Comments on: A positive editorial http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/12/03/a-positive-editorial/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-positive-editorial Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Kevin Parkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/12/03/a-positive-editorial/#comment-2156 Sun, 05 Dec 2004 07:57:25 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=375#comment-2156 And I should add that the budget increase is an endorsement of the Moon-Mars initiative (else a reward for catastrophic failure).

NASA has no intention of using most of that extra money for the Moon-Mars initiative. Instead, the majority is about to be used to give the American public the illusion that the Shuttle and Space Station are still viable – i.e they will use it for show.

]]> By: Kevin Parkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/12/03/a-positive-editorial/#comment-2155 Sun, 05 Dec 2004 07:42:58 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=375#comment-2155 NASA’s budget would be a positive thing if:

(a) It was actually spent on the Moon-Mars initiative

(b) It wasn’t wasted on the massive budget overruns of the shuttle or space station, whose only continuing reason for existence is… (I drew a blank here – perhaps to prevent embarrassment, an admission of failure?)

(c) The money wasn’t taken from the NSF budget

(d) It weren’t used to grow and sustain a worthless nit-picking bureaucracy that all but strangles those who try to work with them (first hand experience here)

(e) Some of it (any of it) went to me

Did I miss anything?

Oh, and the sooner the democrats stop messing around with HR 5382 for petty reasons the sooner we might have some alternatives to wishing NASA would change.

]]>