Aizle wrote:
Unfortunate about the moon program, but not surprising given the current economic state of the world.
No, not surprising, but it's, quite frankly, a lame excuse. He's talking about 19 billion for NASA, and it said Constellation needed another 3 billion a year over what it was getting.
That's money that's, quite frankly, chump change in terms of our current situation, and worse, it's money for concrete, tangible, useful purposes. Cutting it deprives us of whatever benefits we might get, but it saves practically nothing in comparison to the fiscal issues we face.
NASA is just fun to pick on because it seems to the average person who doesn't know any better that they're just expensive toys that the average person has no use for.. while they talk on their phone, watch their satellite TV and use their car's GPS.
Don't get me wrong, some of the stuff they're going to do instead, such as improving heavy-lift capability is great, but we really need to not be dependant on Russia to get astronauts in orbit. You just can't do everything remotely.
In any case, the problem with private spaceflight is that only VERY rich companies could do it, and they're prime targets for the tax appetite of the current administration. Not only that, but spaceflight is inherently dangerous. The first time there's an accident (and there will be one) we'll start hearing about how dangerous it is, and how they're cutting corners for their bottom line and the usual litany of anti-corporate ideas. We'll hear calls for more regulation and more taxation to fund it, and, like the nuclear power industry, it will face monumental obstacles to success because everyone wants people to do it for the benefit of themself, not for the profit of those who invested in it. Never mind the accidents NASA has had over the years, it will suddenly be turned into even more of a travesty when there's an accident with a private spaceflight.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
