Space shuttle program ended

MoonRiver · #21 08/03/11, 07:47 PM

Like all government agencies, NASA became a dismal failure. It spent too much and put out an inferior product.

plowjockey · #22 08/03/11, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowoulf90

Read my first post in this thread! That will answer your question. Oh wait you did already and only quoted a sentence from it..

Since Obama changed the mission of NASA to helping Muslims. NASA is no longer an exploratory entity. It is now a puppet of the liberal left.. When the left choose to allow this Muslim mission (it wouldn't make any difference what religious group was mentioned), they have changed the face of NASA to a political bureaucracy, much like the EPA, DoE etc.. The fools that work for these bureaucracies are nothing but political pawns for which ever party is in power at the moment... They do nothing to help, they only add red tape and cost to anything that is done.. Now NASA has joined their ranks of wasteful government carp and as a result they will be "lower then whale dung on the bottom of the ocean" in my personal opinion!

Feel free to have a different opinion, it makes no never mind to me. These government agencies should now be shut down and shut down hard! They pass rules and statues/regs without Congress' approval.. They now have the power not Congress.. Sorry I have a problem with that! It is a violation of the Constitution of the most extreme kind..

I'll stop now and let you digest what I said...

Honestly, I though you might be off on a conspiracy theory, because what you said sounded so bizarre.

What's more bizarre, is that you were right on the money.

Who needs rockets, when offering an olive branch, to people who despise America, will get the job done?

Quote:

When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz1U0ra15uP

watcher · #23 08/03/11, 09:45 PM

The shuttles should have been replaced about 20 years ago. They are 1970 tech and never meant to be kept flying for 30 years (first flight 1981, IIRC).

beowoulf90 · #24 08/04/11, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

The shuttles should have been replaced about 20 years ago. They are 1970 tech and never meant to be kept flying for 30 years (first flight 1981, IIRC).

While this is true ( I even watched one of them land at White Sands in 1982).

What do we have to replace them?

I'm waiting!

Oh that's right we aren't going to replace them. We are now just going to pay those (who hate us) to deliver the goods/equipment needed..

Kind of like having a 1940's truck to deliver produce which still runs and deciding to pay some one else (who doesn't like you ) to deliver the produce to market for you. While you walk or ride a horse to market.. It's a step backwards...

But when you change the mission of the agency to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good", then the agency has failed and needs dismantled and scrapped!

watcher · #25 08/04/11, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowoulf90

While this is true ( I even watched one of them land at White Sands in 1982).

What do we have to replace them?

This should have been asked AND answered in 1980.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowoulf90

I'm waiting!

Oh that's right we aren't going to replace them. We are now just going to pay those (who hate us) to deliver the goods/equipment needed..

Kind of like having a 1940's truck to deliver produce which still runs and deciding to pay some one else (who doesn't like you ) to deliver the produce to market for you. While you walk or ride a horse to market.. It's a step backwards...

But when you change the mission of the agency to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good", then the agency has failed and needs dismantled and scrapped!

The failure happened decades ago. I guess they thought if we can keep the B52 flying that long why not the shuttle?

MoonRiver · #26 08/04/11, 11:50 AM

SpaceX - started by founder of PayPal
Blue Origin - started by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos
Virgin Galactic - Sir Richard Branson
Bigelow Aerospace - Robert Bigelow

And several other commercial companies are working on launch vehicles and stations.

beowoulf90 · #27 08/04/11, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

This should have been asked AND answered in 1980.

The failure happened decades ago. I guess they thought if we can keep the B52 flying that long why not the shuttle?

Oh don't get me wrong.. I agree that this started many years ago with both Dem and Rep presidents and both Dem and Rep controlled Congress'.. But the final nail in the coffin of NASA was Obama giving them a Muslim mission instead of a space mission...

As far as I am concerned NASA can go the way of the dinosaur. The federal government doesn't need to be involved anymore.. They have shown they only crave power and money.. and to Hades with anything else..

RebelCowboySnB · #28 08/04/11, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowoulf90

Kind of like having a 1940's truck to deliver produce which still runs and deciding to pay some one else (who doesn't like you ) to deliver the produce to market for you. While you walk or ride a horse to market..

Your truck analigy would fit if that truck cost $450 million every time you used it an you were $14.5 trillion in debt...

Sometimes the step back is the step forward.

beowoulf90 · #29 08/04/11, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelCowboySnB

Your truck analigy would fit if that truck cost $450 million every time you used it an you were $14.5 trillion in debt...

Sometimes the step back is the step forward.

I understand the costs.. But now we will get nothing for the costs which will still be there.. At least in the past we got Tang and other creations and items from their endeavors.. What will we get now? Burkas? So 450 million for nothing..

I don't like that. Also what are we going to have to pay the Russians etc to haul the people and gear needed at the ISS? I bet it costs more then 450 million so I will also assume that NASA's budget will do like all government agencies and increase..

So now we have a agency that does nothing and costs us more.. Sort of reminds me of the Department of Energy or the Department of Education etc... These departments waste millions if not billions and return nothing...

At least NASA at one time did have a return on the investment...

Oh I do understand the need to cut costs.. I believe the Cut, Cap and Balance bill should have been passed.. But that wouldn't have changed the mission of NASA, it might have made them do it without the waste and to be more frugal..

RebelCowboySnB · #30 08/04/11, 01:45 PM

Numbers off the internet, not checked my self.

The cost of each launch of our shuttle has rose to $1.5 billion.
Russa is charging us $43.4 million per seat on there rocket this year an rising to $63 million a seat by 2016
We have contracted for 46 seats.
That is about 2.5 billion 46 people over the next 5 years.
Space Exploration Technologies has the $1.6 billion NASA contract to transport supplies in to space.
We have contracted five different companies to design the new spacecraft to be built an being used by 2016.
Space Exploration Technologies claims that it will be able to build a reusable spacecraft that will transport up to seven astronauts at a price of $140 million per launch.

arabian knight · #31 08/04/11, 03:40 PM

I sure don't know where people think NASA is done, and it is out of the loop from getting Government money.
In fact NASA got a Increase in its budget for this year.
Yuppers, just that you never were told that one now were you?
And NASA has its own plan to build its own replacement after the shuttle.
And is already on the drawing board.
The budget

Quote:

Contrary to what you may think, NASA is to receive a budget increase of some six billion dollars (although much of it may be to adjust for inflation) over the next couple years, thanks to the Obama administration. Additionally, NASA sucks up way less money than most people think it does. According to a study by The Space Review, respondents on average thought that NASA accounted for roughly 1/4 of the Federal budget.

In reality, NASA actually receives less than 1% of the entire budget. The budget increase--despite the cancellation of the Constellation Program (a failed attempt at developing a replacement to the Space Shuttle), is designed to improve the efficiency of everything that NASA does, including the manned spaceflight program.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/22792...what_next.html

beowoulf90 · #32 08/04/11, 04:12 PM

I for one know that they will continue to get Federal funds.. They are a government agency and these agency's never go away.. Only the names are changed to protect the guilty...

Rebelcowboy, I'll take it that the numbers you provided are correct and assume you are saying that NASA is still spending millions of dollars... If you are trying to say that they are saving money, I will respectfully disagree.. No Government agency has ever cost less and over time always costs more...

RebelCowboySnB · #33 08/04/11, 04:19 PM

I am saying they are saving money on space flights per mission/person now but spending it on research an development of the next faze. Yes we are spending more as a whole though.

Heritagefarm · #34 08/04/11, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelCowboySnB

Your truck analigy would fit if that truck cost $450 million every time you used it an you were $14.5 trillion in debt...

Sometimes the step back is the step forward.

Are you aware that every dollar in the US is essentially debt? Hopefully. Every single dollar is debt. We use debt as money. If you were to pay off every single debt in this country, there would not be ONE single dollar left. SO, what does a debt ceiling matter anyways? It means basically nothing with our current monetary system.

RebelCowboySnB · #35 08/04/11, 09:51 PM

Yes money is debt. It is worth what it is because people trust the government can cover it. We sell bonds to run our country. People buy them because they trust that when the time comes they will get payed back with entrust. Same with our money. They take it because they trust it to keep its worth. If the national debt gets to high an people start questioning weather those bonds will be payed back we have a problem. If people stop buying bonds we cant pay back the old ones an we default. That is tied directly to our money. If we cant pay back our bonds our money becomes worthless too. It is not a matter of how much debt is actually to much. It about how much debt the people around the world buying bonds thinks is to much. When we reach that point our economy will crash. From top to bottom.

plowjockey · #36 08/04/11, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Why isn't everyone talking about this? It seems like it should be all over the news, drawing attention and people talking about it all over. Why not?
http://kpbj.com/business_weekly/2011..._space_program
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=s...uttle+program+

What will we do now? I highly doubt if we'll ever have a "commercial" space exploration operation, and if we do, it will end up skewed, corrupted and propagandized. We've done this for a pretty long while, but I suppose the budget did need some cuts. Yet I notice that none of the politicians are very quick to cut back their own salaries, but they will gladly cut back an important scientific operation...
What is your view?

The Space Shuttle program, was scheduled to end in 2010 and only funded to that date, by George Bush.

Obama actually got money to extend the program another year and wanted to dump more money into NASA.

My views is, that it is a waste, to go into space, just for the sake of going into space.

I heard where a recent "experiment" in the ISS, cost near a billion dollars. It's money for "science" right, so that's good?

We already have a pen that will write in zero gravity. Enough already.

Heritagefarm · #37 08/04/11, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey

The Space Shuttle program, was scheduled to end in 2010 and only funded to that date, by George Bush.

Obama actually got money to extend the program another year and wanted to dump more money into NASA.

My views is, that it is a waste, to go into space, just for the sake of going into space.

I heard where a recent "experiment" in the ISS, cost near a billion dollars. It's money for "science" right, so that's good?

We already have a pen that will write in zero gravity. Enough already.

I agree that the space program was costing a lot. However, I think what this comes down to is who has more respect for science. You obviously don't.

plowjockey · #38 08/04/11, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey
The Space Shuttle program, was scheduled to end in 2010 and only funded to that date, by George Bush.

Obama actually got money to extend the program another year and wanted to dump more money into NASA.

My views is, that it is a waste, to go into space, just for the sake of going into space.

I heard where a recent "experiment" in the ISS, cost near a billion dollars. It's money for "science" right, so that's good?

We already have a pen that will write in zero gravity. Enough already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

I agree that the space program was costing a lot. However, I think what this comes down to is who has more respect for science. You obviously don't.

LOL

Money is no object, when you are spending someone else's. How about a cure for cancer?

Here is a perfect example of our "science". No wonder we are broke.

Quote:

NASA reported that space shuttle Endeavour astronauts successfully completed their primary mission this morning — delivering and attaching the $2 billion Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to a truss outside the International Space Station

It’s already turned on, looking for far-traveling cosmic rays and space particles with a giant magnetic trap that works like a lobster trap: open the door and hope you catch something. Scientists are especially hoping to catch dark matter — a substance they theorize exists in massive quantities but which they’ve never actually detected — or primordial antimatter, stuff left over from the big bang that created the universe.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...e-station.html

Heritagefarm · #39 08/04/11, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey

LOL

Money is no object, when you are spending someone else's. How about a cure for cancer?

Here is a perfect example of our "science". No wonder we are broke.

It’s already turned on, looking for far-traveling cosmic rays and space particles with a giant magnetic trap that works like a lobster trap: open the door and hope you catch something. Scientists are especially hoping to catch dark matter — a substance they theorize exists in massive quantities but which they’ve never actually detected — or primordial antimatter, stuff left over from the big bang that created the universe.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...e-station.html

Actually, we've spent quite a bit of money on cancer research, too - and that has gotten nowhere. And what is wrong with trying to expand our knowledge? Would you rather that the Russians get ahead of us?

Bearfootfarm · #40 08/05/11, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Actually, we've spent quite a bit of money on cancer research, too - and that has gotten nowhere

And here you were claiming to know about "science".

Quote:

50 years of milestones in Cancer Research

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer...ancer-research