Re: "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- From: "jonathan" <Write@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:06:18 -0500
"jacob navia" <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4406df66$0$19719$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/science/space/02nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda
would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the
agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six
months ago that not "one thin dime" would be taken from space science to
pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
The cuts come to $3 billion over the next five years, even as NASA's
overall spending grows by 3.2 percent this year, to $16.8 billion.
Among the casualties in the budget, released last month, are efforts to
look for habitable planets and perhaps life elsewhere in the galaxy, an
investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe
apart, bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life
under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa — as well as numerous smaller
programs and individual research projects that astronomers say are the
wellsprings of new science and new scientists.
The agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, says NASA needs the
money to keep the space shuttle fleet aloft, complete the International
Space Station and build a new crew exploration vehicle to replace the
shuttle.
As much as I'd like to see all those missions, we need a new manned
rocket and unmanned heavy lift. I think the primary lesson of
the shuttle is that combining manned and heavy lift was a bit
too ambitious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Down with science!
I suppose it's a matter of different priorities. Whether pure
science should come first, or manned flight with the prospect
of tangible returns for us mortals someday. Pure science
in space seems to me to have little potential for bettering
the human condition. But building an infrastructure to
and in space might someday.
So I say pure science, wrt space, is a luxury that has to
take a back seat to rebuilding the manned program
and not letting the ISS go to waste.
Of course, if the pinheads in charge could fathom the
wherewithal to create a goal for Nasa that shines!
That inspires! One with clear and large tangible
benefits for us mere taxpayers, they would
have little difficulty affording both.
If the President were to announce something like this...
"Nasa's only purpose is to end the global dependence
on fossil fuels, and turn America into the world's
largest energy producer."
Whatya thing would happen? First of all, most people would
immediately understand this goal also would solve our long
term global warming anxiety.
Out two Greatest National Anxieties at once!
Being dependent on Arabs for our future, and ruining
our biosphere in the process. Not to mention everyone
understands that diminishing energy supplies will bring
.......WARS.
Cheap energy effects almost everyone on the planet.
Clean energy does too, so does global warming.
So do wars.
The point is that any goal needs to draw as many connections
to others as possible. The more grandiose in terms of tangible
benefits the better. And the better chance for success, as such
a goal as our energy future, and the taxpayers would throw
BUCKETS of money at Nasa.
Nasa's current goal of spending several decades to put
four, or is it six, people on Mars connects to......
...those four people, and those that built the thing.
The goal of 'To the Moon and Mars" is grandiose only in the
sense of dreams of discovery, which fails to connect with
tangible benefits. But reverse that, a goal that is all about
....us..and the connection to our dreams is immediate.
Both have to exist at the same time, the static and chaotic, for
a goal to spring to life. And once alive, the solutions, like life
....find a way.
Jonathan
Space Solar Power Home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
(Don't bother clicking, they took the site
down in the last few weeks, tired of hearing
about it I suppose)
s
Science is a waste of money, and should be replaced with bible readings,
Intelligent design, and pro-abortion campaigns.
No big company makes any money with fundamental sciences like astronomy,
astrophysics and all that rubbish. Why waste money in that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- References:
- "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- From: jacob navia
- "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- Prev by Date: Re: Nasa/faa
- Next by Date: Re: Dave Urie, Have Blue
- Previous by thread: Re: "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing - fast,"
- Next by thread: Re: "The bottom line: science at NASA is disappearing — fast,"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
