Appollo didn't happen in one year so I don't know what you are trying to get at, Nasa's per year budget back then during it's hayday was in the neighborhood of 4-6 billion per year, extravigant over budget allowances by Kennedy in order to beat the russians not withstanding. The point being, if the organization hadn't been infected by bloatware some time between then and 1980, NASA would have that moon base, there would be a fleet of completely reusable launch vehicles and Mars really would be the next step, and all for the same money or less than what was actually spent during that time. It all seems infinitly pointless to me, with all that is going on in the world what benifit does the average American get out of spending all this money on the space program?
I agree with you on this one. There is some stuff on RIAA labels that is good. My guess is some people don't even know just how many damn labels there are in the RIAA. There's also stuff on non-RIAA labels that I like. But in the end, I agree with the "Don't buy it" attitude. If you are really pissed at the RIAA for all their idiotic actions, boycott them. No, a boycott is not always going to be fun - sometimes it hurts to stick to your morals. For example, I really started getting into Bad Religion about a year and a half ago. I loved every album I could get my hands on, but since a lot of their stuff is from Atlantic, I won't buy it.
Since the RIAA is claiming no one is buying anything and everyone is stealing, I guess a boycott would be redundant. Or maybe they would finally find out what it's like to actually lose money, not just fall slightly short of your multi billion dollar projections for the year.
I can understand the need to not scatter debris all over the continental United States, but since the Space Shuttle can, as I understand it, land itself, why not let it land itself in California? If it disintegrates on re-entry, then they've justified the rescue mission. If it doesn't, they've saved a $3B shuttle, (though possibly opening themselves up to the question of why the rescue was necessary). Seems like a win-win scenario to me.
Which means that I'm obviously missing something. It probably has to do with the degree of 'wreckedness' of the shuttle.
Seriously though, if there's a good reason to not try to land it, I'm all ears.
-Holmes.
Sending a crippled shuttle on autopilot towards the united states would probably not go over well even if it made it.
NASA may have a small budget now but it is exponentially larger today than it was when they went to the moon, even when adjusted for inflation. All that money is being flushed down the toilet in redundant waste, corrupt sub contractor bidding processes and involvement by congress to satisfy special interests.
There are alot of idiots who think the road to Mars is just a little bit farther than the Moon, George W. Bush being chief among them. Maned space flight is essentially redundant at this point, there is very little being done in space right now that can't be done by a remotely operated robot.
Why shove everyone into the ISS and why only a backuup shuttle for the next two launches? Because there is a life boat, it's docked with the ISS, or at least it will be, hopfully by the time flight three comes around. First it will free fall captules, later to be replaced by sort of a "mini shuttle" if it is ever finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Mouth saying one thing while the hands do another? Business as usual.
No US program will ever die so long as there's money to waste on it and appropriately timed Tom Hanks movies to generate misguided interest.
Appollo didn't happen in one year so I don't know what you are trying to get at, Nasa's per year budget back then during it's hayday was in the neighborhood of 4-6 billion per year, extravigant over budget allowances by Kennedy in order to beat the russians not withstanding. The point being, if the organization hadn't been infected by bloatware some time between then and 1980, NASA would have that moon base, there would be a fleet of completely reusable launch vehicles and Mars really would be the next step, and all for the same money or less than what was actually spent during that time. It all seems infinitly pointless to me, with all that is going on in the world what benifit does the average American get out of spending all this money on the space program?
I agree with you on this one. There is some stuff on RIAA labels that is good. My guess is some people don't even know just how many damn labels there are in the RIAA. There's also stuff on non-RIAA labels that I like. But in the end, I agree with the "Don't buy it" attitude. If you are really pissed at the RIAA for all their idiotic actions, boycott them. No, a boycott is not always going to be fun - sometimes it hurts to stick to your morals. For example, I really started getting into Bad Religion about a year and a half ago. I loved every album I could get my hands on, but since a lot of their stuff is from Atlantic, I won't buy it.
Since the RIAA is claiming no one is buying anything and everyone is stealing, I guess a boycott would be redundant. Or maybe they would finally find out what it's like to actually lose money, not just fall slightly short of your multi billion dollar projections for the year.
I can understand the need to not scatter debris all over the continental United States, but since the Space Shuttle can, as I understand it, land itself, why not let it land itself in California? If it disintegrates on re-entry, then they've justified the rescue mission. If it doesn't, they've saved a $3B shuttle, (though possibly opening themselves up to the question of why the rescue was necessary). Seems like a win-win scenario to me. Which means that I'm obviously missing something. It probably has to do with the degree of 'wreckedness' of the shuttle. Seriously though, if there's a good reason to not try to land it, I'm all ears. -Holmes. Sending a crippled shuttle on autopilot towards the united states would probably not go over well even if it made it.
NASA may have a small budget now but it is exponentially larger today than it was when they went to the moon, even when adjusted for inflation. All that money is being flushed down the toilet in redundant waste, corrupt sub contractor bidding processes and involvement by congress to satisfy special interests. There are alot of idiots who think the road to Mars is just a little bit farther than the Moon, George W. Bush being chief among them. Maned space flight is essentially redundant at this point, there is very little being done in space right now that can't be done by a remotely operated robot.
Why shove everyone into the ISS and why only a backuup shuttle for the next two launches? Because there is a life boat, it's docked with the ISS, or at least it will be, hopfully by the time flight three comes around. First it will free fall captules, later to be replaced by sort of a "mini shuttle" if it is ever finished.