And NASA money isn't just thrown into space to drift. It is in the paychecks that technicians and scientists and engineers spend; it goes for a myriad items supplied by American aerospace companies and subcontractors. It is in grants to universities to train experts of the future. It goes into the wallets of hard working folks at ATK, paying for their livelihoods and their children's education. Thanks, Joe --- On Tue, 3/29/11, Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
From: Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Astronaut talk To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 11:51 AM Joe has given a great explanation, but just to add my 2 cents. Most of the cost of the space program goes to pay people's salaries. If these positions are no longer there the engineers/scientists/technicians/cafeteria workers/janitors, etc. will need to go elsewhere. Going with them will essentially be the entire space program brain trust. To recreate this you will be starting over.
The infrastructure would need to be mothballed which would include facilities located all over the U.S. You would either need to pay to keep it in a state where you "might" be able to use it later or you would have to start over. If the Kennedy Space Center (separate from the Canaveral Air Force Station) isn't being used there would be pressure to use the facilities and property for other things. If you lose the real estate for the space port - good luck getting it back.
Technology as everyone on this list knows - isn't static. If there is much more than a brief hiatus you will be starting over.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah- astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:26 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Astronaut talk
Expertise, drive, facilities, funding (a loss that will continue once the budget is cut), institutional memory; these are factors that are absolutely required to sustain a great program. I know about this on a much smaller scale through personal experience. -- Joe
--- On Tue, 3/29/11, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Astronaut talk To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 11:17 AM What would we lose if we don't continue crewed space exploration for the time being? Haven't the lessons learned been well-documented for future reference? And please don't respond with arguments such as loss of national pride. What REALLY do we lose?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:06 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Astronaut talk
The point isn't how do we get into low-Earth orbit, via Soyuz or shttle; the point is that we need to sustain our crewed space program. If you look at just the practical returns we've had from the program so far, let alone the intangibles, you have to admit it has been a bargain. The same arguments about tight money have killed other important scientific endeavors, and I say they are bogus. They are what forced the country to give up on moon exploration after such a promising start. I'm not religious, but a quote from Jesus seems appropriate: when questioned about the expense of some lotion Mary Magdalene was using to anoint his feet, as the money could have been used for the poor, Jesus said not to worry about that "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." We will always have other expenses but if we don't keep crewed space exploration alive now it will slip from our hands. Thanks, Joe
--- On Tue, 3/29/11, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Astronaut talk To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 10:47 AM What's the cost in dollars to sustain "pride" and "exceptionalism"?
It's going to take a lot more than two cents.
If we can cut the defense budget (larger than the entire rest of the world, combined) to pay for it, then we don't have a problem. The Upside is, the Russians are the Walmart of launch vehicles at the moment. Money's tight.
On 3/28/11, Steve Fisher <iotacass1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Downside?
Loss of pride? Degradation of
American exceptionalism? Should I go on?
Just my two cents worth. Your opinion may vary. Steve
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3537 - Release Date: 03/29/11
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php