accomplished as in past.Loremaster wrote:What do you mean by 'emphasis on accomplished'?
Second, define 'disaster'.
disaster as in the deaths of astronauts due to hubris.
Moderator: Vraith
So, you're completely ignoring the great things they have done and are currently planning to do?sgt.null wrote:accomplished as in past.Loremaster wrote:What do you mean by 'emphasis on accomplished'?
Second, define 'disaster'.
Occured in the past.sgt.null wrote:disaster as in the deaths of astronauts due to hubris.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
Launch of the Hubble telescope, which continues to advance knowledge and understanding of the universe. For a start.sgt.null wrote:lore - what current discovery is being made using the shuttle?
And it still stands for something, but it's just that you're a luddite.sgt.null wrote:what great thing were they doing when they died? Christa McCauliffe was all publicity. that is a good reason to die? i agree that at one time nasa stood for something.
In your opinion. Maybe it's good that you don't run government, because you're too frightened to risk people for something greater.sgt.null wrote:some pipe dream of maybe one day going to other worlds?
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
Just like every other human endeavour, null.sgt.null wrote:i support the hubble. but even that has been beset by problems and cost over-runs.
You're reasoning is that space research is not tangible. That's not correct, as there have been plenty of discoveries resulting from space exploration and research that have benefitted us on Earth. Secondly, why should money be spent on something tangible? Alot of money on earth is spent on the theoretical. Granted that usually ends up practical, but we should never limit our advancement to the tangible. Knowledge doesnt work that way.sgt.null wrote:i am hardly a luddite. but i want our money going to something tangible. not in the hope of using this world up and heading for space.
Pulling money out of space wont do it. Honestly, don't you have better targets, like the military? But fixing poverty wont come about through spending NASA's budget - world economics (that is, markets, corporations, etc) is more to blame, and hardly going to change unless we drastically change the way the world, and humans, work.sgt.null wrote: i would rather fix our problems here.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
sgt.null wrote:i support the hubble. but even that has been beset by problems and cost over-runs. just as it seems everything with nasa is beset by budget problems. they need an oversight group i should think.
and i just read that nasa doesn't include the space station projects in it's budget? good point for truth and accountability.
i am hardly a luddite. but i want our money going to something tangible. not in the hope of using this world up and heading for space.
we know less about our own oceans. i would rather spend money on finding alternate fuel sources. i would rather find a way to make desalinization plants cost effective. i would rather fix our problems here.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"