, transportation to that new Eden-like planet that they will be able to turn into their socialist paradise.
I find it hard to understand the ignorance of many who are posting here. I'm sure they would like to close the patent office too, after all everything of consequence to them has already been invented. If we were to remove everything invented by NASA contracts and DOD contracts we'd all be playing dominoes today and not cruising the world on our computers. I guess this is the type of thing we have to look forward to with the Dems in charge, or would one of you malcontents with NASA like to set me straight with all the societal contributions of the Department of Health and Human Services and their "customers"?
What do you take them out with?
Fellow Freepers,
Your opinion of NASA management, or the whole concept of NASA at all, is of secondary importance in this case.
The democrats are punishing the states that didn't vote for them. They're giving the NASA money to promote AIDS "awareness" (the people that DID vote for them).
Would you like to speculate about who else on the Democrats "enemies list" will be next? Who will be rewarded?
I didn't mention anything about a moon base, but okay, I'll play along.
When scientists had the vision of creating satellites in space, people at that time thought these scientists were nuts. It couldn't be done. And even if it were done, what good could it possibly serve humankind?
I agree, the ignorance on this thread is appalling.
I've been here at MSFC in Huntsville for 7 years. The NUMBER ONE frustration for the engineers and scientists is the politicians who can't make up their mind what they want NASA to do.
The engineers are ready and willing to design and work. HARD. But unless Congress funds NASA to do the work, they can't. And it is infuriating to work on a project for 4-6 years, get it completed and ready to launch, then Congress pulls the funding because "we can't afford another mission".
By doing that, they just wasted the $100, $200, $500 MILLION dollars that went into the hardware design and hardware construction.
Ah, crap. Bookmark for later useless letter writing to communist masters.
If we're fortunate, some of those solutions could drop the cost of manned operations, as well as be beneficial to the human race in other areas.
My suggestion is do things in a different order, trying to save money by not doing something with old technology, and using that saved money to advanced technology that is non-specific to a given project.
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.