View Poll Results: Has NASA outlived its usefulness

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 13.58%
  • No

    70 86.42%
Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 262

Thread: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    NASA isn't a corporation, and it's not supposed to be profitable in a monetary sense.

    Although I agree that they need to gain a tighter focus on research and also get out of the way of teh private sector, but this has been happening lately.
    I'm not talking profit in a monetary sense, but profit as in productivity; happiness, even.

    I'm just worried they will become too cozy with private industry if it continues to play around with spaceflight. It's bad at throwing things in space, and with all infant industries, it needs to avoid a policy "Iron Triangle," before a Three Mile Island version of spaceflight.

  2. #112
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    I'm not talking profit in a monetary sense, but profit as in productivity; happiness, even.

    I'm just worried they will become too cozy with private industry if it continues to play around with spaceflight. It's bad at throwing things in space, and with all infant industries, it needs to avoid a policy "Iron Triangle," before a Three Mile Island version of spaceflight.
    Like the World hasn't clutter space with junk already---what goes up-----
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  3. #113
    Educator idk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    various spots across the country
    Last Seen
    09-18-15 @ 05:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    688

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    Like the World hasn't clutter space with junk already---what goes up-----
    So tell me, is space cluttered with NASA's satellites.... or those from the private industry you champion?

  4. #114
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by idk View Post
    So tell me, is space cluttered with NASA's satellites.... or those from the private industry you champion?
    I think the Whole world has emptied it's ash trays in space, just like we do here on Mother Earth. "just leave it, somebody else will clean it up"---Nothin should go up there, that doesnt have a sound plan for it's safe return. ---we learn slow it seems, and repeat our mistakes, over and over again.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  5. #115
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Depends what they are using it for.
    BAMCIS!

    That is the perfect answer. But, the problem is that a vast portion of "military" money goes to contractors within the Defense Industry and they prefer to build technological toys that have nothing to do with any real world practical threat in which the military would use them. Oh, but these master toy builders aren't to blame solely. We have politicians who's real crime is that they are stupid beyond belief...

    * The most appalling example would be the F/A-22. This is an Air Force jet fighter toy designed to fight the Soviet Union. After the Berlin Wall came down, arming it with a few smart bombs in order to support ground troops kept the program alive. To this day....never used. Enough on that I think.

    * Boeing was providing a new generation of refeuling aircraft to the Air Force and this was based on outright fraud. A senior civilian offocial on the Air Force staff, Darlene Druyun, sweetened the already inflated contract by several billion dollars for the promise of a $250,000-a-year retirement job, along with jobs for her relatives. Secretary of the Air Force James Roche directed a campaign to mislead other officials and Congress into his part of the contract deal and he later resigned. One Boeing executive, Michael M. Sears, went to prison for hyis role. In the end, it was discovered that the contract was about helping Boeing keep an unprofitable assembly line open. The last thing the Air Force needed was new refuleing aircrafts. And the reason this was caught was because a few senators (John MCCain,Phil Gramm, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, and others) refused to be swayed like the other idiot senators who swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

    To it's credit the U.S. Army cancelled the Comanche attack helicopter as unaffordable. Besides being unaffordable, with the Apache flying high and hard in support of ground troops in the Army and the Marine Corps, who needs the Comanche? The Army leadership behaved responsibly. And even more to their credit they stuck to their guns even after the tearful contractors lobbeyed and convinced select politicians that the Army "needed" it.

    The Marines have always been excallent stewards of tax payer dollars and the Coast Guard does more with less than any comparible organization. Deprived of a Soviet enemy, the Navy and the Air Force question their purpose and their doctrines. The Navy has it's place in the "War on Terror" because they are far more than ocean bound. But the Air Force has become an organization of tinkerers and experimentation for technological toys.

    When people jump on the band wagon and ask why our troops have no body armor or why their NBC suits have duct tape on them to seal them or why our UAV video feeds are lacking in cryptology, they don't bother to scratch the surface. There is plenty of money. The problem is that they see no money to be made in investing in the troop. Politicians are constantly fooled by the contractor's line "nothing is too good for our troops." This is certainly true, but what they give us is not good enough. Our enemy spends a hundred bucks to produce a media saavy IED and rides donkeys in the mountains. We spend billions on an F/A-22 (and don't use it) and begrudgingly hand out body armor to expendable troops.

    What you stated..."it depends on what they are using it for"...seems to stop at the Senate door to the delight of Generals and Admirals who seek future positions in the Defense Industry. And this isn't a problem we've always had. This is a problem created after the Cold War ended and we lost that comfortable Red threat as an enemy. The next threat, "China," was on the lips of every defense contractor ever since. The habit that Washington and the Defense Industry had gotten themselves into because of this "next threat" had been a focus on building toys to fight a war they want us to fight rather than focusing on the wars our troops are fighting.

    Horrible waste of money.
    Last edited by MSgt; 12-24-09 at 09:26 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #116
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    BAMCIS!

    That is the perfect answer. But, the problem is that a vast portion of "military" money goes to contractors within the Defense Industry and they prefer to build technological toys that have nothing to do with any real world practical threat in which the military would use them. Oh, but these master toy builders aren't to blame solely. We have politicians who's real crime is that they are stupid beyond belief...

    * The most appalling example would be the F/A-22. This is an Air Force jet fighter toy designed to fight the Soviet Union. After the Berlin Wall came down, arming it with a few smart bombs in order to support ground troops kept the program alive. To this day....never used. Enough on that I think.

    * Boeing was providing a new generation of refeuling aircraft to the Air Force and this was based on outright fraud. A senior civilian offocial on the Air Force staff, Darlene Druyun, sweetened the already inflated contract by several billion dollars for the promise of a $250,000-a-year retirement job, along with jobs for her relatives. Secretary of the Air Force James Roche directed a campaign to mislead other officials and Congress into his part of the contract deal and he later resigned. One Boeing executive, Michael M. Sears, went to prison for hyis role. In the end, it was discovered that the contract was about helping Boeing keep an unprofitable assembly line open. The last thing the Air Force needed was new refuleing aircrafts. And the reason this was caught was because a few senators (John MCCain,Phil Gramm, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, and others) refused to be swayed like the other idiot senators who swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

    To it's credit the U.S. Army cancelled the Comanche attack helicopter as unaffordable. Besides being unaffordable, with the Apache flying high and hard in support of ground troops in the Army and the Marine Corps, who needs the Comanche? The Army leadership behaved responsibly. And even more to their credit they stuck to their guns even after the tearful contractors lobbeyed and convinced select politicians that the Army "needed" it.

    The Marines have always been excallent stewards of tax payer dollars and the Coast Guard does more with less than any comparible organization. Deprived of a Soviet enemy, the Navy and the Air Force question their purpose and their doctrines. The Navy has it's place in the "War on Terror" because they are far more than ocean bound. But the Air Force has become an organization of tinkerers and experimentation for technological toys.

    When people jump on the band wagon and ask why our troops have no body armor or why their NBC suits have duct tape on them to seal them or why our UAV video feeds are lacking in cryptology, they don't bother to scratch the surface. There is plenty of money. The problem is that they see no money to be made in investing in the troop. Politicians are constantly fooled by the contractor's line "nothing is too good for our troops." This is certainly true, but what they give us is not good enough. Our enemy spends a hundred bucks to produce a media saavy IED and rides donkeys in the mountains. We spend billions on an F/A-22 (and don't use it) and begrudgingly hand out body armor to expendable troops.

    What you stated..."it depends on what they are using it for"...seems to stop at the Senate door to the delight of Generals and Admirals who seek future positions in the Defense Industry. And this isn't a problem we've always had. This is a problem created after the Cold War ended and we lost that comfortable Red threat as an enemy. The next threat, "China," was on the lips of every defense contractor ever since. The habit that Washington and the Defense Industry had gotten themselves into because of this "next threat" had been a focus on building toys to fight a war they want us to fight rather than focusing on the wars our troops are fighting.

    Horrible waste of money.
    thank you for sharing that useful information--It is a shame.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  7. #117
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    thank you for sharing that useful information--It is a shame.
    It is. But what this means is that we have to do better. Those that control the purse strings need to grow smarter than the capitalists who are only seeking to turn a dime. Ending the Defense Industry would be a mistake. We have to acknowledge that that body armor and so much other useful equipment like the communications technology, smart bomb weapons systems, GLINT tape, field medical equipment, and air support systems, came from the Defense Industry as well.

    Killing the NASA program would also be a mistake. Like the Defense Industry, greater oversight is needed.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #118
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Everything has just gotten bloated, and out of control. ---We need a leaner meaner system, that has it's priorities straight. take car of the Guys on the ground, if they just have to be there, and give them the best Equipment. Better rifles, better Armour. It's out there, and we all know it.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  9. #119
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    Everything has just gotten bloated, and out of control. ---We need a leaner meaner system, that has it's priorities straight. take car of the Guys on the ground, if they just have to be there, and give them the best Equipment. Better rifles, better Armour. It's out there, and we all know it.
    It's the same for NASA. It has its very real uses.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #120
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Has NASA Outlived it's Usefulness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    I think the Whole world has emptied it's ash trays in space, just like we do here on Mother Earth. "just leave it, somebody else will clean it up"
    Since no intelligent beings live in deep space or on any of the worlds NASA has explored, who cares? For whom do you want to keep outer space a pristine nature reserve, and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy
    Nothin should go up there, that doesnt have a sound plan for it's safe return.
    Ridiculously impractical. You just said that the reason you wanted to phase NASA out is because you believe the private sector can pick up the slack. If that is the case, then your phony environmentalism argument doesn't make any sense as you don't actually want to reduce the amount of space junk, you just want to change its source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy
    we learn slow it seems, and repeat our mistakes, over and over again.
    Can you please explain how humans, the Earth, or any other entity is better off if we don't learn about Titan's atmosphere with probes? And while you're at it, could you please explain how it's profitable for the private sector to spend money learning about such things?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •