Comments on: NASA Woes: Hubble’s Replacement Behind Schedule; Shuttle Cracks Found

By: Flashy

Flashy — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:33:48 +0000

“cutting spending wrecklessly” implies that said spending is done by either taking the fruits of one person’s labor by force and giving it to someone else-also known as socialism-or, simply creating more money (the root cause of this current financial crises, not the ignorant Wallstreet comment above – that was merely but profoundly a feature/consequence). Either way you are dooming everyone to the after effects of inflation – higher prices, and a dollar that is worth less and less over time. Remember, inflation is not a rise in prices, but rather an increase in the money supply. The nasty, job killing and business wrecking, effects (along with a general rise in prices, some profoundly) comes LATER.

If more spending on space research is what you want, and you can convince enough congressmen to expropriate the wealth of the people to do it, then you need first and foremost an underlying separation of economics and state. Only through the relatively unfettered free market can you ever hope to get these projects funded in ways that would accelerate the process.

Lastly, we can have a legitimate debate about NASA spending in the first place – I would prefer to see market forces demand goods and services that NASA can supply. But I also see some intangible benefits and the protection of idividual rights that lead me to conclude that it is in my ratinoal best interest to support certain (not all) NASA initiatives. That being said, we’re a long way from the proper incentive/disincentive based funding system for NASA and its insatiable “need” for money.

By: Dante The Canadian

Dante The Canadian — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:26:18 +0000

Chagrin has a valid point however, it was the work of science and technologists that pulled humanity out of the dark ages in the first place. To not fund scientific projects and advancements would be a grave mistake by any government. I also agree with Stephen when he points out that there are several reasons why there are so many people in dire financial straits right now. If Wall Street and the economy in general were run responsibly the financial crisis wouldn’t have occurred in the first place.

By: Stephen Daugherty

Stephen Daugherty — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:53:33 +0000

Chagrin-
I can feel for your situation, not being much better off, but sir, it’s not government spending that’s making you poor, it’s economic dysfunction from Wall Street Traders who distorted the housing market so they could have more mortgages to base derivatives on, and then leveraged all that up into the stratosphere.

Cutting spending recklessly would actually put more people in your situation, making the problem worse. What keeps this economic problem going is the fact that so many people are unemployed, and therefore unable to create demand. The lack of demand creates a weak environment for hiring and for the tools that the hired people use to do business.

Until you get your fellow Americans back to being customers at businesses, you’re not going anywhere, and any deficit reduction attempts are going to come at the expense of an already weak economy.

By: Chagrin

Chagrin — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 01:54:02 +0000

I don’t think anyone working on minimum wage, anyone with a family on unemployment or any of the families of the 13 million children in the US that have no health care whatsoever would appreciate the amounts bandied about in this item as being justified when they wake up hungry and sick.
But you lot carry on sitting in your comfortable houses, fed and warm, panicking about where the extra cash will come from. I know, take it out of medicare!

By: Iain

Iain — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:06:51 +0000

Maybe the president can convince the generals to give up one of their procurements, then NASA would have a few billion bucks to play with.

By: Andy Taylor

Andy Taylor — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:26:46 +0000

@ Nick
I guess history is repeating itself. I’m glad there are some of us who can remember the past.

By: Andrew Moseman

Andrew Moseman — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:54:11 +0000

@Nick
Good point; there’s every reason to believe the mission will be great, eventually. I’m much more interested to see if Nature’s warning comes true, and other projects struggle to find funding in the next few years.

By: nick

nick — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:25:31 +0000

This makes me wonder what media and management was saying about the Hubble before it launched – no doubt late and over budget (from wikipedia: ‘Hubble was funded in the 1970s, with a proposed launch in 1983, but the project was beset by technical delays, budget problems, and the Challenger disaster. When finally launched in 1990, scientists found that the main mirror had been ground incorrectly, severely compromising the telescope’s capabilities. However, after a servicing mission in 1993, the telescope was restored to its intended quality.’).

Puts the current issue a little in perspective – especially considering the 20+ year mission of the freaking Hubble and the upgrades it’s gotten and the amazing amount of sh*t it’s done that wasn’t imagined when it was built. So, in 2035 when we’re b**ching about the JWST’s replacement being late and over-budget, let’s remember this moment. :)

By: Rory Kent

Rory Kent — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:26:09 +0000

What’s the big deal? Just about everything NASA has ever done has been late and over budget.