Discussion

• December 5, 2006

  8:14 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  what the hell is in space? NOTHING. Spending money on NASA is a huge waste. Let them go private if they preform such a great public service and see if they can remain afloat.

• December 5, 2006

  8:15 AM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  I don't really care if it is the moon or mars, can we just send harry asap?

• December 5, 2006

  8:28 AM

  no way Jose writes:

  not going to happen, all it will do is waste my tax dollars on a useless program. What has NASA done for us. Tang, velcro, and writing pens that work at any angle. Big deal. NASA is just a scam that allows other parts of the government to siphon off billions for secret programs.

• December 5, 2006

  9:18 AM

  R writes:

  Yes, yes and yes! Our space program is and always has been a factor in keeping America competitive. As a country our interest in science has drooped dramatically which is demonstrated everyday by the short sided, ignorant comments I read on this board for instance. The space program has given us a wealth of knowledge on a full gamete of scientific disciplines ranging from understanding weather patterns such as tracking hurricanes, to geology, physics, to understanding the history of the universe itself, and even medicine. A healthy space program that engages in the advancement of the human experience enriches us all.

• December 5, 2006

  9:19 AM

  jay writes:

  While I do think that NASA funds a number of programs under the radar...I also believe that we have to keep the bigger, long term picture in mind when looking at its efforts. We can choose to burden future generations with the rigors of early space exploration (we're still very much in its infancy) or we can be the early adopters of a strong commitment to push our boundaries.

  I agree that opening space travel and technology to most interested parties is a sure way to get more intellectual resources on a number of issues keeping space flight expensive and dangerous. I think the gov't should actually divert some of its inhouse funding towards private sector R&D to help provide the private space industry with a stable platform from which to innovate.

  PS. If you think Tang, Velcro and Magic Pens is the only technology invented by the space program, you should do a little more reading on the subject.

• December 5, 2006

  9:33 AM

  jose writes:

  R and Jay,

  Shame on you.

  But let us first remember not get a presence in space confused with NASA, for there are several entities that deal with space, McDonld Duglss for one, Boeing, etc that also do space experiments.

  Now, NASA has done so little for the expanision of knowledge it is sad. On their last trip, they did experiements on cockroaches to see the effects of weightlessness on bugs. There goes 5 billion. The entire program is filled with those useless type of experiments. As for you claims that they were productive for science, weather, physics, and the nature of the universe, the short answer is no!

  Satalites are what have propelled our understanding of weather patterns. The hubble telescope and other more powerful observation devices have proved for the insight into physics and the universe, what little there are, for we know as much about the nature of the universe as we did a generation ago.

  In short, NASA is a drain, and should either be scrapd or privitized

• December 5, 2006

  9:40 AM

  Rocket man writes:

  Dear R,

  Your claim that NASA and space programs keep America competitive is a joke. We have had NASA for decades and at the same time America is getting worse and worse in science and math, so you idea that keeping NASA for the boost to our children remaining competitive is flawed.

• December 5, 2006

  10:00 AM

  R writes:

  Rocketman and jose,

  Am I for privatizing the space program? Yes. Am I for funding NASA? Yes. Any exploit in the name of science and education no matter how it is funded is a worth while endeavor. Is oversight required for NASA like it is for all government programs? Of course it is.
  You can also sight all the accomplishments you want by private companies such as Boeing, BUT, NASA in more cases than not laid the foundations for the technology or contracted it out.
  Oh and NASA was a poster child for science and learning from the late sixties and seventies with the moon landings and the early shuttle missions. That enthusiasm fuels public support for science education. Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent years. Another trip to the moon or better yet Mars would greatly aid to this.

  By the way... Not to point out the obvious but, how much money has been spent in Iraq in the last hour since we've been discussing this? Talk about wasteful!
  

• December 5, 2006

  10:23 AM

  JW writes:

  Stephen Hawking says we must colonize other planets to ensure our survival.

  Stephen Hawking is smarter than you.

• December 5, 2006

  10:26 AM

  Michael writes:

  NASA is the best money spent out of all the taxes I pay. Forget the fact that the technology we have developed and commercialized has created BILLIONS in wealth, millions of jobs, new industries, etc. but the national pride that it evokes in anyone that is patriotic in anyway. I will never forget the Gemini and Apollo missions of the 60s and 70s. The whole world - literally - was glued to the TV watching the Apollo 8, 11, and 13 missions. It brought us all together as an accomplishment of the entire human race.

• December 5, 2006

  10:32 AM

  Jose writes:

  Yes, Stephen Hawkins is smarter than me, and you! However, the reason he said this in his book, as it was part of a larger lecture he gave at Cambridge, is that he believed that the people of the earth will consume the resources of the planet and that the only way to insure human survival is to go to another planet so that we may consume new resources. He did not state this out of a human imperative to foster understanding and learning. BTW, he stole this idea from Carl S.

  As for R's comments, NASA already has an oversight on it and it still wastes billions on stupid projects. If you want to foster science and learning, NASA spending is not the way. We are almost last in science and math scores, as Rocket man points out, and we are spending more on space exploration than ever. There is no coralation between this outdated division of government and learning.

• December 5, 2006

  10:38 AM

  Rocket man writes:

  Mike,

  The billions of dollars and loads of jobs was created in the private sector, not governmental. So let's make NASA a privatized company; my money is that it couldn't survive! I am not saying lets end the space program, but lets make it economical. Does anyone remember in the 70s when the idea was that we would send our trash into space directed at the moon? The idea was abandoned after it was discoverd that it costs $50000 per pound of cargo to send something into space (and that was 70s numbers), can anyone claim that this cannot be cheapened!

• December 5, 2006

  10:41 AM

  R writes:

  Okay jose, than how do you say we go about fostering science and learning? While NASA isn't the only way, it is a damn good one. Should we throw it in the hands of the private sector entirely? Unfortunately for that plan education and discovery don't always make for a good bottom line.

• December 5, 2006

  10:49 AM

  Kevin Jones writes:

  I suspect the Challenger explosion on live TV and the Columbia break-up did a lot to turn people off of space. For most people not addicted to sci-fi, space exploration just isn't as romantic as it used to be.

  Even the sci-fi people are likely withdrawing into on-line virtual space simulators and fantasy worlds rather than going ga-ga over the latest NASA technical specifications.

  It's not like space is going anywhere. Let's get out of debt first.

• December 5, 2006

  10:49 AM

  jose writes:

  R,

  O, I don't know, how about that we start teaching it again in schools and requring profecency for graduation from HS. When the space program started, America was in the top three in both science and math, so once upon a time, we actually graduated studnets who were capible of getting jobs in the science and tech. firms. Now, we import those jobs from countries like India, Pakistan, China and other where they have emphizd math and science in their schools. Imagine that. We actually hold our teachers accountalble for teaching.

  BTW, if anyone wants the state of our science program, all they have to do is look at the Air and Space museum in DC. There are exhibts there that are 40+ years old, even though the museum is not that old. That shows our commitment level to science and math!

• December 5, 2006

  10:51 AM

  jay writes:

  There's a huge difference between gov't sponsored exploration of space...and privatizing space flight. Two different ends with arguably several different means (on the space flight itself anyway).

  There is zero corrolation between our public school system and NASA. The argument that "well, we're still funding NASA and yet our children are flunking math and science" is an apples to watermelons comparison.

• December 5, 2006

  10:56 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Jose -
  Before you reorganize NASA, you may want to work on your spelling.

• December 5, 2006

  11:02 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Jose should go back to mexico, you can do that via a non goverment funded shuttle of your choice. Adios amigo, leave the chorizo at the door

• December 5, 2006

  11:03 AM

  R writes:

  jose,
  I completely agree with you. You went right back to my original point. A good space program can only build public support for science education. Americans have always liked to see things in action rather than just on paper... Putting an American on the Moon or on Mars will only contribute to helping regular people appreciate why sceince and math are so important. Just like it did forty years ago. Thus helping us stay competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.
  

• December 5, 2006

  12:17 PM

  Michael writes:

  Rocket Man,
  Of course all that wealth and all thosw jobs were created in the private sector - we are a capitalist country. But the driving force was NASA and the space race. The govt created the program that demanded that our scientists, engineers, and private enterprise INNOVATE and PRODUCE the technology that we needed to get to the Moon. They were later able to convert that to commercial applications which benefited all of us. I see nothing wrong with this model. No other country has been able to achieve such success with this model or with another.

• December 5, 2006

  12:21 PM

  jose writes:

  First, my spelling is abvd. for this blog. For those who can't deal with that, too bad.

  Second, I am not from mexico, although my parents were and to bash my heritage, and imply that yours is better, just goes to reaffrim you ignorance as "natural" americans.

  Third, I more than anyone want to see a space program move forward because I think it embodies the idea of humanity. However, when we cant even take care of the citizens on this planet, I find it hard to believe that what we need to do is expand the ignorance to other parts of the universe. Nor do I find it likely that we shall find the key that will make humanity better out in space. If we want a real challenge we should work on the problems within ourselves and leave space alone for now, at least until we perfect the ablity to travel faster than light.

• December 5, 2006

  12:25 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Heck yeah. A base on the moon, or Mars, or both. That way, when the idiots running the governments all push the buttons to nuke each other, there'll be someone to witness the whole sorry mess. Those few people may be like modern day Adam and Eve, or if the gay agenda has their say, Adam, Steve, Bruce, and maybe even Bob, and then all of humanity is doomed anyway.

  
  "Earth First. We'll hork up the other planets later."

• December 5, 2006

  12:36 PM

  Michael writes:

  Jose,
  Two questions:
  1. When will humanity ever have ALL our problems solved so that we can turn to exploring space? My thought - NEVER. If we wait for that day we would never have discoverd anything and still be living in trees and caves.
  2. How will we ever discover a propulsion system that wil travel faster than light if we do not begin with ones that are slower? Ever hear about learning to walk before learning to run?
  I think your ideas are naive and not well thought out - but I did not insult your national heritage or ethnicity.

• December 5, 2006

  12:41 PM

  R writes:

  jose,
  I agree that we have a vast number of problems right here on earth that we need to fix. However, for each one of those problems we have a number of far trivial and more expensive irons in the fire than space exploration. As far as the the total national budget NASA's chunk is quit small.
  As for staying out of space until we can travel past the speed of light that is like saying to the Wright brothers to stay out of the air until we break the sound barrier.
  

• December 5, 2006

  12:47 PM

  David (R) writes:

  Experimentation and necessity drive the creative and inventive processes. If we all just sit at home, dwelling on current problems and how to overcome them, 500 years from now we'll still have an incredible number of problems (dwindling Earth resources among them) and we'll be no further along in the space exploration arena. In my opinion, WE MUST continue our quest for space travel.

• December 5, 2006

  1:11 PM

  Chad Vader writes:

  NASA just needs to build a death star already

• December 5, 2006

  1:43 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  jose is clearly not that bright, and should be ignored irrespective of his background.

• December 5, 2006

  1:54 PM

  R writes:

  Hey Chad Vader,
  Is episode number 5 out yet?

• December 5, 2006

  2:00 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Other nations dream of building a better highway or expanding their downtown areas. The EU can barely agree on a common currency and Asians are more interested in increasing their nuclear stockpiles. In the United States we've already put a person on the moon and are planning on building a moon base and eventually put a man or woman on Mars. We've sent probes which have passed the limites of our solar system. The Chinese can pat themselves on the back for finally putting a man in space. Say what you will about the United States but one thing that is undeniable is that we are the leaders of space exploration. Every other country on this planet is decades behind us. Building a moon base adds to the glory of the United States and helps prove the United States is the greatest nation on Earth. One of the things that makes us great is that we dream big and think big. Does anyone have any doubt that the first person to set foot on Mars is going to be from the United States?

• December 5, 2006

  2:08 PM

  jay writes:

  It is too often easiest to pick out one government program or another and say "Bingo, that's the one we're wasting money on"....but in the real world, it just isn't that simple. Unfortunately, I think the most money gets wasted on poor policy initiatives backed by special interests...not by programs like NASA who, besides the occasional Defense piggyback, is largely a scientific organization whose sole purpose is to benefit all of humanity.

• December 5, 2006

  2:09 PM

  Ottis writes:

  A space program and mission to Mars is worth far more in immediate and indirect benefits than whatever we have now spent in Iraq. Case closed.

• December 5, 2006

  2:18 PM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  Let's also not forget that the mission to Mars will create new technology that will benefit us in way not yet imaginable. For example, in the 1980's, I was against Reagan's "star wars" program, but I LOVE the satellite navigational system that is in my vehicle today. SDI spending helped to make that technology possible.

• December 5, 2006

  2:59 PM

  jose writes:

  the technologies that have come from the "space program" were contracted out to private companies with the intention that their first use would be the space program, but that is not to say that the companies that developed the products wouldn't have developed them for the private consumer; in fact, the agreements reached for many of those products were made with the mindset that once declassified, that they would be made available for mass consumption. Otherwise it would not have been worth it to these companies to develop them.

  As I see it, space exploration is a natural outgrowth of being human, but that does not mean that we need to designate our tax dollars to providing for it, when private enterpize will take it to the next level. Why should government have the monoploy on space? the only reason they do, is government is afarid of the loss of power. For if another institution controlled space, that could put the defense industry in a panic and cause people to quesiton the need for government at all.

• December 5, 2006

  3:06 PM

  Rocket man writes:

  Ask yourselves this: if we did colonise the moon or mars, would it be possible for the government to control it. NO, just like when Brittan couldn't control the Americas. The only way that they can controll the potential conlony is if they control who goes up and populates it, Hence, the government wants to perpetuate NASA even though it could be done better, cheaper, and faster through other avenues.

• December 5, 2006

  3:35 PM

  David (R) writes:

  Jose - a few small statements I would make regarding your logic:

  1) Private enterprise will only work toward space travel, if, and only if, there is a financial incentive (profit) to do so.

  2) If the government, via NASA, wasn't driving the space exploration process nobody outside of Burt Rattan would be working on it.

  And Rattan's efforts aren't really in the area of "exploration" as much as in the profit motive. It is always possible that his 'service' could morph into one that provides methods of space transport for military, government, and scientific entities, but we gain so much from the space program that if NASA hadn't done it first, we'd be decades behind now.

  In a 'perfect world' the government conducts the will of the people. I watched on TV as then-President Kennedy outlined the reasons for going into space. They made sense to me then, and they make sense to me now. I understand your thoughts on using tax-payer money for it, and I am generally very conservative about what I willingly agree to give money to the government to spend. But in this case, I think the good outweighs the bad, and frankly, there's something good about not having 548 companies out there shooting projectiles into space.

  Please Rocket Man, lend us your expertise and knowledge in this matter, and tell us how developing a colony on Mars or the moon could be done "better, cheaper, and faster" by others.

• December 5, 2006

  3:50 PM

  jose writes:

  David,

  you make good points, but now a rebuttal.

  True, private enterprize will only proceed with colonizing space and planets if, and only if, there is a profit to be made. Thus, if there is some point to going out in to space then companies will go there, correct? Right. So what are those benefits. First, minearls and precious resources will fill this void easily. Next, the quest for knowledge might be a profitable reason. If there was some "thing" that companies learned exclusively by going into space that other compainies could not have by staying on the earth, and that extra "thing" alllowed them a competitive edge, then it would be profitable to go into space for the reason of increasing knowledge. However, as neither of these reasons exist, but only a belief that someday that there might be a profitable end to space exploration, then you cannot expect in your right mind that companies would want to spend money when there is no benefit for for it. So why do we ask our own government, via NASA, to continue a program where there is only a hope that a benefit might occur.

• December 5, 2006

  3:56 PM

  Clareaberra writes:

  Anyone read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis?

• December 5, 2006

  3:57 PM

  Clareaberra writes:

  Anyone read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis?

• December 5, 2006

  4:02 PM

  rocket man writes:

  Well as there have been slanderous remarks about my expertise, I should state that my name is Godddard, as in a decendent of the famous Robert Goddard. Without going into much detail, lets just say I know rockets and space.

  
  Now, how to make it cheaper. Here is how, the same way Brittan, Portugal, and the other countries who wanted to expand into the new world, they made deals with the "corporations" of that time. (although they were not corporation as we know it.) Remember that VA. first successful colony was spawned by a corporation. Now, by allowing the corporations to make deals for ownership of space and planets, you open up the possibilities for profit to be made. Now, all that is missing is a product that can be produced in these environments that cannot be had easily on earth or at all on earth. Finding this product is a matter of reasearch, which the corporations will undertake for the sake of expanding their profit. Rememeber that the pursuit of profit is one of the major factors in innovation. Thus, once a product, and its means is provided for, population of a planet is then just a matter of time and a race against other corporations. Bingo
  

• December 5, 2006

  4:39 PM

  R writes:

  Yeah, we should just let corporations run everything. Why stop at space exploration? Let's just sign over all aspects of the university system to them as well. That way they can tell us what to think as well as what to buy. Then Jose and Rocket Man's kids can answer with authority as they go in for their mindless drone manufacturing job interview and say: "Why yes sir, I got my degree in Corporate Group Think at the University of Wal-Mart."

• December 5, 2006

  4:45 PM

  Rocket man writes:

  Well, R, I would trust a corporation to do it better than any government, and that is the bottom line.

• December 5, 2006

  5:18 PM

  David (R) writes:

  Jose said, "So why do we ask our own government, via NASA, to continue a program where there is only a hope that a benefit might occur."

  The answer, in my opinion, is because there are military and government applications that can only be done from space. These could, and probably do, incude missile defense systems, missile launch systems, intelligence gathering systems, solar system and galaxy monitoring systems, future launch operations, plus things we haven't even thought of yet, but I'm sure someone has.

  Unless a private enterprise is paid to do this for the government, they won't, so the government does it themselves. Always remember that they believe they are smarter that we are, and that they always know what is best for us and the country.

  
  Rocket Man states he thinks he has been slandered, and I would say that if you're referring to my comment, you have misunderstood my intentions. I was asking a genuine question, actually making the assumption that since you were speaking to the topic, you must possess some expertise, knowledge, experience, or something to back it up. Now, do we have any way of knowing if you are a real Goddard, and even if you are what does that prove about you knowing anything about rockets? My last name is Rockefellar (yes, that one), but I can assure you I know very little of world banking internals, and I am not a multi-billionaire. That said, I see your angle on the profit motive for corporations, although I must say that it is one of the most expensive avenues possible for them.

• December 5, 2006

  5:31 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "I would trust a corporation to do it better than any government"

  there went all your credibility man .... every last bit of it

• December 5, 2006

  8:21 PM

  fiesty writes:

  You know, the folks who b*tch against ideas like this will be the first ones to criticize the gov't for NOT working on serious colonization ideas or space exploration when this hellhole called earth gets worse.

  The fact is, Stephen Hawking is on to something. We have finite resources here on earth, that we have been using like there's no tomorrow, not to mention the serious overpopulation which is unsupportable. Besides the resources issue, we are well on our way to making earth uninhabitable (at least by us) or, by most of the scientific data, on a verge of a huge climatic shift or ecological disaster.

  So, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Stick our heads in the sand and deny there's anything seriously wrong? Then again, maybe we don't deserve to continue if we want to be so damn shortsighted.

• December 5, 2006

  8:24 PM

  fiesty writes:

  Guys, quit the racist crap. If you can't debate Jose's arguments (very apparent), than shut up, rather than indulge in transparent Harry Palm behavior. Some of us would like to be able to discuss the issue rather than have to read the postings of small-minded, childish bigots.

• December 5, 2006

  9:33 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Come on Arnie - I've seen you make posts that are actually intelligent. Give it a try on this one, would ya? Being a freaking bigot doesn't become you.

  Fiesty, you make good points. I used to think that the answer to your last question was for us to stop consuming so damned fast, but the corporations that Rocket Man so loves, are like a plague swarm of locusts. They're so busy making cheap, plastic, mostly worthless shit for Wal-Mart to sell us, that they have no interest in slowing down, much less stopping.

  The age of "take and use what you need, and leave the rest for someone else" is long gone, as we have become a completely selfish, and self-absorbed society, and we're making the rest of the world that way as well - just look at China as proof - the average Chinese family could live on their land, grow their food, take pleasures in the simple things, watch out for their family and neighbors, study various philosophies, care for their elderly, and enjoy life. We, on the other hand, run like maniacs rushing from one thing to the next, worried sick about our 401k's, and having heart-attacks and high blood pressure problems at ever younger ages.

  And then we have the audacity to call them "backwards" or worse. Feisty, I think part of the solution is for us to learn to consume less. Do we really need a new car every year or two? What happened to maintaining the vehicle and driving it for 20+ years? I do, and they run fine. I imagine I'll eventually buy an LCD TV, but not until the prices drop even more, and they are reliable for 10+ years. Corporations have used all manner of tactics in marketing to make people hunger for "stuff", and they are very good at it now. Somehow, we need to resist them. It won't end the problems, but maybe it would slow them down.

• December 6, 2006

  8:05 AM

  PWA writes:

  Arnie -
  See the attached. Kind of hot. Should we not have all been so lucky?
  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_5193891,00.html
  

• December 6, 2006

  11:30 AM

  PWA writes:

  She's looking awfully happy for someone looking at jail time, lifetime registration as a sex offender, the collapse of her marriage, etc. etc.