Is postponing Space Exploration the Best Way to Finance Early Childhood Education?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Taking from a program that manages very high efficiency with only 1.5% of the budget (NASA) to feed some other part of the budget that's largely mismanaged (couch potatoes cashing in welfare for jumbo widescreen TVs, etc) - that's either stupidity or a hint of corruption. &nbsp;Obama being a product of the Michigan Democratic party gives some clue of which of the two this is a case of.&nbsp;In billions of US dollars out of the 2008 1.075 trillion dollar budget:</p><p>...</p><p>(K-12) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 31 B$</p><p>....Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>Thirty-one billion dollars towards k-12 and we graduate people that can't read and have no qualifications for anything besides manual labor. Yet, with 17B, we can put people in space and discover the secrets of the Universe.</p><p>Does anyone besides me see NASA and our various space technology programs as a heck of an incentive for active young minds to WANT to learn?</p><p>So, cut program budgets like NASA and what is the government saying - We reward incompetance and failure and punish those with the vision to dream of rising above themselves?&nbsp; How about turning around and telling our "Education" sector that they are now in a Performance Based Budget situation?&nbsp; How many of them would crap themselves?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I resent you saying that Obama is a product of the Michigan Democratic party; he's actually a product of the Chicago, Illinois Democratic party, otherwise known as the "Daly Machine". Michigan Democrats can't hold a candle to the level of corruption present in the Chicago party...not even close.&nbsp; Not to say they don't try, but still.... <br /> Posted by docm</DIV>I'm sorry, that's what I meant to say. &nbsp;Every now and then I think "Michigan" or"Chicago" and say the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">Taking from a program that manages very high efficiency with only 1.5% of the budget (NASA) to feed some other part of the budget that's largely mismanaged (couch potatoes cashing in welfare for jumbo widescreen TVs, etc) - that's either stupidity or a hint of corruption. &nbsp;Obama being a product of the Michigan Democratic party gives some clue of which of the two this is a case of.&nbsp;In billions of US dollars out of the 2008 1.075 trillion dollar budget:Education: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;56 B$&nbsp;(K-12) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 31 B$Medicare: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;386 B$Medicaid: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;202 B$SocialSec: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 608 B$NASA: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;17 B$&nbsp;space ops: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;6.7 B$&nbsp;science: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;5.5 B$&nbsp;exploration.sys &nbsp;3.8 B$&nbsp;aeronautics: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;0.558 B$&nbsp;&nbsp;source: <br /> Posted by nimbus</font></p><p>And keep in mind, the record NASA budget was posted over 40 years ago and was at least twice what we spend on NASA today after inflation is factored in. I use the Almanac and Book of Facts for my data and except for a few years in missing gaps because I dont have almanacs for every year since then. It is a pretty good set of data for establishing the trend I saw long ago.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
...how people are programmed to respond to space science with 'wouldnt it be better if we used the money to solve X'. I dont think they have really thought about it or even the source of their opinion. It is the correct verbal handshake to identify you as 'socially aware intellectual'&nbsp;&nbsp;whereas interest in space is like flopping out your D&D rulebook.. social death :)
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Which is space enthusiasts must give their vote of no confidence to NASA and go the way of privatization.&nbsp; At least they can't say nothing about spending private funds, and if they do, walk out of their house with their TV set and tell them 'wouldn't it better to spend the money to solve x'.&nbsp; Then they'd get the picture.&nbsp; Space program>>>>>>watching TV <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Feel the Hope-nosis </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which is space enthusiasts must give their vote of no confidence to NASA and go the way of privatization.&nbsp; At least they can't say nothing about spending private funds, and if they do, walk out of their house with their TV set and tell them 'wouldn't it better to spend the money to solve x'.&nbsp; Then they'd get the picture.&nbsp; Space program>>>>>>watching TV <br />Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV></p><p>There is no conflict between NASA and privatization.&nbsp; NASA does not compete with private launch vehicles.&nbsp; Neither does the DOD.&nbsp; In fact, vehicles developed to serve those markets also serve the private market, so in a sense NASA and the DOD subsidize the private sector.</p><p>The only thing standing between where we are now and the privatization of space enterprises is business objectives.&nbsp; No one is making much if any money on private launch services.&nbsp; Boeing rues the day they made a big bet on EELV.&nbsp; None of the smaller companies have made a profit, or even developed any significant market.</p><p>The basic problem is that the only market of any size is the launching of satellites, mostly communications satellites, and there are not enough of those to support the glut of launch vehicles that are available.</p><p>People not in the business greatly underestimate the level of technical competence required to produce a reliable launch vehicle that has the performance necessary to get to LEO (low Earth orbit) or GEO (geostationary orbit).&nbsp; Rockets that can put a payload there are of necessity a rather long string of single-point failure modes.&nbsp; It is the job of the designer to make sure that none of those failure modes are realized, and generally they are successful.&nbsp; It is the modes that you don't recognize that bite.&nbsp; But to create a good design requires a small army of sophisticated and specialized engineers with a boat load of empirical data to back up the specialized computere codes, and lots and lots of peer reviews to make sure that there are no slips.&nbsp; There are no "trust me"s allowed.&nbsp; That is expensive, and many commercial guys cannot accept the need for this level of rigor.&nbsp; But then they find out the cost of a single failure.&nbsp; Beal tried, and finally recognizing the real costs, got out of the business.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No one is making much if any money on private launch services.&nbsp; Boeing rues the day they made a big bet on EELV.&nbsp; None of the smaller companies have made a profit, or even developed any significant market.The basic problem is that the only market of any size is the launching of satellites, mostly communications satellites, and there are not enough of those to support the glut of launch vehicles that are available.People not in the business greatly underestimate the level of technical competence required to produce a reliable launch vehicle that has the performance necessary to get to LEO (low Earth orbit) or GEO (geostationary orbit).&nbsp; Rockets that can put a payload there are of necessity a rather long string of single-point failure modes.&nbsp; It is the job of the designer to make sure that none of those failure modes are realized, and generally they are successful.&nbsp; It is the modes that you don't recognize that bite.&nbsp; But to create a good design requires a small army of sophisticated and specialized engineers with a boat load of empirical data to back up the specialized computere codes, and lots and lots of peer reviews to make sure that there are no slips.&nbsp; There are no "trust me"s allowed.&nbsp; That is expensive, and many commercial guys cannot accept the need for this level of rigor.&nbsp; But then they find out the cost of a single failure.&nbsp; Beal tried, and finally recognizing the real costs, got out of the business.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>So, are you saying its difficult for these start-up companies to go into space or are you saying its impossible for them to go into space because if it's the latter I must take issue with that.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Feel the Hope-nosis </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, are you saying its difficult for these start-up companies to go into space or are you saying its impossible for them to go into space because if it's the latter I must take issue with that.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV></p><p>I'm saying that it is difficult for the start-up companies to be economically viable, and in some cases they lack the technical competence to produce a reliable vehicle.&nbsp; Nothing is impossible.&nbsp; But one must be practical as well.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

freya

Guest
<p>[ Another reason is because the same types of politics from ancient times, Greek, Roman, Egyptian ect. is still the norm. Politics hasn't changed but the world has since then and so too must the politics. Humanity is circling like a wagon train going&nbsp;no where when all of the keys sit in the center of the wagon train. <br />Posted by dryson[/QUOTE]</p><p>Hey Dryson. Great insight here - 'Politics hasn't changed'. Forget the wagons, we are still huddled in caves, haunted by the ominous growl of the leopard. I don't imagine what the alternative is. Taking into account the current world, country, local&nbsp;scene, an outside observer would say we are very good at killing or hurting one another. Remember, I'm talking about first impressions here and do not wish to sound completely pessimistic. This forum here is proof to&nbsp;the contrary. &nbsp;</p><p>If things don't change, humanity as a whole will fall.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

freya

Guest
<p>On that note, I'm going to catch up with the wonderful things Phoenix has to show us today.</p><p>Have a good one ;-)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">...how people are programmed to respond to space science with 'wouldnt it be better if we used the money to solve X'. I dont think they have really thought about it or even the source of their opinion. It is the correct verbal handshake to identify you as 'socially aware intellectual'&nbsp;&nbsp;whereas interest in space is like flopping out your D&D rulebook.. social death :) Posted by kelvinzero</font></p><p>Well stated. I was never quite able to word it but I know what you mean. Kind of imagine being at a well to do party on South Beach among the "Cool people" who all buy into the "If we can land on the moon, we..." because its the cool thing to say. Same goes for the "We never landed on the moon" idea. Your cool if you say you believe that we never went to the moon. And if one such as myself even bring up human spaceflight in a positive way, I'd be pegged an out of touch geek. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">Which is space enthusiasts must give their vote of no confidence to NASA and go the way of privatization.&nbsp; At least they can't say nothing about spending private funds, and if they do, walk out of their house with their TV set and tell them 'wouldn't it better to spend the money to solve x'.&nbsp; Then they'd get the picture.&nbsp; Space program>>>>>>watching TV <br /> Posted by Crossover_Maniac</font></p><p>Consider my vote of no confidence already in...except its not a no confidence in NASA...its a no confidence in the majority of the public that has turned on human spaceflight because they think it costs too much or its not star warsy enough.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY