Skip to comments.
The New NASA: A Path To Anywhere, And Everywhere
Popular Mechanics ^
| February 8th, 2010
| Rand Simberg
Posted on 02/09/2010 12:15:31 PM PST by NonZeroSum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: NonZeroSum
For us to ever even consider a better way, the outer space treaty will have to go. With its existence, the best a private company can ever hope to be is a space taxi or freight carrier under government contract.
As things stand now, its illegal for the Richard Bransons of the world to build a hotel on the moon. Instead he dreams of low earth orbit thrill rides because that’s all he can dream of.
21
posted on
02/09/2010 12:49:28 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: NonZeroSum; All
22
posted on
02/09/2010 12:52:23 PM PST
by
raptor22
(The truth will set us free)
To: GraceG
It has become a welfare program for bureaucrats, and not a haven for engineers and risk takers like it used to be. You've got that right. And they earn more, with better benefits, than the private sector.
To: cripplecreek
Based on the picture I’d say that NASA has already hired them.
To: raptor22
It doesn’t surprise me that liberals want to live under Chinese global control. It does surprise me that so many conservatives do.
25
posted on
02/09/2010 12:55:42 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: ConservativeMind
So are the dollars that launch the military rockets right next to the shuttle. Quite frankly, we don't have time to sit around waiting for there to be enough of a profit motive to establish a spaceflight infrastructure that takes us to the moon and back on a regular basis. There is a national security motive for us to maintain a manned spaceflight capability and to establish a lasting presence on the moon as quickly as possible. If we fail to do that then we turn our children's future over to foreign nations. The russians are discussing the possibility of deflecting Apophis themselves. Do we really want to leave our security up to the Russians? What if they botch it and make the threat more likely instead of less likely? And what if an even more likely threat is discovered? Now is not the time to be downsizing our capability to focus on "earth science" (gorebull warming).
The government should fill the role of building the early infrastructure in space that private companies can later utilize to get to the moon and beyond, but we're not there yet. SpaceX is utilizing government-built infrastructure to launch Falcon 9, and that's exactly the kind of thing we need to see happen with space-based infrastructure in the future. The problem is that we still need to build that space-based infrastructure, and we need to do it [i]first[/i], before other nations take control of the resources and strategical positions that make us dependent on them.
To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
I think June is gay pride month...
27
posted on
02/09/2010 1:06:00 PM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
To: GraceG
It’s a “Cult of Personality”..................
28
posted on
02/09/2010 1:08:28 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(Education makes people easy to lead, difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.)
To: SengirV
i like the part where he said Apollo,, “was an utter failure, as evidenced by the fact that we stopped doing it”
By this logic our war with Japan was an utter failure too. I mean, we stopped doing it. The mission being achieved, we stopped,,, but it wasnt because it was a failure. who is this guy? NASA is full of Hansen-bots who want it to be a PC global warming agency. Maybe this guy is one of em. My red flags go up when a space guy wants a rocket cancelled.
29
posted on
02/09/2010 1:13:30 PM PST
by
DesertRhino
(Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
To: NonZeroSum
Anybody know where Palin stands on space exploration? Does she want government employees going to space or private citizens on private spacecraft?
To: Old Professer
“I think June is gay pride month...”
Welll, kudos to him for getting THAT little factoid wrong!
31
posted on
02/09/2010 1:18:18 PM PST
by
DesertRhino
(Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
To: Old Professer
I stand (with back to the wall during the month of June) corrected...
To: DesertRhino
NASA is full of Hansen-bots who want it to be a PC global warming agency Absolutely! I hear, and see, it daily. It's a sad situation.
On the bright side, the military is about 15 years ahead of NASA with space R&D. So, other than the incredible waste of money, we're not falling too far behind in the space race.
To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
34
posted on
02/09/2010 1:28:34 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
To: cripplecreek
To: messierhunter
There is a national security motive for us to maintain a manned spaceflight capability and to establish a lasting presence on the moon as quickly as possible.If that's true, then a) the Pentagon should pay for it, not NASA and b) Constellation wasn't the way to do it.
To: DesertRhino
By this logic our war with Japan was an utter failure too. I mean, we stopped doing it.Didn't you actually read the piece? He said that it was a success at beating the Russians to the moon. What it failed at was building a sustainable and affordable program to open up space to humanity, or even America.
To: DesertRhino
My red flags go up when a space guy wants a rocket cancelled.Some rockets should be cancelled, if they aren't going to be cost effective at achieving the goal. There are better ways to get back to the moon than Constellation. In fact, Ares was likely going to die eventually anyway, because it was so ridiculously expensive and unneeded. Better to kill it now, and stop throwing good money after bad.
To: Free Descendant
In black and white terms I dont think there should be a role for the government in space outside of national security.
I consider NASA national security. Considering the national security implications of an enemy weaponizing space if we lack the capacity to respond. Something does not have to have USAF on the side to be useful for keeping the country secure.
40
posted on
02/09/2010 1:58:57 PM PST
by
TalonDJ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson