What is Digg?60 Comments
- SaintDogbert, on 08/15/2008, -0/+23NASA spent no money developing a space pen. This is an urban legend. Fisher developed the pen privately all on their own.
- SaintDogbert, on 08/15/2008, -0/+19Lack of money makes NASA weak. If they had more money, they could keep flying the shuttle until Orion is ready. If they had more money, they could service the station without Russia's help. If NASA had more money, they could have replaced Columbia. If NASA had more money, they wouldn't have to cannibalize parts from one shuttle to get another shuttle to fly. If NASA had more money, they could redo the design of the shuttle external tank so chunks of insulating foam wouldn't fall off during launch. If they had more money, it wouldn't take 10 effing years to return to the moon.
- h0ser, on 08/14/2008, -8/+22NASA could learn a thing or two from russia. Companies send more satellites into space using russian rockets then any other country. They're methods have always been cheaper compared to NASA. Although some of their equipment might be lower tech, it still works just as fine for what they need to do. NASA spent millions to create a pen that could write in space, Russia solved this problem by using a pencil. A big budget isn't always a better budget.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+13The American trend. We got away from taking the lead to partnering with countries that we eclipsed in a fe hundred years. From nothing to the most powerful and now heading back to one of the crowd. Italy here we come.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+10Duh!!!
NASA does need funding but most off all it needs REORGANIZATION! The NASA of the 1960's which took risks and kicked ass has been replaced with the Bureaucratic pile of garbage we see today. - yaddayaddayoda, on 08/15/2008, -0/+8Also they were concerned about graphite (pencil lead) dust getting into the electronics and shorting something out. Graphite is a conductor of electricity.
- nathanww, on 08/15/2008, -1/+8FTA:"That is a real concern," said McCurdy. "You are much more reluctant to be nasty with somebody who is a sole provider of an essential service.
I'd be pretty reluctant to be nasty with the country that has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. But that's just me... - yaddayaddayoda, on 08/15/2008, -0/+6What's interesting is when you look at the safety *numbers*.
We have lost two shuttles and a total of 14 astronauts in flight. We've flown the shuttle a total number of 123 launches with 121/123 successes and 2/123 failures (1.6%). The total number of astronauts flown aboard the shuttle is 734. 14/734 have died (1.9%) and 720/734 have survived.
The Soyuz program hasn't flown nearly the same number of people, but statistically (counting the number of survived flown humans) it's a dead heat as to which system is safer. Approximately 1-2% of flown humans on either system end up dead. - aksn1p3r, on 08/14/2008, -1/+7NASA needs to make a reality TV from space
- DuffyDirect, on 08/15/2008, -0/+6because pencil records can be easily altered and they fade away over time. a lot of my elementary school stuff is faded away completely
- bmcnally, on 08/15/2008, -2/+7We've also sent men to the moon and brought them back safely.
We've also successfully landed several rovers on Mars (remember the European's attempt on that?)
Their methods are cheaper and lower tech because they don't have to worry about public opinion shutting down their program if a disaster strikes. - FlyingPhotog, on 08/15/2008, -0/+5They broadcast entire missions live on the NASA Channel. It's usually pretty dull.
- Taiyoryu, on 08/15/2008, -0/+3It's an _international_ space station. Who cares if it's the US, Russia, or some other country that is shuttling astronauts to and from the space station. I would bet most scientists could care less about the politics that surround space exploration since they're really into expanding and sharing knowledge. People need to let go of this us-versus-them attitude.
- gquaglia, on 08/15/2008, -0/+3100% right. If Apollo 1 had happened in the present climate, there would be calls for its cancellation, calling manned space travel too dangerous. NASA is nothing but a bunch of pussies.
- starmanjones, on 08/15/2008, -1/+4i just so agree with ya. we make nasa weaker. depending on the russians makes russia stronger and maybe thats a good thing. they have a good system that works... we've lost 2 shuttles and crew. they are a good partner. we reinvent the wheel.
i think nasa should spend some of its revenue supporting private launch vehicles from commercial space ventures though. the mission critical and big payloads go to russia. smaller to private. - SundayBrunch, on 08/15/2008, -1/+3"russia weak" why don't you shut the ***** up, russia eats weak for breakfast.
- drmangrum, on 08/15/2008, -5/+7They have a $20 BILLION a year budget. That's just for NASA, that's not counting any money that gets thrown their way for military projects or civilian funding. NASA doesn't lack money, they lack responsible spending. They fall into the same hole that most government entities do: they spend like they have a bottomless bank account. Unlike the military though, they can't go back to congress and ask for more. They could get more funding if they didn't spend their resources in money pits.
For instance, lets look at the search for water on other planets. Lets say we find a planet with water on it. Can we do anything about it? Will we be able to send people there to check it out? Nope. How about first spending money on propulsion and long term space survival instead of a multi-billion dollar satellite rover that might find an ice crystal in red sand.
Exploration is great, but people want to see some returns on their investments. I look at it like this: We explored our planet by getting in a ship and going to places we haven't been. We didn't put a message in a bottle and hope the tides and fate would be kind to us. A gross over-simplification, but without advances in space travel, knowing something is out there does us little good. - tbyron666, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2That´s just pride *****´n with ya...
- Taiyoryu, on 08/15/2008, -1/+3Then it's high time someone else starts picking up the slack. So if Russia takes on more responsibility for getting astronauts and equipment to and from the ISS, then I would interpret that as Russia contributing their share to the ISS mission.
- tomarocco, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2America's just falling apart, isn't it? Looks like beer bongs instead of math is catching up to us.
- mbondr, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2I know a quick way to get Dugg down! Point out that the last three Republican administrations, in an effort to bankrupt the federal government, have now come close enough that there really isn't anything to throw NASA's way. The right wing would love to have NASA go away. Corporations will fill the gap! "Free Enterprise" As if huge multi-national corporations are any better than the Fed. If it doesn't make a quick profit, there's no point in doing it.
- norman619, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2Also lack of proper leadership and forward thinking. They should be able to do more with the money they are given there is no excuse for how wasteful they are. Russia does a lot more with less.
- zigardne, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1and bioshock by 2040
- stealthc, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Just because a government organization did it does not mean no one else would have.
- Leadman584, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Mars is a lot farther away, and we haven't proven diddle worth the expense of round trip mining operations.
We had no idea of commercial value of Moon travel 40 years ago. We just wanted to go. We did the tourist photo op and left. The money we waste in Iraq could easily make America Energy independent in less than 10 years, if invested in space travel. Not just the mining, but the technology gains. We developed the microwave oven, Pacemaker, and other products just trying to get to the moon.
All of the computers used to get a man on the the moon, are trivial by modern standards.
We were dreamers then. Time for a new dream for the world, not just America. - stealthc, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Reliance on tax dollars also makes NASA weak.
- zigardne, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1"Russia, China, and private industry are likely to reach to the moon before NASA."
The moon is nice, we sent back live video from her surface 40 years ago, you should check it out, China can have the moon, we're calling shotgun on mars! - inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2BTW good luck in building any new exotic vehicles with the GREEN HOOLIGANS from the enviro crowed breeding down there necks.
- gquaglia, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2Its only going to get worse. Obama has already said he wants to delay Orion for 5 years to pay for some useless education program for preschool kids. He might as well kill the program because after a 5 year hiatus, the program will be so far behind and the original engineers would have moved on, that they would probably have to start from scratch. He's back peddled a bit, but only as he might keep the death trap (aka the space shuttle) running past 2010. Meanwhile the Chinese, the Russians and possibly India will be back on the moon and the US will continue its downward spiral towards mediocrity.
- zigardne, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1what should NASA rely on?
- zigardne, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1player please, you know the US is rocking the most Nukes that are on delivery systems, hell, one of our Ohio class subs has 24 Tridents, each tipped with up to 8 nuclear warheads, I think we have 18 Ohio class subs in service, that's 3456 not including our silos in Turkey, and the US. I think we're still at around 5500 active.
- geoboy, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1That would essentially bring the plot of a Simpsons episode to real life!
"NASA learns that its Nielsen ratings have declined, and decide to send an 'average shmoe' into space after realizing the popularity of blue collar comedy programs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Homer - mousky, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Political interference makes NASA weak. The Space Shuttle program would have been cheaper if not for politicians wanting a piece of the action in their district.
- nullaesthetics, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Hi everyone, I wanted to share my opinion. I don't believe the answer to nasa's problem is to give them more money (sorry nasa guys), that could solve the problem but I believe that we can solve this problem without throwing hundreds of millions of dollars more at nasa. (BTW, I also believe that nasa's budget is already more then double any other countries space departments budget, correct me if I am wrong.) I believe what nasa should do is help private American companies such as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, who already demonstrated their ability to put a person into low earth orbit. Another private company that looks promising is SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk. Although they have had three failed launch attempts I believe nasa should help these two promising companies with engineering problems that they are having, after all no one knows this stuff better than nasa. Nasa would then be able to use these companies to bring astronauts to the ISS during the gap between the Shuttle and Orion. I believe that can save America money and not have to rely on Russian Soyuz as well as pay the Russian's millions of dollars while they wage war on our allies. Anyway, thanks for reading.. please let me know your thoughts.
- Grolsch, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1You think Russians spend so much money as NASA do? Hahaha, seriously?
- norman619, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Time = money. Why waste time developing a pen that can write in zero gravity when a pencil works just fine?
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1"...for at least half a decade." -What a stupid choice of words
"...for five years." - Derrekito, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Breeding? Really? Sounds painful.
- Derrekito, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I dunno, I sorta like to watch it - ***** satellite, hundreds of channels and nothing on.
- starmanjones, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1>What's interesting is when you look at
>the safety *numbers*.
i'm not going to argue numbers. the ones you offer are debateable. i would also make a case that both shuttle losses were the result of budget cuts and design compromises due to politics. numbers of deaths are politics. they are all heroic and history should remember them that way....
there is a fundimental difference in the russian and american space programs. they refine a spacecraft and launch system year after year... decade after decade. their rockets are "wrung out." wrung out means something to saftty and reliability.
after apollo we dropped back shut down and built a new space craft. one that pressed the boundries of engineering and essetially was a space station.
while we were doing that the russians orbited and manned several space stations and refined resupply and the living in space. they wrote the book.
so now here we are our shuttles and there cutting edge 70's tech are about worn out. we fly with another shuttle ready to launch. when they are retired we have no real capability for manned launch. we are ready to redesign everything. drop back to the apollo design. drop back to the LEM... but make them all new and untested. redisign the rockets to something untested when we have a system that is wrung out as the launch system for the shuttle. i love nasa. i want them funded big time. the return on investment for the US is huge.
i am not against building new tech. but if we have to sacrifice years to development of something brand new then its top of my list to whack. the russians can launch dependably. the europeanss launch. the japanese launch. india launches.
most important is that we have a new private space effort. nasa MUST support it. if they don't help this new industry become solid then a fair part of the rational for nasa is lost. nasa does it because it needs doing and isn't going to get done any other way. nasa should paying these companies to launch.
nasa is a research research organization. they should be designing the next generation of needs. habitates on the moon for nasa scientists to do research in. habitates at L5. agriculture in space. off-earth materials processing. figure out how to make a 22 thousand mile carbon nano tube for a space elevator. tracking and maintaining the abiility to divert asteroids and comets.
part of that means quit redesigning the wheel every time. this is a lesson we should learn from the russians. - inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1Even if you keep the shuttle flying the Soyuz is the station lifeboat. More money is not going to cure that in 5 years. But I am all for more money.
- JQP123, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1"This is an urban legend. Fisher developed the pen privately all on their own."
Yeah, well, so? I guess they'll have to take the bad with the good ---- urban legend gives NASA credit for tons of inventions that they had little or nothing to do with (microwave ovens, satellite TV, WD-40, velcro, handheld vaccum cleaners).
The sad truth is that NASA does deserve full credit for the space shuttle --- the most expensive/least cost effective way ever devised to put a payload into low earth orbit --- directly the opposite of what was originally promised. - JQP123, on 08/15/2008, -3/+3"... it's a dead heat as to which system is safer. "
In that case, we're still the big loser considering the amount of money we dumped into the space shuttle. - solefald, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1you and what army?
- guru1, on 12/11/2008, -0/+0Yes it does. NASA does basic science - there is no foreseeable profit in that. Breakthroughs almost never happen because someone set out to do it. Case in point: if someone had set out to make surgery better, they would NOT have come up with the Xray machine, I can promise you that. See where I'm going with this?
- Leadman584, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1A recent article I read, pointed out the commercial viability of space travel. A single flight to the moon, extracting one ton of H3 (Hydrogen 3) would cost approximately $800M, returning a product valued at @ $50B. This product is seen as the most viable for fusion technology to grow. The product is extremely rare on Earth because our atmosphere deflects it. It is carried by solar winds, and abundant on the moon.
NASA is a massive beurocracy. Russia, China, and private industry are likely to reach to the moon before NASA. Here is the vision I wish to implant. China expects, not hopes, to have a moon base in place, before we return to space. A Chinese astronaut walks over to the American flag planted there, rips it from the soil, and throws it into space. "Not in my house".
Disband NASA and hire the best and brightest the world has to offer. Virgin Airways is likely to land on the moon, before NASA does. Privatize the whole mess, and provide tremendous financial incentives. Mining rights would be a great start. Of course if we can't even get there, who are we to dictate terms. - SundayBrunch, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1yes, offcourse, get rid of russia. it's only the russian space station, it was only built by russia.
***** - inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1The US built 70% of the ISS, and launched 90%. I would agree with you if the costs were shared more evenly. Us versus them is here to stay.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is