The Next Five Big NASA Failures

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

halman

Guest
AlexBlackwell,<br /><br />Jeffery Bell has a knack for bringing out the side of me that feels that the United States should close NASA down entirely, scrap all launch vehicles, and give up any hope of having advanced technology. He makes many valid points concerning the glaring inconsistancies in NASA plans for the future, which, unfortunately, almost entirely stem from the dismal level of funding being given to the only activity which offers any hope of the United States maintaining an affluent society.<br /><br />People keep insisting that we cannot afford to spend more money on space exploration, yet we will willingly spend 400 billion dollars a year on maintaining the ability to destroy people and property in large quantities. Defense contracts are the only income some of the nation's high tech companies get, and the list of those companies seems to get smaller every year.<br /><br />Without a massive increase in funding, NASA is not going to be able to keep up even the pretense that the United States is a space faring nation. High tech jobs in the U. S. are going to disappear, and the economy will gradually shrink, as more and more Americans slide into poverty. Wal-Mart is encouraging its employees to get state assistance for medical care! When you have a full time job and still qualify for food stamps, you know that you are a member of the 'working poor'. That sector of the population is rapidly growing, as the bottom of the middle class slides further and further in income and benefits.<br /><br />Our last election had lots of rhetoric about 'job creation', but how does one go about creating jobs when there is little investment in research and development, new technology, or exploration? Service sector jobs depend upon there being a segment of the population which can afford the services. When everyone is working performing services for each other, no new wealth is being created, which means that we are having to give up some of our capital every time we purc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
halman, I pray you're wrong, but I fear you're right.<br /><br />However, although sometimes doom-and-gloom talk can lead the way towards climbing out of a hole, it can also reinforce the double negatives of negativity. Sorry about the mixed metaphor, but we mustn't shoot the messengers of negativity, just the negative message itself... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Without a massive increase in funding, NASA is not going to be able to keep up even the pretense that the United States is a space faring nation. High tech jobs in the U. S. are going to disappear,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What will you give a hungry man, a fishing rod or the fish you caught ?<br />Lets equate our out-of-job high-tech engineer with the hunrgy man.<br />NASA jobs means giving the man a fish. It'll last only as long as government ( read: other people) has enough resources to spare.<br />Private sector jobs, where wealth is created, can last as long as there is wealth to be created.<br /><br />The quirky part is for the government to give incentives to such wealth creation.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
Honestly I don't think that things have looked BETTER for space exploration in years. Bush was re-elected, meaning that the VSI still has a chance of survival, provided that congress decides to fund it (which, granted, is iffy at this point in time). Barring that, however, we have the rising private inudstry, who are closer than ever to opening space to the common man (and woman!). Sure, there are problems, but anyone would have to admit that the industry is much better off now than it was a year and a half ago!<br /><br />However, I imagine we could have permanent colonies -- nay, civilizations -- set up in distant galaxies, and Jeffrey Bell would bemoan space exploration as a futile waste of time.
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
<Yawn><br /><br />I wonder what Bell thinks he is accomplishing with this?
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
This is an example of everything that is wrong with some parts of the US media. It's not news, it's not quote-based, it's not valuable.<br /><br />It's a writer's opinion, a "Kent Brockman and his two cents" if you please.
 
R

remcook

Guest
Spacedaily is a glorified "letter to the editor" type of site. this makes the level and views of their articles quite diverse. <br /><br />I think Bell probably has some valid points, but I'm irritated by his constant negative attitude. IMO, there are better ways of making a point, than to call everything 'stupid', or what not. These articles DO get a lot of attention, BECAUSE of that attitude, and way of writing. I'm curious if the author is just provoking, or really feels so strongly about everything he writes.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
I haven't read it. It has been quite a while since Bell has produced anything worth reading. He neither informs nor enlightens, only rants. I can read enough of those here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<br />Actually -- this is the most enlightening article by Bell I've read yet. Almost as much of the article is focused on himself as on NASA. I particularly liked the part which read:<br /><br /><i>"The saving grace of CRAF for me was that rank-and-file university scientists are supposed to be seen and not heard on NASA missions. At first I submitted unsolicited memos and reports about problems with the mission and possible ways to fix them."</i><br /><br />If those unsolicited memos were half as annoying as his Op-Ed pieces, Bell might well have killed CRAF singlehandedly. And the part about where he played hooky from a thrice-yearly meeting because he felt it was useless -- whatta guy. We need more people with his "Can't do so why even bother trying" attitude.<br />
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
I would read the article, but I've instituted a personal boycott of SpaceDaily following Bell's last commentary.
 
T

thecolonel

Guest
I told their editor months ago that I won't read their page anymore because of Bell... obviously it is still the right decision.
 
S

spacester

Guest
Bell is clearly a hack and a jerk, but there <b>are</b> some problems looming for NASA which are getting the ol' ostrich-head-in-the-sand treatment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

davp99

Guest
..And i bet he Steals Candy from Babies Too...<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br /><br />Looks like i have to send SD another Drop Jeffy email.. heck it worked for wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>
 
T

thalion

Guest
I don't often agree with JB, but I think this article did raise some valid objections:<br /><br />1.) I still think ISS and the Shuttle are wastes of money, and the former will only prove more so once its "complete." <br /><br />2.) Though I support JIMO, I still think the odds against it ever getting off the ground are long, due to cost and nuclear-phobes. If only they had stuck with the Europa Orbiter...<br /><br />3.) Though I strongly support a Hubble repair mission, I still think it's dumb to spend several times as much money to repair it with robots as it would to simply take a measured risk and repair it the old-fashioned way, let alone launching a whole new telescope.<br /><br />However, to be fair I think his objection against a Mars Sample Return mission is ludicrous--returning samples from Mars would only bolster the importance of Martian meteorites by allowing us to "calibrate" their composition and history, rather than blithely accepting them at face value.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder what Bell thinks he is accomplishing with this?</font>/i><br /><br />First, to get people to read the article, or at least view the page.<br /><br />Second, to provoke discussion, which he does from time to time.<br /><br />The scenario of the shuttle eating up any available funds for developing a new vehicle has started building momentum (again). I have a picture in my mind of the shuttle eating its young.<br /><br />The latest discussion from the Senate shows a similar line to the House -- basically NASA is on a fixed budget (excerpts). If NASA wants a new program, it will need to free up more money internally. To do that, hard decisions need to be made.<br /><br />To be fair, the criticisms about NASA can be said about any government organization, from Boston's Big Dig to the Army's Crusader and Comanche weapons systems to Social Security. Big programs with lots of people under contract take on a life of their own. For example, Congress may not add money, but it also refuses to allow any NASA centers to be closed.</i>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts