Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What Is Going To Become Of Nasa? What Purpose Do They Serve?


Iceberg Slim

Recommended Posts

Since NASA has retired all of the space shuttles and we now need a ride from the Chinese or Russians to get into space, what purpose do they really serve. It seems for years, until the development of the space shuttle we (humans) were trying to reach into the stars, to go further. Somewhere along the way, we lost sight and thought it was cool to orbit the earth, and just go around in a big ass cirlce. I know when the Mars flight landed and we were actually able to control the rover, I felt a sense of hope that things were going to move forward again, but sadly that is not the case. So I ask, what is the purpose of NASA, can we just dismantle it and use the funding to reduce the deficit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, ,most of NASA's current projects are not exploratory projects. To that point most of them are looking at the earth, not really looking outward. Take a look at the link if you don't believe me.....http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a really interesting news segment about government funded NASA vs. private sector space exploration. It talked about how if the government wasn't running the show, we would be so much further along with private businesses building and developing technology. I would link the video if I knew how/where to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a really interesting news segment about government funded NASA vs. private sector space exploration. It talked about how if the government wasn't running the show, we would be so much further along with private businesses building and developing technology. I would link the video if I knew how/where to find it.

See this I agree with, NASA has an overbloated budget with no true mission. They allow the private sector to captor just a portion of those funds for development, we will have some serious progress....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, ,most of NASA's current projects are not exploratory projects. To that point most of them are looking at the earth, not really looking outward. Take a look at the link if you don't believe me.....http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

They are still space based missions.

But fwiw, NASA is working on several exploratory missions right now, including exploring Mars, deep space, the outer planets and the Asteroid belt. They are also planning launches for several observation satellite and telescope launches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a really interesting news segment about government funded NASA vs. private sector space exploration. It talked about how if the government wasn't running the show, we would be so much further along with private businesses building and developing technology. I would link the video if I knew how/where to find it.

In commercial aspects perhaps, but not necessarily in exploration. For the most part, the private sector is concerned about making money, not in exploration or furthering science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this I agree with, NASA has an overbloated budget with no true mission. They allow the private sector to captor just a portion of those funds for development, we will have some serious progress....

Can be said about pretty much all government programs and departments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this I agree with, NASA has an overbloated budget with no true mission. They allow the private sector to captor just a portion of those funds for development, we will have some serious progress....

That is a mere fraction of what it should be. Doubling NASAs budget form 18.7 billion to 37 billion it would be a vastly better way to spend the money than a whole slew of bureaucratic morasses they throw money into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
    • I’m hoping SMU messes it all up and wins out. Imagine the SEC & BI0 would crap themselves trying to “fix” the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...