Funding cut for NASA Constellation and Ares (Huntsville, Hollywood: movies, assess)

[jdbiron]

Originally Posted by cornutt

And eventually China and Russia will have the ability to deny us access to space. So when they put up their orbiting kinetic-energy weapons, then what do we do?

Navy Missile Blasts Satellite, Fuel Tank Likely Destroyed - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

[TN Tin Man]

Orlando Sentinel - The Write Stuff – Space Frontier Foundation hails Ares’ “death sentence”

http://www.floridatoday.com/content/...r-rocket.shtml

http://www.insideksc.com/showthread.php?t=11218

[DvlsAdvc8]

The "ceding space to russia" stuff is over the top imo. I mean, we'll still have plenty of unmanned flight capability.

I agree the cuts are a drop in the bucket, but I also think its a pretty easy target. Its fair to ask why we need people in space at all. Why should we build a moon base? To go to mars? Why go to mars? Is there some reason to do all this now, as opposed to sometime in the future?

I've just always had the feeling that the axe for manned space flight has been a long time coming, for better or worse.

[blondandfun]

heaven forbid anybody in Huntsville have a job that's market driven.

[Marilyn Ann]

I dunno - but I think that taking away space exploration and possibly eliminating thousands of jobs at KSC would not help the economy or the jobless rate one little bit. Stands to reason.

[jkratze1]

Obama axes NASA moon plan in new budget | Reuters

NASA budget for 2011 eliminates funds for manned lunar missions | Washington Post

[Maya Blue]

While I do think that moving space travel to the companies is sound (like Boeing building planes), cutting it cold turkey might not be the smartest thing to do.

If these NASA engineers were smart, the best of them right now should be either creating their own company or be talking to some of the big hitters (e.g. Lockheed, Boeing, Richard Branson).

The jobs created from this could be huge if done right. That is a big "BUT" though.

For those who think it is a waste to go to space or the moon, do you even realize how many jobs it creates, therefore increasing the money in the market which in turn creates other jobs to support and so on and so on?

It's amazing to me how people cannot understand this simple concept.

[blondandfun]

Originally Posted by stewdog1

For those who think it is a waste to go to space or the moon, do you even realize how many jobs it creates, therefore increasing the money in the market which in turn creates other jobs to support and so on and so on?

It's amazing to me how people cannot understand this simple concept.

I'd rather the human race live on principle than "simplicity". Unfortunately, many engineers will just go to the military, where they employ 100 TIMES more technology workforce. It's all about being the smartest person in the room, even if nothing you do advances civilization.

That's why I am proud to be 100% market driven and live in a primarily market driven city. Let's see how "smart" of a city Huntsville is when the Feds stop bankrolling it.

The legislators in your area sure do talk about how they hate socialism... Well, no more socialism for you! Your wish just came true...

Oh, and I'm not as big of a smart elic as you might think... I'm a civil engineer, and we're doing a LOT worse than the other eng. professions. We don't build weapons, we build targets (oh and actually advance civilization we don't destroy it or "create jobs"). But I don't complain about socialism.... that's what builds bridges, dams, rails, roads, etc.. ya know, stuff that advances, not destroys, civilization.

I"m sorry if the rest of the country doesn't like the idea of dancing/goofing off on the moon, or whatever they were planning to do, as many leading scientists including Buzz Aldrin are completely against, because it has no long term benefit to the exploration of space.

[Maya Blue]

Originally Posted by blondandfun

I'd rather the human race live on principle than "simplicity". Unfortunately, many engineers will just go to the military, where they employ 100 TIMES more technology workforce. It's all about being the smartest person in the room, even if nothing you do advances civilization.

That's why I am proud to be 100% market driven and live in a primarily market driven city. Let's see how "smart" of a city Huntsville is when the Feds stop bankrolling it.

The legislators in your area sure do talk about how they hate socialism... Well, no more socialism for you! Your wish just came true...

Oh, and I'm not as big of a smart elic as you might think... I'm a civil engineer, and we're doing a LOT worse than the other eng. professions. We don't build weapons, we build targets (oh and actually advance civilization we don't destroy it or "create jobs"). But I don't complain about socialism.... that's what builds bridges, dams, rails, roads, etc.. ya know, stuff that advances, not destroys, civilization.

I"m sorry if the rest of the country doesn't like the idea of dancing/goofing off on the moon, or whatever they were planning to do, as many leading scientists including Buzz Aldrin are completely against, because it has no long term benefit to the exploration of space.

Blondy,
I don't think you got the gist of my post. I'm for the commercialization of space vehicles.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Ann

I dunno - but I think that taking away space exploration and possibly eliminating thousands of jobs at KSC would not help the economy or the jobless rate one little bit. Stands to reason.

Well, that depends, if you're a conservative you believe that job creation would be better served by taking gov money going to KSC and putting it back in taxpayers hands.

Originally Posted by stewdog1

For those who think it is a waste to go to space or the moon, do you even realize how many jobs it creates, therefore increasing the money in the market which in turn creates other jobs to support and so on and so on?

It's amazing to me how people cannot understand this simple concept.

I think everyone understands the point. Unfortunately, its only one side of the argument - a liberal one at that. True conservatives would argue the private economy is superior; It creates jobs more efficiently, and through the production of goods people actually need. Notice there's plenty of private launch capability when it comes to communications satellites... not so much for moon landing. The idea of course being that every government job is just money that came out of taxpayer's pockets - money those taxpayers would have likely spent elsewhere in the private market (=> demand => jobs).

That said, to me, NASA isn't about jobs. I support NASA for the science; in particular, though quite socialist, I support the notion that science of value to the human race isn't always of value to the market. Knowledge isn't always profitable.

I think the problem with going to the moon is a scientific one - where's the science? Does that science justify the cost? I haven't been convinced that it does, particularly in light of the fact that (at least from what I've read) the effort has not been particularly innovative. I'm not an aerospace engineer, and I'm sure there is more to the story, but I admit it was a bit disheartening to read that 1960's era designs were practically resurrected. If, as a taxpayer, I'm going to spend a ton of money doing something relatively purposeless - I at least want to see technological boundaries pushed. I don't want to read that the first thing we did was go back and figure out how they went to the moon in the 1960s... in order to recreate it (which is something I actually read quite awhile back). While I'm certain there's more to it, reading that was a bit disappointing.