NASA's new 'vision' raises questions about Mars (Griffin Comments)

eitb24 ^ | 07/17/2005

[I see my hands]

We can't all have the conceit of the enlightened.

[Names Ash Housewares]

I think that Bush's quiet strong support is serving the mission goals far better. The democrats would just attack it if Bush made it a big deal.

[demlosers]

Good point.

[night reader]

Member of the Hoaxland cult I suppose...

Hey, cut the newbie some slack!

[brooklin]

Actually he's quite correct... I own the Dunkin Donuts franchise at the corner of Rock and Canal streets. ;)

[YOUGOTIT]

The problem is: The Shuttle would have been retired by now, and a new launch vehicle taking its place, except that there are hundreds of people in NASA and their Contractors who depend on the Shuttle for their jobs and they do not want a change. Thousands of dollars , if not more, have been spent to come up with positions that would keep the Shuttle flying and the stop any replacement vehicle. Lets see what was the quote "the Replacement Vehicle is only on view graphs, lets keep flying what we have." But that was in the early 90s and the space station was overrunning its budget and every spare dime was going to support the overrun. Unless NASA retakes its position as the leader in space exploration and the spear point for new science and engineering then the folks who want to keep the status quo will prevail.

[Born to Conserve]

"...solid evidence of the remains of a megalithic city..."

OMG! He's right! That's a photo of a solid waste landfill if ever I saw one! Somebody tell the President!

[Born to Conserve]

You think those photos are authentic?

W-h-a-c-k-o-!

[demlosers]

Can you read?

W-a-c-k-o!

[RightWhale]

hundreds of people in NASA and their Contractors who depend on the Shuttle for their jobs

You can probably imagine the degree of sympathy the 300,000 engineers and other personnel, who were working on space and other technology contracts for the FedGov in 1970 and who got laid off and left high, dry, and out in the cold, have for these fortunate persons.

[RightWhale]

The democrats would just attack it if Bush made it a big deal.

You can date the beginning of the seriously political present attacks on Bush to the very minute that Bush made his new direction speech at Kitty Hawk. It is odd that many Democrats show up for face time at NASA events, yet don't mention NASA otherwise. They don't bring up Moon, Mars and Beyond, yet that was the signal to attack on all other fronts.

[RightWhale]

Anyway, my contention is that private property is the key to development of outer space by the private sector. Private property is something enabled by the State, yet the State has engaged in a massive contradiction by signing the Treaty. They both agree to not claim anything in outer space, yet claim everything in outer space, by the act of signing that Treaty. Private property can exist only under national claim, and national claim requires boots on the ground. Thus, the moon can be formally claimed yet the Tempel-1 comet canot. Mars cannot even though several robots have been landed since 1976. Boots on the ground, and dump the Treaty. And open the Land Office.

[KevinDavis]