Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech; Wants to offer prizes to priave businesses who make advancm
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Stockers678;34375417]Not really, without profit, a single flight would cost tens of thousands of dollars to run.[/QUOTE]
You know air travel was once only for the wealthy too.
Anybody else reminded of Dan Brown's Deception Point? :v:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375551]You can't just give money to an organization. If NASA is being mismanaged(here's a hint: it is), then that money is a waste.[/QUOTE]
Still not as wasteful as pointless neverending wars.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375531]They use rocket fuel, which is mainly...liquid nitrogen(someone correct me on this, I'm sure it's not correct).[/QUOTE]
liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen, or liquid oxygen/kerosene. there are other combinations too
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375531]Gas? As in Petrol or Natural Gas? Either way, is it more expensive relative to median wage, inflation, or any of those types of factors?
Either way:
Rockets do not require petrol(assuming that is what you are talking about). They use rocket fuel, which is mainly...liquid nitrogen(someone correct me on this, I'm sure it's not correct).[/QUOTE]
Close... Rocket fuel is liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. LN by itself wouldn't do anything. Your point still stands, not petrol, not subject to those price fluctuations.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34375599]Private enterprise into space is still very far in its infancy, I wouldn't really make a judgement like that just yet.[/QUOTE]
So my claim that you can't make a claim about how well they'll do is incorrect? :v:
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34375363]Failure after failure?
A bit exaggerated isn't it? He should get a list of all the things NASA has achieved. Hell, even private space corporations are supported/have contracts with NASA.[/QUOTE]
Fix my title typo, please
It's bugging the shit out of me :v:
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Clavus;34375810]So my claim that you can't make a claim about how well they'll do is incorrect? :v:[/QUOTE]
Blah, I completely missed that last "just yet" at the end, whoops.
I'm very tired and sleep deprived
conservative capitalists in space
no good can come out of that
[QUOTE=Bobie;34376243]conservative capitalists in space
no good can come out of that[/QUOTE]
When they declare war on Alpha Centari, we shall call it Star Wars
I've been saying it all along, capitalism is the future of space. It's nothing but untouched profit floating above our heads, laughing at our small, inefficient space penises.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375330]I like the idea of private companies being able to send people in to space. A private company would probably be able to do it cheaper, faster, and more safely than NASA, considering NASA's record.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
However I don't think that space should be solely a private venture. Government funded scientists should still be studying the universe, in space when possible.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, it would be really great to have both NASA and private companies expanding our research in space technology.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;34376243]conservative capitalists in space
no good can come out of that[/QUOTE]
Republican Space Rangers.
why is he always comparing himself to JFK and Ronald Reagan? is he really that arrogant?
The only reason NASA was a 'failure', is because it wasn't fucking funded near enough, whereas the military got a whole $3T.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sudge;34376764]why is he always comparing himself to JFK and Ronald Reagan? is he really that arrogant?[/QUOTE]
They're major icons. They are there to be compared to, but when you compare yourself, you kinda look stupid.
NASA "failed" because its funding was so small, compared to the military. If NASA had the military's budget for a few years(and military was cut down to somewhere between 500b-1t), then we would be colonizing the Moon, Mars, and probably trying to see if there is life on other planets.
[QUOTE=sudge;34376764]why is he always comparing himself to JFK and Ronald Reagan? is he really that arrogant?[/QUOTE]
You have to compare someone else, but......yes.
[QUOTE=Bobie;34376243]conservative capitalists in space
no good can come out of that[/QUOTE]
Because owning a business makes you a conservative capitalist.
NASA is a failure because nobody funds them, Newt! Toss them a fuckton of money and we'll be on Mars before you can go "Oh fuck, that worked?!"
[QUOTE=TestECull;34377041]NASA is a failure because nobody funds them, Newt! Toss them a fuckton of money and we'll be on Mars before you can go "Oh fuck, that worked?!"[/QUOTE]
But what about your defense budget? Do you want to see [b]AMERICA[/b] DEFENSELESS??
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?????
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34375363]Failure after failure?
A bit exaggerated isn't it? He should get a list of all the things NASA has achieved. Hell, even private space corporations are supported/have contracts with NASA.[/QUOTE]
The reason NASA isn't putting us on the moon again is because we don't have the inspiration, or the economy to do it again like we did in the space race... not only that, but we're funding a far bigger defense budget, with the space budget being an ant next to a giant in comparison.
Gingrich's space speech;
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-12-2011/indecision-2012---abc-news-gop-debate[/url]
Skip to 2:07.
To the guys saying NASA's problem is funding, it isn't, [URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/28/nasa-figures-show-that-commercial-spaceflight-costs-half-as-much-as-government-run-effort-would/"]it's proven that they just make projects cost more than private entities would.[/URL]
The problem with NASA is that it's run by committee. Or, rather, Congress, running a Committee on Science, Space and Technology, which in turn has a subcomittee for Space and Aeronautics. They're not anywhere near autonomous, they have to act as directed by a bunch of politicians who haven't the slightest goddamn idea what they're doing, and are often tied to bizarre business requirements [URL="http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/06/02/senators-urge-competitive-bidding-nasa-heavy-lift-vehicle/"]which cost shitloads of money.[/URL]
I don't think we should eliminate NASA, but I do think that mixing corporations in might be neat. There's no reason that the activity of one should be mutually exclusive with the other. A corporation could help make space travel affordable and available for the public, whereas NASA could make discoveries that could help us in the long run, but wouldn't have any immediate profits. I don't know why people don't seem to realize that we need both corporations and the government. Corporations expand our economy, create jobs and make our lives easier (for the most part, anyway). The government is necessary because it accomplishes the things that help everyone in the longterm, but aren't immediately profitable, such as going to the moon, or building the Hoover Dam.
But they should be regulated so that Avatar doesn't happen.
NASA isn't a failure, and it's not nearly where it could be because these bastard politicians don't give them the funding they need.
Fuck, the Army gets more money in funding every year for air-conditioning costs!
Nasa's not a failure, the government just wont stop circle jerking the military enough to throw nasa a bone some times.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375531]They use rocket fuel, which is mainly...liquid nitrogen(someone correct me on this, I'm sure it's not correct).[/QUOTE]
Liquid Oxygen.
[QUOTE=Scar;34377105]But what about your defense budget? Do you want to see [b]AMERICA[/b] DEFENSELESS??
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?????[/QUOTE]
I would rather have space exploration that spend the money on 249,999 bullets that don't hit anything. Or, if you'd rather keep the spray-and-pray mentality there, we can nuke the TSA. Just completely dissolve them, they do absolutely nothing useful and are a waste of manpower and money. Their funding then gets sent to NASA.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34375415]It's exaggerated for past accomplishments but you don't really hear about NASA in the news very often anymore for great achievements like you did in the 60s and 70s.[/QUOTE]
That's because of a change in culture. People aren't interested in space anymore.
Besides, "manned moon landing" is more interesting than "robot on mars". Doesn't mean NASA isn't doing as many important things, it just means that people don't care and the media reflects this.
Um. Nasa isn't a failure. They made a ton of innovations in a lot of different areas.
Like for example.
Memory foam mother fuckers.
Nasa also made...
FREEZE-DRIED ICE CREAM!
aka neapolitan ice cream
[IMG]http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/11777867/Neapolitan_Freeze_Dried_Ice_Cream.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://annelouiselikes.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/800px-freeze-dried-ice-cream.jpg?w=695&h=505[/IMG]
Atleast Nasa doesn't have the failure record of Russia assuming they never destroyed their failed attempts.
There wouldn't even be a private space industry if it wasn't for government SSA.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.