How the **** do you think you get weather maps from? SPACE, duh!



Sheesh. But I agree, once they have gained the technology for somebody to live on the moon, an actual human being to land on Mars, or ****, another planet out there I will start caring more about NASA.

 

Well therein lies to problem, to get the kind of support to actualy do stuff like that people need to start caring more. Hell, the know how and technolgy already exsists to make a station on the moon, its all about the money and the level of commitment that it would require to actualty do that.

 

[quote name='psyclo' date='Aug 3 2005, 01:37 AM']Well therein lies to problem, to get the kind of support to actualy do stuff like that people need to start caring more. Hell, the know how and technolgy already exsists to make a station on the moon, its all about the money and the level of commitment that it would require to actualty do that.


[/quote]



But like this thread shows, it's not much support and commitment. And this is only a dozen people speaking about this. I am sure NASA's budget has been cut many times. Once they came up with something new or interesting, the budget was raised some more.



It's all mixed reviews honestly on NASA. I would still be an astronaut also. Just imagine going into space.

 

We need the space program. After all, it's only a matter of time before we **** up this world so much that it's uninhabitable to us. It would be nice to know we can pack up and head out to live with the Vulcans when it gets bad enough.

 

everyone that says the ship is falling apart because its old.



Its not as old as the Russian ship, which has been running flawlessly for the past 40 YEARS. The last time someone died was in 1976 when three cosmonauts died.



In our program 14 people have died in the past couple of years or some ****.



Hell even china and **** are going into space with less problems.



kevin.

 

[quote name='rowtareh' date='Aug 3 2005, 01:34 AM']How the **** do you think you get weather maps from? SPACE, duh!






[/quote]



they launch satallites from the earth, we dont NEED the shuttle for that.



They need to retire those things, they need TLC- no kidding, without flights in the last few years where has all the money been going?

 

[quote name='Rob x-7' date='Aug 3 2005, 03:48 AM']they launch satallites from the earth, we dont NEED the shuttle for that.



They need to retire those things, they need TLC- no kidding, without flights in the last few years where has all the money been going?


[/quote]



They have been packing their noses with coke!



That's where they get these half-baked ideas of duct taping the shuttle back together!

 

I wouldn't doubt if other trips to space had the same **** wrong with the ship, it is just this time they decided to check it. They defintely need a new design ****, didn't some guy build a jet that can ride along the last layer of the atmosphere? I think NASA with all it's money can do that.



I still think they should go into the ocean instead of sapce.

 

I think your refering to the X-prize a 3 million prize for the first privatly funded group to launch a person into space then do it again within a week. Burt Rutan and his crew funded by Richard Branson (Virgin mobile).



That is definatly an option for getting people into space, but the shuttle was designed to do many more things, maybe thats the problem. The Soyuz ships don't do quite as much as the shuttle is capable.

 

Why don't they use the Enterprise? It's in a museum somewhere. I'm not sure how functional it is, but it seems like it wouldn't be any worse than Discovery.