pathetic, isn't it?
Oh boy another space shuttle mission. Why?
- Thread starter ericbigbore
- Start date
pathetic, isn't it?
We spend billions of dollars putting a battle bot on Mars to rename a rock.
What else would cost billions of dollars? A fence on the border.
I'm taking a page from Dennis Miller here, but I see his point. I think the scientific advances from space exploration are absolutely fascinating and useful, but if we sealed up our borders first, then launched things into space, I think we could benefit more.
What else would cost billions of dollars? A fence on the border.
I'm taking a page from Dennis Miller here, but I see his point. I think the scientific advances from space exploration are absolutely fascinating and useful, but if we sealed up our borders first, then launched things into space, I think we could benefit more.
Last edited:
I am alway surprised that people attack NASA so vigorously, when NASA is under 1% and social programs are over 75% and borrowing from social security. So for the .7% you get a pay back and for social programs like food stamps you get...well...a turd rolling down the sewer.
Whenever I need to make budjet cuts at my house I circle the big budget items...eliminating the pack of gum bought at the mini-mart does not help much.
I'm not talking about eliminating it, I'm talking about using that $$$ to make the fence we all seem to yearn for.
that fence isn't going to mean or do diddly ****.
seriously, would you rather we keep wasting time and effort on stupid **** like that or actually finding a solution to the root of all problems on this planet ... overpopulation.
Space exploration is the ONLY answer to that problem.
Actually not that much pollution. The LOX/hydrogen SSME motors emit...well hot water...for about 8 minutes. As for the 2.2 million lbs of so solid fuel propellant, it mostly turns into water vapor and Aluminum oxide, which is sand paper grit. The emissions from the rubber binder is mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor. Nitrogen, and hydrogen from the amonium ion in the amonium perchlorate decomposes to inert Nox and water vapor and the oxygen combines with the aluminum, (remember the sand paper?) and the carbon from the rubber. Remember the burn temperature is over 6000 degrees F for efficiency purposes so everything coming out is pretty inert. The only thing that is sort of bad is the Hydrocloric acid from the chlorine in the perchlorate ion and Hydrogen from the rubber (hydrocarbon) polymer. That is easily converted back to a metalic salt or is diluted pretty quickly in the environment. I would imagine if you launched constantly you might have an acid rain problem...But you are launching over the ocean...which is water and...metalic salts...
All in for the 2 minutes of burn you basically emit as much stuff as 2 minutes of all the cars in the US running and it is mostly inert. The white plume is mostly water vapor.
Last edited:
oh...ok...take money from something with a payback...and add to another social program?
NASA is the stepchild that everyone points too, and talks about how much it cost. Never realizing that it has paid for itself many times over.
NASA is the reason we can afford to put spy satellites in orbit. It is responsible for "scientific advances", advanced materials, hypersonic flight, heavy lift capability, put the first men on the moon.
Go ahead and cut it's budget, you can put all those workers (NASA and it's suppliers) back into the work force, pushing the stupid people out the bottom of the employment workforce tree, and pay them the same in welfare checks. And, fall behind the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians, the French, what the heck maybe even North Korea.
If your talking about Spirit and Opportunity Rovers, the total combined cost was $820 Million That wouldn't keep Obama in Jet Fuel. Heck look at the Hubble space telescope. It's cost a fortune to keep in orbit, but it's also done more to inspire kids to go into science, than anything else. Hell, I got interested in science because of NASA. Their not just wasting money, at least that's this geek's point of view.
NASA is the reason we can afford to put spy satellites in orbit. It is responsible for "scientific advances", advanced materials, hypersonic flight, heavy lift capability, put the first men on the moon.
Go ahead and cut it's budget, you can put all those workers (NASA and it's suppliers) back into the work force, pushing the stupid people out the bottom of the employment workforce tree, and pay them the same in welfare checks. And, fall behind the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians, the French, what the heck maybe even North Korea.
If your talking about Spirit and Opportunity Rovers, the total combined cost was $820 Million That wouldn't keep Obama in Jet Fuel. Heck look at the Hubble space telescope. It's cost a fortune to keep in orbit, but it's also done more to inspire kids to go into science, than anything else. Hell, I got interested in science because of NASA. Their not just wasting money, at least that's this geek's point of view.
You can't just suspend the space program. Technology relies on it.
Everything from modern plastic composites, to fuel technology to insulation technology, and the list goes on. To be human, is to strive forward and explore. That is human nature. Like Wade mentioned, the children, out future, benefit astoundingly to future applications of what they learned in space.
Everything from modern plastic composites, to fuel technology to insulation technology, and the list goes on. To be human, is to strive forward and explore. That is human nature. Like Wade mentioned, the children, out future, benefit astoundingly to future applications of what they learned in space.
Wow, a lot of people on here that don't know much about technology, saying we need to spend less on the sciences....
Yah guys.. that is definitely the way to keep America strong! Sounds like some people should have paid more attention in science class....
We should throw the same amount of money we do at space, at transportation and at energy.. People fail to realize, that while NASA is a government run agency, lots and lots of it are built with and by private agencies. The same with the military, too...
But then if we did that, the only people that would benefit would be everyone, and the people that it would hurt would be... well... all the controllers of energy.
hhhmmm....
Yah guys.. that is definitely the way to keep America strong! Sounds like some people should have paid more attention in science class....
We should throw the same amount of money we do at space, at transportation and at energy.. People fail to realize, that while NASA is a government run agency, lots and lots of it are built with and by private agencies. The same with the military, too...
But then if we did that, the only people that would benefit would be everyone, and the people that it would hurt would be... well... all the controllers of energy.
hhhmmm....
Last edited:
S
shortstop20
Well-known member
Many of you would change your tune if you thought about the countless number of things that NASA has brought us.
Amen.
Planes will never fly.
We'll never go to the moon.
How many times has "never" been said and proven wrong? There are no limits, only perceived limits and they do nothing to help our progress.
JFK said it best, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because not they are easy, but because they are hard!"
That was when America was a nation of "can-do", we need to get back to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqk1v-KzZ5g
Amen.
Planes will never fly.
We'll never go to the moon.
How many times has "never" been said and proven wrong? There are no limits, only perceived limits and they do nothing to help our progress.
JFK said it best, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because not they are easy, but because they are hard!"
That was when America was a nation of "can-do", we need to get back to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqk1v-KzZ5g
One word - Pandemic.
There are some great points being made here and I'm not against science at all but right now we have better ways to spend our money especially on science. Way better!!
How about we spend the money on energy independence for a couple of years instead of the international space station? I know, there's a time line, whatever.. How long would it take to come up with a new technology for energy if we put the NASA folks on only that? How many flights would it take to cover the cost for the cure for cancer or malaria?
It's kinda funny how many people here are saying that NASA is untouchable. Really?
I guess there's hope for GM, government health care and cap and trade. If the US government is so great with this program than why not the rest?
like TANG!!!!!!!!! Man I love that stuff.
Tang is awesome!
My guess is that without the space program the technologies we all enjoy on a daily basis would not be near as advanced.
S
Supplicate
ACCOUNT CLOSED
I guess you don't realize that once a budget is cut/removed its never coming back. Do you really think that the US could get motivated to re-start NASA after closing its doors for a few years?
As for the money, think of all the patents that NASA holds and all the royalties they receive.
Imagine where we could be in space exploration if the government and the citizens could have stayed as focused on it as they were in the 50's and 60's. Need I start quoting JFK's Moon speech?
EXACTLY! Bush set in motion the retirement of the current Shuttle and from that came the birth of the Constellation program. The ARES I crew carrier and the ARES V vehicles.
Very good post!
Some people just don't understand what's involved or what it takes to accomplish the current STS flights.
Well said ! ! !
Similar threads
