Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on April 15, 2010, 07:09:45 AM
-
NASA has many programs years behind schedule and billions over budget.
With our economy so close to falling, what is wrong with Obama saying "let the private sector continue space exploration" and scrapping the very inefficient govt run NASA?
Yes, a few thousand people lose their job - but isn't part of "less spending, smaller govt" being able to slash bloated programs like this? If Obama had just DOUBLED the size of NASA, people would be screaming that he's just blowing $ to watch plants grow in space and private industry can do it way cheaper. Since he's slashing it, people are yelling too.
-
There's nothing wrong except that we need to be able to get our shit into low earth orbit and we need to ensure our defense capabilities don't suffer. Right now we have to ride Russian junk up to the space station. The next orbiter needs to be designed and preped.
-
I actually applaud Obama with this. Richard Branson is already leading the way with private space exploration.
-
I actually applaud Obama with this. Richard Branson is already leading the way with private space exploration.
HUH,
There are lots of private companies already putting satellites in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences
Branson's plane will not even enter orbit.
-
HUH,
There are lots of private companies already putting satellites in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences
Branson's plane will not even enter orbit.
You're talking about satellites...I'm talking about space tourism. I thought that is where this thread was going to head; I apologize for not clarifying. He isn't working on a satellite that I know of, but has mentioned that a manned vehicle in orbit is his main goal.
-
You're talking about satellites...I'm talking about space tourism. I thought that is where this thread was going to head; I apologize for not clarifying. He isn't working on a satellite that I know of, but has mentioned that a manned vehicle in orbit is his main goal.
I have no problem at opeing space for commercial endeavors.
-
I'm a huge fan of NASA and think our country should continue to lead the human race in space exploration
I also think it's quite likely that there is some kind of secret space program that we know nothing about.
Space is the ultimate "high ground" and I think there is no way we're going to let any other nation get ahead of us in that regard.
-
I'm a huge fan of NASA and think our country should continue to lead the human race in space exploration
I also think it's quite likely that there is some kind of secret space program that we know nothing about.
Space is the ultimate "high ground" and I think there is no way we're going to let any other nation get ahead of us in that regard.
Where the hell do you think Waxman came from?
-
Where the hell do you think Waxman came from?
another meaningless post but I'll give you credit for somehow forgetting to mention that Obama is a communist and intentionally destroying our country
-
another meaningless post but I'll give you credit for somehow forgetting to mention that Obama is a communist and intentionally destroying our country
Oh come on that pic is hysterical.
-
"Hysterical" seems to be your little buzz word for this week. You have over used a dozen times per day.
Like the palin pics and your pie charts, you need new material.
-
"Hysterical" seems to be your little buzz word for this week. You have over used a dozen times per day.
Like the palin pics and your pie charts, you need new material.
Like this one?
-
Oh come on that pic is hysterical.
-
Similar
-
hahahahahahahahahaha
-
Damn Hugo, nice job picking that out. Creepy resemblence.
-
NASA has many programs years behind schedule and billions over budget.
With our economy so close to falling, what is wrong with Obama saying "let the private sector continue space exploration" and scrapping the very inefficient govt run NASA?
Yes, a few thousand people lose their job - but isn't part of "less spending, smaller govt" being able to slash bloated programs like this? If Obama had just DOUBLED the size of NASA, people would be screaming that he's just blowing $ to watch plants grow in space and private industry can do it way cheaper. Since he's slashing it, people are yelling too.
I think it's a great idea with one big exception. I don't support these companies being able to patent shit in space. For example, if they come across some unknown phenomena or mapping areas of space, or the information gathered studying Mars, etc.
-
Skip,
we all know our govt would allow them to claim a patent and get rich, then they'd either steal the idea or just pay the company for its use.
-
NASA has many programs years behind schedule and billions over budget.
With our economy so close to falling, what is wrong with Obama saying "let the private sector continue space exploration" and scrapping the very inefficient govt run NASA?
Yes, a few thousand people lose their job - but isn't part of "less spending, smaller govt" being able to slash bloated programs like this? If Obama had just DOUBLED the size of NASA, people would be screaming that he's just blowing $ to watch plants grow in space and private industry can do it way cheaper. Since he's slashing it, people are yelling too.
There's nothing wrong with it.
Filthy rich people watch Briane Greene or Michio Kaku talk about string theory on the history channel and get all giddy about science just like poor people. I'm sure there's more than a few theoretical physicists and astrophysicists that would love to drop their University gigs to get a privately funded research position for a privately owned company.
People are scared of science....I don't know why, but they are.
People are still freaking out about LHC, despite the fact that cosmic rays hit the earth with way more energy than the LHC will produce every single day...and have been hitting the earth every day since long before we were here.
Hell, they had to rename NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) imaging to just MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because no one would get an MRI when they heard the word "nuclear" in its name.
As soon as "nuclear" is dropped, everyone is ready to climb on in and get their images.
People are scared of what they don't know. Add that fact to the incredible lack of required science education in America and you get what we have.
If you tell someone from Europe that Physics isn't required in all American high schools, they won't believe you.
There are grown adults all over the country that think a heavier person falls faster than a lighter person.....They'll even argue with you about it if you tell them that gravity affects all objects with the same acceleration.
If the private sector was allowed to continue space exploration.....idiots across the country would be up in arms about it. They wouldn't have any fucking idea why they're against it....but they would insist that it was bad.
Eventually some quack would start a webpage with a bunch of gibberish (similar to 2012, reptilian crap, and fake moonlanding sites) that claims the world will end if we privatize space exploration.....and every idiot with a computer will believe every word the quack says.
-
Personally, I love the idea of letting the private sector get in on this.
It will result in more jobs, investment, innovation, tech, etc.
-
There used to be a wealthy guy in San Francisco that got interested in physics for some reason. He'd set up conferences at his mansion, and pay top Physicists like Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc to come and give talks on their research.
I'm sure that guy would have loved to set up an astrophysics research group. Being privately funded.....I have little doubt that the group would develop less costly space shuttles....that were also better than what NASA has. They'd probably also do it much quicker without all the red tape and bureaucracy garbage NASA has to deal with.
-
There used to be a wealthy guy in San Francisco that got interested in physics for some reason. He'd set up conferences at his mansion, and pay top Physicists like Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc to come and give talks on their research.
I'm sure that guy would have loved to set up an astrophysics research group. Being privately funded.....I have little doubt that the group would develop less costly space shuttles....that were also better than what NASA has. They'd probably also do it much quicker without all the red tape and bureaucracy garbage NASA has to deal with.
This would lead to massive new jobs, exploration, innovation, etc.
-
Skip,
we all know our govt would allow them to claim a patent and get rich, then they'd either steal the idea or just pay the company for its use.
That's what I'm cynical about. Without guarantees that the information learned would be open (within reason), then there's no way I'd support private companies doing this. If we get the guarantees, I'm all for it.
-
That's what I'm cynical about. Without guarantees that the information learned would be open (within reason), then there's no way I'd support private companies doing this. If we get the guarantees, I'm all for it.
Don't worry Skip - I'm sure any agreement will be abided by!
-
Don't worry Skip - I'm sure any agreement will be abided by!
And that's one of the risk factors we have to weigh when deciding on privatizing the space program.
-
This would lead to massive new jobs, exploration, innovation, etc.
Which would make people feel less dependent on the government....and start to dislike their high taxes and increasing government regulations.....and then start voting conservative.
The libs in power know how that works. They're not going to allow people to grow and prosper through private industry alone. When that happens, people start asking "why is the government taking so much of my money to fund assistance programs that I don't benefit from?" rather than asking "Why can't the government increase assistance programs so I get more from them?"
Most voting liberals vote with emotion....with the false belief that the right thing to do is to use money from the "haves" to make sure the "have-nots" are helped along to prosperity.
The reality is that allowing people to receive money, healthcare, and other assistance for no work on their end only makes it much easier to stay a "have-not" and get free help rather than work hard to turn themselves into a "have."
Even worse, the person that WANTS to work, the person that is trying to work their way up to the "haves," and would actually benefit greatly from the government assistance....is often the type of person that won't apply for the assistance, because they want to do it themselves.
My parents got married right out of high school and didn't go to college. They would have certainly qualified for government assistance in more than one area....but they would never accept something for nothing. So, my father worked overtime, took weekend jobs, applied for any journeyman contract work he could find, etc., so that my mother could go to college and they could move "up" in the world. Since then, my Mother has gone on to a graduate degree, my Father's work ethic has moved him up through the levels to better positions and higher pay......and they're now the "haves" that are giving up their hard earned money to the government....knowing full well that a big portion of the people that their money SHOULD be going to, won't accept the hand-out.