krreagan
9th February 2006 - 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Feb 9 2006, 01:34 AM)
Need to start hiring private companies to provide answers, Govermental agencies are always so inefficient and costly, think of 400 dollar hammers and nasa is good for thousand dollar ratchets. Maybe if we paid realistic prices for things in the goverment we cold afford to spend more tax dollars on other things.
Riiiiiight! Halliburton is doing a great job helping to rebuild Iraq!
"Private" does not automatically make it better!
By the way, Who do you think was selling the $400.00 hammer? A private company! The government only bought it!
Krreagan
Eugene MacCaslin
10th February 2006 - 04:33 PM
So far NASA has proven that if you really want something done right don't give it to them. They have spent Billions of dollars already on systems that were supposed to replace the shuttle and everything has been cancelled. Why would you suppose that this time they will actually accomplish something? If you look at all of the people in the know Russian, Indian and others they say you must create something reusable and the plan that NASA proposes leaves us with a pile of junk after each mission. Like the EU maybe we should sign on with the Russian mission.
Guest_James
10th February 2006 - 09:55 PM
[FONT=Courier][SIZE=7]
So far the only thing that has hampered the NASA, are the politicians who defund it.
We could have established an outpost in space, long ago, if the Nixons, Regans, and Bushes would have funded it properly. But the only thing we fund properly are the government contractors. RE; the 400 dollar toilet seat. Unheated even. And with every de-emphisis on funding comes the failure to inspect, the failure of reused parts, and the failure of foresight. Now these people are looking into ways to create an even better privitized mercenary army. The best unmanned system, taking the oversight out of war. I'm getting old. Good luck to the future, they need it even more every day with these clowns in place.
GeneSplicer
13th February 2006 - 04:14 AM
Politicians have never been a friend to NASA regardless of party affiliation. To claim otherwise is to be either blinded by party affiliation, ignorant of history or both. Historically, when “budget cuts” are mentioned, one of the only organizations to actually endure such cuts is NASA. Politicians, like most of the general public, are ignorant when it comes to relative spending of NASA in comparison with the rest of the Federal budget. General perception is that anything NASA related or space related is automatically big $$$.
Considering all of the technology developed because of NASA (used in everyday life) and its research, you would think the organization would be held in slightly higher esteem than it is today in general. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that NASA should be totally shut down to save money especially since “they have never produced anything that benefits the general public”.
Also of note is the simplistic desire for a totally altruistic purpose to space exploration. There will always be a military component to such an endeavor and not just for the “mercenary army” US.
Daein
15th February 2006 - 06:34 PM
The problem with NASA's funding is that the government doesn't see any particular use for the agency to exist. Back when NASA had good funding it was only to make the US look better and smarter than the soviets. Today there isn't anyone to look better than so they don't see a reason to give NASA much funding.
As for reusable spacecraft. The "new craft" is partially reusable (each pod can be used half a dozen times or so)). I heard a few years ago that that it would be cheaper to use Apollo's than Shuttles. And the Apollo craft are completely junk after you use them. The reason for this is that the Apollo parts only needed to work once. They could be made cheaper than parts that are reusable. Also after the shuttle lands every part of the million parts need to be checked, and a lot of the tiles need to be replaced. With one use space craft you throw most of it away so it didn't matter. The shuttle is so inefficient it's impractical. For now non/partially-reusable space craft are the cheaper option. Untill someone can make a material that can survive hundreds if not thousands of reentries reusable space craft will not be the best option.
DeepThoughts
17th February 2006 - 01:53 PM
Personally I would like to see a completely non-government related organization take over the space race. Take every penny away from the pencil pushing bureaucrats. Gimme a break....a 16.something BILLION budget and the best they can do is lip service about the tech and craft they are "developing". Give me 16 billion dollars and I will put a resort hotel on the moon and give free drinks on the trip there and back.
People are becoming numb when given the dollar figures in billions and trillions, wake up people! Billions is an assload of money no matter how you misappropriate it. Things could be, and should be happening at an incredible pace when it comes to space tech, but all this money is siphoned away to bureaucrats and the red tape they wrap everything up in. Give this money to people that really want to get out into space and are willing to take the risks nessisary to make it happen. The rewards will follow.