DC Tom Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Like there's a difference. Nice congruence there. Either way, you're a puppet with someone else's hand up your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I'm more willing to bet that's NASA's fault before Lockheed's. Only for allowing them time and again to oversharge and give them repeat business. It's mind boggling. Please don't take this as a comment directed toward you, because I realize where that statement came from. But that is utter rubbish. How exactly will the US maintain it's leader status when we essentially have NO manned program, which is what the current plan details? They have a manned program in the works, but LM has that project late by 2 years as well. It's back to the capsule on top of rockets and then launching cargo on different rockets. Unless the technology exists to live in space and get 1000's of people there, we don't need to go to the moon. It serves no purpose but to waste your tax $. And we all know how the group here feels about paying taxes for wasted projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Only for allowing them time and again to oversharge and give them repeat business. It's mind boggling. In my experience the government is to blame for cost overruns and extending deadlines far more often than the contractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Only for allowing them time and again to oversharge and give them repeat business. It's mind boggling. absolutely agree. NASA and thier contractor buddies have been eating this up for years and years now. They have a manned program in the works, but LM has that project late by 2 years as well. It's back to the capsule on top of rockets and then launching cargo on different rockets. Unless the technology exists to live in space and get 1000's of people there, we don't need to go to the moon. It serves no purpose but to waste your tax $. And we all know how the group here feels about paying taxes for wasted projects. Actually, they don't, since Obama wants to cancel Constellation, which, effectively eliminates the manned program, since there is no current alternative plan. As far a waste in $$$, I agree to a point. Firstly, you need to actually HAVE a goal and a plan to get there, which we currently don't have (or at least, the president wants to cancel it). Once you have that plan, then you can decide whether it is worthwhile or not. I do not think that an "Apollo on steroids" plan to go back to the moon (a la Constellation) is the proper approach, but I think my views on this are pretty well known. That being said, if you do have a good objective for a manned space progam, then I do think that it provides good return on tax dollars, look at the payoffs we recieved from the Apollo program... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Houston, we have a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts