|
|
| Re: No more space shuttles after 2010, NASA cutting 80-90% of jobs. [message #325088 is a reply to message #325087] |
Thu, 03 April 2008 13:21   |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Canadacdn wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 21:19 |
I'm pretty sure the strike ended on Wednesday.
|
You mean to tell me that the Bennigan's coupon, and the ball of bubble gum that I got in the mail was our settlement?!
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: No more space shuttles after 2010, NASA cutting 80-90% of jobs. [message #325778 is a reply to message #324915] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 19:56 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| trooprm02 wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:42 |
As in fix this plant before you try to explore others 
|
I actually do not agree with this statement.
I think that "fixing this planet" should take second seat to exploring new ones. Why? Because the life of Earth is only so long. Due to natural resources drying up and pollution and stuff like that, it will die eventually, it is inevitable. So why waste time spending all of the money trying to fix something that will not last in the end? Yea, it might preserve it, but it will not save it.
Finding other planets to colonize allows the human race to live on longer. Finding a planet can take years, 10 years, 50, 100, 200. A really long time.
It simply doesn't make sense to wait for Earth to die before looking towards other planets. We need to have a backup before we focus everything on Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: No more space shuttles after 2010, NASA cutting 80-90% of jobs. [message #325960 is a reply to message #324895] |
Fri, 11 April 2008 11:45 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I think in a few years or so, the private sector will be doing many of the jobs that NASA currently performs today.
It'll be way more cost-effective, and there will be less chance of a 'Challenger' or 'Columbia' style disaster.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: No more space shuttles after 2010, NASA cutting 80-90% of jobs. [message #326348 is a reply to message #324895] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 22:29 |
 |
DarkDemin
Messages: 1483
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Do you realize that without the space program you wouldn't be sitting in front of your computer right now. Going to space forced the Government to dump Billions if not Trillions of dollars into the technology market. I'm not saying that we wouldn't have reached this far into technology at some point, I'm just saying that NASA greatly accelerated it. The primary reason for this deactivation of the space program is to allow scientists to develop a new spacecraft. We are using Shuttles that were built in the 80's and have failing expensive technologies. Your toaster oven is more powerful that some of the equipment on the current shuttles. NASA plans to build more centralized computer systems that don't take up so much space and create so much weight. They are also experimenting with a Magnetic rail launching system so to totally remove the need for rocket fuel.
So don't say the space program has done nothing for us, and that they are fools and the money should be spent else were. NASA makes up less than 1% of the Governments budget. Why don't you go bitch about your congressmen building bridges to fucking no where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
