Nasa bought and sold...

[nova_explored]

In 1998 again in 2003 and then just recently NASA was under serious scrutiny by corporate america, coming very close to being sold into the coroporate world. The government was threatened as it were with this prospect- why continue to shell out huge sums of money when a corporate setting could do it for you. President Bush, if you remember in a speech in 2003 with the space shuttle disaster, was approached with just this and vied that he would never allow corporate world to take NASA (ironically the same man that is seen as siding with corporate america...), anyway, the future could hold different. If the space shuttle program fails with no alterior, where independent contrators and corporations are showing explicit advancements and significant cost and economical reductions, it will very much be made public. To anyone who keeps up with corporate setting or has seen documentaries such as Manufacturing Consent and Corporation, we know, as does presidency, that the age of pure research and betterment will suffer major blows. In such a case will we go back to the moon, to mars, research cancer in a space station? Will independent vie for such endeavors or personal gain and pleasure (skyrocket flights to hotels). The idea was presented to the president by none other than Noam Chomsky that if NASA falls, so to will pure science. It is that deap. <br /><br />The government has no control or reins over corporate america. The question is will corporate america find its morality. Will a company like lockhead most definitely dedicate a major component of its company to ONLY pure science and research. Will that morality hold. We can only hope that any such company that would find a cornerstone on the market of space travel take after that other business mogul MICROSOFT that does indeed hold such a morality for the betterment of humankind. But it all comes down to the human element behind the machine and Bill Gates behind his is a very moral person. Will others fol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[nova_explored]

p.s. <br /><br />i bring this up because in lieu of recent findings within NASA about the condition or the fleet of shuttles, the bedrock that is NASA, tough questions have been asked about its future and if it can sustain. And throughout the tough road, the President has maintained with conviction that NASA will survive and will CONTINUE. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rhodan]

Um...interesting take on NASA, nova_explored, but I think this thread is better suited for the Space Business and Technology forum.

 

[le3119]

I think NASA is peerless when it comes to the unmanned planetary and remote sensing missions, as long as they stick to that, over time, the private sector will come through for more of the manned missions. The govt has to get out of the human aspect - NASA will always be hamstrung by Congress and each new administration, and the political will is usually lacking.

 

[nova_explored]

ah but thats exactly what is happening. NASA is being threatened to be dismantled by corporate conglomerates and <br />the only thing keeping it viable as a government run program is this administration....not congress. Congress would assume see the increasing cost burdens go elsewhere and now with the re-evaluation that is going to make for some tough numbers, congress will have no second thought in allowing its dismanteling. <br /><br />thats why you've heard the president saying NASA will continue as a government program and we will go back to the moon. The president is trying to stimulate NASA's economic position and give it heat for congress to get behind- for protection. <br /><br />In an interview with chief executive in charge of operations at NASA, posed the quesiton- 'if NASA suffers another fatal space shuttle disaster, what will the future of NASA be?' And his response was- 'more than likely there wouldn't be anything.'<br /><br />if dismantled then although research may very well continue, NASA will be nothing more than a launch pad for rent. And who would that go to- the highest bidder- and who can afford- companies that are NOT in scientific research- or put another way not government sanctioned and funded but PRIVATE. Corporate america doesn't donate to readily to a non profit organization that won't return a profit when it can send satellites and people into space for their own personal gain. and the government can do nothing to regulate that. NASA isn't like our bridges and roads were the government sends a stimulus package into motion and subcontractors bid for the job done independently. NASA is the job, it is fully government owned and run which allows it to be pure science.<br /><br />if the private sector is more cost effective than (what was NASA) will be bidding the same as any other company for unmanned planetary and remote missions. <br /><br />I would be surprised if NASA remains together for the next five years after its total re-evalu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Personally I support private industry sending humans into space...

 

[nova_explored]

and then we can have another war with corporations buying empty space as property as water bottling companies owned rainwater, yes rainwater, as property in africa...<br /><br />probably the very reason such treaties will not be lifted by those with knowledge of its repercussions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Like the UN can do didly sqaut....