Post by Mike C."Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe
Post by Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')Post by Mike C."Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe
Post by Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')Post by Mike C.Post by BlackwaterFrankly, our space program could be SERIOUSLY scaled back,
just the basics to keep comm and military satellites up
and running. The ISS ... maybe we can lease it to China
or India.
McCain said in the debate that he'll put a freeze on all discretionary
spending, excepting for military and some entitlements, so I think NASA
could be SOL.
Entitlements aren't discretionary. If NASA is frozen, that doesn't
mean they have no money. Drop STS and they suddenly have billions.
Might as well consider dropping ISS as well since the Russians will have the
only access to the place, and we (and they) seem pretty determined to
restart the cold war.
I think you are being silly on two levels. The Russians want to be
a superpower again. That doesn't mean the Cold War is restarted. It
means they are part of the game again.
And increasingly antogonistic to us and vice versa.
I think you can expect differences of opinion in a non-unipolar
world. I don't know how far Putin wants to take this and I'm not
going to speculate beyond that the actions in Georgia suggest that
this is not about a new Cold War but rather just a reasserting of
Russia's view that it is a co-equal on the world stage. The US
should insist that Russia behave if it's going to be assuming such
a position for the future.
Post by Mike C.Post by Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')Secondly, ISS isn't in a good orbit for a lot of things such as a
launch point for missions outside LEO, but it is up there and
should be used.
I think we need to keep the shuttles until such a time as they can be
replaced, however I recognize that might not be possible in today's economy.
But the important thing to understand is that keeping the shuttles
is literally costing billions of dollars a year that could be used
to develop the next gen space launch systems. The question is can
America afford to keep STS?
Post by Mike C.Post by Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')Post by Mike C.Post by Bill Bonde { ''Well, boys, I reckon this is it, nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'')Post by Mike C.Obama mentioned the Chinese space walk during the debate as a sign
that
we
need to keep improving education in the US, so maybe he'll be somewhat
inclined to keep NASA working on the new program.
That'll fix it.
Better than nothing.
Education is primarily a state issue.
Guaranteed student loans and the like are a valid function of the federal
govt.
We weren't talking about that although I'm not entirely sure I've
thought all this through. Education shouldn't mean that you are
saddled with such a huge debt that you can't pay it off. OTOH, the
people shouldn't be subsidizing a few people to get educations
while many other work low pay jobs to pay into such a fund.
Post by Mike C.But what I was mainly referring to was the fact that by mentioning the
Chinese flight, Obama at least seems to recognize that space is important.
I'd want to know more about what he'd actually do before I took
that view. In any case, I'm not sure I can believe what he says
since his ideas don't seem to mesh with the economic reality. It's
my view that the funding for NASA should stay the same as it has
been and that NASA should drop STS after the HST repair.
--
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out,
They leave the West behind,
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout,
That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind.