“If you don’t think aerospace is high tech – you don’t know what it is!”

Nope you are right I don’t know.

Oh well…

>@ Kelly Starks wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
> == if you think that the public is ready for a gazillion dollar
> investment in HSF you’re sadly mistaken.==

Never suggested that

>==. And if you believe that aerospace is a high tech industry then you are dreaming.

If you don’t think aerospace is high tech – you don’t know what it is! I’ve worked aerospace and contracted out to a lot of other industries because THEY saw aerospace as much more tech then them.

>> @Kelly- “Are you talking about the current crew in congress?
>>They are stunningly disinterested in public demands, or budget
>> realities.”

> When the time is right, after the elections, and the Age of Austerity
> dawns bright and dark, they’ll act.==

Hope fully tyhe newly elected congress will take a hint. Though really NASA bdgets so trivial comparedto the huge welfare and debt interest budgets it hardly maters.

> Recall gingrich wanted to kill off NASA nearly 20 years ago but
> his timing was off and he backed off.==

I think your thinking of someone else. Gingrich was and is a very pro space — though hes interested in doing it using more direct commercial, rather then big gov contracts.

> If they see an oppofrtunity to dissolve the post office or the
> “Dept. of Educashun” or NASA, they’ll do it.

Deot of ED is just pork, Post office … should be contracted out.

NASA should eaither be used to do something – or dropped, not its current all pork focus.

At this stage it looks like we have irreconcilable differences. So there is no point pursuing this. However if you think that the public is ready for a gazillion dollar investment in HSF you’re sadly mistaken. If you think you can convince them otherwise you are not living in this country. And if you believe that aerospace is a high tech industry then you are dreaming.

>> @KellyStarks “I actually would support a NASA doing research
>> on cutting edge things – that is needed, adn I can see the public
>> getting interested in that – if it offered great improvements in
>> what NASA can send folks to do in space.”

> Except that’s not the plan.==

True – though right now no plan is going anywhere.

>== The public has come to equate manned space exploration with
> NASA. ==

True, but if you did research to enhance that (new engine types for better ships, better ships) – that would sell, but not at the expense of maned missions. But of course they are trying to re-research and redevelop old designs and concepts.
;/

> == As the Age of Austerity draws near and this administration is
> successful in killing off manned spaceflight (which this writer
> believes is its ultimate goal) ==

If it ain’t the goal – its amazingly precise for a accident.

What do you write?

>==— the civilian space agency will be a ripe target for
> dissolution with its remaining assets folded into existing
> agencies with similar pedigree (DoD, FAA, NOAA, etc.,). ==

Your already seeing DOD moving ahead with RLV and hypersonic research and dev proposals, suborbital transport research – all things logically you’d expect NASA to work on.

>== There isn’t a politician alive who wouldn’t crow over closing
> down a government agency in the face of looming deficits. ==

Are you talking about the current crew in congress? They are stunningly disinterested in public demands, or budget realities.

>>@ Kelly Starks wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

>> “say if we open up a major new space market like space tourism
>> or something, but we lose out aerospace industry”

> I don’t agree. We open a “market” but the providers will be US
> companies employing the necessary US high skill high tech workforce. ==

Not if the industry is gone. They buy from the best source. Were runing out of source companies up to the task.

>> “If we can’t make cutting edge military aircraft and space
>> craft – were not going to be a major military for long. ”

> How did that help us againt the emergence of new low technology threats? ==

Actually they are mainstays in fighting them — adn we don’t always fight low tech adversaries.

> = certainly is not the answer. Nor is an Ares V, or Ares I for that matter.

No, but at least they keep the industry alive.

>> “If we keep walking away from high tech industries – that doesn’t
>> encourage folks to get a higher education – or voters to support it. ”

> High tech industries do not equate with aerospace and defense. ==

?
Aerospace is one of the highest tech industries.

>== How about medical industry? Software industry?

Still doing well there.

>> “Universities are already dropping budgets for profs and spending
>> more rebuilding their buildings – because potential students are
>> seen as caring more about new dorms then good proffs”

> == the US used to attract talent from abroad to compensate for
> this problem. Not any more. This is a much more profound issue.

Yeah, now they come for a education adn go home to staff their growing industries.

>> “The gov is strangling the auto industry by regulations to force
>> them to not build what consumers want, and build what they
>> can’t sell to anyone”

> Ah come on! Antiquated SUVs and other pieces of scrap metal is
> why the industry is going down.

SUVs adn pickups make up over half of all US sales.

>A lot of people were laughing and some still are at the Prius… ==

Yeah – the Prius in accounts for the bulk of all hybride sales, adn in the ten years its been in the market – its sold ALMOST as much as a single year of Ford F-150 or GM Silverado/1500 pickups.

The prius is a status purchase to show off to friends. Its very expensive, and for the cost you can get bigger lower fuel consumption conventional cars.

Think about it. If these things were big sellers – you wouldn’t need laws to force car companies to make them – much less discontinue popular models.

>== The US branches of Ford and GM have kept complaining about
> engines they cannot build even though their europeans branches
> were building those very engines. ==

So why can’t they? Because they are illegal here?

>> ” like drilling restrictions. ”

> This is political nonsense. Sorry. Any drilling done today would
> not bring anything back to the country until way later in the future. ==

Actually you’ll notice they started a ban on existing wells in the gulf, even though their experts warned it would maximize chances of another rupture like the BP well.

And new well would bring oil back to the US faster then not drilling year after year — or decade after decade.

> In addition why would the drilling/oil companies sell the oil to the US?

If they drill near the US? Because were a big market. Hell China’s arranging with Cuba to drill off the US coast to sell to us rather then ship it back to China. (they can buy other oil closer to home). Why assume a company in the US wouldn’t?

Add oil to the market – the costs go down.

>> “Our economy hasn’t been growning to the levels of nations
>> like India and China, who both have bigger economies, and
>> bigger skiled labor pools.”

> == marching orders have always been “profit and more profit”. At
> the same time companies were not willing to increase workers wages. =

If you don’t want to compete, you go out of business. Same for workers and companies. You expecting companies to act like a charity? How do you expect them to keep in busness competing with companies who don’t?

>> “We can still be more inventive (bell labs alone has won more
>> Nobels then any non US nation in the world) – and away from
>> unions, our works adaptability makes them more productive no
>> a dollar per dollar basis – but that’s overwhelmed by our
>> extremely high taxes, and regulations.
>>
>> Our standard of living is extremely high, but that just makes one comfortable – not great.”

> Total nonsense. Unions have provided progress in this nation for
> the workers you are only trivializing their effects in a canned
> political way.

No, I grew up in union ares and saw them destroy the industries and sell out their people. And the history does not pain unilns in such rosey pictures.

> Our standard of living is neither comfortable nor great. ==

Actually its the highest in the world – for now.

> == We have a rampant debt that only crazy increased deficit is
> trying to alleviate. ==

Ha? Increasing your debt year after year (I.E. having a deficit) is not attempting to lower the debt.

>== People who face illness do not have proper coverage. ==

True, but at least the care is avalible here regardless. Though yes it would be nice if half of everything paid for medical care – wasn’t going for lawyers.

>==read the footprints of your healthcare insurance contract.

Can’t afford medical insurence. Had to drop the old policy when I was off work for 6 months last year – still not caught up enough to afford a new one.

Except that’s not the plan. The public has come to equate manned space exploration with NASA. That may not be fair to its varied and more esoteric research endeavors, but that’s how the public views it. There is little research it is doing that is not or cannot be conducted by parrellel agencies along similar lines. As the Age of Austerity draws near and this administration is successful in killing off manned spaceflight (which this writer believes is its ultimate goal) — the civilian space agency will be a ripe target for dissolution with its remaining assets folded into existing agencies with similar pedigree (DoD, FAA, NOAA, etc.,). And an increasingly cash-strapped public, desperate for more entitlements to meet the down to earth problems of day to day life will concur. There isn’t a politician alive who wouldn’t crow over closing down a government agency in the face of looming defecits. And the public will suppot it. That’s the ‘Obama’ plan.

“say if we open up a major new space market like space tourism or something, but we lose out aerospace industry”

I don’t agree. We open a “market” but the providers will be US companies employing the necessary US high skill high tech workforce. If we don’t then all those jobs will go down the drain or abroad. Think it cannot happen? Just wait and see.

“If we can’t make cutting edge military aircraft and space craft – were not going to be a major military for long. ”

How did that help us againt the emergence of new low technology threats? A few terrorists with knives brought the US to its knees, like it or not. An F-22 certainly is not the answer. Nor is an Ares V, or Ares I for that matter.

“If we keep walking away from high tech nidustries – that doesn’t encourage folks to get a higher education – or voters to support it. ”

High tech industries do not equate with aerospace and defense. Where are you getting this from? How about medical industry? Software industry?

“Universities are already dropping budgets for profs and spending more rebuilding their buildings – because potential students are seen as caring more about new dorms then good proffs”

This has been going on for ever. It is not just today. And the US used to attract talent from abroad to compensate for this problem. Not any more. This is a much more profound issue.

“The gov is strangling the auto industry by regulations to force them to not build what consumers want, and build what they can’t sell to anyone”

Ah come on! Antiquated SUVs and other pieces of scrap metal is why the industry is going down. A lot of people were laughing and some still are at the Prius… You make what you want with this. The US branches of Ford and GM have kept complaining about engines they cannot build even though their europeans branches were building those very engines. Next time you go to Europe drive a Ford Focus there and then drive one here…

” like drilling restrictions. ”

This is political nonsense. Sorry. Any drilling done today would not bring anything back to the country until way later in the future. In addition why would the drilling/oil companies sell the oil to the US? Why not to larger markets such as India and China? You are fooling yourself if you think that drilling here in the US will help the energy crisis now or in the future. The only thing drilling would provide is more revenues to the oil industry and I am not saying whether it is good or bad. Just stating a fact.

“Our economy hasn’t been growning to the levels of nations like India and China, who both have bigger economies, and bigger skiled labor pools.”

It is about time to wake up! But marching orders have always been “profit and more profit”. At the same time companies were not willing to increase workers wages. Therefore they had to buy cheap goods and fall into debt. This narrow shortsighted approach just backfired and we are not done yet with it. You’ll see more fun coming our way I am sure pretty soon if things do not change at a much larger scale. And that compared with Space, or HSF… Anyway.

“We can still be more inventive (bell labs alone has won more Nobels then any non US nation in the world) – and away from unions, our works adaptability makes them more productive no a dollar per dollar basis – but that’s overwhelmed by our extremely high taxes, and regulations.
Our standard of living is extremely high, but that just makes one comfortable – not great.”

Total nonsense. Unions have provided progress in this nation for the workers you are only trivializing their effects in a canned political way. Our standard of living is neither comfortable nor great. We have a rampant debt that only crazy increased deficit is trying to alleviate. People who face illness do not have proper coverage. And if you do not know that then there is nothing I can do for you except maybe to make sure you read the footprints of your healthcare insurance contract.

You seem to be living in a United States of the past. Come forward to the present! It will help your future.