Cause Congress has shown us that if they have a surplus of money they will spend all of it on highly useful programs that benefit everyone and wouldn't waste it on "Bridges to Nowhere" or other Pork projects HUH????
Posted on 08/28/2007 8:13:47 PM PDT by anymouse
Paul Thornton's Op-Ed, "Space Program Lunacy," recently caught my eye. Although Mr. Thornton's emphasis was on the need to replace a certain weather satellite rather than "waste billions" on human spaceflight, I instantly felt the need to come to the defense of NASA's plan to return to the moon.
(snip)
First, let me confess a little bias. When I was a West Virginia lad of 17, I met a Massachusetts lad of 42 by the name of John F. Kennedy.
(snip)
When he asked for questions, I raised my hand and, for some reason, he noticed me right off. Because I was a rocket boy, I asked him what he thought we should do in space. He turned it around and asked me what I thought we should do, and I said we should go to the moon. When he asked me why, I looked around at all those coal miners and said, well, we ought to go up there and just mine the blamed thing! The miners all laughed, and so did Kennedy, and when he agreed with me, he secured all their votes that day.
(snip)
Homer Hickam is the author of "Rocket Boys," on which the movie "October Sky" was based.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
space ping
It was a waste of taxpayer money then, and NASA continues to waste taxpayer money now. In particular the Space Shuttle program is a completely useless waste of time and dollars that could be spent actually doing real science (or better yet actually unspent so that taxpayers can decide themselves what to do with their own money).
jas3
Because all of the above items were invented for use in or derived from research from the U.S. MANNED Space program.
That isn’t a valid reason for space travel, can you imagine how much more we would have if the billions wasted on the shuttle program went to R&D for practicial devices like the ones mentioned.
Don’t forget, microprocessors, Crazy-Glue, personal PC’s, Digital watches and calculators, high resolution monitors, cell technology and the framework for the internet.
Almost forgot Tang.
Here's a hint....the letters of the name are N.....A......S.....A
You figure it out from there.
Don’t forget TANG !!!
We could have bought all these innovations from the flying saucer crews instead of robbing this stuff when they crashed, and claiming we invented it
“...went to R&D for practicial devices like the ones mentioned...”
I think the “necessity is the mother of invention” might cover this. Without HAVING to have this technology for the space program I doubt much of it would have been invented.
But NASA is a flip of the switch away from being a sixth branch of the military, as it should be, and that is enough reason to justify the existence of the program, if not all of it's spending.
And the article is right. He3 is highly potent energy source. Just gotta find a way to get it back here - maybe launching tankers into the ocean from the moon or something.
Cause Congress has shown us that if they have a surplus of money they will spend all of it on highly useful programs that benefit everyone and wouldn't waste it on "Bridges to Nowhere" or other Pork projects HUH????
Indeed ... and the payback for every dollar spent by NASA is what, $11? What is the payback for that dollar spent by DHHS? And remember, every dollar spent by NASA is spent here on erf, not in space. Can it be done better? You betcha, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done!
P.S. - I’m mainly only inclined to be skeptical because I’m always skeptical of “killjoy” articles, and NOT because I see any obvious error in this one. On the surface, it appears to successfully dismiss the optimism over He3 (after dismissing the fears over black holes being created by the LHC). I’d just like to know if there’s anything missing from the author’s consideration.
Bzzzz! Wrong! Try DARPA or other DOD researchers. People like to think NASA does valuable R&D that leads to common civilian products, but very few technologies originate within NASA. NASA has used some of these technologies and products, which leads to the confusion.
BTW, Tang was invented commercially and offered to NASA for spaceflight in hopes that it would become more popular, apparently the placement marketing worked for a while.
I want to see the balance sheet. I have yet to see NASA pay a single cent in taxes or pay a dividend.
And remember, every dollar spent by NASA is spent here on erf, not in space.
Don't know where erf is, but certainly those who benefit from NASA employees and contractors spending their paychecks in their local businesses sure hope we keep the pork flowing.
Let the commercial guys start an economy in space and space starts to becoming a place of commerce not a welfare program for the overeducated.
Where's the constitutional authorization for the Federal government to spend money on those things?
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.