Comments on: Pelosi endorses Lampson

By: OV-106

OV-106 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:29:30 +0000

The point Doug was that Pelosi is “supportive” of the idea of an extension. However she also says the “science dollars” are fixed. That’s seems short sighted to me for all those in power who promise how science and tech are going to help us win the day. We’re ready to spend all this money so that our debt gets much more massive than it already is but science and tech is fixed. Why? Because in my opinion, and there are already sign of, there are plans for massive social programs that will never allow the government to spend money on anything else.

Consider the shuttle what you will but it most capable of flying beyond 2010, certainly for a few more years.

By: Ron Carlson

Ron Carlson — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:09:36 +0000

Just the fact of that moron Nancy Pelosi being for Lampson is enough to make me question his qualifications.

Like one poster said at NASAWatch “I doubt Pelosi could ID him in a line up.”

As far as understanding science, engineering and technology, Obama is an empty suit.

It’s going to be a long four years, folks.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:39:12 +0000

Why, you ask? Because the condoms might actually leave our nation better off. (Can you imagine how many a shuttle flight would buy?!) Not at all clear that a few extra years of shuttle does that, except in a highly symbolic way, which could be termed the de-gapifying of US space exploration. Terminating capabilities that don’t offer clear value has some merit, and Mike Griffin understood that. The shuttle can’t get us where we really want to go, which is cis-lunar space. We’re even afraid to use it for anything other than ISS access.

Now, in general, “science stuff” surely brings people things that improve their quality of life. But how exactly is it that shuttle does that? No wonder the Speaker is “esteamed”. Trying to stick a “science” label on shuttle is something that would get anyone steamed. They tried to do that on ISS, and the label just wouldn’t stick!

Shuttle has been a marvelous tool, and a technological tour de force. But it’s getting long in the tooth, and it’s time for us to move on. Propping up such a facility through the regular appropriations process is forgivable, since that process is like a ship that is hard to turn around, but using one-time stimulus dollars for anything other than “meeting our most urgent challenges” is not consistent with White House policy.

By: OV-106

OV-106 — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:20:40 +0000

No you can’t Doug. It’s just a name. I want to move forward as much as anyone but not at the expense of terminating a capability and leaving the nation short-changed. A couple of extra billion will allow that not to happen and shuttle being retired when a new capability is ready.

Finally, why should we invest in high-paying technical jobs with sending Americans into space on our own vehicle when the “stimulus” money could be spent on condoms instead? As our esteamed Speaker said, the “science dollars” only go so far and surely we would ask for more to bring that wacky science stuff to the people for use in their every day lives. Can’t have that happen when we’ve got government run social programs to fund instead.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:00:25 +0000

It’s one thing to prop up the shuttle program for another few years, and another thing to talk about real investment, which is what stimulus money is supposed to do. I suspect that’s the distinction that Pelosi is making (whether she really understands it herself or not). Throwing money at shuttle ops isn’t going to move us forward capability-wise. Not clear if gap-reduction can be spun as a stimulus priority.

OV-106, eh? I can tell where you’re coming from.

By: OV-106

OV-106 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:29:20 +0000

Sure, we can’t spend a couple of extra billion for just a few years when the plans clearly call for nearly a trillion in “stimulus” full of items on her social agenda, government run health care, etc.