Yeah really. The US can afford it by a long shot, although G.W. isn't gunna do a darn thing about it. We should have been to Mars and back by now and we haven't. Technology has gotten alot better and cheaper. I mean, my home network probably has more computing power than the space shuttle. I know for a fact my calculator has more power than the whole Apollo program... I strongly believe in a good space program. According to Star Trek we should hit light speed at around 2060 (right?). Either way it was in my lifetime and if I don't see it for real, I will be pissed.Originally posted by: TigerWe should double it.
$30 Billion out of $2 Trillion is like pissing in the ocean.
Nasa 'concerned' over staff cuts
Top Nasa officials have expressed concern over the effect that privatising the United States space agency had, as experienced civil servants were replaced by private contractors in a bid to cut costs.
Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
perhaps a checkbox on IRS forms will do the trick? "Check this box to donate ___ to NASA"
not gonna happen, but i'd check it if it did.
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Personally, I say lower it. Possibly no change.
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Personally, I say lower it. Possibly no change.
Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Personally, I say lower it. Possibly no change.
the paint on the Golden Gate Bridge (originally developed by NASA to withstand high temperatures on the space shuttle launch pad)
high-tech sneakers (which use technology first developed for space suits)
keyboards used by disabled workers.
Dustbuster vacuums
CAT scans
home water filters
all influenced by NASA technology
"Receiving NASA's Commercial Invention of the Year is a miniature ventricular-assist device (VAD). Initially called the NASA/DeBakey heart pump, it is based in part on technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps. It is intended as a long-term "bridge" to a heart transplant, or as a more permanent device to help patients toward recovery and a more normal life."
yeah, let's cut NASA funding.
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Personally, I say lower it. Possibly no change.
the paint on the Golden Gate Bridge (originally developed by NASA to withstand high temperatures on the space shuttle launch pad)
high-tech sneakers (which use technology first developed for space suits)
keyboards used by disabled workers.
Dustbuster vacuums
CAT scans
home water filters
all influenced by NASA technology
"Receiving NASA's Commercial Invention of the Year is a miniature ventricular-assist device (VAD). Initially called the NASA/DeBakey heart pump, it is based in part on technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps. It is intended as a long-term "bridge" to a heart transplant, or as a more permanent device to help patients toward recovery and a more normal life."
yeah, let's cut NASA funding.
Nothing you've said convinces me that more money would improve things.
edit: I'm not against NASA, per se, and I'll be very clear: I do not have the facts here in front of me. Voted on my impressions of things only.