Comments on: Rethinking NASA’s direction and communication http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication 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: BIRKEL http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-189737 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:45:15 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-189737 Bonjour,
Je me permets de venir vers vous,particulièrement pour l’avion tombé dans le fleuve , à cause de volatiles (oiseaux) obstruant les réacteurs. Je considère qu’avec les technologies actuelles des avions, il est inconcevable de voir des chutes d’avions à causes de “volatiles”, provoquant la mort de centaines de vies humaines, plus du matèriel hautement technologique. J’ai pensé et conçu un procédé pour éviter ce phénomène “volatiles” au niveau des réacteurs. Si mon projet est susceptible de vous interresser, vous pouvez prendre contact avec moi. Merci à vous. J.P.B. Salutations

]]> By: Rand Simberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-182228 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:49:30 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-182228 I’ve actually seen someone, who I know is in a Master’s program in Aerospace engineering, actually suggest that NASA should be regulating space tourism.

There’s no reason to imagine that someone studying aerospace engineering, even at a graduate level, would understand either regulatory issues or politics. As Al Fansome says, it isn’t rocket science, which is why the rocket scientists don’t understand it.

]]> By: Ferris Valyn http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-182021 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:56:25 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-182021 Rand,

I agree with you, by and large. The problem is, at least, IMHO, a lot of space activists (and general public) view space = NASA. I’ve actually seen someone, who I know is in a Master’s program in Aerospace engineering, actually suggest that NASA should be regulating space tourism.

I do think that if there were a broader coalition within the executive branch, that actively pushed space (again, via funding Office for Space Commericalization, or promoting the AST to answering directly to the DOT).

]]> By: Rand Simberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-182014 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:47:58 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-182014 NASA doesn’t need more budget. It just needs to spend what it has smarter. Unfortunately, that’s actually a tougher problem politically than simply giving it more money…

]]> By: Ferris Valyn http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-181952 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:58:40 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-181952 One thing, that I think space supporters need to do, is look beyond NASA. And this applies to the individuals, as well as organizations like NSS, or Planetary Society.

What we need is a broader coalition within the executive branch – We should be pushing not for MASSIVE increases in budgets to NASA, but an increase in multiple space agencies, like the National Aeronautics and Space Council, or the Office of Space Commercialization.

]]> By: Oldfart http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/02/04/rethinking-nasas-direction-and-communication/#comment-181867 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:30:44 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1965#comment-181867 Sometimes Government just has to do the adult thing. Despite what the public believes. Whenever NASA has had success in space, the public is full of ooohs and aaahs. Don’t wait for the public to support new things. They never will. But they will always come if you will build it.

]]>