The problem with democracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcs_seattle

Guest
is that the guy who never passed high school algebra thinks he knows how to fix nasa.<br /><br />I was just perusing http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-88/REF.htm<br />and was thinking that, even with such detailed information available, the public and congress have no idea how hard space flight is. I have a lot of respect for the engineers who make these dreams happen and for the astronauts who trust their butts to these engineers.<br /><br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"is that the guy who never passed high school algebra thinks he knows how to fix nasa."<br /><br />To whom are you referring?<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
S

spayss

Guest
Au contraire: well, at least mildly to the contrary. There is nothing positive about super educated geeks who designed a machine that sits on the ground and does nothing....all at a cost of billions and billions. <br /><br /> Sure, educated minds are needed but also some hands-on fellows who know how to rebuild a carburator and can get a washing machine going. After an extra 1.5 billion spent (extra, not original) the tiles still fall off.<br /><br /> We need self-made entrepreneurs who risk their own dollars because they like to get their own hands dirty. It doesn't matter a bean if they ever passed high school algebra or not.
 
M

mcs_seattle

Guest
I'm not referring to any person in particular. It's just that the general public and politicians have these dreams and rants that nasa and engineers try to accomodate and make happen. It's just amazing to me how the littlest details of space technology seem so complicated.
 
S

spayss

Guest
The details of spaceflight are logical. That's a bit different from 'complicated'. Sure, not every guy can build a spacecraft in his garage but quite a few can rebuild a car engine or build a light airplane. And the guy who can build a light airplane, if he has a hundred million sitting in the bank, can understand what it takes to dabble in space aviation. <br /><br /> NASA is complicated to understand because it is complicated. Self-fulfilling. Building a functional rocket isn't so complicated...not easy but within the possibility of a team of a couple dozen individuals and a hundred million dollars. <br />
 
H

haywood

Guest
Spayss...<br /><br />"After an extra 1.5 billion spent (extra, not original) the tiles still fall off. "<br /><br />I don't recall any tiles falling off STS-114.<br /><br /><br />
 
D

dobbins

Guest
It would be more accurate to say "the problem with government funding". As long as NASA is taking tax dollars from "the guy who never passed high school algebra" he has every right in the world to comment on how that money is being spent regardless of what you might think of his views.<br /><br />Instead of dismissing people like this as being dumb Space advocates need to do a better job of convincing them them that a space program is in their best interests.<br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
There is another effect. The funding agency, congress, has an attention spam which is a fraction of the 2 year election cycle- a small fraction.<br /><br />Todays priority is tommorrows back burner / non-issue.<br /><br />For a project such as space, in which acqusition cycles take years to unfold - this is not a recipe for success.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
"congress, has an attention span which is a fraction of the 2 year election cycle"<br /><br />The attention span of Congress will increase when the number of voters who support a space program increases. <br /><br />This increase is far less likely to happen if space advocates continue the elitist attitude of dismissing those who disagree with them as dummies. All that does is turn people off and make them into foes of the space program.<br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Even in NASA's Apollo days, there was a significant fraction of people with the philosophy of "Why are we spending all that money on space, we have *real* problems right here on Earth."<br /><br />Politicians can "buy" votes a lot easier with Earthbound activities that space, and I don't think you are going to change that dynamic. <br /><br />But I hope you do. I would LOVE to be wrong here. It would put a big <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> on my face.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
H

halcyondays

Guest
<<<<br />Even in NASA's Apollo days, there was a significant fraction of people with the philosophy of "Why are we spending all that money on space, we have *real* problems right here on Earth." <br /> />>><br /><br />Indeed. We tend to forget now that Apollo was not unversally supported during the 1960s. I myself recall quite a lot of criticism about the amounts spent on the programme and why the money was not being spent on more worthwhile terrestrial projects. This may well be one contributory factor to why the project was pulled after Apollo 17, as well as the loss of general popular interest. <br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts