Comments on: New NASA, New Administrator Under Obama?

By: IMSA12

IMSA12 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:02:20 +0000

The Obama administration's first priority should be the expulsion of the political and psuedo-science hacks that Bush has plugged into NASA for the past 8 years. Too often, the science that NASA is supposed to be doing has been corrupted or supressed to reflect a policy position being promulgated by the current administration.

This ambivalence towards science, and these political appointees (some of them high-level) with absolutely no science background, has squandered a lot of money and wasted promising careers for real NASA scientists and administrators.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:27:10 +0000

With the progress Burt Rutan has made, I have gotten the impression in recent years that Nasa is more interested in funding than in progress. They seem to drag their feet whenever a new goal is suggested. THE GOAL IS: to go to mars, so where are we? We're going back to the moon.
I was a kid and watched the apollo landings. Its pathetic that I may not see a man on mars in my lifetime. (Oh wait, yes I will – it will probably be china).

By: stephen fuqua

stephen fuqua — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:40:51 +0000

We need to keep up our unmanned flights first and use what's left over for manned flight. Science first.

By: quantum_flux

quantum_flux — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:25:59 +0000

Upon further examination, my apologies to Burt Rutan for using him in the same sentence as Paul Moller. Burt Rutan is a true American Innovator.

Geeze, Paul Moller knows wankel engines, and how to work the system, he's worse than NASA. Been working on 1 vehicle for 30 years and not innovating anything new, geeze! Corn ethanol apparently has a use too, that's the only entreprenuer that will benefit from Obama's presidency, and he's been getting over 200 million dollars in government handouts and can't even sell his only half-working M400x prototype on eBay for 3.5 million. Look for the Moller M200x to fluorish with Obama in office though (bailout money).

By: quantum_flux

quantum_flux — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:41:31 +0000

It's brilliant individuals like Burt Rutan and Paul Moller that are going to make NASA look bad. I look forward to seing that happen, hopefully during Obama's presidency! Hopefully JP Aerospace will be able to rub it in a little too!

By: REllis

REllis — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:12:55 +0000

The mere fact that there is a 5 year gap between the end of STS and the beginning of
Constellation is all the proof anyone needs that the only "space" is between Griffin's ears.

He should be jettisoned. Soon.

By: Steven

Steven — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:31:39 +0000

There is also not enough resources on the moon, like water,CO2 which Mars has large quanititys.

But thats for another debate.

Now we need to stick together and get into space for once and forever, and let all our draems be made true.

By: Farcall

Farcall — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:17:48 +0000

We need a *space presence* if we are going to become a true space-fareing civilization. A one or two shot to Mars and then stopping achieves nothing worthwhile.

Go to the Moon and start setting up "camp". Go to Mars, do the same and push on out into the solar system from there.

And then, who knows…at some point we will stand on a far-flug ice ball at the edge of the Sun's domain , and take dead aim at the stars.

By: H-town Mack

H-town Mack — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:02:08 +0000

NASA needs new blood. It's a tragedy that they haven't gone back to the moon and established a base there by now. And discontinuing the shuttle to let our "buddies" the Russians take us up is a huge mistake. They have the shield tech now to defend against the sun. All they need is to push development of those plasma engines to get to Mars in less than 6 months. The moon shouldn't be the goal in 10 years, it should be Mars, and it can be done. Year after year of mismanagement.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:00:48 +0000

NASA needs its Admin to pay more than lip service to its officially chartered educational mission, to inspire the youth. With the Constellation rocket's troubles, prudence would dictate some preparation for a shift to a different booster. As for the Shuttle – trillions for war and bailouts but not a couple billion a year to maintain US access to space in the multi-year interregnum, if the new administration were willing to ADD the money?

Since people are commenting on the overarching goal, I land firmly on the Moon. Moon vs. Mars is the difference between an island close to Europe and the New World in distance, but not , in promise. Three days' travel vs eight months almost tells the whole story. The first successful lunar settlers will be the ones to later settle Mars, I believe.

By: Sci-Fi Si

Sci-Fi Si — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:17:04 +0000

Moon first, then Mars.

There are too many resources on the moon to be ignored. It is the perfect place to continue developing the space economy, mine for a clean nuclear power source, develop space habitats and technologies.

We can launch far bigger spacecraft from the moon than from Earth and at a lower over all cost once a moonbase has been established.

http://moonsociety.org

Interesting stuff have a look…

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:58:34 +0000

Mars

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:37:47 +0000

Well Done to Griffin to stick by his guns, what NASA needs now more than ever is to stay focused on the mission at hand, and to try and get something done before deadline for once. Even if some of us disagree on the course of action. (We don't need to go to the Moon, Mars, Mars, Mars)